[Senate Hearing 109-227]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-227
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 3058/S. 1446*
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY,
AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
[* Appropriations in the jurisdiction of the Senate District of
Columbia Subcommittee were funded by the House in H.R. 3058 and added
by the Senate as division B.]
__________
District of Columbia
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-857 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 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
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio) officio)
Professional Staff
Mary Dietrich
Emily Brunini
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Page
District of Columbia: Courts..................................... 1
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
District of Columbia............................................. 53
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Brownback and DeWine.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Courts
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, AND
CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION
opening statement of senator sam brownback
Senator Brownback. The hearing will come to order. Thank
you all for joining us this morning. Sorry for running just a
little bit late. I wish we were holding the hearing outside.
Such a beautiful D.C. day. And in the spring and the flowering
trees and everything, it looks just gorgeous.
I'm delighted to convene this hearing. It's my first as the
chairman of the D.C. Appropriations subcommittee. I've
previously served as the authorizing subcommittee chairman, but
not the appropriations subcommittee chairman. And so, I'm
delighted to be on this side, and pleased, also, to be joined
by the immediate past-chairman of the D.C. Appropriations
subcommittee, who did a great job with this subcommittee. And I
look forward to carrying on his legacy and seeking his wisdom
and counsel on how to do it, particularly on some issues with
the Family Court. I was just over at the courts yesterday, and
saw a little bit of the hallways there and some of the items
done. I think we have made some nice progress there.
The hearing today will be on the fiscal year 2006 budget
request for the District of Columbia Courts, the Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency, and the Public Defender
Service.
Since the enactment of the National Capital Revitalization
and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal
Government has provided the sole source of funding for these
three agencies.
The President has requested $221.7 million for the courts
in fiscal year 2006. This is $30.9 million more than the fiscal
year 2005 enacted levels. I understand that the lion's share of
this increase will be used to restore the now-vacant Old
Courthouse so that it can house the Court of Appeals, which, in
turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie Courthouse for
the safe family/friendly Family Court. In addition, it will
provide much-needed courthouse space. The renovation of the Old
Courthouse will also be an important historical preservation
achievement. This building is the fourth oldest in the District
of Columbia and has great historic significance. It's where
President Lincoln was first inaugurated--or, excuse me, where
his first Inaugural Ball was held and where his assassination
conspirators were tried and convicted. It's where Frederick
Douglass had his offices, and where Daniel Webster practiced
law.
I'm also interested in hearing the progress that the courts
are making in implementing the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001.
The goals of this legislation are ``one family, one judge,''
exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, better training for
judges and all staff, increased accountability of attorneys,
judges, and staff, better technology to track cases, attorney
dispute resolution, and better facilities to provide a safe and
family friendly environment. I believe that the full
implementation of this law is the most critical priority facing
the D.C. Courts.
The Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency (CSOSA) will also present this agency's fiscal year 2006
budget request. CSOSA is responsible for supervising adults who
are on pretrial release, probation, and/or parole, supervision
in the District. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request is $203.4 million for CSOSA, an increase of $23 million
over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
I'd like to hear how these additional resources will be
used to further the agency's mission and goals. This
subcommittee has appropriated funds specifically to enable
CSOSA to reduce its caseload ratio for sex offenders, for
domestic violence offenders, and for offenders with mental
health problems. I'd like to hear whether these caseloads are
continuing to decline.
Also, this subcommittee has provided resources to allow
CSOSA to purchase GPS anklet monitoring equipment to ensure
that parolees are not venturing to places like schools and
libraries, where they are prohibited. I'd like to know if the
agency will be able to expand the use of this important
monitoring technique, and if I can use it on my own children.
Finally--Mike, you probably figured that out years ago,
haven't you, on how to follow your own children?
Finally, we'll hear from the Director of the Public
Defender Service (PDS) for the District of Columbia, who will
also present her agency's fiscal year 2006 budget request. PDS
provides legal representation to indigent adults and children
facing criminal charges in the District. PDS also provides
legal representation for people in the mental health system, as
well as to children in the delinquency system, including those
who have special education needs due to learning disabilities.
The President's budget request for PDS is $29.8 million, the
same as the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
I want to thank you all for appearing here today. I've had
a chance to meet several of you previously, and I've enjoyed
those encounters. I'm in an input mode. I need information, and
I look forward to that.
The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu, the ranking
member, will appear in the record at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good morning. I would like to welcome our new chairman,
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas today to his first hearing of
the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. We are
very fortunate to have Chairman Brownback joining the
District's appropriations oversight committee as he had a hand
in the shape and focus of this bill as the previous chairman of
the authorizing subcommittee.
Under Chairman Brownback's leadership in 1997 the D.C.
Revitalization Act eliminated the $600 million Federal payment
appropriated by Congress to the District. The Act transferred
several functions of the D.C. government to full Federal
responsibility, areas traditionally carried out at the state
level: criminal justice and District employee pensions. I hope
Chairman Brownback and I can focus this year on the effect of
the Revitalization Act and we can do more to find the
appropriate balance between the Federal government and the
District.
The District's criminal justice activities are under the
direct oversight of this subcommittee and are comprised of the
main entities here today: the D.C. Courts, the Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) and the Public Defender
Service. These agencies encompass the representation,
adjudication, and supervision of offenders in the District. The
final component of criminal justice, corrections, was
successfully terminated by the closure of Lorton prison and the
D.C. Correction's Trustee transition of all adult felons to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons in December 2001. Corrections of D.C.
adult felons are now the sole responsibility of the Federal
system; some 6,400 D.C. inmates housed in the Bureau of Prisons
are scattered in 77 prisons nationwide. Though we do not fund
the corrections of D.C. adult felons, we do fund the challenges
of re-entry and the impact of transition on the District
community--particularly, the ability of offenders to maintain
close ties with children and families.
The CSOSA is the primary entity responsible for successful
re-entry, as well as pre-trial and pre-sentencing supervision.
I welcome Director Paul Quander back to the committee, thank
you for your leadership and we look forward to your testimony.
In fiscal year 2006 CSOSA requests an increase of $24.8 million
(14 percent) from fiscal year 2005 and increases staff by 77
for a total of 1,467 positions (a 6 percent increase in
staffing). The main increase ($14.6 million) is to staff the
new Re-Entry and Sanctions Center which will provide a 30 day
intensive re-entry program for the highest risk offenders. The
President recommends minor increases over fiscal year 2005 for
the two other primary functions, Pre-Trial and Public Defender
Service, to continue their critical services. I look forward to
hearing from their directors, Susan Schaffer and Avis Buchanan,
to explore the request further and discuss creative areas of
supporting your functions.
The other Federal component under this subcommittee's
jurisdiction, the D.C. Courts, is responsible for the
administration of justice of District residents accused of D.C.
Code violations. I am glad to welcome back Chief Judge Annice
Wagner and Chief Judge Rufus King. Congratulations are in order
for Chief Judge Wagner, as I understand you are retiring soon.
You have made a tremendous contribution, not only to the
District, but to improving the administration of the Courts and
their transition to Federal oversight.
The Courts are requesting $342.7 million for fiscal year
2006 operations of the court system and capital improvements.
This is $151.9 million more than the enacted level in fiscal
year 2005, which is a 79 percent increase. Of this increase,
the majority is for the capital improvement plan for Judiciary
Square, which entails major renovation of the five main
buildings on the square. The President's request for fiscal
year 2006 for the entire Court's is $221.7 million, which is an
increase of $30.9 million from fiscal year 2005. We have much
work to determine the needs of the Courts and how to meet them
in a stretched Federal budget year.
The Court's capital improvements request totals $192.8
million which is an increase of $136.7 million over the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level of $56 million. The Court's continue to
budget for major construction and renovation by paying the
entire cost up front. Though this is the preferred method of
GSA, the Committee strongly encouraged the Court's to negotiate
a phased funding approach and which lead to our approach of
funding only the fiscal year 2005 needs last year. The
President's request for capital is $83.5 million and continues
the concept that major construction can be phased. The Court's
proposed approach, a 243 percent increase from last year, is
honestly un-affordable for the Federal government.
The fiscal year 2005 conference report provided $56 million
for Capital Improvements and directed the Courts to negotiate a
phased payment plan with GSA. If, as the Court's staff
provided, $31.7 million was provided for the Old Courthouse
project, then $24 million was remaining. Why, within that $24
million could the $6 million needed to keep the Family Court
design on track not allocated?
I understand the funding was tight, but it is sufficient
for both projects. Money for design of the family court to the
garage because the designs would have gone ``stale'' since they
wouldn't be able to implement them until much later than they
anticipated because we didn't provide the full funding. We
should explore the issue of priorities in this hearing and I
look forward to your views. However, let me be clear, creation
of the Family Court has been the highest priority of this
subcommittee; I know the Court's have not missed that point so
I hope you pay the requisite attention to the facility.
The President's recommendation for the D.C. Federal
entities includes healthy increase and signals support for
these important functions. This is not the case elsewhere in
the Federal budget for programs which affect the entire nation.
Chairman Brownback, I am pleased to be here to begin my fourth
year as the ranking member of the D.C. Appropriations
Subcommittee. I look forward to the testimony of our federal
entities and to working with you in the coming year.
Senator Brownback. Senator DeWine, thoughts?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just, first,
congratulate you on becoming chairman of this subcommittee. I
know that you will do a great job. I had the opportunity to
serve, as you've indicated, as chairman of the subcommittee,
with Senator Landrieu. I enjoyed working with her. I enjoyed
working with our panelists. And it was my great pleasure to
serve as chairman of the subcommittee.
I know that you will do a great job, and I know you share
my passion for children. Senator Landrieu and I had many
focuses during the time that we passed the gavel back and
forth, but probably our main focus was on children. And I know,
from my experience with you and my discussions with you over
the years, that you share that same passion. So, I look forward
to working with you as we continue to work on issues such as
the Family Court, foster care, adoption, and the other issues
that are so very, very important for the District of Columbia.
So, I welcome you and just look forward to working with you
on the subcommittee, and I'm glad I'm still on the
subcommittee. And we have a lot of work to do.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator DeWine, and I look
forward to your input and thoughts on how we move forward.
Presentations will be in the following order: the Honorable
Annice Wagner, the Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, and Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration; then the Honorable Rufus King, III, Chief
Judge, District of Columbia Superior Court; the Honorable Paul
Quander, Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency; and Ms. Avis Buchanan, Director of the District's
Public Defender Service.
Our timer clock is not working. If you can be in the 5- to
7-minute ballpark, we will take your complete statements into
the record, and that'll give us, I think, the best opportunity
to also have some interaction.
So, Judge Wagner, thank you for joining us. Good to see you
again. Welcome.
Judge Wagner. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Senator DeWine,
Senator Landrieu, and subcommittee members, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2006 budget request for
the District of Columbia Courts.
As you know, I am appearing today in my capacity as Chair
of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the
District of Columbia, which is the policymaking body for the
District of Columbia Courts. I am also serving as Chief Judge
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
My remarks this morning will summarize the request for the
courts and highlight the courts' most critical priority, which
is our capital budget. With me this morning is Chief Judge
Rufus King, also Ms. Anne Wicks, our Executive Officer for the
courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee, and we are all
prepared to answer questions you may wish to pose concerning
the courts' budget request.
Unquestionably, we live in a changing environment, facing
new challenges in our Nation and in our Nation's Capital and in
our court system. Whatever challenges we face, the fair and
effective administration of justice remains critical to our way
of life in America.
The District of Columbia Courts are committed to meeting
these new challenges and the changing needs of a 21st century
society. The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately
10,000 courthouse visitors each day, process more than 200,000
cases each year, and employ a staff of 1,200 who directly serve
the public, process cases, and provide administrative support.
The District of Columbia Courts are among the busiest and most
productive court systems in the United States.
In accordance with our strategic plan, we are undergoing
significant changes to accommodate and apply new technologies
and to ensure that the courts of this jurisdiction have a sound
infrastructure. Notably, improved facilities are identified as
a high priority among all constituency groups surveyed by the
courts as the strategic plan was developed. Therefore, although
we have requested funds for several important operating
initiatives, the critical focus of our fiscal year 2006 budget
request is our infrastructure; that is, all court buildings,
information technology systems, and security essential for the
protection of all who use and work in the courthouses. Only by
investing in these areas will the courts be in a position to
ensure that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition,
reasonably up to date, and that the type of security necessary
to protect our citizens and our institutions is in place.
The courts are responsible for four buildings in the
historic Judiciary Square, and expect to have a fifth building
returned to the courts' inventory this year. One of the
original historic green spaces identified by Pierre L'Enfant's
plan for the capital of a new nation, Judiciary Square is the
subject of an urban renewal plan that the courts have developed
in response to requirements of the National Capital Planning
Commission.
The courts have conducted extensive planning efforts;
first, to evaluate and to address the physical condition of our
facilities, and, second, to document and to address the courts'
severe space shortage for court operations. The restoration of
the Old Courthouse for use by the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the court
system. An architectural jewel and the centerpiece of Judiciary
Square, the Old Courthouse is one of the oldest public
buildings in the District of Columbia, and you've already
outlined some of its rich history.
A picture of that Old Courthouse is right in front of me
this morning.
The architectural and historical significance of the Old
Courthouse led to its listing on the National Register of
Historic Places and its designation as an official project of
Save America's Treasures. Investment in the Old Courthouse,
however, is a practical solution to a space problem. It will
enable the Court of Appeals to vacate 37,000 square feet of
critically needed space in the Moultrie Courthouse, which was
designed to meet the unique needs of a busy urban trial court,
and it will free this space for Superior Court and for Family
Court operations. Restoration of the Old Courthouse is the
courts' highest priority in the fiscal year 2006 budget. We are
pleased that Congress appropriated funds to finance the first
phase of construction in fiscal year 2005, and expressed its
commitment to fund the balance in fiscal year 2006. We are also
pleased that the President has once again supported full
funding for the Old Courthouse in his budget recommendation for
fiscal year 2006.
The President has recommended at least partial funding for
most of the courts' priorities in the capital budget request,
and we do appreciate that support. The courts' buildings range
in age from 25 to 200 years old, and pose significant
maintenance and modernization challenges. Deferred maintenance
necessitated by many years of limited capital funding has led,
of course, and expectedly, to increased costs for many
projects. However, we have carefully examined the President's
capital budget recommendation, and, although it is less than
the courts' original request, we have found a way to reschedule
project phases in order to continue, without interruption, the
most important projects within the President's recommended
funding level.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the District
of Columbia Courts have long enjoyed a national reputation for
excellence. We are proud of the courts' record for
administering justice in a fair, accessible, and cost-efficient
manner. Adequate funding for the courts' fiscal year 2006
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 appreciate the
President's level of support for the courts' funding needs and
the support that we have received from this body.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We look forward to working with you throughout the
appropriations process, and we thank you for this opportunity
to discuss the fiscal year 2006 budget request of the courts.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2006 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. I also serve as 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, facilities, general personnel policies, accounts and
auditing, procurement and disbursement, management of information
systems and reports, and submission of the Courts' annual budget
request to the President and Congress. This jurisdiction has 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 are provided by what
has come to be known as the Court System.
My remarks this morning will summarize the request and highlight
our most critical priority, our capital budget. With me this morning
are Chief Judge Rufus King, III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Ms.
Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer for the Courts and Secretary to the
Joint Committee, and Mr. Joseph Sanchez, our Administrative Officer. We
are prepared to answer questions you may wish to pose concerning the
budget request for the Courts.
INTRODUCTION
We live in a changing 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 responding to the changing needs of our society and
meeting these new challenges. We have been steadfast in our mission,
which is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law,
and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly and effectively in the Nation's
Capital. Through our Strategic Plan, finalized in fiscal year 2003 and
now in the implementation phase, the Courts strive to enhance the
administration of justice; broaden access to justice and service to the
public; promote competence, professionalism, and civility; improve
court facilities and technology; and build trust and confidence. We
appreciate the support that this Subcommittee has given us that makes
possible the achievement of these goals for our community.
The Courts are committed to fiscal prudence and sound financial
management. We are undergoing significant changes to meet the
challenges of new technologies and are working to ensure that the
courts of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure. Although we
have requested funds for several important operating initiatives, the
critical focus of our fiscal year 2006 budget request is our
infrastructure.
To support the Courts' mission and goals in fiscal year 2006, the
Courts are requesting $342,734,000 for Court operations and capital
improvements. Of this amount, $10,270,000 is requested for the Court of
Appeals; $89,088,000 is requested for the Superior Court; $50,502,000
is requested for the Court System; and $192,874,000 is requested for
capital improvements for courthouse facilities. In addition, the Courts
request $54,000,000 for the Defender Services account.
The demands on the D.C. Courts require additional resources in
fiscal year 2006. To build on past accomplishments and to support
essential services to the public in the Nation's Capital, investment in
infrastructure, and security are essential priorities. Only by
investing in these areas will the Courts be in a position to ensure
that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably
up-to-date and that the type of security necessary to protect our
citizens and our institution is in place. Focus on these capital areas
is particularly critical now to meet these needs and to ensure that the
quality of justice is not compromised.
RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS
As the Courts approach the eighth year of direct federal funding in
fiscal year 2006, we are continuing to build on past reforms that have
enhanced our services to the community and demonstrated our commitment
to fiscal responsibility. We are particularly proud of the Courts'
progress with a number of recent achievements that include the
following:
--Commencement of construction on the Restoration of the Old
Courthouse, a building of historic and architectural
significance that is critical to meeting the long term space
needs of the Courts by freeing space in the Moultrie Building
for the final phase of the implementation of the Family Court,
following approval of design plans by the National Capital
Planning Commission, Commission of Fine Arts and Historic
Preservation Board;
--Revision, as requested by the National Capital Planning Commission,
of a draft Master Plan for Judiciary Square, an urban design
and renewal plan for revitalization of this historic area that
dates to the original L'Enfant Plan for the Nation's Capital;
--Further implementation of the Family Court Act, including: opening
the new Family Court space on the JM level in fiscal year 2004,
which consolidates the public face of the Family Court and
houses the new Central Intake Center to provide one-stop
services to Family Court customers; implementation of the one
family-one judge principle; creation of attorney panels for
neglect and juvenile cases and development of attorney practice
standards; establishment of a Family Treatment Court; piloting
a Self-Help Center with assistance from the bar; hiring nine
additional magistrate judges; investing three new Family Court
Judges; opening the Mayor's Services Liaison Center in the
courthouse; and transferring all required children's cases to
Family Court judges;
--Implementation of a five-year strategic plan, ``Committed to
Justice in the Nation's Capital,'' as Court divisions prepared
Management Action Plans to align their activities and
objectives with the Strategic Plan, the product of nine months
of extensive input from stakeholders, detailed analysis of
community trends, and significant work by the Strategic
Planning Leadership Council;
--Implementation of the Courts' new case management system, IJIS
(Integrated Justice Information System) in Family Court, Wave 1
in August 2003, Wave 2 in December 2003, and in the new Intake
Center in August 2004; in the Probate Division in May 2004; and
in the Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant Branches of the
Civil Division in December 2004 and February 2005,
respectively;
--Launching of the Courts' website, designed to enhance public access
by providing information on operations and procedures, answers
to frequently asked questions, and documents that can be
printed out and filed with the court;
--Continuing sound fiscal management, including an ``unqualified''
opinion for the fourth year in a row on the Courts' annual
independent financial audit conducted in accordance with OMB
Circular No. A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and
Non-Profit Organizations);
--Implementation by the Court of Appeals of a comprehensive revision
of its rules of practice, the first such revision since the
mid-1980's;
--Implementation of the Landlord Tenant Resource Center to provide
free legal information to unrepresented landlords and tenants
with residential housing disputes and to provide assistance
with referrals to legal and social service providers;
--Promulgation of draft Probate attorney practice standards, creation
of the Probate Review Task Force, and greater oversight of
Probate attorneys and fiduciaries to enhance service to
incapacitated adults and other parties in Probate cases;
--Reengineering of the Appeals Coordinator's Office to facilitate
appellate case filings by providing one-stop services in a
central point of filing for all appellate cases, regardless of
the division in which the Superior Court proceeding took place;
and
--Renovation of specialized and more efficient space for the Landlord
Tenant and Small Claims courts, juvenile probation (the Social
Services Division), and the Crime Victims Compensation Program,
as the Courts' Master Plan for Facilities is implemented.
CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2006 PRIORITY--INFRASTRUCTURE
The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately 10,000
courthouse visitors each day, process more than 200,000 cases each
year, and employ a staff of 1,200 who directly serve the public,
process the cases, and provide administrative support. The District of
Columbia Courts are among the busiest and most productive court systems
in the United States\1\. For example, published report indicate that
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has the seventh highest
number of cases filed per judge, and the highest number of civil and
criminal case filings per capita of all state courts in the nation, and
our Court of Appeals has the second highest number of appeals filed per
capita among all states and the highest among those with a similar
court structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Examining the Work of State Courts 2003: A National
Perspective from the Court Statistics Project, by B. Ostrom, N. Kauder,
& R. LaFountain (National Center for State Courts 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Courts' capital funding requirements are significant because
they include funding for projects critical to maintaining, preserving,
and building in a timely manner safe and functional courthouse
facilities essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration
of justice in our Nation's Capital. To effectively meet these demands,
the Courts' facilities must be both functional and emblematic of their
public significance and character. The 2006 Capital Budget seeks to
address these issues in a comprehensive manner.
Facilities that provide adequate and efficiently designed space
enhance the administration of justice, simplify public interaction with
courts, and improve access to justice for all. In contrast, facilities
with inadequate space for employees to perform their work, with
evidence of long-deferred maintenance and repair, and with inefficient
layouts can detract from the public perception of a court and impair
its ability to function in the community. This negative perception
impacts public trust and confidence in courts, a nationally recognized
critical requirement for the effective administration of justice. The
National Center for State Courts succinctly states the relationship
between courts and their facilities:
--Court facilities should not only be efficient and comfortable, but
should also reflect the independence, dignity, and importance
of our judicial system . . . It is difficult for our citizens
to have respect for the courts and the law, and for those who
work in the court, if the community houses the court in
facilities that detract from its stature.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Don Hardenbergh with Robert Tobin, Sr. and Chang-Ming Yeh, The
Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities, National
Center for State Courts, 1991, p. xiii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Courts presently maintain 1.1 million gross square feet of
space in Judiciary Square. The age of the Courts' buildings range from
nearly 200 to 25 years. Many years of deferred maintenance forced by
limited financial resources has left these buildings in a state that
may in fact be perceived to detract from the stature of the Courts.
The Courts' fiscal year 2006 budget request seeks resources to meet
health and safety building codes and to provide safe, sanitary, and
healthful facilities to the public in the courthouse. For example,
adequate ventilation must be provided in the courthouse buildings.
Electrical systems must be upgraded, both to meet modern office needs
and to limit risk of fire. Fire and security recommendations from the
U.S. Marshals Service must be implemented. Safety hazards posed by
disintegrating flooring materials must be remedied.
The halls of justice in the District of Columbia must be well
maintained, efficient, and adequately sized to inspire the confidence
of the members of the public who enter our buildings. The Courts'
facilities plans reflected in the fiscal year 2006 budget request will,
over the next ten years, meet the well-documented space needs of the
Courts and return the buildings to a condition that reflects the
dignity of the Courts and inspires trust in the justice system of the
Nation's Capital.
The Courts' facilities plans will also enhance the efficient
administration of justice and improve public access to justice in this
jurisdiction by co-locating related functions. The restoration of the
Old Courthouse for the Court of Appeals, for example, will provide the
public with a single location for services that are currently located
on different floors and in different buildings from most Court of
Appeals offices. Offices related to the Family Court will be
consolidated through the planned addition to the Moultrie Courthouse.
More efficient location of these offices will not only facilitate
public access to the Courts, but will also enhance the efficiency of
staff operations.
In addition, basic mechanical systems impact the administration of
justice. A broken air conditioning system, for example, can force
suspension of a trial when courtroom temperatures rise to unbearable
levels.
FACILITIES IN THE COURTS' STRATEGIC PLAN
The capital projects included in this request are an integral part
of the Courts' Strategic Plan, completed in fiscal 2003. The Strategic
Plan of the D.C. Courts, entitled Committed to Justice in the Nation's
Capital, articulates the mission, vision, and values of the Courts in
light of current initiatives, recent trends, and future challenges. It
addresses issues such as implementation of a Family Court, increasing
cultural diversity, economic disparity, complex social problems of
court-involved individuals, the increasing presence of litigants
without legal representation, rapidly evolving technology, the
competitive funding environment, emphasis of public accountability,
competition for skilled personnel, and increased security risks.
Improved facilities were a need identified as a high priority among
all constituency groups surveyed by the Courts as the Strategic Plan
was developed. Employees, judges, and attorneys were asked to identify
the most important issues the Courts must address in the coming years,
and they all ranked ``enhance court facilities'' among the highest
priorities. In addition, approximately half of judges and 65 percent of
employees reported inadequate light, heat, air conditioning, and
ventilation in their workspaces.
``Improving Court Facilities and Technology'' is the Plan's
Strategic Issue 4. The Strategic Plan states--
``The effective administration of justice requires an appropriate
physical and technical environment. Court personnel and the public
deserve facilities that are safe, comfortable, secure, and functional,
and that meet the needs of those who use them. Technology must support
the achievement of the Courts' mission.''
THE D.C. COURTS' FACILITIES
In preparing the fiscal year 2006 capital budget request, the
Courts carefully assessed the capital requirements essential to
performing our statutory and constitutionally mandated functions. The
Courts' request for capital funding is particularly critical in fiscal
year 2006 because of the need: (1) to address essential public health
and safety conditions in our busy court buildings, including our main
building to which some 10,000 people come each day; (2) to meet the
courts' space requirements for conducting their business, which
includes our new Family Court, recently established by Congress; and
(3) to avoid interruption of ongoing projects as that typically results
in substantially increased costs.\3\ Significantly increased space
needs for court operations and inadequate capital funding in prior
years that necessitated maintenance deferral compel the Courts'
significant capital request for fiscal year 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, in the last decade, the estimated cost for
restoring the Old Courthouse has more than tripled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, it will be returned to the Courts' inventory. Recent
studies by the General Services Administration (GSA) have documented
both the D.C. Courts' severe space shortage \4\ and the inadequacy of
the physical condition of the Courts' facilities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, 2002.
\5\ Building Evaluation Report, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities,
conducted by experts in architecture and space planning, secured
through the General Services Administration (GSA) defined a present
shortfall of 48,000 square feet of space, with a shortfall of 134,000
square feet projected in the next decade. The experts proposed to meet
the Courts' space needs through three mechanisms: (1) renovation of the
Old Courthouse for use by this jurisdiction's court of last resort, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which will free critically
needed 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 of the Old Courthouse for use by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the
court system. We are very pleased that Congress financed the first
phase of construction last year and expressed its support for funding
the balance in fiscal 2006. We are also very pleased that the President
has recognized the importance of this project by supporting it in his
budget recommendation for fiscal 2006.
Investment in the restoration of the Old Courthouse not only will
improve efficiencies by co-locating the offices that support the Court
of Appeals, but also will provide 37,000 square feet of space
critically needed 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 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 criminal justice and social service agencies also
occupy office space in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Courts have clearly
outgrown the space available in the Moultrie Courthouse. 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.
HISTORIC JUDICIARY SQUARE
The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square
lend dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts and, at
the same time, complicate somewhat efforts to upgrade or alter the
structures within the square. As one of the original and remaining
historic green spaces identified in Pierre L'Enfant's plan for the
capital of a new nation, Judiciary Square is of keen interest to the
Nation's Capital.
The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, built from 1821 to 1881, is one of the oldest public 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 led to
its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its
designation as an official project of Save America's Treasures. The
unique character of the building, together with its compact size, makes
it ideal for occupancy by the highest court of the District of
Columbia. At the same time, the structure requires extensive work to
meet health and safety building codes and to readapt it for modern use
as a courthouse. Since it has been vacated, with the support of
Congress, the Courts have been able to take steps to prevent its
further deterioration. The restoration of the Old Courthouse for use as
a functioning court building will not only provide much needed space
for the Courts, but it will also impart new life to one of the most
significant historic buildings and precincts in Washington, D.C. 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. The D.C. Courts
have begun implementation of the Master Plan, relocating the Superior
Court's two highest volume courtrooms, Small Claims and Landlord and
Tenant, into Building B. This move vacated space in the Moultrie
Building that was immediately renovated for the Family Court,
permitting the construction of three new courtrooms, three new hearing
rooms, a centralized case intake facility, a family-friendly waiting
area and District government liaison offices for Family Court matters.
The Interim Space Plan for the Family Court was completed and opened
for business in July 2004.
The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970's, although
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.
JUDICIARY SQUARE MASTER PLAN
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) required that the
D.C. Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square--essentially an
urban design plan--before any construction can be commenced in the
area. The D.C. Courts have worked with all stakeholders on the Plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund), the
Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department. A draft Judiciary
Square Master Plan was submitted to the NCPC in June 2003 and
subsequently approved in August 2003. Review of the final plan is
anticipated in May 2005.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan integrates the facilities
development program of the Courts into a rapidly changing and publicly
oriented area of the District. The Plan resolves important technical
issues related to access, service, circulation, and security while re-
establishing the importance of this historic setting in the ``City of
Washington.'' It provides a comprehensive framework for project
implementation and lays the groundwork for the regulatory approval
process with the National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Office of Historic
Preservation, the District of Columbia Office of Planning, and the
District of Columbia Department of Transportation, among others.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan recommends (1) re-introduction of
landscaped green space around court buildings and the construction of
secure underground parking garages for the Courts, including the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, to house vehicles now parked in
surface lots; (2) integration of a new service area, security features
and landscape concept; and (3) coordination of the Courts' development
with development of the National Law Enforcement Officers Museum by the
Memorial Fund.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan will ensure the preservation of
one of the last green spaces in the District of Columbia awaiting
revitalization, incorporating areas where the public can gather and
relax, and creating a campus-like environment where citizens can feel
safe and secure. The Judiciary Square Master Plan will be of great
benefit to the city of Washington, D.C.
MASTER PLAN FOR FACILITIES
The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of our capital
projects since fiscal year 1999, when the Courts assumed responsibility
for our capital budget from the District's Department of Public Works.
In 1999, GSA produced a study for the renovation of the Old Courthouse
to house the D.C. Court of Appeals. In 2001, GSA prepared Building
Evaluation Reports that assessed the condition of the D.C. Courts'
facilities, which have been adversely affected by maintenance deferrals
necessitated by severely limited capital funds in prior years. These
projects culminated in the development of the first Master Plan for
D.C. Court Facilities, which delineates the Courts' space requirements
and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization, both in the
near and long term.
The Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, completed in December
2002, 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 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, as noted above, proposed to meet that need through
renovation of the Old Courthouse for adaptive reuse by the D.C. Court
of Appeals; construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse; and
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 with greater efficiency.
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 was completed in the summer of 2004 and procedural
changes have been implemented within the Family Court to meet the
requirements of the Family Court Act. Recently completed components of
the Plan are straightforward.
--During fiscal year 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate nine new Family
Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The Courts
also constructed four new hearing rooms in Building B for
Family Court magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect
cases, and renovated short-term space for the Mayor's Services
Liaison Office.
--Two Superior Court operations formerly located on the JM level of
the Moultrie Courthouse, the Small Claims and Landlord Tenant
Branches of the Superior Court's Civil Division, were relocated
in November 2003 to Building B to free space for the Family
Court. Construction of space and system upgrades in Building B
were completed and these Courts have been fully operational in
their new location since December 2003.
--Construction in JM Level of the Moultrie Courthouse for the Interim
Space Plan of the Family Court was completed in the summer of
2004, and progress has been made toward establishing a fully
consolidated Family Court. The project provides the Family
Court with three new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, the
Mayor's Services Liaison Office, a Centralized Family Court
Case Filing and Intake Center, a family-friendly child waiting
area, and a new Family Court entrance from the John Marshall
Plaza into the Moultrie Courthouse. In addition, the corridors
and hallways along the courthouse's JM-level were redesigned to
create family-friendly seating and waiting areas.
Long Term Family Court Space Plan
The long term plan for the Family Court 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.
The plan envisions a safe facility that will be inviting and welcoming
to families with children of all ages and that will incorporate a
``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 plan is designed to
transition smoothly into this long term plan and to maximize the
efficient use of time and money.
The Master Plan studied the cost and feasibility of expanding the
Moultrie Courthouse in the Feasibility Study for the H. Carl Moultrie I
Courthouse--May 2003. This approach has been developed with the
overarching objectives of keeping the court system continually
operating efficiently while carefully complying with the Family Court
Act. Independent projects related to the Family Court Act include the
renovation and expansion of the Old Courthouse to free space in the
Moultrie Building, system upgrades and renovation of Buildings A & B,
occupation and renovation of Building C, leasing of space for functions
not directly related to the public and court proceedings, and
renovation and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. These projects
will shift operations currently located in existing Court facilities
(1) to create ``swing space'' that permits the required construction to
take place in an operating courthouse that receives 10,000 visitors
daily and (2) to make contiguous office space available for all related
Family Court activities.
CAPITAL FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2006
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 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.
The first part of the Capital Budget request identifies projects to
renovate, improve, and expand court facilities, as specified in the
Master Plan for Facilities. The request is a comprehensive, five-year
plan, with projects divided into phases to the extent practicable. In
fiscal year 2006, $59.26 million is requested to complete the
construction of the Old Courthouse renovation, which began in March
2005. In addition, $21.4 million is requested for the Juvenile Holding
area renovation, C Street Expansion, and Renovation and Reorganization
parts of the Moultrie Courthouse Renovation and Expansion project in
fiscal year 2006. For work to renovate Building C and for construction
in Building A, $35.5 million is requested. To design and prepare signs
to guide the public through the court complex, which will become
increasingly important as court operations move out of the Moultrie
Courthouse, $5 million is requested. For design work to implement
campus perimeter security features around Judiciary Square Court
buildings including installation of plinth walls, bollards, fencing,
and security furnishings and the widening of sidewalks, $3.5 million is
requested. To begin design work on a new East Underground Garage
project, $3 million is requested.
The second part of the Capital Budget request addresses the
condition of the Courts' existing infrastructure, including projects
necessary for the health and safety of the public in the courthouse and
including the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS). The Courts
have expanded the scope of the Fire and Security Alarm Systems project
to include installation of a sprinkler system for the entire Moultrie
Courthouse. This is a significant health and safety infrastructure
upgrade for which $15.6 million is requested in fiscal year 2006, as
recommended by GSA and U.S. Marshals Service studies. For HVAC,
Electrical, and Plumbing Upgrades to remediate lead-contaminated
drinking fountains, provide adequate ventilation, and meet electrical
load needs, among other things, $27 million is requested. To renovate
dilapidated restrooms used by the public and court staff, $2.5 million
is requested. In addition, $8.6 million is requested for, among other
things, ADA accessibility, safety repairs, and refurbishment of run-
down areas in courtrooms and secure areas. To improve safety and ADA
accessibility in public areas, to clean the exterior of the Courts'
buildings, to replace doors and windows in historic Buildings A and B,
to repair roofing and to make other general repairs, $10 million is
requested. Finally, $1.51 million is requested for continued
implementation of IJIS.
The capital projects identified are critical to the Courts' ability
to meet the current and future needs of the District of Columbia
Courts. Approval of the requested capital funding in fiscal year 2006
offers important advantages including: (1) addressing urgent public
health and safety conditions in the Court's busy buildings; (2)
allowing ongoing projects to continue without interruption, thereby
avoiding increased costs occasioned by delays; (2) and meeting the
Courts' critical space requirements, including our New Family Court.
STATUS OF KEY CAPITAL PROJECTS
Old Courthouse Restoration
The D.C. Courts' numerous facilities renovation projects have
converging critical scheduling paths. The Old Courthouse project is the
first step in a series of interdependent moves that must progress in
sequence to provide space and make way for the next step in the Courts'
Master Plan for Facilities. Since the pre-design study for the
restoration was completed in 1999, the Courts have, with the support of
Congress and the President, taken steps to preserve the building,
including making watertight the roof, and mothballing the building.
Design of the Old Courthouse restoration began April 30, 2003 with the
selection, from among nearly 30 bids in the General Services
Administration procurement process, of Beyer Blinder Belle Architects
and Planners LLP (BBB). BBB is a nationally renowned architectural and
engineering firm whose historic preservation and renovation projects
have included Grand Central Station, Ellis Island, and the U.S.
Capitol.
BBB first completed the design of the first phase of the
restoration, the parking garage to be shared by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces, and its construction has begun.
BBB has also completed the design of the Restoration of the Old
Courthouse itself. The regulatory agency approval process is completed.
The Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) gave final approval to the Old
Courthouse design on July 15, 2004 and the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) approved the design of the Old Courthouse and the
interim plaza on August 5, 2004. As requested by both agencies, the
Courts continue to seek an agreement on a final design for the plaza
with the National Law Enforcement Museum (NLEM), which is authorized to
build an underground museum with aboveground entrance pavilions on part
of the site. We believe that the key to an agreement is a neutral
treatment that respects dignity of the Old Courthouse as well as the
separation between law enforcement and courts of law that must
necessarily exist in our system of government.
We are very pleased that the President has supported the Courts'
plans for the construction phase of the Old Courthouse restoration,
including $51.5 million in his budget recommendations for the Courts.
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion
The expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse is a key element in the
long-term plan for Family Court. The expansion builds on the interim
plan for the Family Court, completed last summer, that consolidates the
public face of the Family Court through a centralized intake center and
space for the Mayor's Services Liaison Office and provides a separate
entrance as well as new courtrooms, hearing rooms, and a family-
friendly child waiting area. The expansion will complete the facilities
enhancements for the Family Court providing, for example, additional
space for child protection mediation, increased Child Care Center
space, and safe and comfortable family waiting areas. It will also
fully consolidate all administrative operations of the Family Court
including relocation of juvenile probation (the Social Services
Division of the Family Court) from Building B to the Moultrie
Courthouse. A portion of the addition will meet critical space needs
for other Superior Court operations.
COMPLETE BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
To build on past accomplishments and to serve the public in the
District of Columbia, the Courts require additional resources in fiscal
year 2006 to invest in capital infrastructure and technology; security;
strategic management; self-representation services; enhanced and more
timely customer service; financial, materiel, and facilities
management; and human resources. Without additional capital resources,
the courthouse and the District's historic buildings will continue to
deteriorate; without remediation, the Courts' information technology
will fail; and without targeted investments in these critical areas,
the quality of justice in the Nation's Capital will be compromised. The
fiscal year 2006 request addresses these requirements by:
--Investing in Infrastructure.--To ensure the health, safety, and
quality of court facilities and to address court space needs,
the fiscal year 2006 capital request totals $192,874,000. The
fiscal year 2006 capital request incorporates the significant
research and planning comprising the D.C. Courts' first-ever
Master Plan for Facilities, completed in December 2002. In the
master plan process, the General Services Administration (GSA)
analyzed the Courts' current and future space requirements,
particularly in light of the significantly increased space
needs of the Family Court, and established a 134,000 occupiable
square feet shortfall over the next ten years. The Master Plan
recommended a three-part approach to meeting the Courts' space
needs: (1) restoration of the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana
Avenue to house the D.C. Court of Appeals and to make
additional space available in the Moultrie Courthouse to
accommodate the Family Court and other Superior Court
operations; (2) an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse to
accommodate fully consolidated and state-of-the art Family
Court facilities; and (3) reoccupation of Court Building C,
adjacent to the Old Courthouse and currently being vacated by
the District government.
--Old Courthouse.--Included in the Courts' capital request is
$59,260,000 \6\ to complete the restoration of the Old
Courthouse. Built from 1820 through 1881, the Old Courthouse is
an architectural jewel that has been the site of many historic
events. The structure is uninhabitable in its present condition
and requires extensive work to ensure that it meets health and
safety building codes. Design of the project began in June
2003, and construction of the accompanying garage is scheduled
to begin in February 2005. In the fiscal year 2005
appropriation, Congress financed the first phase of the project
and expressed its support for the restoration and its
commitment to fund it in fiscal year 2006. The work begun in
fiscal year 2005 must proceed without delay in fiscal year 2006
to avoid disruption of the work, increased costs, and the risk
of costly partial restorations in a building that cannot be
used until completed. Restoring this historic landmark to meet
the urgent space needs of the Courts and preserving it for
future generations are critical priorities for the District of
Columbia Courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Please note that the Courts' request to the President for this
project was $51,500,000, which was based on the average of the House
and Senate versions of the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. The
enacted fiscal year 2005 figure was lower than this average,
necessitating an increased request for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Moultrie Courthouse.--Also included in the capital budget request
is $21,400,000 to continue work on the Moultrie Courthouse, as
delineated in the Master Plan. This amount includes $9,000,000
for the design \7\ of the C Street Expansion, an addition
planned for the south side of the Moultrie Courthouse. The
addition will complete the facilities enhancements for the
Family Court, providing, for example, a new Family Court
entrance, child protection mediation space, increased Child
Care Center space, safe and comfortable family waiting areas,
and consolidation of all related Family Court offices in one
place (to include the Social Services Division, currently
housed in Court Building B, which provides juvenile probation
supervision). Furthermore, a portion of the addition will meet
critical space needs for other Superior Court operations. This
request also includes (1) $5,000,000 to renovate space in the
Moultrie Building for the juvenile holding area, which will
free space for Family Court offices; (2) $6,000,000 for the
second phase of the renovation and reorganization of the
Moultrie Courthouse, to make optimal use of existing space as
envisioned in the Master Plan; and (3) $1,400,000 for
preconstruction work on the Indiana Avenue expansion of the
Moultrie Courthouse primarily to provide a security screening
lobby for the public to await entry to the courthouse sheltered
form the weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Funds provided for this project in fiscal year 2005 had to be
reprogrammed to another construction project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Maintaining Infrastructure.--The capital budget also includes
$48,100,000 to maintain the Courts' existing infrastructure,
preserving the health and safety of courthouse facilities for
the public and the integrity of historic buildings for the
community. The Courts facilities encompass more than 1.1
million gross square feet of space. Over the course of many
years, limited resources have forced the Courts to defer
routine maintenance of these facilities, leading to increased
risk of system failures that threaten public health and safety
in the Courthouse. For example, the $27,000,000 requested for
HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades will be used to replace
public drinking fountains that have been disconnected due to
lead contamination and 21 failing air handling units that
ventilate the Moultrie Courthouse. Historic court buildings on
Judiciary Square, such as Buildings A and B, were funded by
Congress and constructed in the 1930's and require ongoing
maintenance, such as the replacement of doors and windows. The
cost for such maintenance is included in the fiscal year 2006
General Repair Projects request.
--Homeland Security.--To protect the 10,000 daily visitors to the
courthouse and meet the increased security threat post
September 11, 2001, the Courts' capital budget request includes
$19,100,000, for security enhancements. This figure includes
$3,500,000 for campus perimeter security to protect the
occupants of the high-profile court buildings in Judiciary
Square and $15,600,000 to finance fire and security
improvements recommended by both a U.S. Marshal Service
Physical Security Survey and a GSA Preliminary Engineering
Report (including design, construction, and installation of a
new fire and security system and building sprinklers as well as
additional security cameras, duress alarms and upgrades).
--Investing in Information Technology (IT).--To achieve the Courts'
strategic goal of improving technology, including providing a
case management system with accurate, reliable data across
every operating area available to the judiciary, the District's
child welfare and criminal justice communities and the public,
the Courts request $4,744,000 in fiscal year 2006. This amount
includes $3,230,000 in the operating budget for a new case
management system in the Court of Appeals, IT infrastructure
enhancement, IT business integration, and systems to enhance
service to District citizens serving as jurors. In addition,
the Courts' capital budget request includes $1,514,000 to
finance the final phase of IJIS, which the Court launched in
fiscal year 1999. As noted above, implementation of IJIS is
well underway, with the full Family Court module operational in
December 2003 and the Probate module operational in May 2004.
--Strategic Planning and Management.--To support implementation of
long-range strategic planning and court performance measurement
and reporting, $635,000 is requested for an Office of Strategic
Management. This request would build on the Courts current
strategic planning effort by coordinating enterprise-wide
projects and enhancing the Courts' performance measurement
capability. The request would finance performance management
software, training, and staff to establish and analyze court
performance, perform strategic planning, and coordinate and
prioritize competing projects and activities.
--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, especially in the Family Court, Civil
Division, and Court of Appeals, $1,895,000 and 10 FTEs are
requested for staff and facilities for a Self-Representation
Service Center. This initiative would utilize best practices
and build upon the very limited pro bono services currently
available in the courthouse. This initiative is particularly
vital to the public we serve, as a recent study found that
local agencies providing legal services to the poor turn away
more than 50 percent of persons who seek assistance. These
individuals require assistance when they arrive in the
courthouse with no choice but to represent themselves.
--Enhanced and More Timely Public Service.--To enhance and provide
more timely services to the public, the Courts' fiscal year
2006 request includes $1,833,000 and 11 FTEs. Included in the
total is $780,000 for a pilot program to enhance the record of
court proceedings and timely transcript production; $525,000
and 8 FTEs to provide services for incapacitated adults and
other customers in the Probate Division; $259,000 and 2 FTEs to
expand mediation, interpreting and juror services; and $269,000
and 1 FTE to undertake community outreach, to increase
monitoring of juveniles on probation and to enhance the
reference materials in the library.
--Financial, Materiel, and Facilities Management.--To enhance
financial, materiel, and facilities management, $2,098,000 and
15 FTEs are requested. Included in the total is $636,000 and 8
FTEs to build upon financial and program management
improvements, including creation of an independent internal
audit function; $722,000 and 1 FTE for materiel management,
including warehouse space, equipment, and staff; and $740,000
and 6 FTEs to enhance facilities management and administrative
support, including building engineers and equipment leases.
--Investing in Human Resources.--To help the Courts attract, develop,
and retain highly qualified employees and address the risks of
high retirement eligibility, $1,852,000 is requested, including
$800,000 for succession planning and tuition assistance and
$109,000 and one FTE to enhance training for court personnel.
Currently, 24 percent of the Courts' non-judicial employees, of
whom 17 percent are in top management positions, are eligible
to retire in the next five years, representing a potential loss
of experience and talent that the Courts must plan now to
address.
--Built-In Increases.--The fiscal year 2006 request also includes
$3,417,000 for a COLA increase, $676,000 for non-pay
inflationary cost increases, and $568,000 for within-grade
increases. The Courts' request includes within-grade increases
for employees because unlike typical agencies, which may fund
these increases through cost savings realized during normal
turnover, the Courts have a very low turnover rate (7 percent
in fiscal year 2004).
--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 programs. For example, the Courts have significantly
revised the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Plan for representation
of indigent defendants to ensure that highly qualified
attorneys represent indigent defendants. In addition, the
Courts have developed a new Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect
(CCAN) Plan for Family Court cases, adopting Attorney Practice
Standards and requiring attorney training and screening to
ensure that well-qualified attorneys are appointed in these
cases. The Guardianship Program has also been revised, imposing
a training requirement on attorneys participating in the
program.
In the Defender Services account, the Courts' fiscal year 2006
budget request represents an increase of $15,500,000 over the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level of $38,500,000. Of the total
increase, $6,500,000 is requested to cover projected increases
in the base program due to higher criminal caseloads, increases
in a contract guardian ad litem program, and program management
efficiencies that have resulted in accelerated attorney
payments. The remaining $9 million reflects a compensation
adjustment for attorneys from $65 to $90 per hour, to keep pace
with the rate paid court-appointed attorneys at the Federal
courthouse across the street from the D.C. Courts.
CONCLUSION
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, 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 2006 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 appreciate the
President's level of support for the Courts' funding needs in 2006 and
the support we have received from the Congress. We look forward to
working with you throughout the appropriations process, and we thank
you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2006 budget request
of the Courts.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Judge Wagner. How many years
have you served the court system? You were telling me the other
day.
Judge Wagner. In June, it will be 28 years. I've been on
the Court of Appeals since 1990 and served in the trial court
prior to that time. It's been a wonderful opportunity. It's
been a privilege to serve. It has made me both proud and
optimistic about our future.
Senator Brownback. I remember you saying the number of
years, and I was very impressed. And that's fabulous. Thanks
for your years of great service that you've provided, and
continue to provide, as well, in the courts.
Judge King, who has a distinguished set of years, too. How
many years, as well?
Judge King. I'm 20, now.
Senator Brownback. Twenty. Oh, a mere child.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUFUS KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judge King. Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, subcommittee
members, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the D.C.
Courts' fiscal year 2006 budget request.
I'm Rufus King, III, and I'm appearing in my capacity as
Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
As you know, the Superior Court is the trial court for the
District of Columbia. It is a unified court of general
jurisdiction, hearing matters brought to court under all areas
of District of Columbia law.
Chief Judge Wagner's testimony on behalf of the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration details the courts'
complete budget request. So, my testimony will highlight the
Family Court, the integrated justice information system (IJIS),
and some of our problem-solving courts as initiatives of
special importance to the Superior Court.
The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 changed
the way the court serves children and families in the District.
The act authorized additional judges, and this subcommittee
provided additional resources to enable the court to meet the
challenges presented by those special cases and as authorized
under the act.
The Family Court, ably led by presiding Judge Lee
Satterfield, his deputy, Judge Anita Josey-Herring, and
division director Dianne King, has largely implemented the
Family Court Act. Through close collaboration with D.C.
executive branch agencies in the child welfare system, the
Family Court is making great strides in improving the lives of
children and families in the District.
Recently, we have increased the compliance with the
Adoptions and Safe Families Act. In 2003, the compliance rate
was 93 percent, as opposed to 51 percent in the year 2000, when
we started, just before the act was passed.
The court has implemented the Benchmark Permanency Hearing
Pilot Program for older youth in foster care to help them plan
for the time when they become independent. Children between the
ages of 15 and 21 years make up 35 percent of the children
under court supervision in our neglect system.
In July, we opened the new Family Court space in the
Moultrie Courthouse. This space consolidates the public face of
the Family Court, and, as you saw yesterday, Mr. Chairman,
provides a family friendly environment with comfortable waiting
areas. I am especially proud to be able to report that all of
the construction for the Family Court has been completed in-
budget and on time.
We have established a truancy task force to address absence
from school as one of the early warning signs of troubled
families and children, as well as a predictor of future crime.
Turning to the integrated justice information system, the
courts' unified information technology initiative was put in
place to consolidate 20 different databases and provide
comprehensive information to judicial officers. It was
implemented first in the Family Court. To date, it has been
implemented in the Family Court, the Probate Division, and the
small claims and landlord/tenant branches of the civil
division. The remainder of the civil division and the criminal
division are scheduled to come online later this year, which
will complete its implementation in Superior Court.
When the system is completed, judges and staff will be able
to easily cross-reference cases in any division of the court so
that a judge in a neglect case will be able to keep track of
other cases involving that family in criminal court or
landlord/tenant court, as well as in other family cases.
Critical to the principle of ``one family, one judge,'' the
IJIS system also enhances efficiency of operations and provides
better information to judges and the public. It also supports
our ability to communicate with other child welfare agencies,
as required in the Family Court Act.
In response to the needs in a different community we serve,
the Superior Court has implemented several programs known as
``problem-solving courts.'' These courts are gaining prominence
nationally as communities seek to cope with lower-level or
quality-of-life crimes. The expectation is that by addressing
the causes underlying minor crimes, such as substance abuse and
mental health issues, early, the court helps slow down the rate
of recidivism and graduation to more serious crime. These
courts combine restorative justice under which the offender
repays the community in some way--cleaning up the graffiti,
doing some form of community service, for example--and
therapeutic justice, in which an effort is made, from the very
outset of a case, to connect the offender with social services
or other services that might be needed in order to address
underlying problems.
The Superior Court has several such problem-solving courts.
The D.C. and traffic community court serves all of those cases.
The east of the river community court serves a variety of minor
criminal offenses. An adult drug court and juvenile drug court
serve those particular needs. And a family treatment court
serves the needs of persons afflicted with drug abuse in a
family setting, prior to the breakup of the family, rather than
following it.
The east of the river community court, to take one, just
one, was implemented for all cases from wards 6 and 7, as a
pilot project in September 2002. This community faces
significant inner-city challenges, including high rates of
poverty, crime, and disorder. And these rates are actually
higher there than in many parts of the city. Most defendants
appearing in this court have substance abuse problems and lack
job skills and education. The court seeks to ensure that those
who have harmed the community through criminal activities
perform community service, and the judge seeks to implement and
coordinate the implementation of services designed to
discourage the defendants from returning to court.
Mr. Chairman, the D.C. Courts are proud of our efforts to
serve children and families and to implement technology that
enables them to enhance our service to the public and to
respond directly to community needs. We expect to continue
these programs in the future, with your support.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Judge King.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rufus G. King, III
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the D.C. Courts' fiscal year 2006
budget request. I am Rufus King and I am appearing in my capacity as
the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
As you know, the Superior Court is the trial court for the District
of Columbia. It is a unified court of general jurisdiction, hearing
matters brought to court under all areas of District of Columbia law.
Chief Judge Wagner's testimony on behalf of the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration details the Courts' complete budget request, so
my testimony will highlight specific operational areas of the Superior
Court, in particular the Family Court, the Integrated Justice
Information System, and our problem-solving courts.
FAMILY COURT IMPLEMENTATION
The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 changed the way
the court serves children and families in the District. The Act
authorized additional judges and this Subcommittee provided additional
resources to enable the Court to meet the challenges presented by the
Act. Key elements of implementing the Act included the One Family/One
Judge concept, improved use of technology, and creation of family-
friendly space in the courthouse.
The Family Court, ably led by Presiding Judge Lee Satterfield and
Division Director Dianne King, after examining best practices around
the nation, has largely implemented the major elements of the Family
Court Act. Through close collaboration with Executive Branch agencies
in the child welfare system, the Family Court is making great strides
in improving the lives of children and families in the district.
The Court's Transition Plan, submitted pursuant to the Family Court
Act in April 2002, set out seven specific goals to achieve its mission
of providing positive outcomes for children and families. Last month,
the Court submitted to Congress the third annual Family Court report,
which details the Family Court's activities in 2004. I would like to
highlight some of the measures taken and continued recently to achieve
each goal.
1. Make child safety and prompt permanency the primary
considerations in decisions involving children.
--Completed implementation of one family, one judge case management
approach.
--Increased compliance with the Adoptions and Safe Families Act
(ASFA) \1\. In 2003, 93 percent of cases were in compliance
with ASFA permanency hearing requirements, compared to 51
percent in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refers to the Federal ASFA statute, Public Law 105-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Established Attorney Practice Standards for juvenile cases.
--Continued use of improved AFSA compliant court order forms.
--Continued operation of the Mayor's Services Liaison Center at the
courthouse.
--Continued operation of the Benchmark Permanency Hearing pilot
program for older youth in foster care to help them make
decisions and plans for their future and to coordinate a full
range of services necessary for their success when they gain
independence. Children 15 years of age or older make up 35
percent of children under court supervision in the neglect
system.
--Continued operation of the Family Treatment Court.
2. Provide early intervention and diversion opportunities for
juveniles charged with offenses, to enhance rehabilitation and promote
public safety.
--Use Time Dollar Institute's Youth Court Diversion Program (run by
students).
--Collaborated with the Metropolitan Police Department to create a
Restorative Justice Supervision Program to address an increase
in unauthorized use of motor vehicle crimes by juveniles.
3. Appoint and retained well-trained and highly motivated judicial
officers.
--Conducted third annual Family Court Interdisciplinary Cross
Training Conference, entitled ``Family Court Partnerships:
Supporting the Emotional Well-Being and Mental Health of
Children, Youth, and Families,'' in October 2004.
--Planned and hosted bi-monthly cross training programs for all
stakeholders.
--Participated in national training programs on issues relating to
children and families, including training programs and an
annual conference of the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges.
4. Promote alternative dispute resolution.
--Continued operation of the Child Protection Mediation Program,
which has been found to result in significantly faster
adjudication, disposition, and permanency in children's cases.
In addition, mediation appears to reduce recidivism in neglect
cases.
--Continued implementation of the case evaluation program in
partnership with the D.C. Bar, for domestic relations cases
when counsel represents parties.
--Implemented same day mediation in domestic relations cases.
5. Use technology effectively to track cases of children and
families.
--Collaborated with the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) to
scan court orders into the agency's automated system so that
agency social workers have complete and accurate information.
--Continued operating courtwide the Integrated Justice Information
System (IJIS) to facilitate case management.
6. Encourage and promote collaboration with the community and
community organizations.
--Continued to meet regularly with stakeholders and participated in
numerous committees of organizations serving children and
families.
7. Provide a family friendly environment by ensuring materials and
services are understandable and accessible.
--In July, opened the new Family Court space in the Moultrie
Courthouse. This space consolidates the public face of the
Family Court with centralized intake center, provides one-stop
shopping with the Mayor's Services Liaison Center, and provides
a family-friendly environment with comfortable waiting areas
decorated with artwork created by children from the D.C. Public
Schools.
--Continued operation of the Pro-Se Self Help Clinic at the
courthouse, in partnership with the D.C. Bar, so litigants
without counsel can obtain materials about Family Court
processes and seek assistance with court forms.
--Continued review and revision of Family Court forms, through
working groups, to make them more understandable.
I would like to mention one other initiative in the Family Court:
the Truancy Task Force. A joint effort of the Family Court, the D.C.
School Board, the D.C. Public Schools, the Child and Family Services
Agency, the Metropolitan Police Department, the Public Defender Service
and the D.C. Office of the Attorney General seeks to address truancy,
which is often the first sign of problems in the home. These problems
may result in the child's misbehavior, a criminal act that brings
juvenile delinquency charges, or adult criminal acts.
The truancy effort involves a protocol for parents of students with
more than 15 unexcused absences to determine whether services are
needed, the child is neglected, or a criminal charge should be brought
for violation of the Compulsory School Attendance Act. One Family Court
judge hears cases of all of a parents' children. Early intervention
demonstrates to parents that they have a responsibility to get their
children to school. CFSA works with the family to determine whether
services, such as parenting classes, are needed and monitors to make
sure the children are back in school and no educational or other
neglect occurs.
The Truancy Task Force has made great strides over the past year.
So far this initiative has shown tremendous success: a reduction in
truancy of 51 percent for elementary school children between the first
semester of the 2003 school year and the first semester 2004.
INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM
The Court's major information technology initiative to consolidate
some 20 different data bases and provide comprehensive information to
judicial officers was implemented first in the Family Court. The
Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) is especially critical in
the Family Court, where related case data is necessary to make the best
decisions for children and families.
IJIS is a multi-year project to replace the aging computer
infrastructure of the Superior Court and link it with the Court of
Appeals by creating an integrated case information system to eliminate
the fragmented legacy systems. The project was commenced in fiscal year
1999 with a Federal grant-funded needs assessment. After much planning
and preparation, implementation began late in fiscal year 2002, and we
expect to complete the implementation later this year.
Apart from making the policy of one judge/one family possible in
Family Court, IJIS project is part of a District-wide effort to improve
information technology within and among the District's criminal justice
agencies. Once complete, the system will allow the Court electronically
to store and retrieve data, to make information available to the
public, and to exchange vital information with law enforcement and
homeland security agencies much more effectively.
In August 2003, the Courts implemented Wave 1 of the Family Court.
Family Court began using IJIS to process adoptions cases, abuse and
neglect cases, and juvenile delinquency cases. In addition, IJIS was
used for juvenile probation cases in the Family Court's Social Services
Division and Family Court mediation cases in the Court's Multi-Door
Dispute Resolution Division. In December 2003, with Wave 2, IJIS was
implemented in additional Family Court cases, including domestic
relations and mental health and mental retardation, and the Marriage
Bureau and Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect office. The Central
Intake Center began using IJIS in August 2004 when it opened.
The Family Court has been sharing data with the Child and Family
Services Agency, the Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services
(formerly the Youth Services Administration), the Office of the
Attorney General, and the Pre-Trial Services Agency through the JUSTIS
system, an interagency data sharing system created originally to
address criminal justice data sharing needs. The Court has continued to
involve all interested internal and external stakeholders as it has
validated requirements, developed testing plans, and conducted
training.
IJIS implementation continued in other divisions of the Superior
Court. The Probate Division began using IJIS in May 2004. IJIS was
implemented in the Small Claims Branch of the Civil Division in
December 2004. The Civil Division's Landlord Tenant Branch began using
IJIS in February 2005. The Criminal Division is scheduled to come on
line later this year.
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS
In response to needs in the community we serve, the Superior Court
has implemented several programs known as problem-solving courts. These
types of courts are gaining prominence nationally as communities seek
to cope with lower level or ``quality of life'' crimes and the social
ills, which frequently underlie these kinds of crimes. These courts
typically combine restorative justice, in which the offender repays the
community, such as through community service, and therapeutic justice,
in which the offender is linked with social services available through
Executive Branch agencies or in the community, for example alcohol
counseling.
The Superior Court has several such problem solving courts. My
remarks today will highlight the D.C. and Traffic Community Court, the
East of the River Community Court, a drug court, and the Family
Treatment Court. In addition, I will discuss the Domestic Violence
Unit, a one-stop-shopping program that links domestic violence victims
with government and community assistance.
Community Courts
Community courts are collaborative efforts that bring together
courts, government agencies, and community partners to respond to crime
and public safety issues in innovative ways. In a community court,
numerous parties play a role in solving local problems--not just the
traditional judge, prosecutor and defense attorney, but also social
service providers, government agencies, community organizations, and
individual residents. Through this partnership, community courts can
respond more effectively to crime and develop solutions that improve
outcomes for the community, the victims, and the defendants.
As in a traditional court setting, these courts seek to determine
guilt or innocence. Unlike traditional courts, they have a broad array
of responses. Community courts seek not only to punish offenders but
also to repair the harm done. Community courts frequently require
offenders to repay the community by performing court-supervised
community service. They also seek to reduce the likelihood of future
offenses by linking offenders to needed services, such as drug
treatment, job training, or mental health services.
By strengthening ties between the Court and the community, the
community courts ultimately seek to improve neighborhood daily life,
strengthen communities and improve public confidence in the criminal
justice system. The Superior Court has two community courts: the D.C.
and Traffic Community Court and the East of the River Community Court.
Implemented in January 2002, the D.C. and Traffic Community Court
handles all D.C. misdemeanor cases and traffic violations from all
parts of the City. D.C. misdemeanor crimes, often referred to as
``quality of life'' offenses, include, for example, disorderly conduct,
aggressive panhandling, possession of an open container of alcohol, and
drinking in public. Although such criminal behavior is not violent, it
can have significant negative impacts on communities. Much of this
court's business is traffic cases, including a substantial number of
cases involving driving without permits, operating after suspension
and/or revocation. In a diversion program, charges may be dropped
against defendants without driver's permits if they obtain valid
licenses.
The East of the River Community Court was implemented as a pilot
project in September 2002, and expanded into a permanent program in
June 2003. This community court handles all U.S. misdemeanor cases
(i.e., prostitution and minor drug offenses) not involving domestic
violence that occur in area east of the Anacostia River, a community
facing significant inner-city challenges, including higher rates of
poverty, crime and disorder than in other sections of the District. In
the Community Court, the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, and
pretrial services staff work together to identify social service needs
that may contribute to criminal behavior and to fashion appropriate
diversion programs to address those needs. Most defendants appearing in
the Court have substance abuse problems and lack job skills and
education. In addition, the Court seeks to ensure that those who have
harmed the community through criminal activities perform community
service that benefits the same community. The judge seeks to administer
justice in a manner that reflects a balance between punishment,
community restitution, and services that the defendant may need. The
judge also attends numerous community meetings and other neighborhood
events to establish and strengthen relationships with community
residents, keep abreast of community developments, and better address
crime problems and community concerns.
Drug Court
The Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (Drug Court) was
launched following a 1993 pilot project determined that a sanctions-
based program, which penalized participants for failing drug tests and
encouraged treatment, was an effective drug court model due to the
certainty of penalties, the swiftness of penalties, and the fairness of
the process. In fiscal 2004, among pre-trial defendants who use drugs,
23 percent were rearrested while on pretrial release; however, among
Drug Court participants, only 10 percent were rearrested
The court serves as a forum for motivating, supporting, and
measuring progress as the defendant goes through drug rehabilitation.
Defendants in the Drug Court gain early program intervention after
arrest, undergo regular urinalysis, and receive immediate access to
needed treatment. Eligibility requirements for the Drug Court program
are closely monitored in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The Drug Court is open to misdemeanants either as a diversion program
or after a finding of guilty or entry of guilty plea and to felony-
charged defendants as a pre-trial release option.
The Drug Court uses supervision, client-centered treatment
interventions, and immediate and meaningful responses to defendant
behavior to promote each participant's desire to lead a drug free life.
Case managers monitor the defendant's compliance and provide
supervision and substance abuse counseling services. Drug-testing staff
provides results to measure the defendant's progress.
Family Treatment Court
The Family Treatment Court is a yearlong voluntary, comprehensive
substance abuse treatment program for mothers (or other female
caretakers) whose children are the subject of a child neglect case. In
May 2003, the Family Court and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for
Children, Youth, Families, and Elders, in cooperation with key District
health and human services agency stakeholders, partnered to develop the
Family Treatment Court (FTC), an effort to serve drug-dependent mothers
with active child neglect cases and to assist them to enhance their
parenting skills.
The mission of the FTC is to promote safe and permanent homes for
children by working collaboratively with stakeholders to develop
readily accessible services based on a continuum of care that is
culturally competent, family focused, and strength based. The goal of
the FTC is to help the individual abstain from drug use and to promote
emotional, financial, and personal self-sufficiency with enhanced
parenting and coping skills.
Those interested in participating must stipulate to the allegations
of neglect. The first 6 months involve the residential component of the
program, where the women are housed in a treatment facility. Following
a period of adjustment, up to four children aged ten and under may
accompany their mother in the program. Program participants receive
intensive drug treatment, individual and/or family counseling,
parenting instruction, health screenings, mental health treatment, and
biweekly court appearances before the Family Treatment Court Judge.
Social workers from the Child and Family Services Agency ensure that
the goals embodied in the identified treatment plan for both children
and their mother are met.
If the mothers successfully complete the residential phase, they
formally graduate and proceed to the community-based after care phase
under the auspices of the Addiction Prevention and Recovery Program
(APRA). Strict court monitoring and drug testing remain in effect.
Through the collaborative efforts of the Mayor's Services Liaison
Office and stakeholder partnerships, the women are afforded
opportunities to procure housing and jobs and to further their
education.
Domestic Violence Unit
The Court's award-winning Domestic Violence Unit hears cases in
which parties request protection orders against persons to whom they
are related. The Unit provides ``one-stop-shopping'' for domestic
violence victims through two intake centers staffed by the U.S.
Attorney's Office, the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, the
Metropolitan Police Department, Women Empowered Against Violence
(WEAVE), and D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Victims can file
for a temporary protection order on the basis of alleged domestic
violence, receive legal counsel, and support services, and meet with an
advocate from the Court's Crime Victim's Compensation Program to find
out about other resources available to them.
In October 2002, the Court opened the satellite Domestic Violence
Intake Center at Greater Southeast Hospital. Twenty-eight percent of
new domestic violence cases are filed at the Southeast center. The
location is convenient for Southeast residents: there is free parking
and it is Metro-accessible. In addition, the location in the hospital
facilitates the provision of both medical care and legal protection.
The petitioner is transported via a web camera to the judicial officer
hearing the request in a courtroom at the Moultrie Courthouse. Judges
hear and see the petitioners and, if appropriate, grant and issue
temporary protection orders, which are transmitted electronically from
the courtroom to the waiting petitioner at the Center.
The four judges and two magistrate judges in the Domestic Violence
Unit also hear cases alleging violations of protection orders and all
misdemeanor criminal cases involving an ``intrafamily offense.'' When
appropriate, judges in the Domestic Violence Unit also adjudicate
related divorce, custody, visitation, paternity and support cases
involving the same parties, as well as certain related civil actions.
CONCLUSION
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, the D.C. Courts are proud of our
efforts to serve children and families, to implement technology that
enables to enhance our service to the public, and to respond to the
community. We expect to continue these programs in the future, with
your support. Thank you for this opportunity to address the
Subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may wish
to pose.
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR
Senator Brownback. Mr. Quander.
Mr. Quander. Good morning, Chairman Brownback.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in
support of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency's
(CSOSA) fiscal year 2006 budget request. As you are aware,
CSOSA provides community supervision to approximately 15,000
offenders sentenced under the District of Columbia Code. The
Pretrial Services Agency, which is an independent entity within
CSOSA, supervises an additional 7,000 defendants.
CSOSA requests $203,388,000 in direct budget authority for
fiscal year 2006. Of this amount, $131,360,000 is for the
Community Supervision Program, which supervises sentenced
offenders; $42,195,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency; and
$29,833,000 is for the Public Defender Service, which transmits
its budget with CSOSA's. The total budget request represents a
14 percent increase over CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 enacted
budget.
Our fiscal year 2006 budget contains one major request, to
fully implement an ongoing initiative. The Community
Supervision Program requests $14,630,000 and 77 positions to
operate the Reentry and Sanctions Center, or RSC, at Karrick
Hall. This facility housed our Assessment and Orientation
Center Program, or AOC, until 2004, when the program was
temporarily relocated to allow the much-needed renovation work
to be completed at Karrick Hall, which is on the grounds of
D.C. General Hospital.
In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received a $13 million
appropriation to renovate and expand the AOC program. We
greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support for these
funds. At that time, Congress authorized 95 positions necessary
to operate the expanded units. Eighteen of these positions were
funded in fiscal year 2004 to allow us to begin hiring the key
staff that must be in place during the pre-operations planning
and training process. The renovations are scheduled for
completion early in fiscal year 2006. In order for us to open
the new units on schedule, we need to begin hiring the
remaining 77 positions several months before the expected
opening.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center is based on the Assessment
and Orientation Center Program model, which has been in
operation since 1996. The AOC is a 30-day transition from
prison to community, designed specifically for high-risk
substance abusing offenders. The program focuses on physical,
intellectual, and emotional assessment and treatment readiness.
AOC participants are often not appropriate for Halfway House
placements, so the AOC provides an essential alternative to
direct release from prison to the street. The AOC also provides
services to defendants who are court-ordered to participate in
this program.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center will expand the AOC
capacity from its current 27 beds to approximately 100 beds,
enabling us to offer these services to about 1,200 individuals
per year. These beds will be divided into four men's units, one
female unit, and one unit for offenders with mental health
issues. We are particularly eager to make the AOC program
available to the underserved female population. The expanded
capacity will enable us to realize the great potential of this
program as a residential sanction for supervised offenders and
defendants who relapse into substance abuse. Residential
sanctions are an essential aspect of effective community
supervision, particularly if they can be imposed quickly.
Removing the offender from the external factors that contribute
to the violation also allows us to assess and stabilize him or
her, evaluate the case plan, and make adjustments before
incarceration is the only option.
An initial study of the AOC's effectiveness indicated a
74.5 percent drop in drug use after 1 year among program
graduates. The type of programming offered at the AOC, and
expanded to the Reentry and Sanctions Center, improves
treatment outcomes, which, in turn improves supervision
outcomes.
Although the Reentry and Sanctions Center is the main
feature of our budget request, I would also like to highlight a
few of this past year's most important accomplishments.
We have developed an automated research-based risk and
needs assessment tool that will assist our community
supervision officers in developing prescriptive supervision
plans and improving case management.
We opened a Day Reporting Center Program to provide an all-
day supervision option for high-risk offenders.
We expanded our global positioning system electronic
monitoring program, begun as a pilot in fiscal year 2004, to an
average caseload of approximately 50 offenders. The Pretrial
Services Agency increased the use of electronic monitoring to
all defendants assigned to heightened or intensive supervision.
We continue our faith initiative, matching returning
offenders with volunteer mentors from the area's faith
institutions. This January, we celebrated our fourth reentry
week, a series of events highlighting the faith-community
concern for, and contribution to, returning offenders.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for
your continued support for our program. I remain confident that
we are putting in place the most effective community
supervision program possible and that the citizens of the
District of Columbia will be safer, as a result.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Quander, Jr.
Chairman Brownback and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today in support of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency's (CSOSA's) fiscal year 2006
budget request. As you know, CSOSA provides community supervision to
approximately 15,000 offenders sentenced under the D.C. Code. The
Pretrial Services Agency, which is an independent entity within CSOSA,
supervises an additional 8,000 defendants. Since its establishment in
1997, CSOSA has rebuilt community supervision in the District of
Columbia. We are proud to say that we now have one of the most
responsive, innovative, and comprehensive systems of community
supervision in the country. While we are still implementing some key
aspects of our program model, we believe that we have put in place a
system of accountability, sanctions, and support services that will
enable us to better achieve our public safety mission.
CSOSA requests $203,388,000 in direct budget authority for fiscal
year 2006. Of this amount, $131,360,000 is for the Community
Supervision Program, which supervises sentenced offenders; $42,195,000
is for the Pretrial Services Agency; and $29,833,000 is for the D.C.
Public Defender Service, which transmits its budget with CSOSA's. The
total budget request represents a 14 percent increase over CSOSA's
fiscal year 2005 enacted budget.
Our fiscal year 2006 budget contains one major request to fully
implement an ongoing initiative. The Community Supervision Program
requests $14,630,000 and 77 positions to operate the Reentry and
Sanctions Center, or RSC, at Karrick Hall. This facility housed our
Assessment and Orientation Center Program until 2004, when the program
was temporarily relocated to allow the much-needed renovation work to
begin.
In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received a $13 million appropriation to
renovate and expand the Assessment and Orientation Center program. At
that time, Congress authorized the 95 positions necessary to operate
the expansion units. Eighteen of these positions were funded in fiscal
year 2004 to allow us to begin hiring the key staff that must be in
place during the pre-operations planning and training process. The
renovations are scheduled for completion early in fiscal year 2006. In
order for us to open the new units on schedule, we need to begin hiring
the remaining 77 positions several months before the expected opening.
We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's past support of the
Reentry and Sanctions Center. As we move toward implementation, I would
like to take a moment to discuss the program, its place in our overall
strategy, and the potential benefits it can realize.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center is based on our successful
Assessment and Orientation Center, or AOC, which has been operating
since 1996. The AOC targets offenders and defendants with long
histories of substance abuse and crime. Although nearly 70 percent of
CSOSA's population has a history of substance abuse, it is this core
group of long-term users that are the most resistant to change, the
most intractable--and the most likely to recidivate. The AOC program
targets these individuals with 30 days of intensive programming. For
offenders, this is a critical period during reentry from prison to the
community. Many of these offenders leave prison without secure housing,
family connections, or community ties. They have been away a long time,
and they have no idea where to go or how to do things differently. At
the AOC, we provide comprehensive intellectual, psychological, and
physical assessments so that we understand each individual's particular
issues. If there's a health issue, we ensure that the offender gets
treatment. If there's a psychological issue, we ensure that he has
access to appropriate therapy. We provide programming and support to
help the offender clarify his thinking about what he needs to do. We
explain the rules and processes of supervision so that the offender
understands what is expected of him. In short, the AOC is a 30-day
transition from prison to community designed specifically for the high-
risk substance abusing offender. These individuals are often not
appropriate for Halfway House placement, so the AOC provides an
essential alternative to direct release from prison to the street. The
AOC also provides services to defendants who are court-ordered to
participate in the program.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center will expand the AOC's capacity
from its current 27 beds to approximately 100 beds, enabling us to
offer these services to about 1,200 individuals per year. These beds
will be divided into four men's units, one women's unit, and one unit
for offenders with mental health diagnoses. We are particularly eager
to make the AOC program available to the underserved female population.
The expanded capacity will enable us to realize the great potential
of this program as a residential sanction for supervised offenders and
defendants who are relapsing into substance abuse. Residential
sanctions are an essential aspect of effective community supervision,
particularly if they can be imposed quickly. The longer the interval
between violation and sanction, the less force the sanction carries--
and the more time the offender has to escalate to even more dangerous
behavior. Removing the offender from the external factors that
contributed to the violation allows us to assess and stabilize him or
her, evaluate the case plan, and make adjustments before the behavior
gets to the point that supervision cannot contain it. Having this type
of environment is particularly important for special needs offenders,
such as those with dual mental health and substance abuse issues, who
are currently somewhat difficult to place in our Halfway Back
residential sanctions.
An initial study of the AOC's effectiveness indicated a 74.5
percent drop in drug use after 1 year among program graduates.
Criminologist Dr. Faye Taxman, who has studied effective supervision
practices extensively, has written, ``Pretreatment activities are
critical to improving the client's commitment to behavior change,
motivation, and adjustment to the treatment process.'' \1\ In other
words, the type of programming offered at the AOC, and expanded to the
Reentry and Sanctions Center, improves treatment outcomes--which in
turn improves supervision outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Faye Taxman, Ph.D. ``Unraveling 'What Works' for Offender in
Substance Abuse Treatment,'' National Drug Court Institute Review, Vol.
II, No. 2, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSOSA's strategic plan identifies four critical success factors
that are essential to our success: risk and needs assessment, close
supervision, treatment and support services, and partnerships. The
Reentry and Sanctions Center initiative touches all of those factors.
It will be our most powerful tool to date in a system of assessment-
driven, community-based supervision that is already a national model.
Although the Reentry and Sanctions Center is the main feature of
our budget request, I would also like to highlight several of this past
year's most important accomplishments:
--We have developed an automated, research-based risk and needs
assessment tool that will assist our Community Supervision
Officers in developing prescriptive supervision plans.
--We have fully implemented electronic submission of Presentence
Investigation Reports, raising our on-time completion rate from
51 percent in 2002 to 97 percent last year.
--We continue to increase offender drug testing. The average monthly
frequency has risen from 1.9 times per month in 1999 to 3.7
times per month last year.
--We opened a Day Reporting Center program to provide an all-day
supervision option for high-risk offenders. This program
involves unemployed offenders in academic and vocational
education, as well as life skills classes, to increase their
compliance with supervision.
--We implemented several key enhancements in our automated case
management system, including automated rearrest notification,
automated violation reporting, and an expanded management
reporting capability.
--We expanded our Global Positioning System electronic monitoring
program, begun as a pilot in fiscal year 2004, to an average
caseload of approximately 50 offenders.
--We continue to implement our model of supervising offenders in
their communities. This past year, we signed a lease on a new
field unit on Rhode Island Avenue, and we are developing a Far
Northeast Field Unit on Benning Road. These units will close a
critical gap in ensuring that our Community Supervision
Officers are deployed throughout the neighborhoods in which
most offenders reside. At the Benning Road site, the Pretrial
Services Agency will also locate supervision officers in the
field for the first time. In developing these projects, we
continue to work collaboratively with community groups to
ensure that our presence is welcome and our mission is known.
--We have achieved a 94 percent response rate to offender supervision
violations. The implementation of the Reentry and Sanctions
Center will increase the range of sanctions available to us,
but I am pleased to report that we are already responding to
the vast majority of violations. The Pretrial Services Agency
also improved its response rates in fiscal year 2004,
sanctioning 80 percent of drug testing violations, 79 percent
of contact conditions, 83 percent of curfew conditions
violations, and 97 percent of treatment program condition
violations.
--The Pretrial Services Agency increased the use of electronic
monitoring to all defendants assigned to Heightened or
Intensive Supervision.
--We continue our faith initiative, matching returning offenders with
volunteer mentors from the area's faith institutions. This
January, we celebrated our fourth Reentry Week, a series of
events highlighting the faith community's concern for, and
contribution to, returning offenders. This year's Reentry Week
featured a community forum organized by previously incarcerated
persons to discuss implementation of the District's Citywide
Reentry Strategy, which CSOSA played a major role in
developing.
--We continued our outreach to the Rivers Correctional Institution in
North Carolina, which houses over 1,000 D.C. offenders. We are
now conducting quarterly ``Community Resource Day''
presentations via videoconference. These presentations provide
information on housing, health care, education, and
employment--as well as presentations about supervision and
release--to inmates within 90 days of reentry.
In conclusion, I want to thank the subcommittee for your continued
support for our program. As you can see, CSOSA is in transition. Soon,
we will be able to say that we have completed the system we set out to
build. I remain confident that it is the most effective community
supervision program possible, and that the citizens of the District of
Columbia will be safer as a result of its implementation.
Public Defender Service
STATEMENT OF AVIS E. BUCHANAN, ESQ., DIRECTOR
Senator Brownback. Ms. Buchanan, thank you for joining us
today.
Ms. Buchanan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
INTRODUCTION
I am Avis E. Buchanan, Director of the Public Defender
Service for the District of Columbia. I am here today to
testify in support of PDS's fiscal year 2006 budget request. We
thank the subcommittee for its earlier support of our programs,
and I welcome you, Senator Brownback, to your new chairmanship.
In 2005, PDS will proudly mark its 35th year of providing
quality defense representation to people in the District of
Columbia. Since 1970, when PDS took on its role as a model
public defender, PDS has maintained a reputation as the best
public defender office in the country, local or Federal. To
maintain that reputation, PDS has designated fiscal year 2006
as a year of performance management assessment for PDS. We will
continue to evaluate our staffing complement and our fiscal
year 2005 data collection for our constitutionally mandated
mission. We are, therefore, proposing a budget that remains at
the level of the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request,
$29.8 million.
PDS's core work consists of the more serious, complex, and
resource-intensive criminal cases, but PDS also handles matters
such as criminal appeals, serious delinquency charges, parole
revocations, involuntary mental health system commitments, drug
court, and special education for children in the delinquency
system.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS has grown more sophisticated in its administrative and
program functioning since 1970. Our fiscal year 2005
accomplishments include implementing our first-ever strategic
plan and conducting our first-ever survey of the District's
local judges. All 35 responding trial court judges agreed, and
27 of these strongly agreed--the highest-possible rating--that
PDS provides and promotes quality legal representation to the
indigent.
One appellate judge wrote, ``Of all the litigants' counsel
who come before the Court of Appeals on a regular basis, PDS
lawyers are uniformly better. They give this judge, and, I
believe, all judges, a sense that their clients are soundly and
zealously represented while giving the court considered legal
arguments. If I were facing prosecution in the District of
Columbia, I would want PDS to represent me.''
I am proud of that opinion of this office. I am proud that
PDS collaborates with others to improve the justice system,
that we touch individual lives, that we have a strong training
program, and that we have improved our operations.
PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Our collaborative work includes helping to develop the
District's new pilot sentencing program. The pilot program uses
voluntary sentencing guidelines developed by the D.C.
Sentencing Commission, which PDS served on along with community
representatives and criminal justice agency representatives.
The preliminary compliance rate of this voluntary system is
close to 90 percent.
PDS's activities during fiscal year 2005 had significant
implications for individual clients or improved the
administration of justice. The Offender Rehabilitation Division
(ORD) worked with a woman who was diagnosed with mental
retardation, but who dropped out of the sixth grade after not
receiving specialized services in school. ORD, the division,
referred her to a residential treatment program run by a faith-
based organization. The client completed the program, and,
through the program, received vocational training to become a
home health aide. After she graduated from the program, the
division referred her to a program run by a different faith-
based group. The program helps people with mental illness
transition to permanent independent housing.
The Appellate Division won a motion for a new trial based
on the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by a private
attorney who had been paid thousands of dollars by the
defendant's family, but who conducted virtually no
investigation of the very serious charges the client was
facing. The successful motion followed painstaking
reinvestigation of the case. The government elected not to
retry the client.
In fiscal year 2005, our Community Defender Division's
Reentry Program identified resources available to PDS's
reentering clients, and organized a panel to educate judges and
practitioners about children with incarcerated parents. The
Reentry Program also assisted the members of the East of the
River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership in planning a reentry
forum for community members, attorneys, social workers,
counselors, and prison ministries.
Our Special Litigation Division has been expanding PDS's
work on various scientific issues in the courtroom. The
exoneration of individuals through DNA evidence has revealed
that flawed eyewitness testimony was involved in 80 percent of
the cases. The Special Litigation Division, working closely
with the Trial Division, has pulled together scientific
research assessing witness identification and the various
identification procedures used by law enforcement. This
information has been used to educate lawyers so that they might
better educate judges and jurors about what circumstances are
more likely to produce mistaken identification.
PDS conducts and participates in numerous training programs
for its own staff and for others. A training highlight is PDS's
2003 and 2004 Forensic Science Conferences. In 2004, various
experts taught judges, lawyers, and others about crime scene
investigation, sentencing, and bodily injuries. The third
conference, scheduled for September 2005, will incorporate the
Trial Division's growing expertise in challenging both DNA
evidence and cases arising out of database searches, in
anticipation of the President's initiative to reduce the
backlog of DNA cases.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS's administrative accomplishments are further steps
toward better serving clients and better modeling excellent
financial and management practices. PDS's relatively new status
as a federally funded entity and the guidance of the
President's management agenda have allowed us to enhance our
acquisition management and our competitive sourcing, to improve
our ability to develop financial and performance management
integration, and to implement relevant e-government
initiatives.
And in the area of human capital, PDS has a workforce with
a strong affinity to the clients, mission, and management of
PDS. In a recent employee survey, 99 percent of the respondents
reported being proud to work for PDS--the highest score on this
question of any organization, private or government, that our
contractor has surveyed.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I'd like to make two points. One, in a mid-
1970s report, the Department of Justice designated PDS as an
exemplary project, praising PDS's defense model. It's an
approach that PDS has remained committed to for 30 years. Two,
PDS still achieves a level of quality representation that is to
be sustained and emulated.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee 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 subcommittee members may have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Ms. Buchanan, appreciate
that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Avis E. Buchanan, Esq.
Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Avis E. Buchanan, and I am the Director of the Public Defender
Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you today to
provide testimony in support of PDS's fiscal year 2006 budget request.
We thank this Subcommittee for its support of our programs in previous
years.
In 2005, the Public Defender Service will mark its 35th year of
providing quality defense representation to people in the District of
Columbia. Since 1970, when PDS took on its intended role as a model
public defender, PDS has developed and maintained a reputation as the
best public defender office in the country--local or Federal. PDS has
become the national standard bearer and the benchmark by which other
public defense organizations often measure themselves in a number of
practice and administrative areas.
To maintain that reputation, PDS has designated fiscal year 2006 as
a year of performance management assessment for PDS, a year in which we
want to work to increase our internal efficiencies. Setting this goal
has led us to propose a budget that remains at the level of the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget request. All pay raises and other
resource needs will be funded by internal spending reallocations and
business efficiencies. PDS does not anticipate any increase to staffing
levels. After several years of investment, PDS will use fiscal year
2006 to continue to evaluate its strategic direction for human capital
and the amount of support required by the legal divisions. Also, PDS
will evaluate its fiscal year 2005 data collection for quantitative and
qualitative performance measures. These measures will serve as a
baseline as we transition to performance-based budgeting and management
that assist in maintaining quality representation for indigent persons
in the District of Columbia courts.
BACKGROUND
In the District of Columbia, PDS and the local District of Columbia
courts share the responsibility for providing constitutionally mandated
defense representation to people who cannot pay for their own attorney.
Under the District of Columbia's Criminal Justice Act (CJA) \1\, the
District of Columbia courts appoint PDS generally to the more serious,
more complex, resource-intensive, 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 pre-
screened private attorneys (``CJA attorneys''). Approximately 110 PDS
staff lawyers are appointed to represent: a majority of people facing
the most serious felony charges; a substantial number of individuals
litigating criminal appeals; a significant number of the children
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ D.C. Code 11-2601 et seq. (2001 Ed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While much of our work is devoted to ensuring that no person is
ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal
representation to recovering substance abusers participating in the
highly successful Drug Court treatment program, and to children 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. 1400, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Defender Service, unique among local public defender
offices in that it is federally funded,\3\ has always been committed to
its mission of providing and promoting constitutionally mandated legal
representation to adults and children facing a loss of liberty in the
District of Columbia who cannot afford a lawyer, and we have had
numerous significant accomplishments in pursuit of that mission. In
addition, PDS has developed 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. Other public defender offices across
the country have sought counsel from PDS as they have patterned their
approach to their work after ours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
organization. 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.
Pub. L. No. 105-33, Title X (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its statutory mission to promote quality criminal
defense representation in the District of Columbia as a whole, PDS has
also provided training for other District of Columbia defense attorneys
and investigators who represent those who cannot afford an attorney,
and PDS has provided support to the District of Columbia courts.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS has grown more sophisticated in its administrative and program
functioning since 1970. PDS has drafted its first-ever strategic plan
and annual performance plan, and has begun incorporating them more
fully into the management of our client service.
In an effort to develop performance baselines, and in conjunction
with its strategic plan, PDS conducted an anonymous survey of the
District's local trial and appellate judges before whom we regularly
appear. Of the 60 trial judges who received the survey, 35 responded.
All 35 agreed (27 of these ``strongly agreed''--the highest possible
rating on the survey) that PDS staff provides and promotes quality
legal representation to indigent adults and children facing a loss of
liberty. All 35 agreed (23 ``strongly agreed'') that PDS staff are well
prepared to defend their clients. Of the 16 of the appellate judges to
whom the survey was sent, half responded, all of whom agreed that PDS
staff provide and promote quality legal representation, are zealous
advocates for their clients, and are well prepared to defend their
clients. In fact, one appellate judge wrote:
``Of all the litigants' counsel who come before the Court of
Appeals on a regular basis, PDS lawyers are uniformly better. They give
this judge--and I believe all judges--a sense that their clients are
soundly and zealously represented while giving the court considered
legal arguments. If I were facing prosecution in D.C., I would want PDS
to represent me.''
GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
COLLABORATIVE WORK
Although widely known for zealously participating in the
adversarial process of the criminal justice system, PDS also works
closely with criminal justice agencies and the courts to improve the
system and make it function more efficiently and fairly.
Sentencing Guidelines
In June 2004, the Superior Court began a pilot sentencing program
using voluntary sentencing guidelines developed by the D.C. Sentencing
Commission. PDS is a member of the D.C. Sentencing Commission along
with three D.C. Superior Court judges; representatives from the Office
of the United States Attorney, the District of Columbia Office of the
Attorney General, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency,
the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the D.C. Department of
Corrections, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons; and citizens representing
victims and families of inmates. Although the system is voluntary, the
preliminary data gathered thus far shows an extremely high compliance
rate of close to 90 percent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Preliminary data shows that of the sentencings that occurred in
felony cases since June 14th, 2004 and that were reported to the D.C.
Sentencing Commission, over 90 percent were within the recommended
guideline range. This statistic does not include allowable departures,
either upward or downward. The statistic may actually be higher, as it
appears that some sentences outside the recommended range were
inadvertent and resulted from unfamiliarity with this very new system.
By comparison, in the Federal guidelines system, since the Supreme
Court's decision in United States v. Booker-Fanfan, 125 S.Ct. 738
(2004), 62 percent of cases are within guidelines ranges. See U.S.
Sentencing Commission Memorandum, from Office of Policy Analysis, to
Judge Hinojosa, Chair (March 22, 2005). The two systems differ in many
respects that would affect this compliance rate, including the fact
that guideline ranges in the Federal system are narrower than those in
the District's system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Sentencing Commission looked to Federal and State
guidelines systems for ideas, it created a system most suited to the
District. The PDS representatives, the U.S. Attorney's representatives,
and the judges crafted the details of the system, to which the full
Commission gave final approval. This almost unprecedented collaboration
on a hotly debated topic may be part of the reason for the high
compliance rate. The long, and often contentious, working sessions
produced a fair and balanced system that may well achieve the goal of
greater uniformity and predictability in sentencing.
Once the guidelines were completed, PDS and the U.S. Attorney's
Office continued this collaboration, drafting a lengthy, detailed
practice manual. Together PDS and the U.S. Attorney's Office resolve
the many problems that arise in the implementation of such a
complicated system. PDS conducted internal trainings on the new
guidelines as well as numerous trainings for the private criminal
defense bar and, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, assisted with the
training of the judges and of the CSOSA staffers responsible for
preparing presentence reports and completing initial guidelines
calculation recommendations for the court.
Competency to Stand Trial in Criminal Court
The District of Columbia Code statute that governs proceedings to
determine a defendant's competence to stand trial has undergone few
changes in the almost five decades since its enactment. However,
evolving Supreme Court and District of Columbia courts jurisprudence,
as well as increased understanding of mental illness, have made the
statute outdated. PDS drafted a complete overhaul of the competency
statute, improving and updating it, and shared it with the Chair of the
D.C. Council's Committee on the Judiciary, who introduced it as a bill.
PDS, the U.S. Attorney's Office, D.C.'s Office of the Attorney General,
and the D.C. Department of Mental Health then modified the bill in
response to the concerns of all the parties to the system. The
negotiated bill passed the D.C. Council unanimously at the end of 2004
and is projected to become law in April 2005.
Practice Standards in Family Court
PDS worked with judges in the D.C. Family Court to create practice
standards for panel lawyers representing children charged with acts of
delinquency. These practice standards establish minimum requirements
for attorneys such as how often to visit the client and how many hours
of continuing legal education each attorney must receive each year.
These are just a few examples of how PDS works with the court and
with other entities engaged in the criminal justice system to improve
and enhance criminal justice in the District of Columbia.
OTHER PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS engaged in a number of activities during fiscal year 2005 that
had significant implications for individual clients or that improved
the overall administration of justice.
Individual Clients
The core work of PDS is the representation of individual clients
facing a loss of liberty. As you know, the criminal justice system is
premised on an adversarial system, and PDS has able adversaries in the
District's Attorney General's Office and the United States Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia. A fair criminal justice system
depends on having all components (judges, government, and defense)
fulfill their respective roles. PDS plays a pivotal part in ensuring
that all cases, whether they result in pleas or trials, involve
comprehensive investigation and thorough consultation with the client,
and that the trials constitute a full and fair airing of reliable
evidence. As it has every year since its inception, in fiscal year
2005, PDS won many trials, fought a forceful fight in others, and found
resolution prior to trial for many clients. Whatever the outcome, PDS's
goal for each client was competent, quality representation.
All of these cases and their outcomes are far too varied and
numerous to recount here, and the ethical rules that protect all
clients' confidences, regardless of their economic circumstances,
preclude me from providing detailed examples. Instead, the following
cases, absent identifying information, are a small sample of how
competent, quality representation can change lives.
Mental Health.--The Mental Health Division won the release of a
client who had been committed to St. Elizabeths since the mid-1970s on
a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of attempt
shoplifting. After spending nearly 30 years at St. Elizabeths on a
charge that carried a maximum jail sentence of no more than a year, the
client is now, through the assistance of the D.C. Department of Mental
Health, living in a sponsored, independent apartment and working in a
supervised environment.
Children.--The Trial Division represented a teenager who was
charged with driving a stolen car after he crashed the car. PDS's
investigation and an independent professional evaluation revealed that
the teenager, who had not been to school for years and who had been
essentially abandoned as a child by his mother because she was
chronically ill, had been trying to commit suicide with the car crash.
Helped by PDS to identify the problems and identify appropriate
services, the teenager raised his reading level from kindergarten to
3rd grade, responded positively to therapy, and entered a therapeutic
foster home.
Men.--PDS's Offender Rehabilitation Division helped a young man who
was charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle. His mother's history of
cocaine abuse led to her being in and out of prison. As a result, the
client grew up in the foster care system and dropped out of the 9th
grade. After a presentation from ORD staff and the trial attorney, the
court put the young man on probation with the condition that he
complete a rigorous, year-long residential rehabilitation program
operated by a faith-based social service organization. The program
required that he report to work every day to support the organization's
mission. With much supervision and support from the ORD staff, the
client overcame his lack of a good work history and of a familiarity
with good work habits, and became a more reliable, more timely, and
more responsible worker. The client also participated in various groups
run by the program, such as a Bible-based enrichment group that helps
participants become more responsible as individuals and as members of
the community. Although he struggled, the young man completed the
program successfully and, as a result of his progress, the judge
released him from probation early. The client is now planning to
complete his GED and obtain certification as an electrical technician.
Women.--The Offender Rehabilitation Division works with many
clients who are in the criminal justice system as a result of substance
abuse. Often this abuse is symptomatic of an underlying problem that
must be identified and addressed to ensure recovery. One such client
was a woman who was diagnosed with mental retardation, but who dropped
out of the 6th grade after not receiving specialized services in
school. ORD referred her to a residential drug treatment program for
women run by a faith-based organization. The client completed the
program and, through the program, received vocational training to
become a home health aide. After the client graduated from the program,
ORD referred her to a transitional living program run by a different
faith-based group. The program, which accepted the client, helps people
with mental disabilities move over the course of a couple of years to
permanent, independent housing.
Appellate Division
The Appellate Division's appellate litigation has impact throughout
the District's criminal justice system as decisions in their cases
often establish or clarify the standards trial court judges and
litigants must follow in criminal and juvenile cases. The complex and
novel legal issues the Division is called upon to address therefore are
best handled by experienced and talented attorneys--which the Division
does not lack.
Ensuring Fairness.--The Government's long-standing obligation to
disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in a timely fashion
reflects the considered judgment of our justice system that the search
for truth cannot succeed if the prosecutor conceals material
information tending to prove the defendant innocent or tending to
undermine the reliability of the government's witnesses. Unfortunately,
however, prosecutors sometimes fail to honor their obligation to
disclose this ``Brady \5\ information,'' and only thorough
investigation by defense counsel brings these failures to light. In
four cases during fiscal year 2004, the Appellate Division uncovered
Brady information that had not been disclosed to trial counsel, calling
into question the reliability of the clients' convictions. In all four
separate cases, the litigation ended with the government deciding that
dismissal of all charges for all four clients was appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division persuaded the trial court to vacate a
client's murder conviction after a long battle to demonstrate that the
former Federal prosecutor assigned to the case had committed
intentional misconduct. Appellate counsel first intervened in the U.S.
District Court on behalf of the client to make public the results of a
Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility report that
had found that the prosecutor had improperly paid tens of thousands of
dollars in witness fees to the friends and family of government
witnesses in a Federal drug and murder conspiracy prosecution. Over the
government's objection, PDS won an order from the Federal judge
unsealing the records of the prosecutor's misconduct. Armed with these
records and with the results of years of investigation, the appellate
attorney demonstrated that the prosecutor had also improperly paid tens
of thousands of dollars in witness fees to the friends and relatives of
government witnesses in the client's case. The United States agreed to
join in a motion to vacate the client's murder conviction in the
interests of justice. The client's appeal that the appellate attorney
had argued before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals en banc was
also dismissed as part of the agreement.
Ensuring Quality Representation.--The Division won a motion for a
new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by
the original, private attorney, who had been paid thousands of dollars
by the defendant's family but who conducted virtually no investigation
of the very serious charges against the defendant. The successful
motion followed painstaking re-investigation of the facts of the case.
In response, the government elected not to retry the client.
Special Litigation Division
The Special Litigation Division litigates systemic issues in the
District of Columbia criminal justice system before every court in the
District of Columbia--the Superior Court and Court of Appeals in the
local system, and the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the
Supreme Court in the Federal system. These are some of the highlights
of our litigation:
Incarcerated Children.--SLD has litigated the lawsuit challenging
the juvenile detention system in the District, Jerry M., et al. v.
District of Columbia, et al.\6\, for 19 years, and we are at last
hopeful of a resolution. The lawsuit and the resulting consent decree
focus on the conditions of the juvenile detention facilities and on the
treatment and rehabilitation provided to youths at the facilities to
reduce their chances of recidivating and increase their chance of
becoming productive members of the community. Last year, the Division's
Jerry M. lawyers asked the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the
District's Youth Services Administration (now the Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services) until the consent decree's mandates could be
met. While the request was pending, the court held the District in
contempt for violating several consent decree provisions. The District
then agreed to the appointment of a special arbiter to resolve disputes
and formulate a new model for juvenile justice in D.C. SLD and the
District are now well on their way toward the formulation of a
comprehensive work plan to address the systemic issues that have
plagued the District's juvenile justice system for years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Civil Action No. 1519-85 (IFP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eyewitness Identifications.--Eighty percent of recent DNA
exonerations nationally stemmed from faulty eyewitness evidence. SLD
has focused on helping to make courtroom eyewitness evidence more
reliable, and its flaws and limitations more understandable to jurors.
To support this effort, SLD has collected all the recent scientific
research and developed model pleadings. Using these resources, SLD has
worked with the trial lawyers to introduce the testimony of eyewitness
identification expert witnesses to help inform jurors about the science
surrounding how various factors such as facts about the offense, the
witness, or the identification procedure used can affect the
reliability of a witness's identification.
Community Defender Division
The Community Defender Division provides services through four
programs: the Juvenile Services Program, which focuses on children
confined to the Oak Hill Youth Detention Center in Laurel, Maryland and
placed in residential facilities across the country; the Community Re-
entry Program, which responds to the legal and social needs of newly
released D.C. parolees and assists them in making a successful
transition back into the community; the Institutional Services Program,
which serves as a liaison to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to assist D.C.
Code offenders in the Bureau's custody; and the Community Outreach and
Education Program, which educates members of the community about their
legal rights and responsibilities in the criminal justice system.
Re-entry Programs.--In fiscal year 2005, the Community Re-entry
Program worked to educate various communities about the issues facing
PDS's re-entering clients and to identify resources available to them.
The Community Re-entry Program organized a panel, as part of the Family
Court Training Series to educate judges and practitioners about what it
means for a child to have an incarcerated parent. The panel featured a
formerly incarcerated parent and two youths whose parents have been
incarcerated for a number of years. The Program also assisted the
members of the East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership to
plan a forum for community members, attorneys, social workers,
employment and drug treatment counselors, and prison ministries. The
purpose of the forum was to educate these groups about the particular
issues facing re-entering women.
Mental Health.--Some of our most challenging clients are severely
mentally ill persons who are arrested on less serious charges, but
incarcerated pending trial, and who are without support systems. Their
incarceration results in the cancellation of all their benefits (SSI,
SSDI, Medicaid). Without these benefits, our clients lose access to
affordable housing and some essential services. Because the Community
Defender Program has been able to take advantage of relationships that
the Offender Rehabilitation Division staff is developing with a number
of agencies and with contract providers of mental health services, this
situation is improving. More of our severely mentally ill clients are
now able to obtain financial benefits, housing, and intensive
outpatient mental health services, and in the last year, we have had
tremendous success helping these clients re-enter the community without
re-offending.
Catholic University Group Home Project.--Two years ago, PDS
approached Catholic University about providing services to girls
committed to the care of the District of Columbia. PDS assisted in
developing a proposal, modeled after a successful program in Missouri,
for creating a girls' group home on the university's campus. The girls
would receive social services, public health education and services,
and education support, including special education assistance, from the
school's graduate programs. The university obtained foundation funding
to do a feasibility study of the proposed project, which should be
completed in early May 2005. Officials from the District's Department
of Youth Rehabilitation Services recently met with the university
administration to offer technical assistance for the project. Catholic
University has expressed a strong interest, not just in providing a
site for and services to the group home, but in offering care such as
day treatment, encouraging family involvement, partnering with a
charter or independent school, and offering scholarships to
``graduates'' of the program. PDS continues to be involved in moving
this project forward.
Truancy Initiative.--The Community Defender Program is working
closely with the Family Court, the D.C. Public Schools, and the D.C.
School Board to address the truancy problem by developing a program
modeled after one in Louisville, Kentucky. The initiative is a family
intervention program created to address the root causes of truancy. A
community team of judicial officers, school personnel, social services
providers, mental health providers, and substance abuse rehabilitation
providers would work together to identify families for whom intensive
services would help resolve barriers to school attendance. The program
would be based in the schools, rather than in the courts, allowing the
team to make weekly visits to the school, with regular contacts by the
case manager with the family in between the school visits. Like the
group home project with Catholic University, this is another example of
PDS recognizing a need and identifying a model that could be modified
to suit the District.
Parole Division
The Parole Division, created pursuant to the Lorton Closure
Initiative, provides required representation to parolees facing
revocation before the United States Parole Commission.\7\ This Division
represents nearly 100 percent of all D.C. Code offenders facing parole
revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Revitalization Act shifted responsibility for D.C. parole
matters from the D.C. Board of Parole to the United States Parole
Commission. 28 C.F.R. 2.214(b)(1) and 2.216(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law School Program.--The Parole Division expanded its law clinic
program to include Howard University School of Law students and
cooperative students from the Northeastern School of Law. Now law
students in the criminal justice clinics at these two schools and at
the Georgetown University Law Center receive training on advocating in
the parole revocation process and become qualified to represent
parolees facing revocation. PDS has collaborated with these law schools
to leverage its expertise to ensure that this small division can
effectively represent almost 100 percent of the parole cases of D.C.
Code offenders that come before the U.S. Parole Commission.
Working with the Parole Commission.--PDS's Parole Division
continues to monitor closely the work of the U.S. Parole Commission and
to seek out areas of collaboration, such as commenting on proposed
parole regulations and assisting in the training of new Parole
Commission hearing examiners in connection with their role in the
parole revocation process.
Training
PDS conducts and participates in numerous training programs
throughout the year. The annual Criminal Practice Institute and the
Summer Criminal Defender Training Program address the training needs of
the court-appointed CJA attorneys and investigators. In fiscal year
2005, PDS attorneys and investigators also taught sessions at almost
all of the D.C. law schools, including the law schools at Georgetown
University, Catholic University, American University, and Howard
University. PDS attorneys were also invited to teach elsewhere locally,
including at the D.C. Bar, the National Legal Aid and Defender
Association, and the Defender Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts.
Forensic Science Conference.--The first forensic science conference
held by PDS in 2003 was such a success, allowing D.C. defense attorneys
to learn forensic science issues from national experts, that the
grantor awarded funding for a second conference. In 2004, PDS sponsored
``An Interactive Crime Scene Investigation,'' a 2-day conference open
to judges, lawyers, mental health professionals, and investigators. The
second day was an interactive training session using a single case to
study fingerprinting technology, blood spatter evidence, and the
information scientists can glean from bodily injuries.
The next forensic science conference is scheduled for September
2005; it will serve as a ``DNA college'' for trial attorneys. Using the
expertise PDS's Trial Division has developed in challenging nuclear DNA
evidence, mitochondrial DNA evidence, and cases arising out of database
searches, and in anticipation of the President's initiative to reduce
the backlog of DNA cases and better educate lawyers and judges about
DNA evidence, PDS is planning a conference to promote quality
representation in cases that increasingly involve complex scientific
concepts and technologies.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PDS's current increased focus on enhancing its administrative
functions represents a further step toward better serving clients and
toward better serving as a model defender organization. The right to a
qualified attorney for people who cannot afford one can be read to
include an expectation that representation will be provided to clients
not only effectively, but also efficiently. As PDS has been in the
forefront in meeting and exceeding the standards defining what it means
to satisfy the requirements of the right to counsel, PDS can also be on
the forefront in modeling excellent financial and management practices
in support of that right.
Before PDS became a federally funded entity, funding limitations
compromised our ability to achieve as high a level of proficiency in
our administrative functioning as we are known for in our legal
representation. PDS's relatively new status as a federally funded
entity has created the opportunity for us to enhance our administrative
functions: in the past 8 years, PDS has established a human resources
department, an information technology department, and a budget and
finance department where none previously existed. PDS is working to
continue this ``administrative maturation.'' We have already adopted
Federal best practices in a number of support areas, and we are
preparing to expand their use in other areas as well.
PDS's strategic planning agenda for executive and administrative
management follows the President's Management Agenda as the framework
for managing performance. The fiscal year 2004 accomplishments are
highlighted within the context of this framework.
Human Capital.--During the winter of early 2004, PDS for the first
time formally assessed the staff's view of PDS's working environment.
Using an independent contractor, PDS surveyed employees' opinions on
topics such as PDS's commitment to its clients, the demographic
diversity of PDS's staff, PDS's administrative efficiency, PDS
management's and line staff's trust in each other, PDS's responsiveness
to the needs of its employees, and individual job satisfaction. The
contractor noted that the overall survey results were the most positive
the contractor had encountered in conducting such employee surveys in
both private industry and government. All across the demographic
spectrum, employees felt a strong affinity to the clients, mission, and
management of PDS. As we reported to this Subcommittee during last
year's fiscal year 2005 budget hearing, almost 70 percent of employees
responded to the survey; 99 percent of responding employees reported
being proud to work for PDS. The independent firm that conducted the
anonymous survey reported that this was the highest score on this
question of any organization it has surveyed.
In fiscal year 2005, PDS continues to develop and review its
baseline for recruitment, retention, and succession planning programs.
Competitive Sourcing.--During fiscal year 2004, PDS improved its
competitive sourcing practices by establishing a fully appointed
contracting officer and enhancing its acquisition management strategy
and policies. During fiscal year 2005, PDS has begun reducing the
number of suppliers for any given product or service the organization
requires and competing like products and services under larger contract
proposals. PDS is also contracting for ancillary service needs where
feasible, practical, and supportive of quality client representation.
Financial Performance.--At the start of fiscal year 2004, PDS
implemented a financial management improvement program. The program
adopts financial best practices, including the use of audited financial
statements as but one form of measurement. In fiscal year 2004, PDS
selected a new audit firm and a new accounting service provider. Both
actions improve PDS's ability to develop financial and performance
measurement integration, and create efficiencies and effectiveness in
providing financial services to PDS.
E-Government.--In order to implement e-government initiatives, PDS
leverages the capabilities of service providers. During fiscal year
2004, PDS entered into an agreement with a Federal agency to provide e-
travel service. PDS began receiving that service, which will enhance
management controls and efficiency, in fiscal year 2005. Also in fiscal
year 2005, PDS implemented a more fully electronic procurement card
system that supports the competitive sourcing initiatives. During
fiscal year 2006, PDS will be better positioned to evaluate other e-
government initiatives that could directly support PDS's mission of
indigent client representation.
Budget and Performance Integration.--The success of PDS's financial
management improvement program, which will assist PDS in executing its
budget and performance integration, can be measured in part by PDS's
ability to hold the line in its fiscal year 2006 budget request to the
level of the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request. During fiscal
year 2005, PDS is refining its performance measures for subsequent use
in the development of the fiscal year 2007 budget.
CONCLUSION
I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee 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 Subcommittee members
may have.
Senator Brownback. Judge Wagner, I think you mentioned this
to me--do you retire this year? Is that right?
Judge Wagner. I'm sorry?
Senator Brownback. Are you retiring this year?
Judge Wagner. Yes, I am. So this may----
Senator Brownback. You gave me a surprised look, like I let
a cat out of a bag here, did I?
Judge Wagner. This is probably my last appearance before
this body on behalf of the courts. Again, I just want to
reiterate what a privilege it has been to be in a position to
see the Congress of the United States in operation and to
appear on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia and
the hardworking judges and staff at the courts. Everyone has
always been courteous and receptive, and I really appreciate
it, and I want to thank you.
Senator Brownback. Well, we want to thank you. I mean,
that's just such a great record of service, it's deeply
appreciated, and we'll try to make this last presentation not
like going to the dentist and getting a root canal.
So it will, hopefully, not be too bad.
I do want to know, because of recent things that have
happened in other places in the country about security in the
courtroom and for judges--I'm sure that's something you've
looked at a lot--are you comfortable with where we are now for
your court?
Judge Wagner. Yes. I think we're pretty comfortable. We
have a combination security system involving the United States
Marshals Service, as well as contract security officers who we
hire. We have done a number of enhancements since 9/11,
obviously, as everyone else has done. It gave us an
opportunity, and prompted us, to do a complete security
assessment, which was conducted by the U.S. Marshals Service.
We've upgraded our control centers. We've upgraded the security
in the various buildings. We've done a number of things to make
sure that the people who enter the building do not have items
of contraband or items that will be harmful to anyone. We've
done things about our mail and our courier deliveries. We have
a 100 percent security check. So we've done a lot of things,
and they're ongoing.
Senator Brownback. These latest events have been cases
where a prisoner overpowered a guard; and another was a home
attack. The judge in Chicago was actually a Kansan, a native
Kansan, and her husband and mother were killed. What about
those types of situations? Are you comfortable where the D.C.
Courts are there?
Judge Wagner. Typically, when you have a situation
involving judges at home, it is some unique or special case
that is involved. That has been the experience that I'm aware
of. Arrangements are made when something occurs that makes it
apparent that something is necessary, beyond the courthouse
facility itself. It is something that I'm sure that the
marshals are looking at. Everyone has become more sensitive to
the various types of risk that exists that we had not, perhaps,
accounted for before all of the recent events. But I think our
Marshals Service has pretty good regulations about how they
handle prisoners, and I can't really address them directly,
but----
Senator Brownback. I'm just asking you, you know, is it--
you've been in this system for some period of time. If you're
comfortable----
Judge Wagner. Yeah. I only----
Senator Brownback [continuing]. With where----
Judge Wagner [continuing]. I've only had a couple of
incidents, personally, and they were taken care of. The
marshals came, they found out what the situation was, who made
what threat, and it was addressed very, very quickly. I think
that the other situations, for example, a judge in a particular
trial many, many years ago, I knew, had to have round-the-clock
Marshals Service. They offer it when it is necessary, because
of the exigencies of the circumstances.
Senator Brownback. Okay.
Where are people held in the District of Columbia pending
trial or getting ready for trial in the District since we've--
--
Judge Wagner. D.C. Jail.
Senator Brownback. A number of people were--we closed
Lorton down, when I was authorizer, and--where are people held
now?
Judge King. They're held in the D.C. Jail----
Senator Brownback. Where is that----
Judge King [continuing]. Which is near the----
Senator Brownback [continuing]. Located now?
Judge King. It's right south of the armory, near the----
Senator Brownback. Okay.
Judge King [continuing]. Baseball stadium and the armory
and the hospital. My office works fairly closely with the
warden of the jail and the director of the Department of
Corrections in managing that flow of persons being brought to
and from court, and where they're located, and how they're
classified, once they're sentenced, to go out of the jail and
into the Federal system.
Senator Brownback. What's your rough capacity of that
facility, do you know?
Judge King. Twenty-two----
Mr. Quander. Twenty-two-hundred.
Judge King. Twenty-two-hundred.
Senator Brownback. Twenty-two-hundred in that? That's a
large facility.
Judge King. And it's near capacity. It has not been going
over, recently, although it's always nip and tuck. It's always
a close call. It's a struggle to keep it within capacity.
Senator Brownback. And I'm presuming you hold people in
there awaiting trial, and then immediately after, until you can
get them moved into another facility----
Judge King. That's----
Senator Brownback [continuing]. In the region.
Judge King [continuing]. That's exactly correct. In working
with the Department of Corrections and the Marshals Service and
others, we've recently reorganized the way the classification
process takes place so that it's drastically cut down the
waiting time to get someone classified into the Federal system
once they've been sentenced. So, we've tried to move that
process along much more effectively.
Senator Brownback. How are you doing on your recidivism
rates of people entering D.C. courts--convictions, and return
rates? Mr. Quander, I guess that would probably be best to
throw that to you.
Mr. Quander. In fiscal year 2003, the rearrest rate for
offenders who were under our supervision, and who were
rearrested by the Metropolitan Police Department, were
approximately 16 percent of everyone that was arrested by the
Metropolitan Police Department. In 2004, that rate went up to
18 percent. But that's just the rearrests. When we look at the
number of individuals who are rearrested, the largest
percentage of individuals rearrested are rearrested because of
warrants that we have requested for technical violations or
other violations. The next-largest group of rearrests are for
driving offenses--no permit, lack of registration. When you
look at the actual recidivism number of individuals who were
rearrested and convicted and incarcerated, it's approximately 6
percent.
Senator Brownback. Let me--now, let me challenge you a
little bit on that. That would be one of the absolute best in
the Nation, at 6 percent. This is over a 3-year, 5-year
window----
Mr. Quander. It's----
Senator Brownback [continuing]. That you're measuring that?
Mr. Quander [continuing]. It's moving. What we measured
fiscal year 2003, the first cohort group. And from 2003 to
present, those individuals who were rearrested, convicted, and
incarcerated, it's about 6 percent.
Senator Brownback. Okay, I may not be asking my question
quite right, because the nationwide average on this is about
two-thirds----
Mr. Quander. Well----
Senator Brownback [continuing]. Is the recidivism rate, and
I mean, if you're at 6 percent--and that's fabulous if you're
at 6 percent, but I maybe--not be asking--and that--I need to
get you the exact window, whether it's a 3- or 5-year window,
of rearrests for after a conviction.
Mr. Quander. Right. And what commonly happens is, it
depends on the definition of recidivism. That's why I started
out with our rearrest figures being about 18 percent for this
fiscal year, but rearrest really doesn't get to recidivism.
Rearrests--as I indicated, most of the individuals rearrested
were rearrested because of technical violations, where we
requested of the Parole Commission to issue a warrant because
someone has violated technical conditions, or we have requested
the Superior Court to issue a show-cause order because a person
is noncompliant. And so, once those warrants are issued,
individuals are arrested.
Senator Brownback. Yeah.
Mr. Quander. But as far as being convicted of new
offenses----
Senator Brownback. Let me shape the question in a written
statement to you so we can get a specific----
Mr. Quander. Certainly.
Senator Brownback. And if you could spend a little time
going through that, I would appreciate you looking at what the
recidivism rate is in the District--is there--there's a pretty
set definition of these, and I want to--let me get it to you in
writing, if you don't mind trying to----
Mr. Quander. Certainly.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. To take it that way.
[The information follows:]
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that 67.5 percent of
prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested, and 46.9 percent
reconvicted, within 3 years. BJS states that these statistics ``come
closest to providing a `national' recidivism rate for the United
States.'' \1\ Can CSOSA provide comparable recidivism statistics?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics, ``Reentry Trends in the U.S.,''
cited from web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/
recidivism.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When asked about CSOSA's recidivism rate in a hearing before the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Director Paul A. Quander, Jr.
responded by citing three statistics that, together, offer a current
picture of recidivism among the supervised population:
--About 14 percent of all individuals arrested by the Metropolitan
Police Department in fiscal year 2004 were under CSOSA
supervision;
--Almost half of these arrests were for previous warrants; violations
of supervision conditions; or offenses related to public order
or motor vehicles;
--About 6 percent of the total supervised population was convicted of
a new offense in fiscal year 2004.
These statistics, while revealing, cannot be compared to the Bureau
of Justice Statistics' ``national'' recidivism rate. The reason for
this is simple: Until very recently, CSOSA did not have the raw data
necessary to generate comparable statistics. CSOSA reports the
percentage of the total supervised population that was arrested in a
given year; BJS reports the cumulative percentage of a cohort that was
arrested during a three year-period.
Past Data Issues
Prior to January 2002, when the agency's automated case management
system (SMART) came online, the agency lacked reliable historical case
data. This undermined efforts to report long-term outcomes. Because of
these problems, CSOSA developed an incremental methodology for
reporting recidivism--to report only the data we could trust, and to
expand our reporting as data quality improved. We started with manual
collection of parole rearrest, expanding to probation and fully
automated reporting after SMART came on-line.
CSOSA's annual parole rearrest rate averaged 17 percent over the
past three years (since SMART implementation). While this number is not
comparable to BJS's data for the reasons discussed above, it is a
reliable indicator of annual rearrest among a comparable population
(offenders who have been released from prison). It should be noted that
CSOSA's rearrest statistics will never be completely comparable to
BJS's because BJS includes all released offenders, regardless of
whether they had a post-release supervision obligation.
BJS's measurement of reconviction also follows a three-year cohort.
For the reasons discussed above, CSOSA is unable to duplicate that
measurement. Reporting of conviction is further complicated by the fact
that this data must be obtained from Superior Court. CSOSA and the
court are currently working to improve automated data-sharing
mechanisms. For fiscal year 2003, the last year for which data are
available, the reconviction rate was approximately 6 percent of the
total probation and parole population.
Planned Improvements
Beginning in the spring of 2005, CSOSA's Office of Research and
Evaluation will initiate a recidivism measurement study using three
distinct indicators: arrest for a new charge, conviction of a new
charge, and incarceration for a new charge. The initial study will
focus on a two-year cohort because SMART data validation was not
completed until the fall of 2002; therefore, only two complete years of
data are available. However, the initial study will be used to
establish a methodology that will apply to subsequent cohorts as well.
Beginning with this study, CSOSA will establish a ``rolling''
recidivism measurement. That is, the initial two-year cohort will
become the first three-year cohort, and a second three-year cohort will
be established starting the day after the ``cutoff'' for the first
cohort.
This study will generate multi-year data that is comparable to the
BJS reports. Preliminary results will be available in the summer of
2005. We will supply them to the Committee as soon as possible.
Senator Brownback. Are there particular things you're doing
to reduce your recidivism rates that you've found to be
particularly successful?
Mr. Quander. Yes, we are. One of the biggest things that
we're doing is, we're imposing graduated sanctions upon the
offenders. And, essentially, what that allows us to do is to
address a problem or a deficiency very quickly, so that there's
a direct consequence for inappropriate behavior. That way, we
don't have to run back to court or to the U.S. Parole
Commission before we can address it. The court has given us
certain authority to supervise offenders and to impose certain
sanctions. For example, if a person misses an appointment,
there's an--a sanction that is immediately placed on that
person. It may be----
Senator Brownback. What? What would be----
Mr. Quander. It could be community service. It could be a
meeting with not only his CSO, but the supervisor. If that
individual is being supervised at a medium level, it could be
increased to maximum. If he's reporting once a week, we could
increase the reporting to twice a week. If he has other
violations, we have a Day Reporting Center, whereby we can
ask--make that individual come to our office and spend--there's
a continuum of services for an 8-week period, where that person
would have to report and be monitored and partake in services
that deal with anger management, time management, adult basic
education. It's a complete program that we have.
We also have sanctions for community services. If an
individual violates, then, on a weekend, he has to perform 6 to
8 hours worth of cleanup in the city to help out various
community groups that are doing cleanup projects around the
city.
We also have global positioning equipment that we use to
sanction individuals, so that we can place curfews on
individuals--curfews in the evenings or curfews on the
weekend--so we can, essentially, place someone on house arrest
for an evening or a weekend as a sanction.
Senator Brownback. How many of the people do you have on
that GPS-type system now, that you're supervising?
Mr. Quander. Beginning of this month, we have 60
individuals that are currently on the GPS system.
Senator Brownback. And then you just have somebody that
monitors--or the system just records, ``Here's where they're
moving to and through and''----
Mr. Quander. Each individual on the system is monitored by
a CSO, his community supervision officer, or probation and
parole officer. That parole officer, or CSO, gets a report
every morning that will show where this person has moved, if
there were any violations noted. We'll use it in our domestic
violence cases to enforce stay-away orders, and there will be
an alert that is issued, not only to the CSO, but to the
offender, as well, that he's entering a stay-away or an
exclusion zone. That way, there is no confusion as to where a
person is supposed to be. It also makes it significantly easier
when you have to report an individual for a violation, and it
cuts down on disputes as to whether or not a person was there
or not. There really is no dispute whatsoever.
Senator Brownback. Yeah. What--if you've got a domestic
violence situation, do you have some people being supervised
with the GPS in that?
Mr. Quander. Yes.
Senator Brownback. Do you warn the person that has been the
subject of the violence if that individual comes near, in your
GPS system?
Mr. Quander. Yes. We have regular contact----
Senator Brownback. In realtime?
Mr. Quander. Not in realtime. It's--we get the reports the
next morning. However, the CSO has the ability to log on to the
computer, his computer at his or her workstation, and will
receive the information realtime if they log on to it. So----
Senator Brownback. The reason I asked that is, I remember,
with my own law practice, in having some of these cases come
up, where they're just--the fear that the person that's the
recipient of the violence lives under that this person's going
to be around, and if there would be a way to warn them in
realtime, I would just think there would be a reduction of that
fear in----
Mr. Quander. What we do is, we maintain contact with the
victims. And the CSOs have a standard relationship with them.
So we're sharing information. So we let them know what the
parameters are, that an individual offender is on GPS, ``If you
see the individual, call.''
We also have notification that can be given to the
individual CSO to receive a page or a notice alert to a cell
phone. So if we set it up that way, the CSO will receive the
notice that there is a violation, the CSO then can call the
victim and let the victim know that the offender is in a
prohibited area.
Senator Brownback. Do they do that?
Mr. Quander. It's being done.
Senator Brownback. Okay. Good.
And, Ms. Buchanan, thank you for your work in that field. I
did some public defender work myself, years ago, in Manhattan--
Manhattan, Kansas--and it was rewarding work, and it's
important work. I appreciated the report and the satisfaction
that you've had within that system.
Ms. Buchanan. Thank you.
Senator Brownback. So I appreciate very much what you're
doing.
Ms. Buchanan. Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Thank you all very much for the
information that you're presenting. And the budgetary
information, we'll review. And I appreciate, particularly, as
well, the pictures of the courthouse where a lot of the funding
increase is going toward in the capital structure. Those are
beautiful facilities. I was down there yesterday, and just
glanced at the facilities, but they were impressive looking
structures. But as any, I mean, they have some show of wear and
tear in different places, and it's--be good to get those
upgraded.
Anything further you'd care to add?
Judge Wagner. If I did not ask to have my written statement
made a part of the record, I would do so now.
Senator Brownback. It will be, and all of your written
statements will be placed in the record.
So, thank you all very much for joining us. We'll be taking
the budget on up and working together on it as a subcommittee.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The record will remain open the requisite number of days.
And I will be submitting one question to you, if I could, Mr.
Quander. If you could take some time to look at that
recidivism-rate issue, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Quander. Yes, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Paul A. Quander, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
Question. CSOSA's fiscal year 2002 Appropriation included
$13,015,000 in no-year funds to renovate Karrick Hall or some other
facility for use as CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions Center. What is the
status of the renovations?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002 Congress appropriated $13,015,000 in
no-year funds for the renovation of the entire eight-floor Karrick
Hall. The renovations would expand the existing Assessment and
Orientation Center into a Reentry and Sanctions Center. The expanded
facility will provide a 30-day assessment and treatment readiness
program for defendants and offenders with long-term substance abuse
problems. The program will also be used as a residential sanction for
offenders under CSOSA supervision.
In September 2002, CSOSA signed a long-term lease (10 years) with
the District of Columbia for the use of Karrick Hall as CSOSA's Reentry
and Sanctions Center. Renovations at Karrick Hall are scheduled to be
completed and the facility ready for full operations in early fiscal
year 2006.
The completed Reentry and Sanctions Center will consist of six
program units: four for males, one for females, and one for offenders/
defendants with mental health diagnoses. The population will be drawn
from the following sub-groups:
--Offenders from BOP facilities released to CSOSA community
supervision;
--Misdemeanants or pretrial detainees under the supervision of the
District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC);
--Split-sentence probationers released by DCDC to CSOSA supervision;
and
--Offenders under CSOSA supervision with pending violations.
During renovations at Karrick Hall, operation of the existing
Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC) program has been temporarily
relocated to 1301 Clifton Street, which has capacity for 27 beds. Once
completed, Karrick Hall will have six units, approximately 100 beds and
capacity to treat 1,200 offenders and defendants annually. Offenders/
defendants remain in the unit for approximately 30 days and undergo a
structured pre-treatment program operating 7 days per week. During the
program, participants cannot leave the facility or receive visitors.
After completing the 30-day program, the majority of offenders/
defendants are referred to residential or intensive outpatient drug
treatment as the next phase in their transition.
Question. Describe the Reentry and Sanctions Center program and its
potential public safety benefits.
Answer. In describing the potential value of the RSC, it is useful
to place the facility in the context of both the national debate
surrounding offender reentry and the discussion of best practices in
substance abuse treatment. The two are inextricably connected. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that approximately 600,000
individuals are released from State and Federal prisons each year. The
majority (50 to 70 percent) report a history of substance abuse,\1\ but
only one in ten State prisoners and one in nine Federal prisoners
reports receiving treatment during incarceration.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cited in Taxman, Faye, ``Effective Practices for Protecting
Public Safety through Substance Abuse Treatment.'' Washington, D.C.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2004.
\2\ Bureau of Justice Statistics, ``Substance Abuse and Treatment,
State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.'' Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The connection between substance abuse and crime has been well
established. Long-term success in reducing recidivism among drug-
abusing offenders, who constitute the majority of individuals under
CSOSA's supervision, depends upon two key factors:
--Identifying and treating drug use and other social problems among
the defendant and offender population; and
--Establishing swift and certain consequences for violations of
release conditions.
National research supports the conclusion that treatment
significantly reduces drug use. A study conducted by the Department of
Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services'
Administration (SAMHSA) found a 21 percent overall reduction in the use
of drugs following treatment; a 14 percent decrease in alcohol use; 28
percent in marijuana use; 45 percent in cocaine use; 17 percent in
crack use; and a 14 percent reduction in heroin use.\3\ CSOSA's
preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of its treatment programming
echoes these findings. A study of CSOSA offenders referred to treatment
in fiscal year 2001 revealed a 20 percent reduction in substance use.
In the year prior to treatment, offenders were testing positive at a
rate of 37 percent. The rate of positive tests among this population
dropped to 17 percent in the year following treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Office of Applied Studies. Services Research Outcome Study
(SROS). DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 98-3177. Rockville, MD: Department
of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While reduction in drug use is encouraging, the benefits of drug
treatment are proven to extend well beyond this basic measure. There is
substantial research that demonstrates the impact of substance abuse
treatment on criminal behavior. One national study showed a 45 percent
reduction in predatory crime in the 2 years following treatment.\4\
Another study compared criminal activity during the 12 months prior to
treatment with the activity 12 months following treatment and found a
78 percent decrease in drug sales, 82 percent decrease in shoplifting,
and 78 percent decrease in physical altercations. The same study showed
a 51 percent decrease in arrests for drug possession and a 64 percent
decrease in arrests overall.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hubbard, R.L.; Marsden, M.E.; Rachal, J.V.; Harwood, H.J.;
Cavanuagh, E.R.; and Ginzburg, H.M. Drug Abuse Treatment--A National
Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press, 1989.
\5\ Gerstein, D.R.; Datta, A.R.; Ingels, J.S.; Johnson, R.A.;
Rasinski, K.A.; Schildhaus, S.; Talley, K.; Jordan, K.; Phillips, D.B.;
Anderson, D.W.; Condelli, W.G. ; and Collins, J.S. The National
Treatment Evaluation Study. Final Report. Rockville, MD: Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of treatment is to return the individual to productive
functioning in the family, workplace, and community. Not only can
treatment reduce drug use and criminal behavior, it can also improve
the prospects for employment, with gains of up to 40 percent after a
single treatment episode. Treatment therefore increases the offender's
chances for successful reentry in all areas of his or her life.
In order for the potential positive effects of treatment to be
realized, the individual must be receptive and committed to it. The
American Society of Addiction Medicine's Patient Placement Criteria for
the Treatment of Substance Abuse Disorders classify ``Readiness to
Change'' as a critical dimension of assessment. The ASAM standards
state (page 6):
``. . . [A]n individual's emotional and cognitive awareness of the
need to change and his or her level of commitment to and readiness for
change indicate his or her degree of cooperation with treatment, as
well as his or her awareness of the relationship of alcohol or other
drug use to negative consequences . . . [I]t is the degree of
readiness to change that helps to determine the setting for and
intensity of motivating strategies needed, rather than the patient's
eligibility for treatment itself.\6\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American Society of Addiction Medicine, Inc. ASAM Patient
Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders
(Second Edition-Revised). Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of
Addiction Medicine, Inc., 2001.
The value of pre-treatment assessment and treatment readiness
programming for individuals under criminal justice supervision has also
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
been noted. As Dr. Faye Taxman writes:
``Pretreatment activities are critical to improving the client's
commitment to behavior change, motivation, and adjustment to the
treatment process. Readiness usually deviates from traditional
psychosocial education groups by working on motivational issues instead
of educational issues. In many cases, this requires the development of
verbal skills; the identification of feelings and emotions are part of
the process of committing to change.\7\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Taxman, Faye, Ph.D. ``Unraveling 'What Works' for Offender in
Substance Abuse Treatment,'' National Drug Court Institute Review, Vol.
II, No. 2, 1999.
The issue of ``desire to change'' becomes particularly critical for
individuals with long-term histories of substance abuse and
inconsistent or ineffective past treatment experiences. These
individuals may be highly skeptical of the value of treatment and
reluctant to participate actively. They will also usually present other
physical or emotional issues that must be treated concurrently with the
substance abusing behavior.
The Reentry and Sanctions Center (RSC) at Karrick Hall will provide
30 days of intensive assessment and reintegration programming for high-
risk offenders/defendants, as well as residential sanctions for
offenders/defendants who violate the conditions of their release. Based
on CSOSA's successful Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC), the RSC
program is specifically tailored for offenders/defendants with long
histories of crime and substance abuse who cannot be released directly
to the community or to inpatient treatment. These individuals are
particularly vulnerable to both criminal and drug relapse at the point
of release. Since only about 50 percent of releases to supervision
transition through halfway houses, this placement option is even more
valuable.
The RSC program will also allow CSOSA to impose prompt, meaningful,
graduated sanctions for violations of release conditions, improving the
likelihood of a successful supervision outcome. If sanctions can be
imposed as soon as violating behaviors are detected--and if those
sanctions predictably increase in force and duration as the behavior
escalates--then supervision will be more meaningful.
From its inception, CSOSA has worked with the D.C. Superior Court
and the U.S. Parole Commission to define a range of sanctions that the
Community Supervision Officer can impose without the delay of seeking
judicial or paroling authority approval. CSOSA's authorizing
legislation, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997, empowers the Director of CSOSA to ``develop
and operate intermediate sanctions programs for sentenced offenders''
[Public Law 105-33, Title XI, 11233 (b)(2)(f)]. The idea that CSOSA
would operate a system of graduated sanctions, including residential
sanctions, also informed the recommendations of the District of
Columbia Advisory Commission on Sentencing. In its report to the D.C.
Council, the Commission stated:
``CSOSA is developing a series of graduated sanctions, so that
penalties short of imprisonment can be imposed. Offenders should have
ample opportunity to comply with conditions of supervised release
before the U.S. Parole Commission imposes a term of imprisonment, which
the Commission considers the punishment of last resort.\8\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Report of the District of Columbia Advisory Commission on
Sentencing,'' April 5, 2000, p. 35.
By increasing Community Supervision Officers' ability to reinforce
accountability, the Agency will decrease the number of cases in which
the individual must be reincarcerated to interrupt his or her violating
behaviors. The RSC will greatly increase both the range of sanction
options available to CSOSA and the programmatic value of brief
residential placements.
The Reentry Policy Council (RPC)'s recent report, summarizing the
``state of the art'' in reentry programming, recommends that
``community supervision officers have a range of options available to
them . . . to address, swiftly and certainly, failures to comply with
conditions of release'' and that offenders who have violated release
conditions should be assessed to determine the most appropriate
response.\9\ Although the use of graduated sanctions is currently under
review in California and elsewhere, the practice has gained
considerable credibility in recent years. The RPC report also notes
that ``[r]esponses that are treatment-oriented . . . have . . . shown
greater promise than the alternative of re-incarceration.'' \10\ The
RSC program will provide the option of immediate placement, assessment,
and stabilization of non-compliant offenders, typically for repeated
substance abuse violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Report of the Reentry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and
Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community. Washington, D.C.:
Reentry Policy Council, 2005. Policy Statement 29.
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies by the Institute for Behavior and Health \11\ found that
offenders who participated in the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA drug
treatment program were less likely to commit crimes. The indicator used
was arrest rate, which is defined as the number of arrests for non-
technical violations per participant in the year before treatment vs.
the number of arrests for non-technical violations per subject in the
year following treatment. The 2000 Cohort study reported that the
overall arrest rate for program participants within the Washington/
Baltimore HIDTA in calendar year 2000 dropped 51.3 percent, from 0.8 to
0.39. Participants in the Assessment and Orientation Center program
experienced a 74.5 percent decrease in arrest rates, from 0.94 to 0.24.
Such public safety benefits are expected to be replicated in the
Reentry and Sanctions Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``The Effect of W/B HIDTA-Funded Substance Abuse Treatment on
Arrest Rates of Criminals Entering Treatment in Calendar Year 2001.''
College Park, Md.: Institute for Behavior and Health, June 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the funding history for operation of the Reentry
and Sanctions Center?
Answer. CSOSA's fiscal year 2004 Appropriation included funding for
18 positions and limited operations of Karrick Hall. CSOSA's fiscal
year 2005 Appropriation includes $250,000 in operations funding for
Karrick Hall. CSOSA's fiscal year 2006 request includes $14,630,000 and
77 new positions for full-year operation of all six units of the Re-
Entry and Sanctions Center at Karrick Hall.
Question. What is the annual operating cost of the Reentry and
Sanctions Center?
Answer. The annual operating cost, beginning in fiscal year 2006,
will be approximately $18 million.
Question. This committee included funds in CSOSA's fiscal year 2004
appropriation for 27 new positions to provide for increased supervision
of high-risk sex offenders, mental health cases, and domestic violence
cases, as well as to expand the use of global positioning system [GPS]-
based electronic monitoring. GPS electronic monitoring employs state of
the art technology to offender supervision and hold great promise for
solving crimes and detecting offender movements or patterns that would
enable CSOSA to take action before he or she commits more crime. This
technology would appear to be a valuable tool for supervising all high
risk-risk offenders, and in particular, sex offenders and domestic
violence offenders in which offenders are supposed to avoid certain
locations, such as schools or specific residences.
What is the status of implementing the special supervision
initiative?
Answer. Two new Special Supervision Teams (Sex Offender and Mental
Health) started on March 22, 2004 and are currently supervising
offenders. Additional Special Supervision CSOs, authorized from the
fiscal year 2004 Special Supervision initiative, started on January 24,
2005 and are being allocated to Special Supervision Teams.
The table below shows the status of CSP Special Supervision as of
January 31, 2004 (prior to the new fiscal year 2004 Special Supervision
resources) and as of February 28, 2005. Because of additional Special
Supervision resources, the overall caseload ratio decreased from 31:1
to 30:1, despite a 15 percent increase in Special Supervision
offenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2004 February 28, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Special Supervision Caseload Caseload
Offenders CSOs Ratio Offenders CSOs Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex Offender.................................. 509 17 27:1 567 24 24:1
Mental Health................................. 666 24 27:1 843 30 28:1
Domestic Violence............................. 1,122 31 31:1 1,014 32 32:1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ 2,297 72 32:1 2,424 86 28:1
=================================================================
TAP........................................... 296 9 33:1 638 10 63:1
STAR/SAINT HIDTA.............................. 321 12 27:1 276 14 19:1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................... 2,914 93 31:1 3,338 110 30:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the status of implementing the GPS system? What
criteria do CSOSA use to determine which offenders are placed under
electronic or GPS monitoring? Using these criteria, how many offenders
would be placed on GPS at any given time? How many offenders are
currently under GPS monitoring?
Answer. Since inception of the GPS Electronic Monitoring pilot in
fiscal year 2004, 221 different offenders have been placed on the
system and as of February 28, 2005, 45 offenders were on GPS Electronic
Monitoring.
Question. Is the GPS technology being used for defendants?
Answer. No. However, if resources become available, the Pretrial
Services Agency would pilot this type of monitoring for high-risk
defendants with court orders to stay away from particular persons or
places.
Question. Supply the Committee with a description of CSOSA's faith-
based initiative, including the number of offenders who have
participated in the initiative and any accomplishments to date. Are
faith-based institutions also providing services to meet offenders'
needs?
Answer. CSOSA's faith-based initiative is a collaboration between
the Agency and the District of Columbia's faith institutions. The
initiative focuses on developing mechanisms through which offenders on
supervision can establish permanent connections with the community's
positive, pro-social institutions. Crime is inextricably linked to the
individual's alienation from mainstream values. By overcoming that
alienation, the faith community can help the offender replace negative
associations and attitudes with positive contact and messages.
Furthermore, the faith institution can address issues of personal
accountability and change that are beyond the scope of community
supervision. The church or temple cannot (and should not) replace law
enforcement, but it can provide a permanent source of positive contact
and moral guidance. The Community Supervision Officer represents
external accountability by enforcing release conditions; the faith
institution represents internal accountability by stressing spiritual
growth. In addition, CSOSA recognized from the initiative's inception
that the District's faith institutions provide many practical support
services, such as tutoring, job training, food and clothing banks,
personal and family counseling, and substance abuse aftercare. CSOSA
wanted to ``tap into'' this important source of community-based
programming in order to expand the range of support services available
to offenders.
The faith initiative's governing body is the CSOSA/Faith Community
Partnership Advisory Council. Established in 2001, the Advisory Council
membership represents a range of denominations; efforts are currently
underway to broaden both the membership of the Council and its
representational diversity.
Late in 2001, CSOSA and the Advisory Council chose mentoring as the
initial focus of the initiative to connect faith institution volunteers
with offenders returning to the community from prison. A successful
outreach event was held in January 2002, in which faith institutions
across the city addressed the issue of reentry and issued a call for
volunteers. Over 400 people attended our initial mentor information
meeting in February 2002. Since then, the ``Reentry Worship'' event has
become an annual citywide occurrence.
CSOSA and the Advisory Council then established a structure through
which the mentor program could be coordinated and faith institutions
could provide services to offenders. The city was divided into three
clusters, and CSOSA issued a Request for Proposals to establish a
contractual relationship with a lead institution in each cluster. The
lead institutions are:
--Cluster A (Wards 7 and 8)--East of the River Clergy/Police/
Community Partnership;
--Cluster B (Wards 5 and 6)--Pilgrim Baptist Church; and
--Cluster C (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4)--New Commandment Baptist Church.
Each institution employs a Cluster Coordinator, who coordinates
mentor and other service referrals and performs outreach to increase
the involvement of faith institutions in the cluster.
CSOSA also developed and implemented training programs for both
mentors and the program coordinators at each faith institution. The
training familiarizes prospective mentors with the structure and
requirements of community supervision, the offender profile, and the
program's administrative and reporting requirements, as well as
providing role-playing exercise in which mentors encounter the
challenges of mentoring. To date, approximately 200 mentors and
coordinators from more than 40 institutions have been trained.
The initial cohort of 24 returning offenders was ``matched'' with
mentors in August 2002. Since then, the number of offenders in the
program has grown to over 100. In 2003, CSOSA expanded the program to
include inmates at the Bureau of Prisons' Rivers Correctional
Institution in North Carolina. Rivers houses over 1,000 District of
Columbia inmates. Thirty-three Rivers inmates were placed with mentors,
who attended biweekly mentoring sessions conducted through video
conference technology. All but four of the inmates have been released
as of February 23, 2004.
As of March 2005, 52 faith organizations were active in the Faith-
Based Reentry Initiative with diverse denominations, including
Apostolic, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Moorish, Episcopal, Methodist,
Protestant, and Scientology. More than 275 persons from faith
organizations have volunteered to mentor offenders as they transition
from incarceration to the community. While mentoring had been the
initial focus of services, the Initiative has now evolved to providing
more than 60 other types of services including addiction counseling,
jobs and housing assistance, anger management and life skills, health
and education and literacy. In total, the Initiative now offers 92
programs throughout the city. (see table below for a listing of the
types of services offered by the Initiative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Services Total A B C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addiction:
Alcohol Abuse Counseling............ 1 ...... ...... 1
Substance Abuse Counseling.......... 9 3 3 3
Psychological and Social:
Life Skills Training................ 4 2 1 1
Social and Leisure Activities....... 3 2 ...... 1
Health:
AIDS Counseling..................... 1 ...... ...... 1
Medical Services.................... 1 ...... ...... 1
Education and Literacy:
GED Training........................ 5 2 2 1
Literacy Training................... 5 2 2 1
Vocational Development:
Job Skills Training................. 4 1 2 1
Job Placement....................... 3 ...... 1 2
Computer Training................... 5 4 1 ......
Community Support:
Food Distribution................... 5 1 2 2
Clothing Distribution............... 4 1 2 1
Housing Assistance.................. 4 1 ...... 3
Parenting Support................... 1 ...... ...... 1
Family Counseling................... 4 2 1 1
Day Care............................ 4 1 1 2
Mentoring........................... 29 11 6 12
-------------------------------
Total No. of Programs............. 92 33 24 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through grant funding from the U.S. Department of Justice,
Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS), one of CSOSA lead faith
institutions, New Commandment Baptist Church, is now able to facilitate
and expand its ability to intercede, with CSOSA and other faith
institutions, to improve the likelihood that participating parolees
will have lower rates of recidivism. CSOSA's network of
interdenominational faith-based participants will contribute to the
success of this effort. Collaborating with the District of Columbia
Jobs Partnership, New Commandment Baptist and other faith institutions
are able to enroll returning offenders in job readiness training
programs, educational and vocational training, interviewing skills and
job placement.
Another participating faith institution, East of the River Clergy/
Police/Community Partnership, has recently received a grant award from
the U.S. Department of Labor to facilitate and place returning
offenders into jobs which offer career opportunities. It is projected
that the availability of this resource will substantially build the
capacity of the District of Columbia to better serve the returning
offenders and their families.
From the enthusiasm of a core group of concerned citizens, the
CSOSA faith initiative has grown to a citywide effort involving
hundreds of individuals in a wide range of activities to support
returning offenders. We look forward to the initiative's continued
growth as a sustainable long-term resource that offenders can access
both during and after their term of supervision.
PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY
Question. How many defendants did the Pretrial Services Agency
supervise over the course of fiscal year 2004? What was the rate of
rearrest for pretrial defendants while under the supervision of the
agency? What is the rearrest rate for drug users in contrast to non-
drug users?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004, the Pretrial Services Agency
supervised a total of 22,101 defendants (a 6 percent increase over
fiscal year 2003). The overall rearrest rate for defendants under PSA
supervision was 14 percent. The rearrest rate for violent crimes was 3
percent, while the rearrest rate for drug related crimes was 5 percent.
As would be expected from the research documenting the links
between drug use and crime, drug-using defendants (defined as those
with at least one positive drug test) have higher rearrest rates than
non-drug using defendants. In fiscal year 2004, 23 percent of drug-
using defendants were rearrested as compared to only 6 percent of non-
drug using defendants. Drug using defendants had a rearrest rate of 5
percent for violent crimes while non-drug using defendants had a
rearrest rate of only 1 percent for violent crimes.
Question. What improvements has PSA made to its supervision of
high-risk defendants?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004, PSA made as an operating priority
improving supervision of defendants designated as high-risk to fail to
appear or commit new crimes while on release. This improvement aimed to
achieve the following objectives:
--Eliminate unnecessary restrictions to high-risk supervision
placement;
--Create a more suitable supervision protocol for high-risk
defendants identified by the Agency's new risk assessment
scheme;
--Provide more suitable community supervision for formerly halfway
house-bound defendants, following the D.C. Department of
Corrections' reduction of halfway house beds; and
--Incorporate electronic monitoring into all facets of high-risk
supervision.
To meet these objectives, in fiscal year 2005, PSA consolidated its
three high-risk supervision units--Heightened Supervision, Intensive
Supervision, and Restrictive Community Supervision--into a single High
Intensity Supervision Program (HISP). Establishing a single high-risk
supervision unit has allowed PSA to achieve each of the above
objectives. PSA has reduced the eligibility restrictions for high-risk
supervision to defendants with outstanding warrants or detainers or who
have been in poor compliance with high-risk supervision within the past
60 days. With the introduction of the Agency's new risk assessment
scheme in June, HISP supervision will be tied to defendants assessing
at a high level of pretrial misconduct risk. These include defendants
who are non-compliant with current community-based supervision, who
have failures to appear for court dates, and who have serious criminal
histories. The scheme also diverts defendants formerly eligible for
halfway house placements to the HISP, provided they have a verified
curfew address. Finally, high-risk defendants in this program either
receive curfew conditions enforced with electronic monitoring or
Department of Corrections oversight in a halfway house. Twenty-four
hour home confinement is administratively imposed for those HISP
defendants in violation of curfew requirements.
While it is too early to gauge the success of the consolidation,
initial data is promising. Since the first quarter of fiscal year 2005,
PSA's high-risk units have averaged nearly 480 defendants. HISP's
manager-to-defendant ratio has averaged 1:20. The high-risk's unit's
responses to defendant infractions also have improved during this time.
For example, staff responded to 94 percent of electronic monitoring
infractions in first quarter fiscal year 2005 compared to 81 percent in
fiscal year 2004, 72 percent of contact infractions (58 percent in
fiscal year 2004) and 79 percent of drug testing infractions (78
percent in fiscal year 2004).
Question. What administrative changes has PSA made to better manage
its in-house and contracted substance abuse treatment resources?
Answer. PSA's Strategic Plan commits the Agency to integrate
substance abuse treatment into pretrial supervision. To meet this
requirement, PSA's operating budgets since fiscal year 2001 have
included funding for treatment placement with community-based substance
abuse treatment programs. The Agency also created a walk-in unit to
assess treatment needs of supervised defendants, maintained its
Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP) and created the New
Directions Program. SCDIP and New Directions are in-house treatment
units that provide outpatient treatment services. New Directions also
handles outpatient services for defendants completing short-term
residential placements.
PSA data indicate that the supervised defendant population's
treatment needs have stabilized over the past 2 fiscal years: Since
fiscal year 2003, nearly 85 percent of the Agency's contracted
treatment budget has gone to residential treatment placements. To
accommodate this need, PSA has enhanced its in-house treatment capacity
to over 500 slots, thus allowing more contracted treatment funds to be
available for residential placements. SCDIP and New Directions
supervised over 40 percent more defendants in fiscal year 2004 than in
fiscal year 2003. Both programs together now supervise over 550
defendants. More internal outpatient placements have allowed PSA to
increase referrals to community-based treatment vendors. The Agency
made 58 percent more contracted treatment referrals in fiscal year 2004
than fiscal year 2003. In total, PSA placed 1,622 defendants in
treatment during fiscal year 2004.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Brownback. The hearing's recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 20, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Brownback, Allard, and Landrieu.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK
Senator Brownback. I call the hearing to order. I thank you
all for joining us this morning. We are scheduled for an early
vote this morning, but what we will do is get the hearing
started, get as far along as we can, and then we will have to
take a recess for the vote and then we will come back.
I want to welcome the Mayor and the members of the City
Council, the Superintendent, the Chief Financial Officer for
the District of Columbia, looking forward to the discussion
that we will have here this morning.
Today we will hear testimony regarding the District of
Columbia's fiscal year 2006 local budget request. D.C. Mayor
Anthony Williams, Council Chairman Linda Cropp, Chief Financial
Officer Natwar Gandhi will present the city's budget and we
will discuss the District's request for Federal resources.
In addition, D.C. School Superintendent Clifford Janey will
discuss the D.C. Public Schools' local budget request and his
plans for using the $13 million in Federal funds that have been
requested of this subcommittee.
I would like to note that in the last Congress the Senate
passed a bill by unanimous consent which would have given the
District autonomy over its local budget, eliminating the need
for the D.C. local budget to be passed on the annual
appropriations bill. By decoupling the local budget from the
Federal appropriations process, we would avoid delaying the
city's local funds whenever the D.C. appropriations bill is not
passed before the end of the fiscal year.
Since the House did not pass a companion measure during the
last Congress, Senator Collins, chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, has reintroduced a
D.C. budget autonomy bill which her committee will soon be
considering.
As we review the local budget, I would like to congratulate
city leaders for making dramatic improvements in the District's
financial conditions. At a time when many local jurisdiction
bonds have been downgraded, the District is enjoying an A
rating from all three credit rating agencies. The city is also
maintaining a cash reserve balance of about $250 million, which
is among the largest in the country. The city is enjoying an
impressive commercial real estate boom and has been creating
jobs at a rate that is twice the national average.
Congratulations on all of these financial scores. Those are
excellent.
There are areas of concern that temper some of these
positive facts and I hope to be able to discuss some of those
with you today. Only one-third of the jobs that the District is
creating are going to city residents. In fact, even as the
District has been creating new jobs unemployment in the
District has been increasing.
The adult illiteracy rate is something that we have
discussed at a hearing previously we had on education, I have
discussed privately with the Mayor and with the chairperson.
The adult illiteracy rate in the District is 37 percent. The
District--this is surely one of the prime reasons for the
persistent unemployment problem.
For years we have been failing generations of school
students in the District and now we are reaping some of these
sad consequences. As I stated in the hearing last month on the
D.C. Public Schools, money I do not believe is the direct
problem. Funding for the District school system has increased
83 percent since fiscal year 1999 even as enrollment has
dropped 5 percent in the same time period. Despite these large
increases, only 32 percent of fourth graders are reading at a
basic level compared to 62 percent nationwide, and only 36
percent of these students are performing at the basic level in
math, compared to 77 percent nationwide.
I know that District officials and others have stated there
are reasons for this as this is an urban area and in other
States you are comparing urban and broader regions. Still,
these numbers are just not acceptable. They are not acceptable
for the children, and if we fail the children we will fail
future generations, we will fail the District overall.
I want to hear from city leaders about how they plan to
rein in school spending and give the superintendent the tools
and support to aggressively improve the schools and at the same
time what we can do to get these grades and scores up. We
simply must do better.
Something I met directly with the Mayor about also is the
need to work to support families in the District. This is a key
to the future and to education. We have to have a strong family
structure so that children at home are being read to and their
math is being practiced. We have got five children in our
family and it is a constant that you are doing all the time.
But if you do not have somebody doing that, you cannot expect
them to go to school and be in a prepared situation.
We need to strengthen those families to be able to have the
children raised in a better environment and be better prepared
to go to school.
Regarding the Federal portion of the D.C. budget, I know
that the District has a number of programs and capital projects
that may merit funding through this subcommittee. Today I would
like to hear more about these project requests from our panel.
Although our resources are always limited, as chairman of the
subcommittee I look forward to partnering with the city leaders
to find ways to make life better for those who live, work, and
visit this great capital city.
As usual, witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their
oral remarks. Copies of all written statements will be placed
in the record in their entirety and the hearing record will
remain open for the requisite number of days to make that
presentation.
I would like to turn over to my colleague Senator Landrieu
for opening comments. Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look
forward to working with you and the other members of the
subcommittee on this important topic and I want to join with
you. I am going to submit my full statement, Mr. Chairman, to
the record, but because of the time and because I am very
interested and anxious to hear from our panelists today I just
want to commend the city for the really extraordinary
turnaround, Mr. Mayor, that has taken place on the financial
side: the historic surplus, the opportunity that the city has
to take some of that surplus and really make some strategic
investments for the development of the city. The chair of the
Council, thank you, Ms. Cropp, for the work that the Council
has done in that regard. Dr. Gandhi, you have given
extraordinary leadership.
So because the financial situation of the city has improved
quite dramatically with the help of this subcommittee and with
Congress, but in large measure due to some of the management
decisions that have been made at the city level, we are hoping
now that some really good strategic investments can be made as
this city looks forward. One of those investments of course
could be the school system, which, as the chairman has pointed
out, while progress has been made, while we are pleased, Dr.
Janey, that you are here and you are providing some excellent
ideas for that improvement, that this is a real opportunity for
the city and the Council to step up and even partner in a
stronger way with the school system.
Great cities cannot be built without great school systems,
and this school system, just like many school systems in
America, are struggling. Not uniquely, not singularly, but many
cities have this same struggle. The difference is that I see,
which is a positive difference, is that this city has a
surplus. This city has a reserve fund. This city has made
significant progress. There are cities, even if they wanted to
help their school system, could not do it because their budget
situation is so dire.
Now, I understand that there are other needs. Housing is a
need, streets and transportation, crime and investments in
keeping crime rates down and supporting the police department.
I am not unaware of that. We struggle to help our cities in our
own States with that.
But truly there is an opportunity here, and I look forward,
Mr. Chairman, to continuing to work to identify excellence in
our public school system here, to identify failure and
eliminate it, identify success and reward it, provide more
choice and opportunity for parents, and focus on real results,
not process.
The final thing I will say about it is solving this problem
with the schools is not just about money. It is about
management. When you have on the front page of the newspaper
today--and I know this is about the city budget, but the city
should be about schools and I know this Mayor is. When you have
the front page of the newspaper today stating that schools had
to be let out because it is 100 degrees in classrooms, we have
to ask ourselves, what more could we do. That is what I hope we
can get to later today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Welcome Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, CFO Dr. Gandhi, and
Superintendent Janey. We are so pleased that you could be here this
morning to inform us about your fiscal year 2006 DC Local budget. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today. I know it will be
helpful to us as we prepare to mark up the fiscal year 2006 D.C.
Appropriations bill. As you know, the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee
is unique in that it has the responsibility to approve, without change
the local funds budget as proposed by the Mayor and passed by the
Council. This year's local budget totals $7.35 billion, of which $4.95
billion is derived from locally-generated taxes and has been fully
debated in the Council of the District of Columbia. I hope that we can
continue our focus on the Federal funding provided through this bill to
the District government. In the past we have used these funds to both
enhance particular local programs or projects and fulfill our sole
responsibility to provide oversight to the District's criminal justice
functions, the Courts and Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency.
Over the last four years, this Committee has tried to be a partner,
not a dictator. As such, we have tried to refrain from altering the
local funds budget as passed by the locally-elected leadership of the
District--you are best equipped to determine the priorities of city
agencies. This is not to say that we cannot be active partners in
reform, or provide funding for discreet projects to catalyze
improvement, or help to make recommendations in policy in line with
Federal law. We have tried to play this role in the areas of education,
nudging the leadership to funding excellence, replicate success and
eliminate failure.
Great cities, Mr. Chairman, need great schools. I am a city person,
having grown up in New Orleans, a city much like D.C. In education is
particular, both cities are faced with the ongoing challenge of
providing a quality education to all children. The purpose of the
public education system in America mirrors much of the mission of the
United States as it was formed--to provide an open opportunity for
citizens to create, build, and contribute to our great nation. Our
primary mission in providing access to a quality was to encourage the
development of a creative workforce which would, and has, driven the
innovation America is known for.
But the public education system that served us for so long is
becoming increasingly outdated and faces many challenges. To survive, I
must change and adjust. To remain competitive in competitive times, it
must be more consumer focused and less bureaucratic, more dynamic. D.C.
itself has suffered a decline in enrollment of 2,000 students every
year for the last 10 years. People have grown tired of a slow moving
bureaucracy who cannot meet the needs of its students or the workforce
demands of our society and they have gone elsewhere I believe that can
change and I am encouraged by Dr. Janey's commitment to develop
targeted areas of improvement.
One such area we have worked closely on is the $40 million annual
investment in school improvement. In 2004, the Congress initiated a
five year demonstration program to invest $13 million annually in three
sectors of education: scholarships to private school, expansion of
public charter schools, and strengthening of public schools. I have
worked hard not only to invest in leading edge innovation in public
charter schools, but also to challenge the oversight of charter schools
to be more strenuous. From Dr. Janey's first weeks we have worked to
target the funding to public schools to increasing student achievement
and teacher readiness. I look forward to hearing about implementation
of these funds and plans for fiscal year 2006.
Education is just once piece of the unprecedented increase in
Federal dollars that have gone to the city ($157 million in fiscal year
2003-2005). The last several years have marked an increase in
Congressional confidence in local leadership, resulting in increased
autonomy for D.C., and increased investment in strategic projects. A
more broad challenge was confirmed by the General Accounting Office
(GAO) in a landmark study of the District's ``Structural Imbalance'',
finding 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 D.C. Congresswoman Norton and myself, found
the underlying reason for the structural imbalance in the city's budget
is the high cost of providing services in D.C. The study also
identified management inefficiencies, particularly in schools and
Medicaid billing that with attention could realize savings.
Finally, the GAO estimated that the imbalance has caused the
District to defer maintenance or invest in critical infrastructure to
the tune of $2.5 billion over the years. In the past the Committee has
included a marker on the Federal share of building and maintaining
infrastructure in the city, particularly in the area of transportation
and the Anacostia River. I hope to build on this investment this year
by partnering with the city on major infrastructure investments.
At the same time as working on the structural imbalance, we must
focus on other tools for bringing greater prosperity and long term
stability to the District. Cities that have good public schools, safe
communities and strong families are cities that have strong economies.
If we focus on providing these elements in the District, we will go a
long way toward the economic independence the city needs and deserves.
One such tool Mayor Williams and I have developed--City Build Program
for Charter Schools--is a grant program for public charter schools to
locate in neighborhoods which have the near-term potential of
attracting or retaining residents to meet the goal of increasing the
population by 100,000 residents. This can be done by keeping the people
you have with services targeted to their needs that would otherwise
have moved to the suburbs for the child's public education,
transportation issues, or to find affordable housing.
In addition to the investment in these building blocks of
neighborhoods, the Committee has focused on ways to support the
development of infrastructure which the GAO identified as the primary
victim of an imbalance in the city's finances. While the President's
budget request has increased the level of projects recommended for
Federal funding each year, this year the President made a grave
oversight in not funding the Combined Sewer Overflow program. This 30-
year, billion dollar renovation of the underground sewer system, built
by the Congress in the 1800's, is a key to revitalization of the
Anacostia and Potomac waterfronts.
If the city is to have a beautiful baseball stadium at the
confluence of these two rivers, and a river walk all the way from
Maryland, and wonderful housing and shops at the South East Federal
Center, and a grand boulevard on M Street at the Navy Yard, and the
revitalization of Reservation 13 extending Massachusetts Avenue down to
the water, and recreation for youth and families at Kenilworth Park and
Poplar Point, and creating a sanctuary on Kingman Island, and all of
the other important improvements for the life of the city, its
residents and visitors--how are we to do this alongside a river which
suffers from over 80 overflows from the sewer system every year? How
are we to make the Anacostia River accessible when contamination is off
the charts?
I am pleased to see the Mayor has included funding for the plan to
renovate the Combined Sewer system on his list of Federal funding
priorities, however if the list is to be read in order of priority it
is last. I hope the Mayor and Chairman Cropp can provide some insight
into their lobbying efforts to ensure this critical project is funded.
Finally, a major area of annual concern on the D.C. bill is the
addition of social riders which require the city to limit their own
policies, a limitation which is not placed on other cities. I am
committed to treating the District like any other city when it comes to
spending locally raised taxes. To that end, I will not support efforts
to limit the elected officials in the practice of their duties.
I appreciate the witnesses' time and commitment to the District of
Columbia. I have greatly valued our partnership over the last four
years and I look forward to working together this year.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
We do have a vote on now, but I want to go to my colleague
Senator Allard for a brief statement, and then we will recess
until after the vote. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to welcome the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi and
Chairman Cropp and Dr. Janey for appearing before the panel
here and associate myself with the comments of my colleagues.
Just one other concern that I would like to bring up. As
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
appropriations, I have oversight on the new expansion here at
the Capitol. It is the visitor center there, and I just would
hope that as we move toward the concluding part of the
construction on this particular facility that we can make sure
that all our ducks are in order as far as meeting the
requirements for occupancy. There could be some issues that
could come up there and if you see any utility issues or
anything that could come up here on the last minute, please
work with the contractors and work with the Architect and
ourselves and see if we cannot begin to identify these problems
early on so that they will not end up in unnecessary delays as
we move toward closing down the project and getting the
certificate of occupancy.
I want to thank all of you for being here. I have another
subcommittee running, so I will not be able to be here for all
your testimony. But I will be reviewing it closely and I look
forward to working with the chairman on those issues that are
important to you.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Williams. Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Allard.
We have 5 minutes left in the vote. We are going to recess
the hearing. I would ask my colleagues, if we could, to go over
and vote and get back as soon as possible. As soon as I am
back, we will start with the presentation. My apologies to
this. It is just one of the hazards of the job that when they
call a vote you have got to go run and vote.
So the subcommittee will be in recess, hopefully for no
more than 15 minutes, and then we will reconvene.
I call the hearing back to order. Again my apologies for
the interruption on the energy bill we are voting on.
Mayor Williams, delighted to see you. I want to say
publicly, too, when I first came into the Senate, elected in
1996, the District of Columbia was in a very difficult
financial condition and many things were not moving in the
right direction. We had the emergency board. I am not putting
the right title on that. I was the chair of the authorizing
committee at that point in time. I worked with you some then.
This has been a dramatic turnaround. It has been a most
impressive turnaround. I want to compliment you in particular
about that because you have been at the center of much of that
change, that turnaround that has taken place, and it is very
good to see. I am looking forward to addressing the rest of the
issues that remain, but I do not want to take anything away
from the efforts that have been made and what has been
accomplished in really a relatively short period of time. So my
congratulations to you.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My full statement
has been submitted for the record of the subcommittee and I am
going to try to paraphrase wherever I can, not only to keep my
remarks within 5 minutes, but to allow you to hear from our
other presenters and to have the dialogue that you desire.
I want to thank you and ranking member Landrieu and the
other members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify before you today. You have already mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, as has Senator Landrieu, the fiscal responsibility
that we have stressed in our city and the fiscal prowess that
we are now enjoying. But I do want to mention one thing in that
regard and that is the District's strong financial performance
occurs in spite of what I believe is a long-term structural
imbalance. Now, that may seem paradoxical. One would ask, how
can such an imbalance be real when the economy of the city is
so strong?
I believe that the explanation is twofold. First, our
residents are among the most heavily taxed people on Earth.
Second, the District is deferring massive investments in
critical services and infrastructure. Approximately $2.5
billion of infrastructure has been deferred over the years. Not
only outdated sewer system, fixing accumulated needs of our
streets, bridges, and mass transit, which have a homeland
security component because of our role as the National Capital
Region, but also in light of your remarks and Senator
Landrieu's remarks and in light of my colleague Dr. Janey I
would mention the massive deferral of investment in our schools
infrastructure. Whatever we may think about the operating
budget of the schools, there clearly is a need for investment
in our school buildings. I would agree with you, it really is
tragic if the schools have to be closed because our kids are in
100 degree or over classrooms.
Now, last year the subcommittee held a landmark hearing on
the District's fiscal challenges and your continued commitment
to resolution of this structural deficit will be critical to
putting us on a permanent and equitable financial footing. I
hope that we can continue in that effort. I would refer to the
subcommittee one promising vehicle, the District of Columbia
Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005, which would provide the
District with annual Federal payment of $800 million a year
dedicated to transportation projects, debt service payments,
public school facilities, information technology investments.
It would be on a formula basis, not just for regular operations
of government but for strategic things that go to the long-term
undergirding of our city.
Now, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in terms of our priorities
in our local budget, I just very briefly mention that one is
new communities, a major investment in housing and physical
infrastructure in our city's most challenged neighborhoods. We
have been very successful in working with two Presidents, both
Democrat and Republican, to bring HOPE VI projects to our city.
We believe very strongly in the role of mixed income
communities, not to displace our low income residents, but to
allow our low income residents to live in a healthy community
of a mix of incomes, both rental property and home ownership,
with all the amenities, the good schools, the libraries, the
recreation centers, all the amenities of a good neighborhood.
Great streets are another major investment in our city,
recognizing that in our urban areas of our country our great
streets are our major commercial corridors. To accomplish this,
we propose $88 million in investment in revitalization of major
corridors in our city, unleashing I believe economic potential
on major streets such as Georgia Avenue, H Street, Nannie Helen
Burroughs, Benning Road, and other neighborhood arteries.
Roads and bridges are a major priority and our budget
reflects this in a major new investment in our city's physical
infrastructure, starting with $230 million of local investment
in streets and bridges along the Anacostia Waterfront. This
project, which we funded $35 million in fiscal year 2006, will
make critical infrastructure improvements.
Education is a major part of our budget. I will allow Dr.
Janey in his time to stress the importance of education, but I
want to use this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to state my full
and emphatic and unequivocal support for our superintendent.
Now, everybody knows that over the last year I spent a lot of
time trying to assume responsibility for the schools and the
people have spoken. The people are right in our democracy. So,
given where we are, I believe that the locus of authority and
responsibility has to be in one place. It cannot be in three
places, five places, eight places. It has to be in one place. I
believe that the locus of that authority and responsibility,
with the support of the Mayor, the support of the Council, our
nonprofits, our faith community, our business community, should
be in this superintendent. Dr. Janey knows that he has my
strong support as he meets a very, very heavy challenge.
Health and welfare and youth are a major investment in our
city, and our budget includes new investments in primary health
care services through community health centers, which would
improve our support for patients from underserved communities.
We also provide multiyear funding of $76 million for our 10-
year plan to end chronic homelessness, including investment in
wrap-around services.
We make a major investment in tax relief in our city of
some $88 million. I am particularly pleased that this tax
relief is spread across all income levels in our city.
Now, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, our request for Federal
funding includes, one, as you have come to know, members of
this subcommittee know, our strong support for what we call our
marquee Federal initiative, and that is the tuition assistance
grant program. This has been an absolute tremendous success and
we would ask for full funding. This program is funded at $33
million in the President's budget and we ask for your continued
support for this very successful initiative.
The consolidated laboratory, crime lab, we have enjoyed the
support of the subcommittee on that and we are requesting that
you match the President's mark of $7 million for this project.
A new mental health hospital in the city is also a major
initiative of ours. Last but not least--well, let me, before I
get to the last point, we continue our appeal to the
subcommittee for funding to provide for long-term control of
discharge into the Anacostia River. The D.C. Water and Sewer
Authority (WASA) is embarking on a 30-year plan to fix the
system in order to drastically reduce pollution in our
waterways, and we ask that the committee support this program
in the amount of $30 million.
This is--the Federal Government plays a major role in the
pollution status of the Anacostia River because most of the old
city is occupied by the Federal Government. The lack of storm
and sewage drainage separation is a result of decisions made
way back by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is
our major corporate partner of all of our corporate partners.
For that reason, we would ask that the subcommittee continue
its investment in the Anacostia River, as it has in so many
different ways, working with our local leadership and certainly
with Congresswoman Norton, who in general I want to applaud for
all her leadership on these things.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I reserve for my last appeal something
that I know you are interested in. This is the result of bad
decisions and management over years and years and years, as you
know, a high number of ex-felons in our city, who come back to
our city every year. I know this is something that you care
about. We have identified access to housing as one of a number
of important risks to recidivism for individuals making the
transition from prison back to society.
To address this need and to reduce the chance that today's
returning prisoners will become tomorrow's homeless and go
through that revolving door and end up back in prison, we
propose a $5 million level of funding to do, within a mixed
income setting--we are not talking about segregating our ex-
felons, but within a mixed income vibrant community--$5 million
to house our ex-felons as we provide them one-stop service to
get them back on their feet, get them their training, and get
them into jobs.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, that is my
testimony. Again, thank you for your partnership. As I close my
remarks, I would again make my continued yearly annual appeal
for full representation for our beautiful Nation's capital.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the
discussion and the specifics that you lay out in front of us. I
look forward to the question and answer session.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony A. Williams
Chairman Brownback, Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, and other
distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today in support of the District of
Columbia's fiscal year 2006 budget and financial plan. I continue to
appreciate the support and commitment that this committee has provided
to our efforts to improve the District of Columbia as a place to live,
work, and visit.
With our fiscal house in order, city services improved, and a
robust environment for economic and housing development, we now face
the challenge and opportunity to ensure that the rising tide we have
created lifts all communities.
My remarks this morning will focus on three main goals we have for
working with this subcommittee:
--Maintaining fiscal responsibility;
--Responding to citizens' priorities with local budget decisions; and
--Pursuing federal investments that address our special status as the
nation's capital and invite partnership with the federal
government on local priorities.
MAINTAINING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The District has achieved a tremendous amount of financial progress
over the past decade under the leadership of my administration and the
City Council and diligence of the Chief Financial Officer. Fiscal year
2004 marked the District's eighth consecutive balanced budget; the
District has an A rating from all three credit rating agencies which is
the highest level we have achieved since the inception of Home Rule; we
are maintaining a cash reserve balance of about $250 million, which is
among the strongest in the country; and our fund balance exceeds $600
million. The turnaround and success of the District, impressive on its
own merits, is truly laudable when you consider how much we have
achieved over such a short period of time.
In fiscal year 2006, the District's baseline general fund revenue
is projected to grow by 5.6 percent. This strong revenue growth, along
with our robust reserves from prior years, have allowed us to submit an
fiscal year 2006 budget of $7.35 billion in total funding that supports
34,635 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. In local funds, this budget
proposes $4.95 billion in funding and supports 26,787 FTEs.
Despite the temptation to allocate all available resources to
programs during strong fiscal years, this budget reflects a high
standard of fiscal responsibility by providing for $88 million in new
tax relief. This budget also responsibly ensures that we do not rely on
one-time funding for long-term programs and more than half of the
growth in this budget comprises one-time expenditures that are not
built into the District's baseline budget.
Even more impressively, we have accumulated this record despite a
long-term structural imbalance, which is estimated by the Government
Accountability Office to be between $470 million and $1.1 billion per
year. The GAO cites multiple factors causing this imbalance: the high
cost of providing services in the D.C. metropolitan area, the relative
poverty of our population, and federal restrictions on our revenue
collection authority.
The District's strong financial performance in spite of a long-term
structural imbalance may appear paradoxical. How can such an imbalance
be real when the economy is so strong? The explanation is twofold.
First, our residents are among the most heavily taxed in the nation,
and, second, the District is deferring massive investments in critical
services and infrastructure. Approximately $2.5 billion of
infrastructure has been deferred, including renovating crumbling
schools, repairing our outdated sewer system, and fixing accumulated
needs in our streets, bridges and mass transit system.
As we seek solutions to address the structural imbalance and
address our long-standing problems, it is clear that taxing our
residents more or providing fewer services are not viable alternatives.
Nor can we solve our long-term challenges through additional borrowing.
This year, our budget includes a capital outlay of almost $500 million
in new spending, much of which is supported by a one-time windfall of
recent, hard-earned surpluses. Though this allows us to begin to
address our most pressing capital needs, we remain unable to meet our
accumulated needs on our own. An option proposed by the GAO is a change
in federal policy to expand the District's tax base or to provide
additional financial support.
One very promising vehicle for resolving this imbalance is the
``District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005''. This
bill would provide the District with an annual federal payment of $800
million a year dedicated to transportation projects, debt service
payments, public school facilities, or information technology
investments. This approach to addressing the District's structural
imbalance would allow the federal government to invest in
infrastructure that benefits the federal government itself, the
Washington metropolitan area, as well as the District of Columbia. Last
year, this committee held a landmark hearing on the District's fiscal
challenges and your continued commitment to a resolution to our
structural deficit will be critical to putting the District on
permanent and equitable financial footing.
In addition to addressing the federal contribution to our budget,
we also need to repair the federal process for reviewing our budget.
This year, the President again endorsed budget autonomy for the
District of Columbia and legislation has been introduced in the
Congress to provide this authority. This legislation, besides being a
well-deserved advancement of Home Rule, would significantly streamline
and rationalize our budget process by allowing the city to better align
local funds with oftentimes unpredictable and shifting needs. This
year, we are hopeful that the Congress will pass legislation this
session to provide for budget autonomy. In the meantime, we hope you
consider intermediate measures to streamline our budget modification
process throughout the fiscal year to allow us to better respond to
future unanticipated needs. For example, our budget includes language
that would allow the District to spend up to an additional 6 percent of
our total revenues without coming back to Congress for supplemental
budget authority, provided that additional revenues are certified as
available by the Chief Financial Officer. This would provide us with
the flexibility to respond to changing revenue realities at the local
level in a more timely matter than the supplemental appropriation
process provides.
FUNDING CITIZEN PRIORITIES
This budget funds groundbreaking initiatives that will reshape the
physical landscape of the District of Columbia and strengthen our
social fabric in a fiscally responsible and balanced manner. This
budget has been developed around the core principles of fiscal
responsibility, fairness, strategic investments in critical social
needs, and improving our infrastructure. With input from residents, the
priorities addressed in this budget are housing, employment, better
transportation infrastructure, targeted services for youth, and
continued commitment and support to education and public safety.
The fiscal year 2006 Budget and Financial Plan will lift all
communities by making major new investments in the following
initiatives:
New Communities
New Communities is a major investment in the housing and physical
infrastructures of the city's most challenged neighborhoods. Although
many District neighborhoods are undergoing rapid change and
transformation, there are still places in the city where crime,
unemployment, and truancy converge to create intractable physical and
social conditions. The New Communities initiative is more than the
bricks and mortar transformation of neighborhoods. It is a
comprehensive community development program aimed at lifting people and
neighborhoods by addressing a community's social and economic ills,
along with its physical problems. The long-term goals of New
Communities are to meet the needs of lower-income District families and
residents by providing critical social support services; decreasing the
concentration of poverty and crime; and enhancing access to education,
training and employment opportunities, but this effort will begin
immediately with a large-scale investment in our housing infrastructure
with a special focus on public housing.
Great Streets
It is important to extend the District's downtown economic success
to the neighborhoods throughout the city by leading private investment
with public investment. To accomplish this, we propose to securitize
new bus shelter revenue to raise approximately $88 million to invest in
the revitalization of the District's corridors, unleashing the
commercial potential of Georgia Avenue, H Street, NE, Nannie Helen
Borroughs, NE, Benning Road NE and other neighborhood arteries. In
order to complement this investment in physical infrastructure with the
revitalization of the commerce along these streets, we are dedicating
an additional $16.6 million to attract new businesses and to help
existing businesses flourish.
Bridges and Roads
Our budget reflects a major new investment in our city's physical
infrastructure, starting with a $230 million local investment in the
District's streets and bridges along the Anacostia River. This project,
which is funded at $35 million in fiscal year 2006, will make critical
infrastructure improvements needed to alleviate congestion and overflow
traffic in surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, this budget
dedicates approximately $23.2 million in additional resources for
street, sidewalk and alley paving.
Education
Our fiscal year 2006 budget includes a total of $1.1 billion in
local funds to educate approximately 80,000 students within the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and public charter schools.
This funding level represents an increase of $101 million, or 10.5
percent, over the fiscal year 2005 budget. The fiscal year 2006 budget
is aligned with the Superintendent's core budget request of $775
million, provides an additional $25 million to support strategic
educational investments at both DCPS and charter schools, funds eleven
new charter schools, and allocates $20 million for additional salary
step increases.
To support DCPS capital needs, this budget provides $147 million in
capital funding to support rehabilitation and modernization of D.C.
Public School buildings. In addition, this budget includes funding for
a new public school modernization fund, which will provide an
additional $150 million for capital investments. These resources will
be made available to the school system provided that DCPS meets
criteria regarding co-location, special education space needs, and
coordination with other public facilities.
Health and Welfare
In the area of health care, the fiscal year 2006 budget
demonstrates the District's continued commitment to providing health
services to residents, particularly those who are underserved. This
budget augments primary health care services and increases support for
community health centers, which will result in the ability to support
additional patients from underserved communities. This budget also
includes multi-year funding of $76 million to support the District's
ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. This funding will go towards
providing enhanced wraparound services for homeless families and
individuals, building new housing assistance centers, providing
eviction prevention services, and creating subsidized housing.
Children and Youth
Children and youth are among the most vulnerable of our residents.
This budget supports additional funding to provide education, health,
enrichment and other opportunities for our children and youth, which is
critical in preventing juvenile violence and providing meaningful
supports so that young residents grow into productive, engaged members
of the District's community.
Tax Relief
Starting in fiscal year 2006, District residents will benefit from
$88 million in new tax relief. This tax package provides for a balance
between income tax relief and property tax relief that is especially
targeted to low-income families. All property owners living in their
homes and coping with rapidly rising home value assessments will
benefit from $211 in tax relief from an increase in the homestead
deduction from $38,000 to $60,000. Low-income homeowners will be
further protected from rising tax bills by a new provision that will
allow households earning less than $50,000 per year to defer any
property tax increases until they sell their house. This will provide
for neighborhood stability, especially for seniors who have difficulty
meeting rising property tax costs in rapidly changing neighborhoods.
This budget also includes income tax reductions. First, the local
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program is being improved to make it
one of the most generous programs in the nation by increasing our
refundable credit from 25 percent of the federal benefits level to 35
percent of the federal level. Also, for the first time, program
benefits will be expanded to cover non-custodial parents who are paying
their child support. This provides a work incentive and ensures the
equal treatment of parents. In addition to targeted income tax relief,
this budget includes a $500 increase in the standard deduction and a
$130 increase in the personal exemption, which will benefit all
taxpayers in the city. These income tax proposals will provide a more
progressive complement to the broad tax changes that will be triggered
by tax parity in fiscal year 2006. Tax parity reduces the rates of all
three of the District's income tax brackets, including a reduction in
the top rate from 9.0 percent to 8.7 percent.
PRIORITY FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS
These local investments will leverage the strength of our economy
to lift all communities by investing new resources in our
neighborhoods, our infrastructure, and our more challenged communities.
Connecting these communities to the economic vitality we are
experiencing in many parts of the District is paramount to the
continuation of the District's renaissance.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget has recognized the
importance of partnering and contributing toward several of the
District's top priorities, including full funding for the Tuition
Assistance Grant Program, inflation-adjusted funding for the Three-
Sector Education Initiative, funding for the Consolidated Laboratory
Facility, funding for the Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail, which is part
of my Anacostia Riverfront Initiative, funding for the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council, and funding for the Emergency Planning and
Security Cost Fund.
The Tuition Assistance Grant Program is a marquee federal
initiative that has been a tremendous success. This program compensates
the District for our lack of a state-like university system by allowing
our high school graduates to attend out-of-state public universities at
in-state tuition rates and providing grants for attending selected
private universities. Program costs have continued to grow rapidly due
to rising tuition costs nationwide and rising program participation.
This program is funded at $33.2 million in the President's budget and I
ask you to continue your support for this successful initiative by
fully funding the President's mark.
Another critical program which was first funded by this
subcommittee, and funded for the first time this year by the President
at $7 million, is the Consolidated Laboratory Facility. This laboratory
will combine forensics capacities, our medical examiner functions, and
our various public health laboratories into a single combined facility,
leveraging our capital investment and providing the District with
state-of-the-art forensics analysis capacities for the first time at
the local level. This will free up resource at the federal facilities
which we are currently using for testing while providing additional
surge capacity for lab needs throughout the Washington area.
In addition to these important funded projects, our budget request
to the Congress includes requests for the following projects that are
worthy of congressional attention:
--Mental Health Hospital.--The city is constructing a new hospital on
the St. Elizabeths campus which will allow us to continue to
implement court-mandated improvements in services to our
patients. Our current facilities do not meet the standards of
care required of the District and the costs of operating our
existing buildings are increasingly cost prohibitive.
Currently, approximately 17 percent of inpatients that we serve
are referred to the city by federal agencies and courts.
Therefore, we are seeking a contribution for our capital
investment in this new facility at a pro-rated commensurate
level of $32 over the next three years and $17 million in
fiscal year 2006.
--Ex-Felon Housing.--We have identified access to housing as one of
the most important risk of recidivism for individuals making
the transition from prisons back into society. To address this
need, and reduce the chance that today's returning prisoners
will become tomorrow's homeless, we propose a $5 million ex-
felon housing program to provide organizations and developers
with an incentive to construct housing specifically for the ex-
felon community. Once this housing is in place, we will devote
our existing resources to providing the job training, mental
health, and other public services necessary to provide these
returning prisoners with a true opportunity to return to
society as productive citizens.
--WASA's Long-Term Control Plan.--As you know, I believe that the
Anacostia River is one our most precious and under-appreciated
assets as a city. Improving public access and for the
tremendous natural amenities along the Anacostia River is a
driving priority of my administration, but my vision for the
revitalization of the Anacostia River will not be possible
unless we clean up the river by fixing our combined sewer
system that currently deposits waste into the river throughout
the year. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority is embarking on a
30-year plan to fix this system in order to drastically reduce
pollution in our waterways and I ask that you support this
critical program in an amount of $30 million.
--Fire/EMS Command Center.--The District's emergency response
functions are outdated and in need of repair. As the fire
department for the nation's capital, including the U.S.
Capitol, the headquarters for the Fire and Emergency Medical
Services is inadequate and does not meet the specifications for
a modern emergency response in high-threat environment. The
District currently has plans in place to leverage private
investment to improve our fire command capacity and in addition
provide for new and necessary storage facilities for homeland
security emergency response equipment and is requesting a $10
million contribution as part of our budget to support this
investment.
--Downtown Circulator.--The city will soon launch a new bus service
designed to link the Central Business District and key federal
destinations. The Downtown Circulator project will provide the
22 million visitors to Washington, DC with an inexpensive and
easy way to move around the Monumental Core while helping to
mitigate the impact of street closures for security purposes.
The service will connect several of the District's most popular
destinations for residents, tourists and even federal
employees. In the future, the system could also be adopted by
federal agencies as cost-saving replacement for private vehicle
fleets and shuttle services. The federal government has
contributed to this project in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 and the District is requesting an additional $1 million in
fiscal year 2005, which the District will match with local
funds on a one-to-one basis on top of considerable support from
the city's tourism and business sectors.
DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL
Having outlined our budget objectives, it is important to keep in
mind a District priority whose value is beyond fiscal measure, and that
is our democratic rights. 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.
The United States is continuing to sacrifice hundreds of lives and
billions of dollars to spread democracy worldwide, yet denies full
democracy to more than a half a million people at its very heart. I
urge you to end this injustice and provide the city with full voting
representation in the Congress. Anything short of full democracy for
our residents should be at the level of personal outrage for all
Americans.
In recent years, this subcommittee has successfully resisted
efforts to add undemocratic social riders to our appropriations bill.
No matter what any Senator's opinion may be on the topic at hand, we
hope this body will respect the right of District residents to decide
local matters, just as the residents do in our 50 states. We also hope
this body will repeal riders that restrict our ability to make
decisions about spending local funds on needle exchange programs and
lobbying.
This concludes my remarks today. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
Senator Brownback. Chairperson Cropp.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA CROPP, CHAIRMAN, CITY COUNCIL
Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
Brownback, Senator Landrieu. I am pleased to be here with my
colleagues to testify today on the District's budget for fiscal
year 2006. This budget represents the ninth year in a row for a
fiscally sound and balanced budget. The budget is also a
reflection of our resolve to stand as one government that will
remain fiscally prudent and responsible.
The budget represents the District's reinvesting in itself
and in our future. We have committed resources and services for
our citizens through revitalization of our neighborhoods,
investment in our youth, and protection of our most vulnerable
citizens, promotion of continued economic stability and growth,
health programs, child care, and education.
We will invest in our employees with pay raises and
prudently set aside $138 million for future employee health and
retirement benefits. These funds will become mandatory in
fiscal year 2008 and it is good that we made the decision to
allocate them at this time when we have the money.
Fiscal discipline has always been and will be a top
priority of our legislative agenda. We will not only demand it
of the executive branch, but we also practice it ourselves. The
various forms of fiscal discipline from rainy day savings
funds, financial safeguards, insurance and investment policies,
economic triggers for pay-as-you-go capital financing, that we
have demanded and imposed upon ourselves in the past several
years have yielded significant returns to the District of
Columbia. This is reflected in the District government
receiving for the seventh consecutive year an unqualified audit
opinion and a positive future outlook of increased ratings from
bond rating agencies.
THE BUDGET PROCESS
During the Council's 56 day review period, we held 66
hearings totaling 322 man-hours where we provided an
opportunity for the public to come in and have their input on
our budget. The Council worked diligently with the Mayor in
aligning our 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, has been realigned. We will devote
funds to our infrastructure through investment of over $300
million in pay-as-you-go funding. For example, funds were
redirected and targeted for projects with higher priority and
more critical needs, such as schools for children and housing
for low and moderate income individuals.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
On May 10 the Council approved a $4.9 billion spending plan
that provides for adequate funding for basic city services and
programs. The budget earmarks $1.2 billion for public schools
and public charter schools. The schools funding increased by
$65 million, human services programs by another $65 million,
and there was an increase in child care specifically by $11.5
million in the hopes that we could get more of our families out
to work.
We have selectively adjusted tax rates to make
homeownership more affordable and to reward the hard work of
our citizens and businesses. In total, taxes were reduced by
$94 million.
FEDERAL BUDGET REQUEST
I would also like to ask for your help in obtaining an
approval of an extension of the District's tax incentives that
are to expire at the end of the year. The first time home buyer
credit, the enterprize zone credit, and the revenue bond
program are important to economic development in the District
of Columbia. The first time home buyer credit attracts
residents to our city and assists persons in purchasing homes
that might not otherwise have had an opportunity to do so. The
enterprise zone credit and the revenue bond program are real
incentives for attracting businesses to operate within the
District, and it is important to our economic growth that these
tax incentives be reauthorized.
While speaking about items of importance to the District, I
would like to mention one other item that is not directly
related to the budget. You have heard it before: voting
representation. But it is something that is so extremely
important to the citizens of the District of Columbia, who pay
almost $3 billion in Federal taxes. It is important for the
image of this country, the leader of the free world, to provide
to all of its citizens the same rights we fight for abroad, the
right for all citizens to be represented by the persons they
elect.
A number of different types of legislation have been
introduced in the House and in the Senate. Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton's bill, H.R. 398, is an example of one
bill. Hopefully, you will be able to embrace one of those bills
so that the District's citizens can no longer--will no longer
be disenfranchised.
BUDGET AUTONOMY
Just like the other 50 States, the District should be
solely responsible for approving its own local spending.
Achieving such budget autonomy will allow the District to
implement its budget in a timely manner and will assist in
improving the city's fiscal management.
I want to thank the subcommittee and the Senate for
supporting this initiative in the past and would ask for you to
do it again in support of S. 800 the District of Columbia
Budget Autonomy Act of 2005.
FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
The District is always challenged in developing its budget
due to ongoing structural imbalance that exists between its
spending needs and its revenue generation capacity. As noted in
the General Accounting Office May 2003 report, the imbalance
ranges between $400 million to $1.1 billion annually. The
report also noted that the cost of providing public services is
much higher in the District than it is in the average State due
to the relatively large poverty population, poor health
indicators, high crime, and high cost of living. The report
stated that the District has a very high revenue capacity and
the city is already taxing toward the upper limit of our
revenue capacity, thereby creating a punitive tax structure.
The congressional limitation on the District's ability to
tax certain institutions and persons severely restricts the
District's ability to raise revenue needed to cover both the
operational and infrastructure costs.
Recently, many of you have heard of the budget surplus that
the District has. The budget surplus is only on one end, the
management end, due to good management of the day to day
operations of the city's budget. But while we have a surplus on
that end, it cannot be thought of as a total surplus because we
have a deficit in our infrastructure when you look at what our
capital needs are, when you look at our school system.
When the issue was brought up of closing the schools, the
average age of the District's schools is 80 years of age. So
you will see that our capital side is where we cannot continue
to borrow money because we are at our capacity, our limit. So
we do not even have the dollars necessary or the capacity to go
out on Wall Street and borrow the dollars to fix up our
schools, which probably need $1 to $2 billion. If we did then
our bond rating would go down. So we are caught between a dog
and a tree and that is not a good position.
So the infrastructure situation with the District is one
that we really need to have changed, and it is not because of
mismanagement in the District government, but it is because of
the unique situations as to how the budget is set. I would ask
that at some point that the Congress look at some type of
special funding plan for the school system and for Metro.
Metro functions as a way to bring in Federal workers into
the District of Columbia. When you look at our capital budget,
the herculean share of the city's capital budget is spent in
two areas: the D.C. Public School system, where we see there
are even greater needs, and Metro. So I hope that that is
something that we can look at in the future.
CONCLUSION
Finally, as you consider our appropriations we 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 109th
Congress. We urge you to pass the budget as is, without any
riders. This much anticipated fiscal year 2006 budget is
important because it shows how the Mayor and the Council can
work together and underscores our commitment to make
Washington, DC, one of the best-governed cities in the Nation.
The District's financial problems of the 1990s combined
with the national recession earlier this decade, as well as the
September 11 attacks, created an environment where we had to
disinvest in our budget. Over the past 2 fiscal years, however,
we began the process of reinvestment in our city. This fiscal
year 2006 budget represents a great leap forward.
We will be responsive to our constituents who call the
District of Columbia their home. We will work with the Mayor,
the Congress, and the surrounding governments to achieve our
mutually shared goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce
good, responsible budgets that invest dollars in making the
District of Columbia a much better place for all.
Thank you very much.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Chairperson Cropp.
I appreciate that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp
Good morning, Chairman Brownback, Senator 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 2006.
INTRODUCTION
The fiscal year 2006 budget represents for the ninth year in a row,
a fiscally sound and balanced budget. This budget is also a reflection
of our resolve to stand as one good government that will remain
fiscally prudent and responsible. The efforts of the Council and the
Mayor, working together, has created a spending plan that continues to
provide the services needed to make the District a better place in
which to live, to work, to raise a family, and to visit. The budget
represents the hard work of all thirteen Council members and the
efforts of our ten standing committees. The Council and the Mayor will
continue this collaborative effort throughout the year in order to
manage government spending.
This budget represents the District reinvesting in itself and our
future. We committed resources in services for our citizens through
revitalization of our neighborhoods, investment in our youth,
protection of our vulnerable residents, promotion of continued economic
stability and growth, health programs, childcare and education.
We will invest in our employees with pay raises and prudently set
aside $138 million for future employee health and retirement benefits.
These funds will become mandatory in fiscal year 2008 and it is good
that we made the decision to allocate them now.
Fiscal discipline 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 Capital Financing--that we
have demanded of, and imposed on ourselves in the past several years,
have yielded significant returns to the District of Columbia. This is
reflected in the District Government receiving for the seventh
consecutive year an unqualified audit opinion and a fiscal year 2004
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) showing a balanced budget.
The District continues to maintain an ``A'' rating from all of the Wall
Street financial rating agencies.
In 2005 the Council passed the fiscal year 2006 Budget Submission
Requirements Resolution of 2005. It established the date for submission
of the Mayor's proposed budget. It required performance plans and
reports, and that certain information and documentation be submitted to
the Council along with the proposed budget.
THE BUDGET PROCESS
During the Council's fifty-six days review period 66 hearings
totaling 322 man-hours were conducted. These public hearings are an
important part of the budget process. The public hearings provide the
citizens and our workforce with an opportunity to comment on and
critique programmatic and funding needs, and the performance of
government agencies. This feedback is essential in reaching the
decisions and determining the recommendations of each committee in the
mark-up of the agency budgets.
The Council worked diligently with the Mayor in aligning 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. We will devote funds to our infrastructure through direct
investment of over $300 million in ``Pay-As-You-Go'' funding. For
example, funds were redirected and targeted for projects with higher
priority and critical needs, such as schools for the children and
housing for low and moderate-income residents.
The Mayor submitted the budget to the Council on March 21, 2005.
The proposed local budget was $4.903 billion, an increase of $712
million or 17.1 percent above the revised fiscal year 2005 budget. The
Council carefully reviewed the proposed expenditures to ensure that
priority programs were properly funded. Adjustments were made through
hard decisions between competing program preferences and by rooting out
unnecessary budget cushions within the request.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
On May 10 the Council approved the $4.949 billion spending plan
that provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs.
This funding level for fiscal year 2005 represents a growth of 18
percent over the revised fiscal year 2005 local budget. The budget
provides $116.6 million for the production of low and moderate-income
housing and increases the funding for childcare, substance and drug
abuse treatment, and health care for uninsured residents. In keeping
with the seven goals on the Council's legislative agenda, schools
continue to receive significant funding. The budget earmarks $1.2
billion for public schools and public chartered schools. The schools
funding increased by $65 million, human services programs by another
$65 million and the Council is increasing child-care by $11.5 million.
We selectively adjusted our tax rates to make homeownership more
affordable and to reward the hard work of our citizens and businesses.
In total, taxes were reduced by $94 million.
In order to address the Council's concerns about the growth of
spending in certain agencies while still wanting to finance programs
important to the District's most vulnerable residents, a Pay-Go
contingency fund was established. The fund would provide additional
financial support to certain agencies once they demonstrate the need
for these additional funds. Requests to expend money from the Pay-Go
contingency fund require approval by the CFO, the Mayor and the
Council.
FEDERAL BUDGET REQUEST
The Council supports the Congressional budget request items
included in the Mayor's proposal. However, I would like to highlight
the Tuition Assistance Grant Program (TAG). The TAG program has been
extremely successful in the District. A total of 4,645 students are
receiving funds this year from the program. TAG has had a significant
impact on furthering the education of these students. Therefore, it is
important that the additional $33.2 million be provided to continue to
fully fund this program.
I would also like to ask for your help in obtaining approval of an
extension of the District's tax incentives that are to expire at the
end of this year. The First Time Homebuyer credit, the Enterprise Zone
credit and the revenue bond program are important to economic
development in the District. The First Time Homebuyer credit attracts
residents to the District and assists persons in purchasing homes that
might not otherwise have an opportunity to do so. The Enterprise Zone
credit and the revenue bond program are real incentives for attracting
businesses to operate within the District. It is important to our
economic growth that these tax incentives be re-authorized.
While speaking about items important to the District, I would like
to mention one other item that is not directly related to the budget,
i.e., voting representation. It is important for the image of this
country, the leader of the free world, to provide to all of its
citizens the same rights we fight for abroad, the right for all
citizens to be represented by persons they elect.
A number of pieces of legislation have been introduced,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's bill, H.R. 398 ``No Taxation
Without Representation Act of 2005'' and its companion piece introduced
by Senator Joseph Lieberman, S. 195, would treat the District as a
State with full voting representation in the House and the Senate.
Representative Thomas Davis' bill, H.R. 2043, ``District of Columbia
Fairness in Representation Act'' would add two seats to the House, one
to the District of Columbia and one to State of Utah, which narrowly
failed to secure a fourth Congressional seat after the 2000 census. In
Representative Davis' bill the District would be treated as a
Congressional district for the purpose of representation in the House.
Representative Dana Rohrabacher's bill, H.R. 190, ``District of
Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2005'' would treat the
citizens of the District as residents of the State of Maryland for the
purpose of participating in elections for the House and Senate. While
each piece approaches the issue in a different way, the key point is
that they all call for voting rights to be granted to the citizens of
the nation's capital. I ask that you support voting rights for the
District of Columbia.
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 assumed responsibility for the cost of the
contributions to the police, firefighters, and teachers retirement
plans, various Court services and portions of other state functions.
It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was
passed, one recommendation was that Congress would not need to review
or approve the District's budget because the city would no longer
receive any federal payments. At a minimum, Congress should no longer
approve the local portion of the District's budget. Under such a
proposal the Mayor would notify the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate in writing 30 days in advance of
any obligation or expenditure. Just like the other 50 states, the
District should be solely responsible for approving its own local
spending. Achieving such budget autonomy will allow the District to
implement its budget in a timely manner and will assist in improving
the city's fiscal management. I want to thank the Subcommittee and the
Senate for supporting this initiative in the past and would ask for
your support of S.800 the ``District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of
2005''.
The District Government is always challenged in developing its
budget due to the ongoing structural imbalance that exists between its
spending needs and its revenue generation capacity. As noted in the
General Accounting Office's May 2003 report the imbalance ranges
between $400 million to $1.143 billion per year. The report also noted
that 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. The report stated that the District has a very high
revenue capacity, and the city is already taxing toward the upper limit
of our revenue capacity, thereby creating a punitive tax structure.
The Congressional limitations on the District's ability to tax
certain institutions and persons severely restrict the city's ability
to raise the revenue needed to cover both operational and
infrastructure costs. These limitations are reflected in the streets
and schools in need of repair. While the city currently has a
management surplus of day-to-day operations, these dollars are
insufficient to cover the total cost of infrastructure improvements.
The inability to fund infrastructure costs are not due to
mismanagement by the District Government. As noted earlier, the
District Government has maintained an ``A'' rating by the financial
rating agencies over the last few years. It is due to the inability to
tax revenue at its source and other infrastructure issues addressed in
the 2003 GAO report.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced Bill H.R. 1586,
the ``District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005''. The
bill outlines the unique situation of the District of Columbia as a
federal city. It proposes an annual federal payment of $800 million
with provisions to adjust the number in the future. The $800 million
would be made available to address important structural needs of the
city, which the District Government cannot fully fund from its current
budget. Transportation and street maintenance, information technology
and DCPS capital improvements are essential to the running of the city.
I ask for this Subcommittee to support this legislation and encourage
adoption by the Senate.
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 109th Congress. Furthermore, we
urge you to pass the budget as is, without any extraneous riders. This
much anticipated fiscal year 2006 budget is important because it shows
how the Mayor and the Council can work together and underscores our
commitment to make Washington D.C. one of the best governed cities in
the nation.
The District's financial problems of the nineties combined with the
national recession earlier this decade, as well as, the September 11th
attacks created an environment, where we had to disinvest to balance
our budget. Over the past two fiscal years, we began the process of
reinvestment and this fiscal year 2006 budget represents a great leap
forward.
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.
I thank you for this opportunity to present the fiscal year 2006
budget and these issues of major importance to the District of
Columbia.
Senator Brownback. Dr. Gandhi, and if you could stay within
the timeframes. We are going to be running tight on this
hearing and we both would like to have some exchanges back and
forth. So I will probably put the hook on the last two
witnesses a lot tighter than I have on the front two.
Dr. Gandhi.
STATEMENT OF NATWAR M. GANDHI, Ph.D., CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
Dr. Gandhi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Landrieu, and members of the subcommittee. I
am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia, and I am here to testify on the District's 2006
budget request and the overall health of the District's
finances.
The Congress created the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer to preserve, protect, and enhance the District's
financial viability and credibility at all times. I am pleased
to report to this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Landrieu,
that the District has again made substantial progress in the
past year, marking the eighth consecutive year of fiscal
recovery.
We again achieved a balanced budget and received a clean
audit opinion from our external auditors and improved the
District's financial infrastructure. The graph on the chart
before you, sir, illustrates the turnaround in our general fund
balance from a negative $518 million in 1996 to a positive $1.2
billion at the end of 2004. Many cities that have gone through
control period experience, such as New York, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, none has been able to come back as well and as fast
as the District has.
Roughly half of that fund balance is reserved as a result
of congressional mandate or is legally reserved for bond
escrows or other purposes. The fund balance is likely to climb
in the current fiscal year to reach an unprecedented level of
approximately $1.3 billion.
Our emergency and contingency reserves totaled $285
million, among the highest such reserves as a percentage of the
budget of all major cities or States in the Nation. Last year,
recognizing that our reserves were strong, Congress lowered
reserve requirements to 6 percent from 7 percent. This fiscal
year we estimate these reserves will be about $250 million, an
amount that is still expected to be among the highest in the
country.
We have again received favorable reviews from the bond
rating agencies. Standard & Poor raised the rating on the
District's general obligation bonds to A from A minus, and
Fitch placed the District's A minus rating on a positive
outlook for a possible upgrade.
Again, this year I must stress that it is time to grant the
District of Columbia local budget autonomy--can I illustrate a
point, sir? Do you have a question on this?
Senator Brownback. My eyes are not quite as good as they
used to be, so I am trying to make sure----
Dr. Gandhi. Well, I can withhold my testimony to explain
this.
Senator Brownback. Please go on. Please proceed.
Dr. Gandhi. All right. Because what really matters here is
that in the mid-90s we were very near bankrupt and today we are
really a welcome presence on Wall Street. We have accomplished
this financial stability by institutionalizing changes that
have been commended by rating agencies and investors. We are
monitoring the budget on a constant basis and have enabled
decisionmakers to receive timely and accurate information on
which to make informed judgments.
Without budget autonomy, we must prepare specific spending
plans and revenue estimates at least 9 months in advance of the
beginning of the actual budget year, a constraint under which
no other State or municipal government operates. This issue of
timing has added far greater uncertainty in budget planning and
has posed more difficulty in executing the budget as well.
In fiscal year 2006, the District's certified general fund
revenue is forecasted to be $4.8 billion, an increase of about
14 percent over 2005. Underlying the District's robust revenue
growth is continued strength in the District's real estate
market and strong growth in personal income.
As Chief Financial Officer, sir, I believe that it is not
the role of the government to amass a large amount of cash when
needs for infrastructure and other prudent investments must be
met. The magnitude of resources available for budgeting both
from the improved level of current revenues and the sizable
accumulated surplus in the fund balance provides an opportunity
to address critical needs of the District. Accordingly, the
proposed budget before you, sir, would result in a reduction in
the general fund balance of about $610 million. This amount is
composed almost entirely of one-time spending and reduction of
large pension liabilities that our Council Chair, Mrs. Cropp
talked about and programs to address critical social needs that
the Mayor talked about.
I believe this spending level and the uses of fund balance
are fiscally prudent and will not endanger the District's sound
financial position or our strong credit standing. This is
demonstrated in the 5-year proposed budget and financial plan
attached to my testimony. Unlike any other jurisdiction, the
District prepares a 5-year plan so as to assure the Congress
that the District will remain financially viable for 5 years.
Since Mrs. Cropp and the Mayor talked about structural
imbalance, I will not go into that. I would simply note that
the GAO's structural imbalance report identifies about $470
million to about $1 billion of structural imbalance, this
structural imbalance somehow has to be helped by the Federal
Government. There are not enough local resources to address the
imbalance, and I request and strongly urge, that Congress take
positive action on Congresswoman Norton's bill, the District of
Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005, (H.R. 1586).
PREPARED STATEMENT
That concludes my oral remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I request
that my written testimony be made part of the record. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you or Mrs. Landrieu may have.
Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Your formal testimony will be made part
of the record. We look forward to the discussion.
[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 2006 budget request to the Congress. My remarks will
briefly touch on the fiscal year 2005 financial outlook, the fiscal
year 2006 request, and the overall health of the District's finances.
CONTINUING FINANCIAL STRENGTH
The Congress created the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to
preserve, protect and enhance the District's financial viability and
credibility at all times. I am pleased to report that the District has
again made substantial progress in the past year, marking the eighth
consecutive year of fiscal recovery. We again achieved a balanced
budget and received a clean audit opinion from our external auditors
and improved the District's financial infrastructure. The graph on
Attachment 1 illustrates the turnaround in our general fund balance
from a negative $518 million in fiscal year 1996 to a positive $1.2
billion fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2004. Roughly half of
that fund balance is reserved as a result of Congressional mandate, or
is legally reserved for bond escrows or other purposes. The fund
balance is likely to climb in the current fiscal year to reach an
unprecedented level of approximately $1.3 billion.
Our emergency and contingency reserves totaled $285.4 million,
among the highest such reserves as a percentage of budget of all major
cities or states in the nation. Last year, recognizing that the
District's reserves were strong, Congress enacted legislation lowering
the total reserves required to 6 percent from 7 percent. This fiscal
year, we estimate that the emergency and contingency reserves will be
about $249 million, an amount which we expect will still remain among
the highest in the country.
We have again received favorable reviews from the bond rating
agencies. Standard & Poor's raised the rating on the District's general
obligation bonds to A from A- last November and at the same time, Fitch
Ratings placed the District's A- rating on positive outlook for
possible upgrade. The graph in Attachment 1 also shows the history of
the District's ratings by all three major bond rating agencies.
We continue to strive to improve on this record of accomplishment.
Our standardized spending plans for all agencies allow us to monitor
results against those plans, and we continue to control agency spending
using our online financial management tools. Spending plans are one
component of the District's own Anti-Deficiency Act designed to hold
financial and program managers accountable for achieving program
results within approved budgets. We have built performance budgets
across all agencies that set specific targets which are benchmarked
against best practices in local government.
Again this year, I must stress that it is time to grant the
District of Columbia local budget autonomy. We have accomplished
financial stability by institutionalizing changes that have been
recognized by rating agencies and investors in the District's bonds and
notes. We have established systems to monitor our budget on a constant
basis and have enabled decision makers to receive timely and accurate
information on which to make informed judgments. Without autonomy we
must prepare specific spending plans and revenue estimates at least
nine months in advance of the beginning of the actual budget year, a
constraint under which no other state or municipal government must
function. This issue of timing has added far greater uncertainty in
budget planning and formulation and has posed more difficulty in
executing the budget as well. We have been fortunate in recent years in
finding that our revenues have far exceeded our forecasts, but such
time constraints have forced us to be overly conservative in our
estimates, and have prevented us from providing tax relief or larger
service benefits to our taxpayers as a result of those excess revenue
collections. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced the
District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2005, H.R. 1629, and
Senator Collins introduced an equivalent bill, S.800, which would allow
the Mayor and City Council to enact the locally funded portion of the
District's annual budget. We appreciate the interest of this
Subcommittee on the matter of budget autonomy and urge the Congress to
consider the bills favorably.
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE, GENERAL FUND
As noted in the fiscal year 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR), the District concluded fiscal year 2004 operations with
a $1.215 billion general fund balance (i.e., net accumulated surplus).
Based on current revenue and expenditure estimates, the General
Fund is expected to end fiscal year 2005 with an operating surplus of
$320.6 million. The general fund balance is likely to reach $1.35
billion at the end of fiscal year 2005.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 REVENUES
In fiscal year 2006, District's certified general fund revenue is
forecasted to be $4.81 billion, an increase of 13.8 percent over fiscal
year 2005 approved budget after tax policy changes. Underlying the
District's robust revenue growth is continued strength in the
District's real estate market and strong growth in personal income.
Substantial increases in prices and the number of transactions in both
residential and commercial real estate markets were major sources of
revenue gains in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, and are
expected to contribute significantly to fiscal year 2005 and fiscal
year 2006 revenues. Going forward, our revenue projections assume
District personal income will grow between 5 and 6 percent annually,
and the financial markets will continue their recovery.
The fiscal year 2006 Proposed Budget includes tax policy reductions
of $35.0 million and revenue shifts to capital of $30.0 million. The
tax policy reductions include an increase in the homestead deduction,
an increase in the local Earned Income Tax Credit, increases in both
the standard deduction and the personal exemption, and a property tax
deferral for low-income homeowners. The revenue shift to capital is to
provide a dedicated stream of revenues to finance major investments in
bridges and roads.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
As Chief Financial Officer, I believe that it is not the role of
government to amass large amounts of cash when needs for infrastructure
improvements and other prudent investments in the future must be met.
The magnitude of resources available for budgeting, both from the
improved level of current revenues and the sizable accumulated surplus
in the fund balance, provides an opportunity to address critical needs
of the District.
Accordingly, this proposed budget would result in a reduction in
the general fund balance of $610 million, to a balance of $740.2
million, from the projected year-end fiscal year 2005 fund balance.
This amount is composed almost entirely of one-time spending or
transfers for future and retroactive pay-as-you-go capital funding, a
reduction of a large pension benefit liability, policy shifts to
special purpose and capital funds and operating budget programs to
address critical social needs. I believe the spending levels and the
uses of fund balance contained in this budget proposal are fiscally
prudent and will not endanger the District's sound financial position
or our strong credit standing. As shown in the table below, the Mayor
and Council have weighed these financial opportunities in formulating
policy goals for fiscal year 2006, as incorporated into this proposed
budget.
TABLE 2.--GENERAL FUND PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues............................................ 4,871.2
Less Recurring Budget Expenses............................ (4,804.9)
-------------
Excess Revenues........................................... 66.3
Less Tax Policy Reductions and Revenues Shift to O type (65.0)
and Capital..............................................
Add Appropriated Fund Balance............................. 591.6
-------------
Sources for Program and Fiscal Policy Initiatives......... 592.9
Less Non-recurring Budget Expenses........................ (399.8)
Less Fiscal Policy Initiatives............................ (191.8)
-------------
Projected fiscal year 2006 Operating Margin............... 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2006 general fund budget spending proposal of $5.40
billion is 19.8 percent higher than fiscal year 2005 approved spending
of $4.5 billion. This represents increases in both recurring expenses
and the one-time uses of fund balance which I discussed previously.
Recurring budget expenses of $4.80 billion are a net increase of $467
million, or 10.8 percent, over the fiscal year 2005 approved budget.
TABLE 3.--GENERAL FUND FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET SUBMISSION
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Percent
2005 2006 Change change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recurring Budget Expenses................................... $4,337.8 $4,804.9 $467.1 10.8
Program Policy Initiatives:
Nonrecurring Budget Expenses............................ 165.0 192.8 27.8 16.8
PayGo Capital (Nonrecurring)............................ ........... 207.1 207.1 n/a
-------------
Net Change: Recurring Expenses and Program Policy Initia- ........... ........... 702.0 ...........
tives......................................................
-------------
Non-recurring Fiscal Policy Initiatives:
Post Employment Health Benefits......................... ........... 138.0 138.0 n/a
Contribution to Capital Fund Balance.................... ........... 53.8 53.8 n/a
---------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund Request............................ 4,502.8 5,396.6 893.8 19.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCING THE BUDGET REQUEST
To finance both the program and fiscal policy initiatives, the
District utilizes $591.6 million from the accumulated fund balance. The
planned drawdown of fund balance will reduce the accumulated general
fund balance to a projected $740.2 million by the end of fiscal year
2006.
TABLE 4.--FISCAL YEAR 2006 GENERAL FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Beginning Fund Balance (October 1, 2005)........ 1,350.6
Appropriated for Fiscal Year 2006......................... (591.6)
Projected Fiscal Year 2006 Operating Margin............... 1.3
Projected GAAP Adjustments................................ (20.0)
-------------
Projected Ending Fund Balance (September 30, 2006)........ 740.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 GROSS FUNDS BUDGET
The proposed fiscal year 2006 gross funds operating budget is $7.35
billion, an increase of $1.07 billion, or 17.0 percent, over the
approved fiscal year 2005 gross funds budget of $6.29 billion. The
$1.07 billion expenditure increase is comprised largely of a $893.7
million increase in the General Fund budget, which reflects the program
policy initiatives and fiscal policy initiatives discussed above. The
other $171.9 million increase in non-local funds reflects projected
expenditures in federally funded programs ($169.0 million), including
Medicaid; and private grants ($2.9 million).
TABLE 5.--FISCAL YEAR 2006 GROSS FUNDS BUDGET BY FUND TYPE
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Percent
Fund Type 2005 2006 Change Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local....................................................... $4,170.1 $4,949.5 $779.4 18.7
Special Purpose (O Type).................................... 332.8 447.1 114.4 34.4
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, General Fund................................ 4,502.8 5,396.6 893.7 19.8
===================================================
Federal..................................................... 806.3 931.4 125.1 15.5
Federal Medicaid Payment.................................... 963.8 1,007.6 43.9 4.6
Private Grants.............................................. 13.3 16.2 2.9 21.8
---------------------------------------------------
Total Gross Funds..................................... 6,286.2 7,351.8 1,065.6 17.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The District faces a wide variety of infrastructure needs, placing
great demands on its Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The total
proposed appropriation request for the fiscal year 2006-fiscal year
2011 CIP is $2.176 billion for all sources (including the Highway Trust
Fund). This six-year plan includes a net increase in local budget
authority of $778 million ($1.073 billion of new budget authority
offset by $295 million of rescissions). The increased budget authority
will be financed by General Obligation (G.O.) bonds, the Master
Equipment Lease Program, asset sales and PayGo financing. The fiscal
year 2006 capital program consists of $737 million in planned local
non-streets capital expenditures (financed by up to $495 million in new
G.O. bond issuance, $199 million of PayGo transfers from the General
Fund balance, and $43 million from other sources), as well as $60
million of expenditures from the Local Streets Maintenance fund.
PERFORMANCE BUDGETING
This budget also reflects our continued progress implementing
performance-based budgeting (PBB). In fiscal year 2005, we transitioned
11 new agencies to PBB for a grand total of 67 agencies now fully
enrolled in PBB for fiscal year 2006. These 67 agencies account for
nearly 63 percent of the District's annual gross operating budget.
Transition to PBB is a key accomplishment because it establishes a
clear relationship between the funding that agencies receive, the
programs they operate, and the results that they must achieve. A
critical component of PBB is development of programmatic benchmarks to
assist policy makers, District executives and the public in assessing
the value of the District's programs and determining opportunities for
improvement. The current set of benchmarks for District programs has
grown from 39 benchmarks for 18 agencies in fiscal year 2005 to 71
benchmarks for 26 agencies in the fiscal year 2006 proposed budget.
STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE IN THE DISTRICT'S BUDGET
Mr. Chairman, despite this record of balanced budgets, there
remains an ongoing, long-term financial problem, and that is the issue
of the structural imbalance. This serious situation has been documented
a number of times by sources outside the District including most
notably by the General Accounting Office in report GAO-03-666 back in
May 2003. This report defines a financial structural imbalance as the
inability to provide a representative array of public services by
taxing at representative rates. The District is the only city in the
nation that has no state to share costs or underwrite expenditures in
whole or part. The District bears about $500 million annually in costs
of mental health, human services, child and family services, a
university, motor vehicles licensing, taxation, insurance regulation,
public service commission, and other services performed at the state
level.
The District's primary employer--the federal government--has
exempted itself from taxation on its property and its income. Further,
the preponderance of workers in the District of Columbia are exempt
from D.C. income tax because they reside in the neighboring states of
Maryland and Virginia. Finally, the District is the only municipality
in the nation that must exercise the responsibilities of a city, a
county, a state and a school district. Although the District has the
authority for all types of taxes typically levied by states and
municipal governments, it does not have the corresponding tax base
sufficient to pay for the services it must provide.
Again this year, I must ask the Subcommittee to consider the
necessity of providing some additional federal consideration of the
District's infrastructure needs. The District has pressing
infrastructure needs--mostly in our schools, streets and
transportation--that we cannot possibly fund locally. D.C. already has
the highest per capita general obligation debt in the nation and,
according to the GAO report, a tax burden that is 18 to 33 percent
higher than average for the states. Our only options for addressing
these infrastructure needs locally are:
--Adding even more debt per capita;
--Increasing the tax burden per capita--an action that is likely to
discourage potential residents and employers and possibly drive
current residents out of the city; or
--Reduce delivery of other services--a very difficult choice in a
city with a large population of people in need.
The GAO report stressed the unique financial challenges the
District faces in generating the funds to finance usual and necessary
services, and identified an annual structural imbalance of $470 million
to $1.14 billion between the costs of delivering typical services and
the revenue available from typical tax burdens, based on fiscal year
2000 budget and data. Over the years, the District dealt with this gap
by neglecting infrastructure needs and assessing very high taxes.
For example, our capital program is constrained by limited
operating revenues to support debt service as well as by the impact of
prudent debt ratios and debt affordability determinations. The
District's capital needs are now estimated to be about $7 billion, but
our capital spending plan in fiscal year 2006-fiscal year 2011 for
which we have identified funding sources is only about $2 billion,
leaving a gap of about $5 billion. If borrowing occurs as planned, our
tax-supported debt per capita will rise to over $11,000 by fiscal year
2009.
Again this year, Congresswoman Norton has introduced a bill, the
Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005, H.R. 1586 to address the
structural imbalance, to relieve some of the unsustainable burden on
the D.C. government and residents and businesses and to prevent another
fiscal crisis for the capital city. We urge Congress to take action to
enact this important legislation.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I request that my written
testimony be made part of the record. I will be pleased to answer any
questions you or the other members may have.
RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Fund Type -----------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency & Contingency Cash.............................. 285 249 254 258 302 307
Budgeted.................................................. 50 50 50 50 50 50
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 335 299 304 308 352 357
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Reserve Requirements Reduced from 7 percent to 6 percent: Emergency Reserve changed from 4 percent to 2
percent; and Contingency Reserve changed from 3 percent to 4 percent.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FISCAL YEAR 2006-2009 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN--GENERAL FUND
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2004 Actual Approved Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues:
Taxes.................................................... 3,665,195 3,628,730 3,875,218 4,101,533 4,330,091 4,610,561 4,890,072
General Purpose Non-Tax Revenues......................... 324,493 292,447 330,973 340,522 342,896 338,513 346,573
Special Purpose (O-type) Revenues........................ 240,253 208,624 236,026 264,254 273,603 280,326 287,789
Transfer from Lottery.................................... 73,500 71,100 70,000 73,100 73,100 73,100 73,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Fund Revenues.................................. 4,303,441 4,200,901 4,512,217 4,779,409 5,019,690 5,302,500 5,597,534
==========================================================================================
Bond Issuance Costs...................................... ........... ........... 15,400 40,000 16,000 16,000 15,615
Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes from WASA....................... ........... ........... 1,500 1,576 1,622 1,669 1,717
Transfer from Federal and Private Resources.............. ........... 6,361 6,361 6,502 6,646 6,807 6,979
Fund Balance Use......................................... 129,128 165,015 165,015 591,642 ........... ........... ...........
Transfer to Special Purpose Revenues..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Transfer to Capital...................................... ........... ........... ........... (30,000) (30,300) (30,603) (30,909)
Revenue Proposals/One-time Revenue....................... ........... 128,107 76,600 8,729 7,607 9,367 11,137
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund Resources........................... 4,432,569 4,500,384 4,777,093 5,397,858 5,021,265 5,305,740 5,602,073
==========================================================================================
Expenditures (by Appropriation Title):
Governmental Direction and Support....................... 231,364 315,813 327,899 340,859 326,649 336,654 346,999
Economic Development and Regulation...................... 148,949 241,570 216,715 328,156 246,557 252,885 259,394
Public Safety and Justice................................ 746,066 790,815 799,194 827,037 864,258 884,495 917,173
Public Education System.................................. 1,029,193 1,067,666 1,055,821 1,189,302 1,194,175 1,228,423 1,263,822
Human Support Services................................... 1,117,035 1,192,755 1,244,598 1,307,530 1,345,993 1,401,101 1,458,860
Public Works............................................. 314,620 327,936 328,334 366,101 373,427 388,605 404,451
Financing and Other...................................... 400,963 511,692 468,917 588,717 607,655 642,994 678,362
Cash Reserve (Budgeted Contingency)...................... ........... 50,000 15,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Lease Purchase Costs..................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 20,000 25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operating Expenditures....................... 3,988,190 4,498,247 4,456,478 4,997,702 5,008,714 5,205,156 5,404,062
==========================================================================================
Paygo Capital............................................ ........... ........... ........... 207,083 10,000 ........... ...........
Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment Benefits...... ........... ........... ........... 138,000 ........... 81,000 86,200
General Fund Contribution to Capital Fund Balance........ ........... ........... ........... 53,800 ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund Expenditures........................ 3,988,190 4,498,247 4,456,478 5,396,585 5,018,714 5,286,156 5,490,262
==========================================================================================
Operating Margin, Budget Basis......................... 444,379 2,137 320,615 1,273 2,551 19,583 111,810
==========================================================================================
Beginning General Fund Balance............................... 897,357 1,215,015 1,215,015 1,350,615 740,246 722,798 722,380
Operating Margin, Budget Basis............................... 444,379 2,137 320,615 1,273 2,551 19,583 111,810
Projected GAAP Adjustments (Net)............................. 2,407 (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000)
Deposits into Reserve Funds (From Fund Balance).............. (31,609) (19,041) 36,032 (4,489) (4,570) (43,113) (5,428)
Deposits into Reserve Funds (To Cash Reserves)............... 31,609 19,041 (36,032) 4,489 4,570 43,113 5,428
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Reserve (From Fund Balance).... ........... (9,710) (9,710) (9,710) (9,710) (9,710) (9,710)
Unspent TIF Reserve.......................................... ........... 9,710 9,710 9,710 9,710 9,710 9,710
Fund Balance Use............................................. (129,128) (165,015) (165,015) (591,642) ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending General Fund Balance............................ 1,215,015 1,032,137 1,350,615 740,246 722,798 722,380 814,190
==========================================================================================
Composition of Fund Balance:
Emergency Cash Reserve Balance (2 percent, formerly 4 163,091 179,930 83,126 84,622 86,145 100,516 102,325
percent)................................................
Contingency Cash Reserve Balance (4 percent, formerly 3 122,318 124,520 166,251 169,244 172,290 201,032 204,651
percent)................................................
Fund Balance not in Emergency & Contingency Reserves..... 929,606 727,687 1.101,238 486,381 464,363 420,832 507,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending General Fund Balance............................ 1,215,015 1,032,137 1,350,615 740,246 722,798 722,380 814,190
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Brownback. Dr. Janey, it is good to see you again
in this hearing and I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD JANEY, Ph.D., SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Dr. Janey. Thank you very much.
I am going to make some adjustments in my testimony to
observe the need for us to have some dialogue, but my brevity
in no way should diminish I think some of the important issues
that face us, not only as a school district but as the District
of Columbia.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity, Chairman
Brownback and Senator Landrieu. I believe the fiscal year 2006
budget request reflects the collaborative spirit necessary for
an educational agenda to be realized. I believe we must move
aggressively to meet the needs of our students and our goal
must be to regain our public credibility, improve student
performance, raise our expectations, and establish a real
system of accountability.
With this in mind, the fiscal year 2006 budget was designed
to begin to address some of the malaise in our system by
proposing new initiatives that address three key goals. They
are: boosting and sustaining academic performance; improving
our facilities; updating and upgrading our instructional
technology.
To a certain extent, we will be able to accomplish this by
investing our allocated money for fiscal year 2006 of $775
million in quality academic programs and operational reforms.
If we continue to stay focused on our common goal of improving
the quality of education for D.C. students, we can accomplish
even more. The support and leadership of the Board of Education
and the fact that Mayor Williams, Chairperson Cropp, and Dr.
Gandhi have been accessible and responsive to the children,
families and communities as we have developed this budget
process has been critical to the success of the process thus
far.
Our base budget for fiscal year 2006 was $775 million, but
in the development of the budget we realized that there were
some educational investments that would be unfulfilled but were
critical to our ambitious academic agenda. However, the board
and I agreed that we would live within the amount we were
allocated for 2006, different from previous years.
However, the Council helped us secure an additional $15
million to prevent a loss of 269 teaching positions. I thank
Chairperson Cropp, her colleagues and others who were very
helpful in that regard.
In addition, we received an interdistrict transfer of $3.7
million for private special education out of State tuition
payments. So our revised budget amount is $794 million, with an
additional $21 million to support unmet needs in our budget.
Thus our total appropriated amount for fiscal year 2006 is $815
million in local funds.
The projected Federal grant revenues for fiscal year 2006
total $145 million and we have other funding streams that
brings our budget up to approximately $1.1 billion.
Another area where we have received additional needed
support from the Mayor and the Council on the operating side of
the budget is in the area of facilities. We have received an
additional $6 million to open up schools this year. We have
targeted a number of schools for landscaping, painting,
sprucing up, looking at our gymnasia and our cafeterias.
To give you a sense of the condition of our buildings,
however, 86 of our 147 schools are more than 50 years old and
another 41 are 75 years of age or older. Between 1982 and 2000,
just a scant number of schools have been fully modernized. I
cannot overstate the simple premise that every student needs
and deserves a decent learning environment.
To meet our most urgent facility needs in the context of
fiscal realities, we developed the transition capital
improvement plan adopted by the Board of Education in March of
this year. This plan allows for more effective and strategic
use of funds. It allows us to expand opportunities to partner
with charter schools through co-location.
I am going to start to wind up this presentation and this
testimony, but I would like to highlight a couple of
initiatives that have continued to be of importance to us in
the school district, the first of which is the Tuition
Assistance Grant program. This program has opened up college
opportunities to many families for the first time and provided
an additional incentive for middle class families to stay in
the city. To build upon this, we have entered into a
partnership with the College Board to promote development of
the skills students need to succeed in college, and our high
school guidance counselors have all been trained in the
benefits of promoting the tuition assistance program.
Based on its value to the development of our students and
the desirability of the city, we ask the committee to continue
funding this important initiative.
Further, with respect to school improvement and the $13
million appropriation coming from this subcommittee, I seek the
continued funding for school improvement. These funds have
enabled us to implement the Massachusetts learning standards
for this coming school year. I would ask the subcommittee not
to first insert special legislative language that might hamper
the continued implementation of these standards. The continued
funding is vital to the current academic reforms we have
instituted.
Our use of school improvement funds will enable us to do--
will enable us to continue to invest in the following key
areas, ranging from the implementation of the learning
standards, going fundamentally then with curriculum
instruction, having a clear and rigorous assessment system,
having the accountability that goes along with that, providing
professional development of our staff, and looking at
prevention through early intervention, that is establishing new
opportunities for 3- and 4-year-olds to come to the District.
I believe, in conclusion, this operating budget will
considerably advance our work at improving student achievement
and assisting us in changing the institutional culture of the
school system and make the necessary reforms so long needed.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my testimony and I, like my colleagues, will
be here to remain part of the dialogue.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Dr. Janey.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Clifford B. Janey
Good morning, Chairman Brownback, Senator Landrieu and Members of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I
am pleased to be here with Mayor Williams, Chair Cropp and Dr. Ghandi.
INTRODUCTION
I believe the fiscal year 2006 budget request act reflects the
collaborative spirit necessary for our educational agenda to be
realized. I believe we must move aggressively to meet the needs of our
students. Our goal must be to regain our educational focus, improve
student performance, raise student expectations and establish a system
of accountability. With this in mind, our fiscal year 2006 budget was
designed to begin to address the malaise in our system by proposing new
initiatives that address three key goals. The goals inherent in the
budget are to boost academic standards, improve facilities and update
and upgrade our instructional technology.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
Under the leadership of the board of education, along with the
support of those assembled here today, we began the budget process and
had to accept the widespread feeling that our schools operate in an
isolated and detached manner. We felt that addressing the public's
concerns would go a long way to improve the overall environment of
learning and boost student achievement. With this in mind, we began the
process of building a budget to encompass the feelings of stakeholders
and the desires of parents for more academic rigor.
To a certain extent, we were able to accomplish this by investing
our allocated amount for fiscal year 2006 of $775 million in quality
academic programs and operational reforms.
If we continue to stay focused on our common goal of improving the
quality of education for D.C. students, we can accomplish even more.
The support and leadership of the board of education and the fact that
Mayor Williams, Chair Cropp and Dr. Ghandi have been accessible and
responsive to our children, families and communities as we developed
our fiscal year 2006 budget has been critical to the success of this
process thus far.
Our base budget for fiscal year 2006 was $775 million, but in the
development of the budget, we realized there were educational
investments that would be unfulfilled but were critical to our
ambitious academic agenda. However, the board and I agreed that we
would live within the amount we were allocated for fiscal year 2006.
However, the council helped us secure an additional $15 million to
prevent the loss of 386 teaching positions. In addition, we received an
intra-district transfer of $3.7 million for private special education
out of state tuition payments. So, our revised budget amount is $794
million, with an additional $21 million to support the ``unmet'' needs
of our budget. Thus, our total appropriated amount for fiscal year 2006
is $815 million in local funds. The projected federal grant revenues
for fiscal year 2006 totals $145 million and we have other funding
streams that brings our budget up to $1 billion.
Another area where we have received additional needed support from
the mayor and council is in the area of facilities. We have received an
additional $6 million to open the schools this fall.
To give you a sense for the condition of our schools, eighty-six
(86) of our 147 schools are more than 50 years old. Another 41 are 75
years or older. And, between 1982 and 2000, only four schools were
added to or rebuilt.
I cannot overstate the simple premise that every student needs and
deserves a decent learning environment. To meet our most urgent
facilities needs in the context of fiscal realities, we developed the
transition capital improvement plan adopted by the board of education
in March 2005.
This plan allows for a more effective and strategic use of funds.
This also will allow us to expand opportunities for co-locating to
support charter schools. Most recently, we have identified ten schools
as possible co-location sites for charter schools to co-locate for this
fall one year. I envision there possibly will be greater opportunities
to co-locate or for charters to occupy additional buildings upon
completion of the master education plan. The rationale for the one-year
lease is to allow time for the development of this master plan, which
will guide both our academic and facilities plans for the coming years.
Tuition Assistance Grant Program
This program has opened up college opportunities to many families
for the first time and provided an additional incentive for middle
class families to stay in the city. To build on this, we have entered
into a partnership with the College Board to promote development of the
skills students need to succeed in college and our high school guidance
counselors have all been trained in the benefits of promoting the
tuition assistance program. Based on its value to the development of
our students and the desirability of our city, we ask the committee to
continue funding this important initiative.
School Improvement
Further, I seek the continued funding for school improvement. These
funds have enabled us to implement the Massachusetts standards for this
coming school year. I would ask the committee not to insert any
legislative language that would hamper the continued implementation of
these standards. The continued funding is vital to the current academic
reforms I have instituted. Our use of school improvement funds will
enable us to continue to invest in the following key areas:
--Curriculum and instruction.--Develop grade-by-grade standards in
science, social studies, and four electives. This process will
incorporate the best standards from around the country. At the
same time, English/language arts and mathematics curricula will
be developed and linked to textbook adoption.
--Assessments.--Implement periodic benchmark testing to monitor
progress of students throughout the school year, identify
students who need support so that help can be provided, and
help tailor training for teachers and principals to meet
students' needs.
--Accountability.--Adopt an effective schools initiative that is more
closely aligned with NCLB standards and will reach more schools
with additional support and resources. The research-based
approach, which is based on the successful performance
improvement mapping (pim) model being used in Massachusetts,
aligns more closely with federal standards in NCLB.
--Professional development.--Work with our standards content
consultants in an ongoing process to help teachers develop the
knowledge, skills and tools they need to take ownership of the
standards and curriculum.
--Prevention and early intervention.--Renewing the emphasis and
system wide mandate for early intervention in the context of
general education, including academic and behavioral supports
and other services for struggling students, will enable DCPS to
meet the needs of more learners, improve student achievement,
and reduce the number of inappropriate special education
referrals.
I believe this operating budget will considerably advance our work
at improving student achievement, assist us in changing the
institutional culture of this school system, and make the necessary
program and operational changes that will benefit the children in our
classrooms and, ultimately, the citizens of the District of Columbia.
This concludes my testimony. I will now answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Brownback. We will run the time clock 5 minutes
back and forth, so we will just try to ask some pretty good
questions and very quick questions and then do a couple of
rounds here if we can.
Dr. Janey, we held a hearing on education and both Senator
Landrieu and I are very concerned about what is taking place in
the D.C. system and the results or lack of results that have
taken place for school children in the District of Columbia. I
want to focus in on your physical plant issue if I could to
start off with, because you have noted, Chairperson Cropp has
noted, the dilapidated condition of your physical plant.
You have about 147 school facilities . What do you believe
that total number should be? Where do you think that number
should actually be, given what your enrollment is today and
where your students are located?
Dr. Janey. I cannot give you a precise number of schools
because we are currently in the process of building this plan.
By December of this year we will have a master education plan
that will really frame how many facilities that we should have
pre-K through 12, the types of uses for those facilities, so
that we would be able to have finally right-sized the District.
So we are in that process right now, Senator.
Senator Brownback. Could you give me any comparables in the
country of student population, of what the D.C. area is, and
what the number of school facilities would be in a comparable
district? You do not have it determined here yet, but what
would be a comparable in the United States?
Dr. Janey. Boston might be comparable in enrollment, give
or take 2,000 or 3,000, 4,000 students, and I believe their
number of facilities is probably 15 or 20 less, I think. But I
would not want to say factually for the record. But Boston is
somewhat comparable to the District of Columbia in enrollment.
Senator Brownback. I do not think you have closed any
schools since 1999. This was an issue when I was chairing the
authorizing committee before, that we need to get more
resources into fewer physical plants. We need to upgrade these
physical plants.
It is a similar thing that we are going through on military
bases across the country, across the world, is we are trying to
get into fewer buildings and get them upgraded so that they are
better. I have been in a couple of your physical plants. They
clearly need upgrading. There is just no question about it.
But there has a will to say, okay, we are going to take the
dollars that we have and we are going to put them in the
physical plants that we need, and the other ones, we are just
going to have to close.
I know this was a tough issue back then. It is a tough
issue now. I do not know if we need to provide assistance to be
able to strengthen your hand to be able to move forward on
that, but it strikes me this is going to be one of the
fundamental issues we are going to have to face, is get more
resources put into fewer physical plants for students.
Dr. Janey. I think the technical aspect of the issue,
meaning looking at the enrollment against the number of
schools, that is not the big lift. Looking at the types of
educational programs and services and then projecting over time
what the enrollment will be, that is a second consideration.
But when you talk about consolidation, when you talk about
closing schools, you talk about shared use of schools, often it
comes down to political will and where will people stand once
you make that decision.
Senator Brownback. I understand all of that. I understand
the difficulty.
Dr. Janey. So that it rests more in that area than it does
in the other two.
Senator Brownback. When the statement was made by the
former speaker about all politics is local, talk about schools
and it is real local, and it is a very tough issue to deal
with.
Dr. Janey. I have heard Mr. O'Neil say that many times.
Senator Brownback. Mayor Williams, thank you for your
presentation here. I want to go at one area and then I want to
come back to you, if I can, a little bit later. You talk about
the level of taxation within the District, some of the highest
taxation within the country. I think even Chairperson Cropp was
talking about a punitive tax structure, I believe is the terms
that I heard you use.
Do you have plans or should you or are you considering
plans for reduction of that tax structure within the District
of Columbia as a further effort and opportunity for growth for
the District of Columbia, if your tax structure is so punitive
and so high?
Mayor Williams. Well, I can ask Chairman Cropp to speak to
the Tax Parity Act that the Council passed, what was it, in
1999 I believe, which provided for a series of reductions of
income tax in the city. We have worked together where we could,
certainly on a strategic basis, reducing taxes for business. I
have worked with the Council in providing cap relief for
property taxpayers, who are suffering from escalating housing
prices and hence assessments and hence levies, on the basis of
that.
In this year's budget there is $88 million in tax relief. I
think it is about $40 million of that is the latest tranche of
this Tax Parity Act, which I strongly support, because this
latest stage of the Tax Parity Act actually is providing
increasing tax relief to moderate and low income citizens. Then
we have also added to that, with the strong support of the
Council, additional tax relief that would total about $88
million.
One of the things I am particularly proud of is we say to
homeowners--there are two things, actually. Chairman Cropp can
speak to the latter. One is, if you are a homeowner, a
household making less than $50,000 a year, you do not pay
property taxes on your home until you sell it. I think that is
going to provide great relief for the strain faced by middle
income households, who are seeing their property values go up,
but those assessments and those property levies can be onerous.
Then number two--and I give her full credit for this--
Chairman Cropp, at her urging we have included in the budget
relief for custodial grandparents who are taking care of these
kids in many instances and should be supported. You talk about
supporting families. This is something I really salute her for,
providing hope for--providing help for these custodial
grandparents in terms of tax relief to allow them to shoulder
the burden of raising these children.
I do not know if you want to speak to any of those issues,
Chairman Cropp.
Ms. Cropp. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
The Mayor and Council have worked very hard to look at ways
to reduce the burden for our citizens. We are challenged also
by our own success with regard to real estate property. What we
are finding in the District is that the housing costs have gone
up, they have tripled or quadrupled, but the salaries have not
matched it. The average cost of a house in the District is
roughly around $350,000, $375,000, where the average salary is
about $70,000, $75,000.
What we have now is we have some people, particularly
seniors, who may be in a house that they bought 50, 60 years
ago for $40,000, whose house may be worth about $500,000,
$600,000, $700,000, $800,000 now, but their annual income may
only be $25,000 to $40,000 a year. So the taxes are getting at
a level where either we force them to sell their house and
leave the District, because if they sold their house it is
nothing else they could buy in the District with that money.
So in the Mayor's budget, working with the Council, we have
devised a way to work with these seniors that they do not have
to pay the property taxes until after they sell their house.
However, there is another group who is impacted by this and
why the city needs to look at it. Let us look at new college
graduates, young professionals just starting out. The average
median income in the District of Columbia has just risen to
$89,000 for a family of four. That is not enough money to be
able to buy a house and deal with affordable living, housing.
So this budget is also dealing with that issue. We are
looking and wrestling with tax packages that will actually
reduce the rate that people pay on taxes and also we are
looking at the cap again. The cap appears skewed in the sense
that you say people who have a higher value house will get more
money and that is true, but it does not mean in the District of
Columbia that people who have a higher value house are rich
people.
Senator Brownback. In farm country we would say of a
farmer, he lives poor and dies rich. Just the income off the
farm is not that much, but he sits there for a number of years,
works hard with his family, and at the end of life he has some
value. But the income is not there. And so I really do applaud
your efforts to try to deal with that situation.
We should not have a punitive tax structure within the
District of Columbia. I am glad you are working to assess that.
Mayor Williams. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one
thing. I think one reason why the taxes are high, I would get
back to our original testimony, is again because of this
structural imbalance. The Federal Government basically tells me
I only have access to half of my tax base. So you are trying to
run an operation with only half of your tax base, and if you
believe the GAO, which says that really there are costs beyond
our control, you are going to end up overtaxing that limited
base you have.
So while the relief that we have embarked on I think is
important, we cannot miss the underlying really critical
importance, I think, of addressing the structural deficit. I
would personally think that the Fair Federal Compensation Act
is one good way to do that.
Ms. Cropp. I was going to say the same thing, Senator. What
the Mayor is saying is absolutely factual. The District, not
unlike any other city, has a population that is older, sicker,
and poorer. Most cities get the help from their surrounding
areas to help offset that problem.
Ironically, the absolute reverse happens in the District of
Columbia. We help subsidize our more affluent suburban areas.
More than 56 percent of the people who work for the District of
Columbia government--not the Federal Government, not the
private sector, but the District of Columbia government--live
outside of the District of Columbia. That is not through our
control. That is through a Federal mandate that that occurs. So
we cannot even tax that revenue at its source.
For every dollar earned in the District of Columbia, we can
only keep 33 cents of it. The difference between other major
cities and the suburban areas surrounding it, the State helps
to offset that cost, that loss, and we have no offset for it.
Senator Brownback. I have gone 10 minutes instead of 5 and
I will give that to my colleague.
I do want to recognize Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton,
a dear friend of mine. Over the years I have worked with her.
You were hiding behind the Mayor so I did not see or I would
have recognized you at the very outset.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
acknowledge Congresswoman Norton who is here. I thank you for
your work and your support. Your input has been invaluable to
this subcommittee as we have worked through some of these
issues and I really appreciate your help and support.
I wanted to, Mr. Mayor, go on the record as supporting your
comments regarding the structural imbalance. As you know, the
record-setting report by GAO actually requested by the
Congresswoman and me was issued I believe 2 years ago now. We
did have a quite lengthy hearing on the subject. That report
basically in my mind put to rest the question as to whether a
structural imbalance exists.
It is clear that it exists. It is clear that it is between
$400 million, I think, Dr. Gandhi, $400 million and $1 billion.
It is clear from the exchange that we just had that as we move
to address that one of the real results could be a lowering of
very high tax rates in the District, which would be good for
everyone and a real benefit for future development.
So I know that there are several proposals. The
Congresswoman has a proposal. Several proposals have been put
forward. But Mayor, would you take a minute, and perhaps Dr.
Gandhi take a moment, to talk about some aspects of these that
you think are particularly encouraging or a way that you would
like us to try to think about approaching this? Would it be a
rebate of taxes that the District residents pay from the
Federal Government? Could the Federal Government look at some
other ways that we could fill that structural imbalance?
Because it is really a question as to what the Federal
Government can do.
Do you want to put anything into the record, comments on
that this morning?
Mayor Williams. Well, my own view, Senator Landrieu, is--
and I have stated this publicly a number of times; I would just
use this occasion again--is I really do believe that a
promising vehicle for addressing this is the District of
Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2005, which was
introduced by Congresswoman Norton. I think there are two key
provisions of this that I think are becoming in my mind in
running the city day to day.
One is it is an annual Federal outlay on a formula basis,
so you can resolve this matter once and for all and we do not
have to revisit this over and over again. I think there is a
lot to be said for settled expectations and everything else.
Number two, it would be dedicated to exactly the things
that this subcommittee has addressed, the GAO report addressed,
and we have heard today in testimony: the transportation
projects, the extraordinary debt service that the city has to
suffer because we do not have state support, public school
facilities, information technology.
I believe that a real offset of all this--number one.
Number two, a real offset of all this would be we would see
then with these investments increasing relief, not only for
individuals but also for businesses, because actually the GAO
will tell you, our Federal City Council will tell you--I am
getting now the councils mixed up--the Federal City Council
will tell you that the real extraordinary burden in terms of
taxation now is on our businesses.
So the Council has made progress and I salute them for
reducing the burden on our individuals. But if you are a small
business in the city or a business in the city, what you are
paying versus Maryland and Virginia is clearly extraordinary.
This would allow us to address that.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Brownback. Dr. Gandhi.
Dr. Gandhi. I think the Mayor has spoken quite well on this
issue. I think what this chart shows, Mr. Chairman and Mrs.
Landrieu, is that the District can manage itself very well
financially. It is like we can manage a household very well.
The question is what happens when the roof falls down, what
happens if I have a flood in the basement? The larger
infrastructure issue is the only puzzle that needs to be
resolved, and that cannot be resolved locally.
I think Ms. Norton's proposed legislation is an excellent
idea. That would provide us the kind of recurring annual,
predictable budget relief that we need. But more important,
what we have there is basically a capital fund, that money
would be spent only on infrastructure, the buildings,
transportation, technology, debt service.
So it is not that Congress gives that money to the city and
we start five new programs and hire 1,000 new bureaucrats. No.
The funds would basically be taking care of an infrastructure
that needs to be repaired and should be worthy of the Nation's
Capital.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I would like to agree that I
think one of the strongest aspects of that proposal is that it
creates a capital fund which would be able to be accountable
and transparent. How the money was spent--it could be used at
discretion, of course, of the city, but could be a real signal
of strategic investments for the growth of the city and also
provide some tax relief across the board.
On that, I want to mention that I am particularly pleased
with the tax relief and the recognition of the rising value of
homes in the District--the blessing of that, but the burden to
people on fixed incomes, particularly seniors. I really want to
commend you, Chairman Cropp, for looking at that area, and the
Mayor, and trying to provide some relief in an innovative way,
so the city is not giving up revenue. It may be postponing it,
but it really allows those families to have some relief that is
so necessary today.
Ms. Cropp. Senator, if I may, on the capital fund issue
that you were talking with the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi about, to
say how important it is. Legally, the city has a 17 percent
ceiling on our budget that we cannot spend more in capital
projects. But the reality is that Wall Street, the bond rating
agencies, will not let us go over--Dr. Gandhi--probably about 8
or 9 percent?
Dr. Gandhi. Nine percent.
Ms. Cropp. Nine percent. We are fairly close to that level.
So that even if we decided as a city that we wanted, or even if
we had the money for the infusion for our schools, we could not
do it because our bond rating would then drop down and we are
just in a terrible position.
So this capital fund is just so very important for our
schools, as we look at Metro. Metro, which has been the pride
of the Nation, is now at an age where it needs to have a
reinvestment. So for our capital budget it really is
problematic. That capital fund will be very helpful.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I appreciate that. I would only say
that this is not the only city that has limits to its capital
expenditures. There are cities all over America that struggle
with these limits, put on either by themselves or by agencies
or by State governments or by necessity because of the
finances, and it is a complicated issue.
You can also use cash when it becomes available and not
increase your bonding capacity, and it is always good to use
cash when you have got it and not increase borrowing, and your
surpluses allow you to take that cash and use it wisely, which
you have done in your proposal.
But I want to get to, in one moment--the chairman has been
very gracious here. But I would like to get to you, Dr. Janey
and the Mayor, about the facilities issue for our schools.
There are a couple of solutions. I know these are difficult.
But one, the overall budget for the school system is $1.1
billion, which we are still trying to get a handle on exactly
how that breaks down per student compared to other cities,
which is the way I would like to compare it, not States,
because I think comparing it to States is apples to oranges,
but I think comparing it to cities accurately reflects the real
costs.
This is the document that I have for the record. I am
sorry, it is fiscal year 2003. I am sure it can be updated. I
do not have it this morning. But based on this document that we
had in fiscal year 2003, Orleans Parish, which is my home town,
was spending $6,500 per student, Baltimore was spending $10,000
per student, Milwaukee was spending about $11,000 per student,
and the District of Columbia was spending $13,000 per student.
Now, these numbers may have changed and if we can just get
this updated then we will know and put that into the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Pupil
City Spending Enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orleans Parish, LA............................ $6,560 70,246
Alameda Co. (Oakland), CA..................... $7,122 10,615
Houston, TX................................... $7,236 212,099
Kansas City, KS............................... $7,827 20,810
Baltimore, MD................................. $9,639 96,230
Cincinnati, OH................................ $9,677 42,715
Milwaukee, WI................................. $10,352 97,293
Montgomery Co., MD............................ $10,580 138,983
Alexandria, VA................................ $12,736 10,971
Washington, DC................................ $13,328 67,522
Arlington, VA................................. $13,334 19,135
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census F-33 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances for
2002-2003.
Senator Landrieu. But the point is that $1 billion plus
budget for the District schools is more than most cities of
this size and demographics have. One way to capture funding for
facilities is to have some savings or efficiencies, whether it
comes through some savings through facilities or operations. If
you had a 5 percent savings, which is $50 million, you could
take that money and bond it and create a bond issue to invest
in schools.
Another way is to use the assets of the school system
itself, which, Mr. Mayor, I understand that there are 39
schools on this list of surplus property. Fourteen have been
either leased or sold as according to the city law for charter
schools. But there are an additional 17 schools that could
either be leased according to now the local law and the Federal
law, to give a preference, a strong preference to charter
schools.
The money generated from these transactions could go to the
benefit of the school system. It could go to the benefit of the
school system. It does not have to go to the benefit of the
general fund of the city.
So there is a real win-win, Mr. Chairman, as we take steps
to co-locate, to make these vacant in some cases and surplus
facilities available to schools, to use the profits of that, if
you will, for the school system itself.
In addition, some of these buildings have been available
for housing under the control of the city through the control
board. They have been very successful housing developments. I
am aware of some of them. But again, the moneys that were
generated by the sale of those buildings could have gone back
to the school system. I do not think that happened. I think
that went back to the city general fund.
So I would just ask that we look at the assets of the
school system, how they can be better used to help the problem
that we have, and to recognize that there are right now,
without any additional Federal help, some real opportunities
for enhancements of these facilities.
Senator Brownback. As you can see, my colleague has dug
into this pretty deep and is quite committed to it, and I look
forward to working with her on some of these topics.
If I could turn quickly to a couple of things on another
set of topics. When I was the authorizing chair we did a number
of structural changes in the District of Columbia. This was in
1997. I think Connie Mack was one of the key individuals
involved in the negotiations. A lot of structural changes were
made at that time. That is when the homestead or the first time
home buyers accounts were put in place, which I think have been
very successful in the District of Columbia. We are trying to
replicate them in other places across the country.
One of the things that we had looked at and considered is
putting in place in the District of Columbia a flat tax making
the Federal income tax a flat tax in the District of Columbia.
It had pretty good support. I put in a bill along with
Congressman Paul Ryan on the House side. Jack Kemp supported
it.
One other item, though, I want to throw out for you. We did
several years ago individual development accounts, trying to
get people of low income to save. We had a Federal match of but
$2. For every $1 that the individual would save, we would match
it with $2, as an attempt to increase personal savings--and we
called it an individual development account. Let us start
building up this.
I was wondering, Mayor, in looking at the need to support
families, if we should try to expand that concept on marriage
development accounts, where a couple raising children but at a
low income level, not necessarily at a poverty level but at a
low income level, that we would try to use that same concept.
I put it out as something that we are looking at. I want to
see if the concept has worked for the individual development
accounts or not, if you look at it and say, well, it has worked
some, not that great, or if it has really worked well. Is that
something we could expand in this category to try to encourage
and support that institution where generally children thrive
the best? So I put that out for you.
We will look forward to working with you on this budget,
and on other items. Again, I congratulate you on the many areas
of improvement. We have got some possibilities and some things
to work on. I look forward to working with my colleague, who is
very knowledgeable and has been on this subcommittee for some
period of time.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENT
The subcommittee has received a statement from Paul
Strauss, the shadow Senator for the District of Columbia which
will be placed in the record at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Strauss
Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member Landrieu and others on the
subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this
statement on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia.
I fully support the fiscal year 2006 Budget Request for the
District of Columbia. It is vital for my constituents that the Budget
Request is met in full. As the elected U.S. Senator for the District of
Columbia, I myself cannot vote on this appropriation. I am limited to
merely asking you to support their requests. Unlike citizens of any
other jurisdiction, we lack the legal rights to make these funding
decisions on our own. This is not just an issue of simply allocating
appropriations but, for the residents of our Nation's Capital, an issue
of fundamental justice.
The District of Columbia should not have to look to Congress for
financial determinations. Congress appropriates the money of local tax-
payers, which rightly should be appropriated by local government. The
money at issue is raised by taxing the local citizenry, and Congress
should have no authority to interfere. This is again a case where the
many restrictions on the District of Columbia's ability to self-govern
adversely impact the taxpayers of your own states. Today's hearing, an
exercise in bureaucracy, would be unnecessary if the District was free
to conduct its own budget. I have made this argument many times before
many committees of this body, and I will continue making it until the
District of Columbia becomes a state. Most importantly, as long as
Congress continues to control the District's budget, which should be
operated by the District, Congress has an obligation to fully fund the
budget request without hesitation.
Due to our lack of self-determination, we are unable to provide
certain government services on a local level. As long as Congress
continues to utilize city services, it has an obligation to fully fund
city services. It is essential to the District that Congress pass this
budget in time for the new fiscal year and avoid being held up in
continuing resolutions. If the District's Budget is held up, vital
spending adjustments are not allowed to be implemented and the cost of
debt services increases. Each day the budget is delayed is a further
impediment in our efforts to provide vital local services to the loyal
tax paying residents of the District of Columbia.
The predicament and unneeded bureaucracy of our budget being held
up every year can be resolved through Budget Autonomy. Our local budget
has no relevance to Congress or any of your constituents, and is an
unnecessary obligation on the national taxpayer and the national
legislature. Since fiscal year 1996, the District of Columbia has
unfailingly provided Congress with a balanced budget, consistently
demonstrating that it is a competent governing body. It therefore seems
extraordinary that such a proficient and capable body should not be
given the rights to pass its own budget without policy interference and
social riders regulating the government within the District. It should
be within the legislative remit of the District of Columbia to make its
own economic decisions, and not Congress.
The District of Columbia has submitted a budget that has called for
significant, increased investment in public services and education.
Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi have
explained the specifics and I support their efforts. The budget request
is balanced, thorough, and accounts for the needs of the residents of
the District of Columbia. It will provide more money to be spent
adequately on education and family services on a per capita basis than
ever before. The money to be invested in education is crucial if we are
to be able to meet our aims of improving education for all who live in
the District.
I am the only elected official whose children attend D.C. public
schools. Our public schools have been making good progress, but we
still face huge barriers in our ability to provide a holistic
educational experience. For example, in 2005, 49 of the District's 167
public schools had no music teachers and 44 had no art teachers. My own
child's school, Stoddet Elementary, lacked a second grade teacher, and
the first and second grades had to be combined. Without the proper
funding, the District will never be able to break such barriers, and
the children who live in the District will always be at a disadvantage.
The District should be able to provide the type of education every
child in this country deserves. The budget request includes $1 billion
to fund our public schools. Of this, $779.3 million will be dedicated
to the District of Columbia's Public Schools; $234.4 million for the
District of Columbia's Public Charter Schools; and $25.2 million for
the Educational Investment Fund. The request also includes $147 million
in capital funding to support improvements to public school buildings
in the District. The request represents an increase of $81.6 million on
the fiscal year 2005. The additional request will be spent on improving
11 new charter schools and will create an Educational Investment Fund
to help improve student and school attainment. These investments will
help provide essential facilities that will help provide an appropriate
educational environment.
The public school administration has worked hard to build a budget
that will sustain the public school system. To avoid losing 386
teaching positions, $15 million was secured for the school budget. An
additional $6 million was secured to help open schools this fall. The
administration accepted this budget, and was confident that it could
operate within the amount allocated. In other words, there should be no
need to close any facilities. It is outrageous that D.C. schools should
be shut down to compensate, not for a deficit within the District's
budget, but rather for a deficit in the national budget. Students of
the District of Columbia should not be penalized for Congress's
inability to balance the budget.
In addition to allocation to public schools, the budget request
also includes monies dedicated to improving Higher Education and
lifelong learning in the District of Columbia. Higher Education is a
crucial part of our aim of improving education in the District. It is
essential that those who want to learn be given the opportunity to do
so regardless of their age or economic situation. The main focus of our
efforts will be improving the availability of programs and facilities
at the University of the District of Columbia. This includes an
allocation of $8.3 million to expand programs in sectors such as
nursing, social work, and teacher education; $8.2 million to extend
opening hours for libraries and to invest in additional facilities; and
$700,000 in financial aid to support a further 474 students from low-
income backgrounds. The budget request would help address some of the
problems faced by the District's Education Services, who continue to
achieve remarkable results in less than favorable conditions, by
providing funds for vital programs, facilities, and resources.
Besides money allotted to the education sector, the budget request
includes a significant allocation to children and family services,
namely the Children and Youth Trust Corporation, the Department of
Youth Rehabilitation Services, the Child and Family Services Agency,
and the Department of Human Services. The District of Columbia has made
great strides in tackling the problem of juvenile crime over the last
year, as the falling rate of crimes committed by juveniles illustrates.
However, we continue to strive to make further progress in this area
and to tackle the underlying causes of these problems. The Budget
request provides sufficient resources to be able to attack the causes
of many of the problems the district faces, and should therefore be
supported in full.
Included in the budget request is a $14 million allocation to
construct or improve 7 recreation centers; $6.5 million for child
services; and $13.5 million for juvenile intervention initiatives.
These improvements are crucial to the lives of thousands of juveniles
in the District who are striving to improve their lives, and who
deserve the opportunity to fulfill their potential. The budget request
would help fund these programs that would subsequently help address
problems such as crime and drug use, which continue to plague the
District of Columbia. Subsequently, this would reduce the burden on
your constituents whose taxes are being spent on the problems in the
District.
As well as the investment in youth, the budget request also
allocates significant investment in Health and Welfare services. This
includes an allocation of $9 million to expand healthcare services,
including dental and primary healthcare services; $8 million to provide
school nursing services; $14 million to help address the problem of
homelessness in accordance with the Districts 10 year plan; and to
begin the construction of Wellness Centers in Wards 4 & 6. Health and
welfare are key areas we need further investment if we are to be
successful in decreasing, and eventually eliminating, poverty in the
District. It is, therefore, imperative that the budget request should
be met in full in order for the District Health and Welfare Services to
continue their good work.
Congress should focus on the District of Columbia's budget in
respect to resolving the structural imbalance of the budget. The gap
between the District's ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax
rates, and the 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, citizens
should receive same the constitutional rights as all Americans. I would
go as far as to suggest that it is fundamentally un-American that the
population of the District of Columbia is not allowed to spend their
own taxes.
The government of the District of Columbia needs to be fairly
compensated by Congress for the services it provides to federal
agencies. This would serve as a solution to the structural imbalance
within the District budget. The District's budget represents the
citizens of the most unique city in the Nation. The District has
repeatedly provided Congress with a budget that has proven sensible and
attainable. The outlook for the current fiscal year 2006 is projected
as balanced with a surplus. The District Government itself is the best
evaluator of local expenditures. The 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.
The elected officials are persistent in attaining locally raised
revenue needed to fund various local interests such as public service
and education. The city should be allowed to utilize tax dollars in a
more flexible manner. This would subsequently give the District
government the ability to provide the community greater benefit from
the revenue. Flexible use of revenue specifically secures and
stabilizes public service departments within the city. My constituents
have the right to receive the needed revenue to meet their children's
educational needs. I urge you to approve the proposed budget, as it is
deemed necessary to aid the District. The District of Columbia has
submitted a timely budget so Congress has appropriate time to approve
it.
In closing, I wish to sincerely thank the subcommittee for holding
this hearing. I know that this subcommittee has been firmly committed
to meeting its fiduciary obligations. On behalf of my constituents, I
thank you for all your hard work and dedication and I look forward to
working with you in the future. In closing let me thank a member of my
legislative staff, Marta Mudri, for her assistance in preparing my
testimony.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Brownback. If there are any additional questions,
they will be submitted to each of the witnesses for their
response.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the District for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Anthony A. Williams
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. Your fiscal year 2006 budget includes a total of $1.1
billion in local funds to educate approximately 80,000 students within
the District of Columbia Public Schools and public charter schools.
This funding level is a 10.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005
budget. Why do you continue to increase funding for schools while
enrollment declines?
Total enrollment for the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) and the public
charter schools has in fact been quite stable. In 1997-1998, total
enrollment was 77,361 students, comprised of 77,111 DCPS students and
250 charter school students. In 2004-2005, total enrollment of 78,145
is slightly above the 1997-98 level, with 62,306 students in the D.C.
public schools and 15,839 students attending public charter schools.
The increased funding for schools in fiscal year 2006 reflects a
number of factors. First, the uniform per-student funding formula
increased by 3.07 percent this year to reflect inflation, but did not
cover the automatic pay increases provided to school staff that exceed
the inflation rate and are needed to keep D.C. schools competitive with
suburban jurisdictions. (At least three of the five surrounding
suburban jurisdictions offer higher entry-level salaries for teachers,
and all five have a higher top salary level). Therefore, the Council
added $14.9 million to the D.C. Public Schools budget to provide
schools with enough funding to cover these pay increases and avoid
layoffs, as well as a corresponding increase of $4.9 million to the
public charter schools to maintain equitable funding through the
uniform per-student funding formula.
Second, Mayor Williams proposed and the Council approved funding of
$21 million to support the reform initiatives of DCPS' new leadership,
which are squarely focused on academic achievement. Those include:
--development of standards for all subject areas and professional
development for teachers centered around the new content
standards;
--new textbooks aligned to the content standards;
--art and music programs for all schools that presently lack such
instruction;
--after-school reading and math programs;
--expansion of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
programs;
--a ``Summer Bridge'' program for students entering high school with
low achievement scores;
--the creation of a principal leadership academy; and
--the opening of parent and family resource centers.
Charter schools also received a corresponding sum of $4.2 million
to institute programs to improve student achievement.
Special education is the other major area in which the budget has
grown. DCPS' fiscal year 2006 budget reflects an increase of $20.7
million in non-public tuition payments for students receiving special
education services at non-public institutions (much of which reflects
higher costs of tuition), as well as $6.8 million in tuition payments
for special education students in foster care ($3.8 million of which
reflects a budgetary transfer from the State Education Office rather
than a net increase). DCPS also received a $2.6 million increase to
provide educational services at a newly opened intake and assessment
center for youth in the juvenile justice system.
Question. I understand that only 50 cents of every operational
dollar spent by DCPS actually goes to directly educate children. The
national average is 61 percent. Why is this average so low and how have
city leaders proposed to change this?
Answer. The statistics cited above are from state-level data
published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which
defines ``classroom instruction'' as the amount of money spent on
teachers, aides, textbooks, and classroom supplies. Although DCPS is
below the national average in this category, it spends more than the
national average on ``student support'' (legally mandated special
education services such as assessments, speech therapy, occupational
therapy, and physical therapy, as well as counselors and social
workers), as well as ``instructional support'' (librarians,
instructional technology, standards, curriculum, assessments, and
teacher training, much of which is funded by federal grants that are
restricted to certain purposes).
According to the NCES data, DCPS' spending on classroom
instruction, student support, and instructional support totals 70
percent of its budget, which is almost identical to the national
average of 72 percent and is identical to the 70 percent figure for 20
urban school systems of similar size. The comparison group includes
such cities as Oakland, Atlanta, Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, San
Antonio, and Milwaukee. Therefore, DCPS' spending on classroom and
instructional activities seems close to the national average and
similar to the spending patterns in other mid-sized cities, and its
spending for central administration appears to be just below the
national average.
Reducing special education costs through early intervention and
increasing the capacity of local schools to serve all children is key
to ensuring that more of the District's educational dollars flow to
direct instruction. DCPS' expenditures for special education tuition
payments at non-public schools and the transportation of special
education students are particularly high, as are costs for litigation
related to special education.
A number of initiatives are underway to control special education
costs and ensure that children can be properly served by the public
school system. The Prospect Learning Center, which serves elementary
and middle school students with learning disabilities, is newly
renovated and can now serve 120 students in a state-of-the-art
facility. DCPS has increased its internal capacity to educate students
with severe disabilities by creating more than 600 new seats for
autistic children; students who are hearing or vision-impaired;
children who are mentally retarded, learning disabled, or emotionally
disabled; and early childhood special education students. More than 75
percent of those seats have been filled. DCPS' data also shows that 200
students have returned from private placements to DCPS and that DCPS
has stabilized the number of students going out to private placements.
Overall, DCPS reports that it has established more than 400 new special
education seats in local schools for 2004-2005, bringing the number of
slots created in the past three years to nearly 1,800, and that
capacity will increase by another 600 seats in 2005-2006.
Expanding capacity within the school system and reducing the number
of private placements will in turn enable DCPS to reduce the large
costs it incurs to transport special education students to school.
Presently, the transportation office is run by a court-appointed
administrator. The cost of operating 600 bus routes to serve 4,000
children is approaching an annual rate of $75 million per year, and
must be reduced. One important step to reduce transportation costs is
under consideration by the Board of Education: purchasing buses to
reduce the cost of operating a fleet presently comprised of leased
buses. The District's Chief Financial Officer has projected the savings
at $5.6 million in fiscal year 2006 and $24.1 million between fiscal
year 2006 and fiscal year 2010.
The Mayor, Council, and Chief Financial Officer have also
implemented a system of performance-based budgeting that shows the
funding provided to particular programs or activities, rather than
budgeting only by ``object classes'' (such as personnel, fringe
benefits, and supplies) or organizational units. The fiscal year 2006
budget is the first that DCPS has prepared in the performance-based
format. The performance-based budget gives policymakers increased
ability to track where resources are going and will support the efforts
of the Mayor, Council, and Board of Education to maximize the funding
allocated to classroom instruction.
For example, the performance-based budget presents the budgets for
all of the central administrative or management functions (personnel,
procurement, information technology, financial support, policy
development, oversight, etc.), showing that central administrative
functions will cost $36.1 million in local funds in fiscal year 2006.
This amounts to just over 4 percent of DCPS' local funds budget.
Policymakers will now be able to budget explicitly for central
administrative and other functions to make sure that administrative
costs are controlled and that classroom spending is maximized.
The strong commitment of the Mayor and Council to focus resources
on academic achievement and classroom instruction was reflected in the
fiscal year 2006 budget cycle. As described in the answer to question
#1, Mayor Williams proposed $25.2 million in additional funding to
support academic improvement initiatives at DCPS and the public charter
schools. The Council approved the additional funding proposed by the
Mayor, and also added $19.8 million to the uniform per-student funding
formula that finances school-based instruction.
Question. Do you believe that Dr. Gandhi--your CFO--has sufficient
control over the D.C. Public Schools' expenditures? School spending
seems to increase every year with no improvement in student
performance.
Answer. As provided by the Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority (FRMAA) Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8), the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) has sufficient authority and control over DCPS
expenditures. The broad authority provided by FRMAA includes:
--implementing appropriate procedures and instituting such programs,
systems, and personnel policies to ensure effective budget,
accounting, and personnel control systems are in place;
--supervising and assuming responsibility for financial transactions
to ensure adequate control of revenues and resources, and that
appropriations are not exceeded;
--ensuring reliable accounting results to serve as the basis for
preparing agency budget requests and controlling the execution
of the budget;
--maintaining custody of all public funds belonging to or under the
control of the District government;
--apportioning all appropriations and funds made available during the
year for obligation in order to prevent obligations or
expenditures that would result in a deficiency;
--certifying all contracts prior to execution as to the availability
of funds;
--certifying and approving prior to payment all bills, invoices,
payrolls, and other claims, demands, or charges; and
--preparing monthly financial reports on DCPS' revenue and
expenditures.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has effectively
used this authority to monitor and control spending, identifying
potential over-spending and developing and recommending gap-closing
plans for approval by the Board of Education and the superintendent of
schools. The DCPS CFO has also played an important role in monitoring
the implementation and expenditure of federal grants, reducing the
total of lapsed grants from $687,000 in fiscal year 2003 to $165,000 in
fiscal year 2004.
For fiscal year 2006, the DCPS CFO will receive additional budget
authority of $300,000 and three full-time positions to create a special
education financial accountability unit within his office. This unit
will work with DCPS' Office of Special Education to implement rate-
setting agreements with special education providers, to document
information about the placement of children and the duration of these
placements, and to monitor and control costs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine
BIOTERRORISM AND FORENSICS LABORATORY
Question. In the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, we included
$8 million for the architectural design and planning costs associated
with the construction of a new bioterrorism and forensics laboratory in
the District of Columbia. I am pleased that the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2006 built on that appropriation and included
$7 million for the laboratory.
How are you using the $8 million we provided in fiscal year 2005?
Please give me an outline of your timeline for completion of the
construction of the lab, and I would also like you to discuss the
operational costs for the lab once it is up and running.
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the subcommittee provided $8 million
in funding for design, planning and procurement costs associated with
the construction of a new consolidated laboratory facility. We will
have obligated the entire amount by the end of the fiscal year. We have
been working on programming the services and facility needs for and
have spent $1 to $2 million to date. We plan to spend the balance to
conduct the procurement for design services this summer. Starting in
fiscal year 2006, we will begin the bidding and early construction
phases of the project and we plan to complete the project by fiscal
year 2009. We have reviewed more than a dozen sites for the lab and
have narrowed our choices to two. We expect to make a final decision
this summer.
The District plans to incorporate public health, forensics, medical
examiner, and bio-agent analysis capacity. We will also consider
options for adding additional local functions to the facility, which
may result in additional project costs up to as much as $250 million.
Once the facility is completed, we plan to fund the operational costs
for the lab with local resources. The District is currently expending
approximately $21.5 million on the functions to be relocated to the lab
(excluding detective costs) and once the lab is up and running, costs
are certain to increase as we have the capacity to provide services
that were previously beyond our capacity. These costs may rise to as
much as twice our current expenditures and we plan to fund these at the
local level.
______
Questions Submitted to Linda W. Cropp
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. Nationally, 34 percent of babies are born to single
mothers. In the District, 57 percent of babies are born to single
mothers. Research shows that 80 percent of long term child poverty
occurs in broken or never-married families. The beneficial effects of
marriage on individuals and society are beyond reasonable dispute. What
is the District doing to promote healthy marriage and reduce out-of-
wedlock births?
Answer. The District of Columbia provides a comprehensive network
of services available to families.
Within the Department of Human Services, the District initiated the
Strong Families Program (SFP) in October 2002 to provide comprehensive
case management services and family preservation support services to
vulnerable families in the District that present multiple, complex
challenges which place them at high risk for family separation and/or
disintegration. This program was created to serve as a ``safety net''
for TANF dependent/eligible families experiencing acute social,
emotional or familial distress. The program is structured to provide
prevention and early intervention services to families who would
otherwise become known to the District's child welfare, juvenile
justice, homeless, mental health or criminal justice systems.
Since its inception, the Strong Families Program has achieved the
following outcomes:
--Served 547 families in fiscal year 2005, and 434 families in fiscal
year 2004.
--Established satellite case management program offices at 13
underperforming schools in the District.
--Provided on-site, in home case management and family support
services to two (2) public housing sites.
--Formed partnerships with faith-based institutions and the District
of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) to open Family Resource
Centers at select schools.
--Sponsored the District's first weekend Family Retreat to promote
positive family interactions, communications, parent respite
services and family development activities, for families served
by the program.
--Sponsored a range of school-based, family development activities
such as mother/daughter luncheons and teas, father/son
barbecues and family fun days, in partnership with DCPS. These
events are specifically designed to foster parent/child bonding
experiences, social skill development and parent to parent
socialization.
Within the Child and Family Services Agency, the District has
leveraged federal funding to jumpstart the Family Team Meetings (FTM)
program. This initiative is a strengths-based early intervention family
engagement model that brings families, community members, and child
welfare professionals together to discuss the safety concerns and the
needs of the child and his family. Occurring at the critical moment of
concern, the FTM process increases the opportunity for family
participation, identifies supports and resources in the extended family
and community, speeds the process for permanency, and ensures that
social workers base decisions on the best information available. Family
team meetings are being held for all children at-risk of removal and
for placement changes for children in foster care.
Since its inception on September 15, 2004, the Family Team Meeting
initiative has the following outcomes: 171 FTMs have been held; 326
children have been served; the average number of participants per FTM
is 11; and total number of family member participants is 732.
We expect that our focus on reunification through FTMs will result
in children returning home sooner. In addition, we are just beginning
to using FTMs for placement changes involving children, so families can
participate in placement changes and perhaps serve as resources for
children.
Question. You have requested a 30 percent increase in the Resident
Tuition Grant Program. Last year, the Congress provided an increase of
almost 50 percent over the fiscal year 2004 level. I understand that
enrollment continues to increase for this popular program. Do you
believe that this rate of increase will continue?
Answer. Cost increases for the Tuition Assistance Grant Program
over the last two years have been driven a rise in program
participation, nationwide increases in tuition costs, the phase-in of
the program to a full five cohorts, and our efforts to expand
eligibility. The District has also required rapidly rising
appropriations over the last two years because we no longer have a
balance of funding from prior years to help offset our rising costs.
Costs in the future will continue to rise, but will slow
considerably from the growth rates of recent years. We are no longer in
the program's phase-in stage and growth in tuition nationwide may slow
as states' budget crises ameliorate. Over the next several years, we
expect program costs to be driven by tuition cost increases and
moderately growing program participation, albeit at dramatically lower
levels than in recent years. (One area where we may see additional
program growth is within the District's Latino community).
Although we expect growth to slow, we still expect costs to rise
steadily over time at a rate that may be difficult for the federal
government to fund, given limitations on resources. Therefore, the
District is pursuing authorization for selected cost containment
measures that will allow us to take administrative measures to contain
the future growth of program costs.
Question. As I noted in my opening statement, the city is creating
jobs at a rate that is twice the national average, but only one-third
of the jobs that the District is creating are going to city residents.
Why is this and what is the District doing to change this?
Answer. During the last six years, we have added more than 60,000
jobs in the District, yet we still face employment challenges. Last
year, the unemployment rate in the District increased from 7.2 percent
to 8.2 percent. And broad citywide figures mask the reality that in
many communities unemployment is concentrated at much higher levels.
The District's budget this year included a package of legislative
proposals and funding initiatives to combat these disparities. These
initiatives aimed to lower the unemployment rate across the District,
but especially in communities east of the river, and ensure that
residents benefit from the city's significant increase in number of
jobs.
These proposals will help the District's hard to employ residents
overcome their barriers to unemployment, successfully compete in
today's labor market, and achieve economic self-sufficiency by
dedicating substantial resources to job preparedness, life skills,
leadership, and pre-apprenticeship training for adults and youth. In
order to complement these efforts, the District is also working to
secure cooperation and participation of private sector employers in
helping employ District residents to the fullest extent possible. These
proposals include the following:
--Invests an additional $6.4 million to train and provides summer
employment for 10,000 District youth between ages of 14 to 21.
--Invests $4.9 million in the Youth Leadership Institute and year-
round education and training for 465 hard-to-reach youth
between ages of 16 to 24.
--Invests $8.9 million in transitional employment and pre-
apprenticeship training assistance for 800 chronically
unemployed residents.
--Invests $150,000 to increase enforcement and monitoring of current
First Source hiring requirements and provide the Mayor
additional authority to increase First Source requirements in
certain industries.
In addition to these funding proposals, the District is also
considering legislation at the local level that will accomplish the
following:
--Creates a job opportunity bank, funded by District businesses
remitting one-half of one percent of the economic assistance
received from the District, to provide job training grants and
assistance to low-income District residents.
--Requires District-assisted employers to pay a living wage of $10.50
per hour or $9.25 per hour if health insurance benefits are
offered to employees.
Question. You are requesting $5 million to provide incentives to
developers and organizations to construct housing specifically for the
ex-felon community. Could you elaborate on this proposal? How will it
be implemented? How many ex-offenders are returning to the District
every year? What is the recidivism rate in the District?
Answer. The District is proposing federal funding for a new
initiative that would provide incentives to encourage developers and
non-profit organizations to rehabilitate or construct new housing for
reentrants in order to increase the pool of available housing for those
exiting the criminal justice system. We have identified access to
housing as one of the most important risks to recidivism for
individuals making the transition from prisons back into society. We
expect as many as 2,500 offenders to return to the District on an
annual basis in the years ahead, making efforts to combat recidivism as
important as ever.
Recidivism rates in the District are calculated by CSOSA. In fiscal
year 2004, the parole rearrest rate was approximately 13 percent; for
probationers, approximately 20 percent. Approximately 6 percent of the
total supervised population was convicted of a new offense in fiscal
year 2004, and approximately 2 percent were incarcerated as a result of
that conviction. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 11 percent of the
supervised population was revoked for violations of release conditions
(including arrest). The majority of revocations result in
reincarceration; approximately 10 percent of the supervised population
were incarcerated as a result of revocation.
Our ex-felon housing program will be integrated with the District's
ten-year plan to combat homelessness and individuals occupying this
housing will have access to the full range of social services provided
by the District of Columbia to at-risk populations, including job
training, substance abuse and mental health counseling. Integrating
housing solutions with social services is critical because almost 70
percent of returning offenders have a history of substance abuse and
face job placement barriers along with educational challenges.
We will administer the initiative within the Department of Housing
and Community Development (DHCD), which has the infrastructure in place
to monitor housing construction incentives as part of the Housing
Production Trust Fund. DHCD will issue a special Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) to solicit developers of these housing units. The
NOFA will include restrictions on developers using the funds:
developers must derive reentrant tenants from designated non-profit
support service agency; units must be dedicated to reentrants for a
period of at least five years; and operating funds for the first six
months of tenancy are eligible project expenses. This will allow us to
providing targeted funding that encourages the development of cost-
effective housing options for our ex-felons.
We will coordinate services for individuals residing in this
housing through the D.C. Re-entry Initiative. Services provided by the
initiative will include employment services and job-readiness training
are provided in partnership with the Department of Employment Services;
Unity Health Care provides health care delivery and is about to open a
new clinic for this purpose; UDC provides a GED program, as well as
college courses. Supportive services will also be provided by the
Department of Mental Health when needed.
______
Questions Submitted to Natwar M. Gandhi
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. According to GAO, the District of Columbia Public Schools
have had significant management problems. What are the critical
problems that have led to DCPS' inability to even account for the
number of employees on its payroll?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 2004, the DCPS Office of Human
Resources (OHR) managed the employee roster (Schedule A) for the
agency. Recognizing that the OHR lacked the capacity and systems to
accurately manage this function, the new DCPS CFO assumed this
responsibility in order to accomplish accurate budgeting and achieving
a balanced budget. Even with the lack of an automated and integrated
Human Resources and Payroll system, the OCFO manually maintains the
Schedule A and has brought it to the point where the document is
current and portrays the correct number of employees, their salaries,
and their location in the agency. This document is critical in tracking
current and historic vacancies. A Human Resources and Payroll
management system is critical to sound management practices. The
current system is responsible for employees not being paid accurately
or receiving their salary increases or step movement on time. The DCPS
OCFO has invested significant resources into cleaning up this problem.
To date, all DCPS employees are receiving their correct salaries. The
DCPS OCFO maintains this manual process, but it is critical that the
system move forward with a more automated and integrated system.
Question. Why don't the D.C. Public Schools use the same
administrative and personnel management system as the rest of the
District government?
Answer. Several years ago, the DCPS began to develop and implement
an administrative personnel management system independent from the
District's systems. However, these systems did not develop to the
operational stage. The School Board and Superintendent partnered with
the District's Office of the Chief Technology Officer to move DCPS into
the District's personnel and procurement management systems. In
addition to partnering on these systems, the DCPS is also participating
in the District's budget system with other city agencies. In addition,
the DCPS will begin participating in the District's human resource and
payroll systems.
Question. As CFO, what authority do you have to control escalating
costs within the D.C. Public School System? What recommendations would
you make to help DCPS get its financial house in order?
Answer. With respect to the annual budget for the Board of
Education in the District of Columbia, the Home Rule Act allows the
District to establish the maximum amount of funds which will be
allocated to the Board, but does not allow the District to specify the
purposes for which such funds may be expended or the amount of such
funds which may be expended for the various programs under the
jurisdiction of the Board of Education. The primary control that the
CFO has with respect to the DCPS budget is to ensure that DCPS does not
overspend its annual appropriation. While the CFO has the authority to
require DCPS to curtail spending in the event a potential deficit is
identified, the specific strategies to implement this requirement falls
under the purview of the Superintendent and the Board. Over the past
several fiscal years, the OCFO has worked with the Superintendent and
the Board to identify potential overspending of the DCPS total budget
and develop viable and realistic strategies to curtail spending in a
manner that does not severely impact the main mission of the DCPS,
which is to educate the District's children. The success of this close
collaboration is evident in the fact that the DCPS has managed to close
its last two budgets in balance. For fiscal year 2005, it appears that
the DCPS budget will once again close in balance.
With regard to recommendations on strengthening the financial
position of the DCPS, the most important recommendation is to continue
the strong collaboration between the Superintendent, the School Board
and the OCFO in supporting the mission of the Superintendent and DCPS
strategic plans. It is my opinion that vital, stable and collaborative
DCPS leadership is the critical element in ensuring DCPS will continue
to manage its resources in a wise and prudent manner. The OCFO will
continue to support the DCPS leadership in this regard.
Question. What, if any, additional authority do you need as CFO to
focus on and correct the fiscal management problems facing the
District?
Answer. The OCFO is required to estimate revenues far in advance of
the fiscal year in order for the District to participate in the
congressional budget cycle. Granting the District budget autonomy would
allow the District to build a budget closer to the start of a fiscal
year and would allow the OCFO to provide more appropriately timed and
therefore more informed revenue estimates.
Question. One criticism of the GAO report on structural imbalance
is that the District has significant Medicaid billing and claims
management problems. How are you working to address this problem?
Answer. In 1999, recognizing that there were significant issues
with Medicaid billing and claims management, the District hired an
outside contractor to work with two of the public provider agencies,
the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) and the Child and Family Services Agency
(CFSA), to increase Medicaid revenue for services provided by these
agencies. Concurrently, key issues relating to Medicaid billing and
claims management were identified, specifically:
--Maintaining appropriate documentation supporting Medicaid billing,
--Developing a clear comprehensive strategy to optimize Medicaid
revenues among the public provider agencies; and,
--Establishing standard business practices leading to the
identification of appropriate Medicaid-eligible programs and
services.
Since that time, improvements have been realized in the Medicaid
billing and accountability system within the public provider agencies.
Although the OCFO is not directly involved in the development or
modification of agency programs, the OCFO has been working with the
District's Office of Medicaid Operations Reform to address the key
issues noted above and establish a system of ongoing and routine
reports that will demonstrate improvements in the process for
calculating the Medicaid revenue each fiscal year and monitor Medicaid
revenues and expenditures.
Question. I understand that the District has made great strides to
get its financial house in order, but what are the remaining
problematic areas in the D.C. government in terms of financial
mismanagement? How are you addressing those areas?
Answer. The 2004 Annual Audit noted that there are no material
weaknesses to report (compared to three in fiscal year 2001 and two in
each of fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003) and there were two
reportable conditions to be addressed (the same number as fiscal year
2003 but down from six in fiscal year 2001 and three in fiscal year
2002). Specifically, the areas to be addressed are (1) Management of
Disability Compensation Program and (2) Unemployment Compensation
Claimant File Management. A copy of the Management Letter and its
appendix are being submitted for the record. These documents provide a
robust explanation of the issues to be addressed as well as the OCFO's
response to these issues. As the documents will detail, both issues are
being appropriately addressed.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MANAGEMENT LETTER
April 8, 2005.
The Honorable Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia, John A. Wilson Building, Suite 600, 1350
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.
The Honorable Linda W. Cropp,
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, John A. Wilson Building,
Suite 504, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20004.
Dear Mayor Williams and Chairman Cropp: In connection with the
audit of the District of Columbia's general purpose financial
statements for fiscal year 2004, KPMG LLP submitted the enclosed final
Management Letter. We are pleased to report, as noted by KPMG LLP, that
over the last 5 fiscal years there has been a marked improvement in the
management of the District's financial affairs. This Management Letter
details certain matters involving internal control and other
operational matters that require continued management attention which
is presented as follows:
--Appendix A--Reportable Conditions in Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting; and
--Appendix B--Other Observations and Recommendations on Internal
Control and Financial Operations.
KPMG set forth recommendations for correcting reportable conditions
and other deficiencies. While the Office of the Inspector General will
continue to assess the District agencies' implementation of
recommendations, it is the responsibility of District government
management to ensure that agencies correct the deficiencies noted in
audit reports. This Office will work with managers, as appropriate, to
help them monitor the implementation of recommendations.
If you have questions or need additional information, please
contact William J. DiVello, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, or
me at (202) 727-2540.
Sincerely,
Austin A. Andersen,
Interim Inspector General.
Enclosure: See Distribution List
DISTRIBUTION:
Mr. Robert C. Bobb, Deputy Mayor/City Administrator, District of
Columbia (1 copy)
Ms. Alfreda Davis, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor (1 copy)
Mr. Gregory M. McCarthy, Deputy Chief of Staff, Policy and
Legislative Affairs (1 copy)
Mr. Vincent Morris, Director, Office of Communications (1 copy)
The Honorable Vincent B. Orange, Sr., Chairman, Committee on
Government Operations, Council of the District of Columbia (1 copy)
Mr. Herbert R. Tillery, Deputy Mayor for Operations (1 copy)
Mr. Stanley Jackson, Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development (1 copy)
Mr. Neil O. Albert, Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and
Elders (1 copy)
Mr. Edward D. Reiskin, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice
(1 copy)
Ms. Phyllis Jones, Secretary to the Council (13 copies)
Mr. Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General for the District of
Columbia (1 copy)
Dr. Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer (5 copies)
Mr. Ben Lorigo, Executive Director, Office of Integrity and
Oversight, OCFO (1 copy)
Ms. Deborah K. Nichols, D.C. Auditor (1 copy)
Ms. Kelly Valentine, Interim Chief Risk Officer, Office of Risk
Management, Attention: Rosenia D. Bailey (1 copy)
Mr. Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing Director, FMA, GAO (1 copy)
Ms. Jeanette M. Franzel, Director, FMA, GAO (1 copy)
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C. Delegate, House of
Representatives Attention: Rosaland Parker (1 copy)
The Honorable Tom Davis, Chairman, House Committee on Government
Reform Attention: Melissa C. Wojciak (1 copy)
Ms. Shalley Kim, Legislative Assistant, House Committee on
Government Reform (1 copy)
The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, House Subcommittee on
D.C. Appropriations (1 copy)
Mr. Joel Kaplan, Clerk, House Subcommittee on D.C. Appropriations
(1 copy)
Mr. Tom Forhan, Staff Assistant, House Committee on Appropriations
(1 copy)
The Honorable George Voinovich, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia (1 copy)
Mr. David Cole, Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia (1 copy)
The Honorable Richard Durbin, Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia (1 copy)
Ms. Marianne Upton, Staff Director/Chief Counsel, Senate
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia (1 copy)
The Honorable Sam Brownback, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on D.C.
Appropriations (1 copy)
Ms. Mary Dietrich, Appropriations Director, Senator Sam Brownback
(1 copy)
The Honorable Mary Landrieu, Senate Subcommittee on D.C.
Appropriations (1 copy)
Ms. Kate Eltrich, Clerk, Senate Subcommittee on D.C. Appropriations
(1 copy)
The Honorable Susan M. Collins, Chair, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs Attention: Johanna Hardy (1 copy)
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Minority Member, Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, Attention: Patrick J. Hart (1 copy)
______
KPMG LIP,
Washington, DC 20036, March 24, 2005.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LETTER TO MANAGEMENT ON INTERNAL
CONTROL--SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
To the Mayor and Council of the Government of the District of Columbia
Inspector General of the Government of the District of Columbia
Ladies and Gentlemen: We have audited the basic financial
statements of the Government of the District of Columbia (District),
for the year ended September 30, 2004, and have issued our report
thereon dated January 24, 2005. In planning and performing our audit of
the basic financial statements of the District, we considered internal
control in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose
of expressing our opinion on the basic financial statements. An audit
does not include examining the effectiveness of internal control and
does not provide assurance on internal control. We have not considered
internal control since the date of our report.
During our audit we noted certain matters involving internal
control and other operational matters that are presented in the
appendices for your consideration. These comments and recommendations,
all of which have been discussed with the appropriate members of
management, are intended to improve internal control or result in other
operating efficiencies.
Our audit procedures are designed primarily to enable us to form an
opinion on the basic financial statements, and therefore may not bring
to light all weaknesses in policies or procedures that may exist. We
aim, however, to use our knowledge of the District's organization
gained during our audit work to make comments and suggestions that we
hope will be useful to you. We would be pleased to discuss these
comments and recommendations with you at any time.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the
Mayor and Council of the District, the Inspector General of the
District, District management, and others within the District
government and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
KPMG LLP.
Executive Summary
Over the last five fiscal years, as the District's independent
auditors, we have witnesses marked improvement in the management of the
District's financial affairs. Important milestones that the District is
understandably proud to report to the Council and its citizenry are:
--Removal of Control Board oversight;
--Eight consecutive years of unqualified opinions on the District's
basic financial statements included in its Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR);
--Return of operations that had been placed in receivership by the
District courts;
--Successful implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards
Board's Statement No. 34, the most far reaching change in
governmental accounting and financial reporting to date;
--Implementation of a District-wide financial and compliance audit of
its federal awards programs;
--Continuous improvement in General Obligation bond ratings from BBB
to A;
--Continuous acknowledgement of excellence in financial reporting
from the Government Finance Officer's Association (for its
CAFR, Budget Document, and most recently for its Popular Annual
Financial Report); and
--Continuous improvement in internal control, evidenced by the
reduction in the number of reported material weaknesses three
and reportable conditions six in fiscal year 2000, to zero and
two, respectively in fiscal year 2004.
Address Reportable Conditions
As noted above, the District has taken corrective actions to
address and eliminate a number of reportable conditions in internal
control, some of which were material weaknesses. The next step in
continuing to improve the District's financial reporting infrastructure
is to address the remaining reportable conditions highlighted in our
Report on Compliance and on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book Report), and to implement a
process to continuously monitor compliance with established internal
control policies and procedures.
Reportable conditions relate to significant deficiencies in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that
could adversely affect the District's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of
management. These reportable conditions, while not as serious as
material weaknesses, warrant District management attention. Matters
currently classified as reportable conditions that are not considered
to be material weaknesses are as follows: Management of Disability
Compensation Program; and Unemployment Compensation Claimant File
Management.
These current year reportable conditions and our recommendations
are repeated in Appendix A. Our management letter comments, presented
in Appendix B, highlight other internal control and financial
management observations made during our audit, and what actions we
believe the District should take to ensure its financial management
infrastructure continues to improve. Management responses to our
observations and recommendations are included in Appendices A and B. We
have carefully considered those responses where management indicates
that it disagrees with either our observations or recommendations. We
continue to believe our comments are valid and that implementation of
our recommendations will result in stronger internal controls or
operational and financial management improvements.
New Accounting Pronouncements
Although there are no significant new accounting pronouncements
that will need to be implemented during fiscal year 2005, there were
two significant accounting pronouncements issued during fiscal year
2004 as Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements that
will significantly impact the District's future government-wide
financial position.
GASB Statement No. 43, Financial Reporting for Postemployment
Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans, an amendment to GASB Statement
No. 34, and GASB Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting
by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions addresses
accounting and financial reporting of post-employment benefits other
than pension benefits (OPEB) by employers and plans or other entities
that administer them. The principal impact of this Statement on the
District relates to post-employment healthcare benefits that the
District currently reports on a pay-as-you-go basis. GASB Statement No.
45 will require the District to accrue for post-employment benefits to
be provided to employees and retirees, thus adding a significant
liability not currently recorded in the District's government-wide
financial statements.
APPENDIX A.--REPORTABLE CONDITIONS IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL
REPORTING
I. Management of Disability Compensation Program
The District, through the Office of Risk Management (ORM),
administers a disability compensation program under Title XXIII of the
District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978. The
most recent actuarial loss reserve analysis was performed in fiscal
year 2002. For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, ORM has performed roll-
forward procedures, using underlying assumptions included in the last
actuarial report, in order to estimate the District's disability
compensation liability at each year-end. We recommended that an
actuarial analysis be performed for fiscal year 2004, however this
recommendation was not implemented. We believe that the use of data
that is more than one year old as a basis for these roll-forwards could
lead to significant differences between the estimated liability and
actual results for individual cases when complete data is available.
Further, the accuracy of the underlying data used in the District's
analysis has always been difficult to assess due to weaknesses in the
maintenance of supporting claims files.
The ORM does not perform a timely review of past claims to
determine whether the established reserves remain sufficient. In
addition, we determined through claims test work that certain reserves
were not removed timely from the tracking system, once a claim is
determined to be closed. These conditions increase the risk that the
underlying data, which is utilized for the District's roll-forward
procedures, may be over- or understated. Additionally, seven out of 81
disability claim case files selected for test work could not be located
for our review, and many of those that were provided for our review
required extraordinary effort on the part of ORM personnel to locate.
This is a similar result as noted in prior years.
We again recommend that ORM contract for an actuarial loss reserve
analysis to be performed during fiscal year 2005, and each year
thereafter. Additionally, we recommend that ORM:
--Review all active claim files on a periodic basis to determine if
the recorded reserve is sufficient or if the reserve needs to
be increased or decreased. The review of all active claim files
is imperative before each actuarial analysis is performed,
since an actuary would be utilizing such information in their
analysis.
--Develop an effective managerial system to file and maintain both
open and closed case files.
Management Response
ORM has requested monies for an actuarial report in its current
budget. It is expected that the actuarial report will take place within
the next fiscal year.
All Disability Compensation Program (DCP) files, both active and
archived, were housed by the Third Party Administrator (TPA), CLW/CDM,
Inc. in fiscal year 2004. CLW/CDM was responsible for maintaining all
supporting documentation in each claim file. ORM acquired these files
at the conclusion of the contract between the city and CLW/CDM in
November 2004. The contract expired pursuant to court order on Friday,
October 29, 2004. The archived files were subsequently moved and placed
in storage at the District of Columbia General Hospital (DCGH). The
active files were moved to 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 800 South. It is
assumed that all files were turned over to ORM; however, at this time,
it is difficult to verify this assumption. In addition, a number of
active claim files were erroneously placed in storage when they should
have been forwarded directly to ORM.
The Claims Supervisor of CLW/CDM, Inc. was charged with performing
timely reviews of the adjusters' decisions establishing reserves. ORM
was responsible for conducting periodic reviews of randomly selected
claim files to determine if appropriate reserves had been established
and/or removed. The previous database system did not allow ORM access
to all of the data maintained by CLW/CDM with regard to this aspect of
the claims. With the movement of the Third Party Administrator in-
house, and obtaining its own Riskmaster database, ORM now has the
ability to easily determine whether established reserves are
sufficient.
ORM has entered into a contract for services, which entails
capturing basic information on all claim files currently in storage
into an Excel spreadsheet. This electronic database will allow ORM to
effectively manage its closed case files. The new Riskmaster system,
which went into operation in November 2004, will allow ORM to
effectively manage all open claims files, and those, which are
subsequently closed.
ORM expects to hire additional staff to provide more hands on file/
reserve reviews and to conduct periodic audits.
II. Unemployment Compensation Claimant File Management
The District's Department of Employment Services (DOES) is
responsible for the administration of the Unemployment Compensation
Program. In fiscal year 2004, the District made approximately $114
million in unemployment benefit payments to unemployed former employees
of private employers in the District and of the District and federal
governments.
While testing internal controls over benefit payments, we observed
that DOES was unable to locate 8 out of 30 claimant files supporting
these payments. Federal regulations require that DOES maintain
documentation supporting all payments of unemployment claims. We noted
that DOES has established policies and procedures requiring such
documentation be maintained. However, DOES has not created a system of
tracking the location of all claimant files and requiring such files to
be checked in and out by DOES personnel using the files. We recommend
that DOES create a database tracking the location of all claimant files
and require that this database be updated each time a file is moved to
a new location.
Management Response
Management concurs with the finding. If funding is available, DOES
will implement an imaging and retrieval system for Unemployment
Insurance documents. A pilot project is to commence within the next
three months for imaging and indexing quarterly contribution reports.
The imaging will be done by the contractor who currently enters data
from these reports.
Question. In his fiscal year 2006 budget request, the President
recommended that the Federal Government consider transferring ownership
of some of its property in the City to the District. Have you estimated
what kinds of revenues would accrue to the city if these transfers
occurred?
Answer. The President has not yet released a specific plan for
transferring ownership. Absent a plan that details the property and the
method and conditions for the transfer of such land, the OCFO cannot at
this time estimate revenues.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Clifford B. Janey
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. What has been the historic rate of growth in the Special
Education budget for the D.C. Public Schools?
Answer. Special education spending (which includes funds allocated
to local schools for special education, special education central
office functions, related service providers, nonpublic tuition,
transportation, attorney fees and special education hearings and
appeals) across all funds has increase by 33 percent between fiscal
year 2000 and projected spending for fiscal year 2005. The compounded
annual growth rate (CAGR) between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2005
is 4.88 percent and the average growth across the six fiscal years is 6
percent.
Question. I understand that about 20 percent of the children in the
District have been identified as ``Special Education.'' How does this
compare to other cities? How does this compare to previous years?
Answer. Using enrollment figures from the October 2004 audit,
special education enrollment in DCPS was 18 percent; when the total
D.C. public enrollment (charter and DCPS) is used, the percentage of
students in special education drops to 16 percent. Special education
enrollment has remained relatively static during the last five years,
however, as DPCS enrollment decreases, the percentage that are special
education increases.
Question. Are you concerned that students are being inappropriately
identified as ``Special Education?''
Answer. In a comparative analysis of DCPS' Special Education
enrollment to other urban districts, we have found that DCPS has
similar levels of special education enrollment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Percent
District Education Total Special
Enrollment Enrollment Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore City.................................................. 14,012 108,015 13
Boston.......................................................... 11,433 58,310 20
Milwaukee....................................................... 16,518 101,000 16
Oakland, CA..................................................... 5,279 49,214 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes DCPS extraordinary different from nearly every other
school district in the country is the number of students attending
nonpublic schools. Twenty-four percent of DCPS special education
students are in nonpublic day programs, residential treatment
facilities or are wards of the District placed in foster homes and
attending public schools in surrounding counties. When students in
surrounding counties are moved to the ``public'' side of the count--
that is, they are served in public schools--the percentage of students
in nonpublic programs decreases to 21 percent of DCPS special education
enrollment and 19 percent of all D.C. public school (DCPS and charters)
special education enrollment.
For comparison, the percentage of special education students in
nonpublic placements is 4.5 percent in Boston and 5 percent in
Baltimore.
Question. What percent of DCPS' budget is being spent on special
education tuition and transportation?
Answer. Of the $1 billion DCPS budget for fiscal year 2005,
approximately 12 percent ($120 million) will be spent on special
education tuition and 8 percent ($75 million) on transportation.
Question. Why do DCPS budgets continue to rise every year, even
though enrollment is declining?
Answer. While enrollment at DCPS has declined over time, the number
of students for whom DCPS pays tuition at private institutions and
suburban schools has risen from 1,400 (SY 1999-2000) to 3,067 (SY 2004-
2005). These increases have resulted in higher costs for the provision
of mandated services.
The Local budget for DCPS has only grown at an average rate of one
percent since fiscal year 2002 when a budget reduction of five percent
that occurred in fiscal year 2003 is taken into account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Budget.................................................. $749.2 $713.4 $753 $767.3 $815.2
Growth From Previous Fiscal Year (percent).................... N/A 094.78 5.55 1.90 6.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though DCPS has experienced a modest growth in budget, DCPS
has not had the ability to leverage these increases to support
programmatic expansion. In fact, the increases have not kept pace with
rising labor and mandated costs. As a result, DCPS has had to eliminate
and curtail viable academic programs.
Recent budget increases have been used to support previously
approved negotiated pay raises. Surrounding suburban districts, our
primary competition for teachers and principals, have been raising
salaries substantially beyond inflation, and as of next year, at least
three of the five are offering higher entering salaries than DCPS. All
offer higher maximum salaries than DCPS.
Additionally, DCPS has incurred higher costs associated with
payments in tuition for D.C. students in private special education and
suburban foster care placements, special education transportation, and
a few state agency costs such as educational services at juvenile
justice facilities; amounts that have grown enormously in recent years.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1995 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negotiated Pay \1\ Raises....................................... .............. 40.4 ..............
Tuition-private placement \2\................................... 12.5 76.0 86.4
Tuition-foster care & DMH wards................................. ( \3\ ) 20.0 20.0
Transportation-special education \2\............................ 12.7 62.0 62.0
Attorneys' fees (winning parties)............................... .............. 9.8 6.8
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 25.2 208.2 175.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects incremental costs associated with fiscal year 2004 entitlement that permanently affected the base
in fiscal year 2005.
\2\ Will be higher than budgeted in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 due to cost overruns incurred by court-
appointed transportation administrator ($75 million).
\3\ Not in DCPS budget.
Recognizing the shortfalls in DCPS' academic program,
Superintendent Janey presented $38.5 million worth of unmet initiatives
in an effort to move the system towards adequacy in programming. DCPS
identified $4.5 million in internal resources to be re-directed to
support this program and the City has proposed an additional $21
million. The remaining balance will be offset by the $13 million in
Federal Payment funding that is being requested as part of the Federal
Appropriation. This funding will support important programming such as:
their development of a comprehensive Art & Music program, and intensive
reading and math program for at-risk students, establishment of Parent
Resource Centers and continuation our School Accountability Model.
Question. It appears that, because of declining enrollment, it is
imperative that some schools be closed or co-located. What are your
plans to do that?
Answer. DCPS has developed a plan that serves as a bridge through
this transition period while the Superintendent's Master Education Plan
(MEP) is being developed. The MEP will provide recommendations
regarding academic program offerings, grade configurations,
neighborhood or cluster delivery models, Special Education
Instructional models as well as address issues relative to school
closures and co-locations. In line with this transition plan and as
required by law, the Board of Education has already approved the
Superintendent's plan for co-location in DCPS facilities. We are
currently reviewing responses to invitations to co-location for the 10
potential sites. This transition plan calls for the co-location of ten
schools that have been identified as potential co-location sites. Upon
completion of the Superintendent's Master Education Plan, this
transitional plan would be revised to specifically address issues such
as declining enrollment and/or requirements for closing schools.
Question. I understand that about one-third of DCPS teachers are
not certified. What progress are you making to ensure that all DCPS
teachers have the proper teaching credentials for the 2005-2006 school
year?
Answer. In March of 2005, we estimated that approximately 1,400
teachers did not have a current license. After requesting that these
individuals update their credential, as of June 20, 2005, DCPS has
identified 455 teaches with expired licenses and 533 teachers with no
record of licensure or slightly less than 20 percent (988) of the
teacher workforce. These teachers will be placed on a structured
program that will facilitate licensure update by June 2006. Those who
do not meet the respective milestones of this plan will be terminated
at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. To enhance compliance with
actions required to obtain licensure, DCPS has created the position of
Licensure Specialist that will oversee and monitor licensure status.
The position is expected to be filled by July 11, 2005. Additionally,
we are ensuring that all newly hired teachers have the proper
credentials prior to hire.
The State Education Office of Academic Credentials and Standards
(SEA-OACS) have collaborated with the DCPS-LEA Office of Human
Resources (HR) in identifying those individuals who hold a state
teaching license. The SEA-OACS is prepared to handle the large volume
of applications for license renewal that will occur as a result of the
DCPS Office of Human Resources' notification efforts. Our goal is to
maintain an application processing time of less than two weeks,
therefore ensuring that all applications received prior to August 19,
2005 are processed and licenses sent out before the beginning of
school.
Question. I understand that only 50 cents of every operational
dollar spent by DCPS actually goes to directly educate children. The
national average is 61 percent. Why is this average so low and how have
city leaders proposed to change this?
Answer. The source of the 50 percent figure is the U.S. Department
of Education's Fiscal Year 2002 Common Core of Data, by a definition
that includes only teachers, aides, texts and classroom supplies and
excludes such direct educational services as speech therapy,
librarians, library books, computer labs, guidance counselors and
school nurses. In that year:
--The District of Columbia reported spending for teachers, aides,
texts and classroom supplies was 50 percent.
--The District of Columbia was very high on the ``non-instruction''
category of ``student support,'' which means legally mandated
special education services (such as assessments, speech
therapy, OT/PT, psychological counseling), counselors, social
workers, attendance counselors, health services and the like.
--The District of Columbia was also very high on spending for
``instruction support,'' which means librarians; instructional
technology; and standards, curriculum, testing, teacher
training and testing.
--The District of Columbia was comparatively high on ``operations and
maintenance,'' which means custodians, utilities, repairs,
security, as well as on transportation, which is court-ordered.
--The District of Columbia was comparatively low on school
administration and food service, and average on central
administration/business services.
--Many of the ``non-classroom'' expenditures were funded by
restricted federal grants, including food service, anti-drug
and violence grants and No Child Left Behind grants for
standards, curriculum, testing and professional development.
Others are required by federal law and court mandates,
including special education assessments, special education
related services, and special education transportation.
In our own valuation of what is allocated to supporting students in
the classrooms, we expend nearly 60 percent of our resources to do so.
What worries me is that the definition of ``classroom,'' taken from the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), does not take into
account expenditures for critical services such as librarians,
counselors, nurses, attendance officers, and assessments, therapy and
transportation for special education students. We have high costs in
these areas because of high enrollment in special education.
The issue with the NCES definition is that DCPS funds much more
than teacher salaries and bureaucracy. According to NCES, we spend only
2.7 percent on general administration and 3.0 percent on business
services such as payroll, human services, and procurement. The rest
covers principals, libraries, counseling, special education related
services (e.g., speech therapy, OT/PT, social workers, psychologists),
teacher training, curriculum, testing, facilities, utilities, security,
transportation, and the free lunch program.
Further when you factor in our unique role as both a State and
Local Education Agency, we experience high expenditures in other
categories. For example, 11 percent of our work force is engaged in
transporting special education students to public, charter and private
schools, under the direction of a court-appointed administrator. This
translates into higher expenditure levels on the ``non-instruction''
category of ``support,'' which is required as part of court orders and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
We do believe more classroom support is needed but not by
sacrificing librarians and counselors and elements of the
accountability system such as curriculum and standards, teacher
training, testing and other measures needed to comply with No Child
Left Behind. Moreover, it cannot come at the expense of disobeying
mandated special education requirements and health/safety issues DCPS
must face.
DCPS is aggressively pursing strategies to ensure that as much
resources as possible can be directed towards the classroom. In fact,
the Superintendent has commissioned the Council of Great City Schools
to conduct an adequacy study to determine system needs, if any. It is
hopeful that the findings from this study will provide District
Stakeholders with the total investments needed to fully support the
implementation of Statewide Standards and provide a better prescription
of how to allocate resources.
Question. What additional tools do you need to better manage the
D.C. Public Schools?
Answer. As I begin to implement the goals outlined in our
Declaration of Education, the strategic plan for the District of
Columbia Public Schools, I am cognizant that the managerial tools
needed to reform a school system are different from those needed to
sustain routine operations. In order to better align our educational
program objectives and priorities with our fiscal resources as we plan
long-term school improvements, it would be highly advantageous to have
an independent Financial Officer that reports to the Board of Education
and School Superintendent. While the school district would continue to
be governed by all applicable fiscal regulations, the perspective of an
independent CFO would be consistent with the mission of the school
district in service to children, rather than the mission of a financial
agency.
Also, because we have established new standards and will completely
overhaul our educational infrastructure, multi-year budgeting would
enable us to implement scheduled reforms without the threat of funding
uncertainties from year to year. In short, an independent Chief
Financial Officer and multi-year budgeting would anchor a long-term
strategic framework and afford the long-range planning and
implementation necessary to implement and sustain school improvements.
Question. How do you plan to use the $13 million that this
subcommittee provided in fiscal year 2005 and how do you plan to use
the $13 million that is being requested for fiscal year 2006?
Answer. I intend to use these funds appropriated in fiscal years
2004, 2005 and 2006 to specifically to accelerate the quality of
teaching in preparation for the implementation of the new academic
standards, curriculum, and aligned assessments. This will serve as the
basis for a carefully structured framework for accountability.
It is important to point out that all the improvement programs must
focus directly on teaching and learning. Research clearly shows that
for reform efforts to have a measurable impact, they must dramatically
change what occurs in the classroom. I believe by implementing new
standards, developing curriculum and school- and system-level
assessments, training administrators and teachers, securing high
quality curriculum materials, and providing the means to hold schools
accountable for results--all are critical elements that must come
together to achieve significant and sustainable improvements in
teaching and learning.
Through the plan, all of these elements will be optimized as part
of a coherent and mutually reinforcing whole. We will be able to
provide all District of Columbia Public Schools students with the kind
of high-quality classrooms they deserve:
--Classrooms where standards, curriculum, instruction, and
assessments are carefully aligned.
--Classrooms where every teacher clearly understands what is to be
taught and assessed.
--Classrooms where all students learn.
Question. Dr. Janey, in your written testimony, you mention school
improvement funds to be used to continue your investment in
professional development. I am aware of the statistic that some 30
percent of the teachers in the D.C. Public School system are not
certified. I believe that teachers are the most fundamental aspect of a
child's education and this fact concerns me greatly. What have you been
doing, and what are you planning to do, specifically, to ensure that
the teachers in your classrooms are qualified to provide a good
education?
Answer. To ensure our teachers are qualified to provide a good
quality education, we've developed a Professional Development Master
Plan that is intended to provide direction, guidance, and resources to
educators as they develop their Individual Professional Development
Plan (IPDP). We believe that effective professional development is on-
going, school-based (job embedded) and organized around collaborative
problem solving. The focus of our Professional Development Master Plan
is as follows:
--Develop knowledge and skills in teachers in order to impact student
achievement.
--Prioritization of goals based upon best practices with decisions
based upon objective evidence gathered over time.
--Linkage to district goals to support the improvement of the whole
system.
--Focused on enhancing the individual's knowledge of their field and
knowledge of learners and learning. To this end, there must be
an on-going assessment process, including self-evaluation and
feedback from others, to guide further development.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Question. Chairman Cropp and Dr. Janey, what mechanisms are you
considering to manage the $150 million bond proposal for school
construction? Would a venture capital entity work?
Answer. Project and capital program management for the D.C. Public
Schools is under the purview of the Board of Education and
Superintendent. A third-party entity, such as a venture capital entity
could work, and has been considered. The Superintendent has made clear
that he intends to transform his Office of Facilities Management to
better manage its projects and more efficiently use its capital
resources. The Superintendent has also stated that he is creating an
office of strategic partnerships that would leverage DCPS resources
with public and private entities to create alternative financing
mechanisms for the DCPS capital program. Additionally, the Office of
the City Administrator, Council staff, and DCPS staff are working
collaboratively to identify partnership opportunities and other means
to share and maximize resources through joint capital planning and
coordination.
Question. Can we finance some of the debt service from rent paid by
charter schools in co-location?
Answer. No. District law mandates that rent paid by charter schools
through co-location/lease arrangements must stay with the local
school--D.C. Code, Section 38-1831.01(b)(2).
Question. Dr. Janey, you have provided a list of 10 school
properties, which will be offered for co-location. When will a request
for proposals be issued to charter schools and what time frame will you
be signing leases for the fall semester?
Answer. Requests for Letters of Interest were posted on the DCPS
website from mid-May to mid-June. They are being reviewed now by Co-
location Review Committees (one for each school that received a Letter
of Interest). A public hearing is scheduled for June 29th, 2005 from 6-
8 p.m. at 825 N. Capitol St. The Superintendent will present his
recommendation for specific co-locations in July. It is anticipated
that the Board of Education will approve or disapprove any co-location
recommendations in July, and then for approved recommendations, direct
the Superintendent to execute leases on its behalf in July.
Question. Dr. Janey, for the record, please provide the per pupil
spending in DCPS and the components of that allotment (local, Federal,
other)? Please provide a comparison with per pupil spending in other
cities of similar size.
Answer. The referenced chart reflects the updated report conducted
by the NCES and the Census Bureau. Fiscal year 2003 is the most recent
year for which expenditure data are available, and if it follows
previous timing, the Census Bureau will put out fiscal year 2004 data
next March. That's as soon as an update could be provided. The only
national data for school districts that's collected using comparable
definitions are the NCES/Census data.
However, the following represents a regional comparison of Per
Pupil Expenditures conducted by an independent watch organization in
the D.C. area. We believe that regional comparisons are more useful
tools as they provide insight to the competitive landscape in the
Washington area and it accounts for regional cost differences that
national comparisons fail to incorporate.
Comparison with Suburban District Budgets
The chart below depicts the fiscal year 2005 per pupil budgets of
DCPS and its surrounding school districts. The Washington Area Boards
of Education (WABE) calculates the suburban numbers by a standardized
methodology that meets all the criteria above. We have applied the same
methodology to the DCPS budget and enrollment, but subtracted
transportation for all districts, since the transportation systems are
not comparable.
The WABE methodology as applied to DCPS includes most federal grant
funds and teacher retirement, which we added from the city budget. In
fiscal year 2005 DCPS has about $3,800 less per pupil than Arlington
County, about $2,100 less than Alexandria, and roughly the same as
Montgomery and Fairfax Counties. Prince George's County is far behind
all the others.
The WABE methodology includes all local and federal funding in the
districts' budgets except: Food service; Construction/capital; Debt
service; Summer school; Adult education; Special ed tuition and
transportation; Other state level costs (DCPS only): state agency
functions, charter school oversight; Federal funding for state agency
functions, private & charter schools, and short-term restricted
programs; and Private grants and intra-District transfers.
WABE figures include: Teacher retirement; Federal 2005 funding for
DCPS LEA: Titles I, II, IV, VI, VII, Vocational education, Special
education, Impact Aid, Indirect Cost, Head Start, Reading First, Tech
Literacy Challenge Fund, Comprehensive School Reform, State
Assessments.
What the chart above does not reflect is any factor for student
needs. As the chart below illustrates, DCPS has by far the highest
percentage of low-income students in the area, and a much higher
percentage of special education students, who receive higher cost
services, than do Fairfax and Montgomery Counties. Based on student
characteristics, DCPS should spend significantly more per pupil on
average than any of its suburbs.
Because Fairfax County Public Schools use the WABE overall per
pupil number and issue breakouts with per student budget allocation
figures for general education, special education and ESL education, we
have applied the WABE definitions and calculated DCPS budget
allocations for fiscal year 2005 for these three categories to compare
with Fairfax County allocations. Although the chart and figures are in
the same format as the chart above for Basis 2, the numbers are
different: those below include federal funds as well as local funds,
add Teacher Retirement, and eliminate a few local budget lines not
included in the WABE methodology.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Food service $2.8 million, summer school $2.4 million, capital
planning $0.3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Brownback. Thank you for being here. Thank you for
your hearts and your commitments that are making lives better
for all people here and the people that come here.
With that, the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado, Statement of.. 58
Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 53
Questions Submitted by........................44, 97, 100, 102, 108
Buchanan, Avis E., Esq., Director, Public Defender Service,
District of Columbia........................................... 28
Prepared Statement of........................................ 31
Cropp, Hon. Linda, Chairman, City Council, District of Columbia.. 66
Prepared Statement of........................................ 69
Questions Submitted to....................................... 100
DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From Ohio:
Question Submitted by........................................ 99
Statement of................................................. 4
Gandhi, Natwar M., Ph.D., Chief Financial Officer, District of
Columbia....................................................... 72
Prepared Statement of........................................ 74
Questions Submitted to....................................... 102
Janey, Clifford, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools, District of
Columbia Public Schools, District of Columbia.................. 83
Prepared Statement of........................................ 85
Questions Submitted to....................................... 108
King, Hon. Rufus, III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, District of Columbia..................... 17
Prepared Statement of........................................ 19
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Prepared Statements of....................................... 3, 56
Questions Submitted by....................................... 112
Statement of................................................. 55
Quander, Hon. Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, District of Columbia....................... 24
Prepared Statement of........................................ 26
Questions Submitted to....................................... 44
Strauss, Paul, Prepared Statement of............................. 94
Wagner, Hon. Annice M., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court
of Appeals, and Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration, District of Columbia........................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 6
Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia........... 53
Prepared Statement of........................................ 61
Questions Submitted to....................................... 97
Statement of................................................. 59
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 96
Beginning Fund Balance, General Fund............................. 75
Bioterrorism and Forensics Laboratory............................ 99
Budget Autonomy.................................................. 67
Capital Improvements Plan........................................ 77
Continuing Financial Strength.................................... 74
Democracy for the Nation's Capital............................... 66
Federal:
Budget Request...............................................67, 70
Contribution.................................................68, 71
Financing the Budget Request..................................... 76
Fiscal Year 2006:
Budget....................................................... 85
Proposed Expenditures........................................ 75
Revenues..................................................... 75
Funding Citizen Priorities....................................... 63
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget........................67, 70
Maintaining Fiscal Responsibility................................ 62
Performance Budgeting............................................ 77
Priority Federal Funding for Critical Projects................... 64
Proposed Fiscal Year 2006 Gross Funds Budget..................... 76
School Construction.............................................. 112
Structural Imbalance in the District's Budget.................... 77
The Budget Process...............................................66, 70
Courts
Additional Committee Questions................................... 44
Administrative Accomplishments...................................30, 37
Capital Funding in Fiscal Year 2006.............................. 13
Community Supervision Program.................................... 44
Complete Budget Request Summary.................................. 14
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency................... 24
Critical Fiscal Year 2006 Priority--Infrastructure............... 8
Facilities in the Courts' Strategic Plan......................... 9
Family Court:
Implementation............................................... 20
In the Master Plan........................................... 12
Fiscal Year 2005 Accomplishments.................................29, 32
General Program Accomplishments.................................. 32
Historic Judiciary Square........................................ 11
Integrated Justice Information System............................ 21
Judiciary Square Master Plan..................................... 11
Master Plan for Facilities....................................... 12
Pretrial Services Agency......................................... 50
Problem Solving Courts........................................... 22
Program Accomplishments.......................................... 29
Public Defender Service.......................................... 28
Recent Achievements.............................................. 7
Status of Key Capital Projects................................... 14
The D.C. Courts' Facilities...................................... 10
-