U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

72–499 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

S. Hrg. 107–95

ASSESSING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT’S YEAR 2000

PERFORMANCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

RESTRUCTURING, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 22, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Ranking Democrat

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Democratic Staff Director and Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

RESTRUCTURING, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Ranking Democrat

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

Andrew Richardson, Staff Director

Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statement: Page

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2001

John A. Koskinen, City Administrator, District of Columbia .............................. 3

Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice,

District of Columbia ............................................................................................. 6

Charles H. Ramsey, Chief of Police, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police

Department ........................................................................................................... 10

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Kellems, Margret Nedelkoff:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Koskinen, John A.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

Ramsey, Charles H.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 43

(1)

ASSESSING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT’S

YEAR 2000 PERFORMANCE

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.

Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senator Voinovich.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

Senator VOINOVICH. The hearing will please come to order. First

of all, I want to apologize to the witnesses for being late. We had

a vote and a computer glitch. I want to thank you for coming, and

I am hoping that some of my other colleagues may appear, although some of their staff people will be reading your testimony

and going over it.

This is the fourth time in 2 years that we have come together

to discuss the progress of performance management in the District

of Columbia. Our efforts so far have focused on encouraging the

District to consolidate its various performance documents, and

while much work remains to be done in this regard, I am pleased

to report that the District’s efforts, with the Subcommittee’s encouragement, may be paying off. The Mayor’s office has acknowledged and begun to address the need to consolidate the various

performance documents into a comprehensive plan to inform the

public and enable the District Government to measure its performance.

Today, the Subcommittee meets to highlight the Metropolitan Police Department’s performance achievements from last year, using

the MPD as an example of how performance measurement is working in the District. I am pleased today to welcome City Administrator John Koskinen, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice

Margret Kellems, and Police Chief Charles Ramsey.

Crime and public safety have been hot issues in the District for

decades. Like many cities in Ohio where I am from, gaining the

upper hand in law enforcement continues to be a daily struggle. My

hat goes off to Police Chief Ramsey and Deputy Mayor Kellems for

2

taking on this responsibility and working daily to make our Nation’s Capital a safer place to live, work, and visit.

Despite these efforts, public safety reports on the District remain

mixed. On a positive note, Chief Ramsey has been praised for responding to the residents’ demand to put more officers on patrol.

As a result, violent crime in the District decreased 2.5 percent in

2000, though, Chief, I am sure people can debate that one way or

another. As Mayor for 10 years of Cleveland, I thought putting

more people out there made the difference, but sometimes other

things came into play.

However, negative coverage continues to plague the Department,

as highlighted by recent stories on the mishandling of child abuse

reports and homicide case files.

To combat some of these problems, the Metropolitan Police Department established performance measures in the District’s Year

2000 Performance Accountability Plan that was submitted to Congress in 1999. These performance goals were then revised halfway

through the performance cycle, accompanied by a letter from Mayor

Williams explaining that the District intends to be held more accountable for the revised goals rather than the goals laid out at the

beginning of the cycle. So, essentially, the District decided to move

the goal posts halfway through the year.

This was confusing to me, and certainly confusing, I suspect, to

the residents of the city, who want to know how their government

is performing. In other words, the District had 1999 goals, and

then I think in March 2000 they revised those goals.

The Department’s year 2000 goals range from reducing homicide

and improving 911 response time, to increasing youth membership

in the Metropolitan Police Department Boys and Girls Clubs and

upgrading the Department’s technology. These goals are the focus

of today’s hearing.

It concerns me to report that of the 20 performance goals established for 2000, only 4 were realized. That is a 20-percent success

rate. On top of last year’s questionable performance, I was exceedingly discouraged to learn that the Department intends to drop 17

of its 20 performance measures for Fiscal Year 2002.

For example, such tangible outcome measures as reduction in

homicides and aggravated assaults are being replaced by a measure of Part I violent crimes. Last year’s measures to improve 911

response time are being replaced by a measure of the number of

calls the MPD receives on public disorders. I am confused as to exactly how the number of distress calls the Department receives relates to the agency’s ability to respond to such emergencies. I

mean, really what we are interested in is response time, not the

number of calls. It seems to me that everywhere in the country you

measure your response times.

Essentially, it appears that the Department is replacing tangible,

transparent performance goals with some ambiguous, unaccountable measures. I would be interested to hear how the witnesses justify these changes in performance measures.

The Subcommittee also looks forward to learning whether the

Metropolitan Police Department’s successes and failures were typical among District agencies, and whether other agencies in the

3

1The prepared statement of Mr. Koskinen appears in the Appendix on page 27.

District intend to replace last year’s performance measures with a

new set of measures.

What I am getting at is that we had 1999 measures, then we

changed them in 2000, and now I understand we are going to be

changing them again. The issue is what measures are we going to

use next year when we measure the performance of the District.

What are they?

On a related issue, I am disappointed with the submission of the

District’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Accountability Report

which was due March 1 and still has not been submitted. I must

tell you that I scheduled this hearing with the expectation that the

report would be here on time. As a result, this morning’s hearing

will not be as meaningful, I think, as it could be. I am putting the

District Government on notice today that I would like to have that

report on time next year.

It also presents a problem for the General Accounting Office, because they are supposed to review it and get back to us by April

15 of this year. Again, that is going to present them with a problem

in trying to meet their deadline that they are supposed to make to

Congress.

On a more cordial note, I would like to congratulate the Williams

administration for its progress so far. I am well aware that the

Mayor has only been in office for a little over 2 years, and that

these types of changes do take time. Although much work remains

to be done, I believe the District is on the right track.

I am particularly impressed with the quality of individuals that

the Mayor has been able to attract to the administration. I think

all of us know that an administrator—a mayor, governor, commissioner—is only as good as the quality of the individuals that they

are able to attract to their team. I do want to have responses,

though, to the questions that I have raised in this statement.

Since Senator Durbin is not here, I think we will move immediately to your presentations. If you could limit them to no more

than 5 minutes, I would be most appreciative. We will start out

with Mr. Koskinen.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. KOSKINEN,1 CITY ADMINISTRATOR,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you and the Subcommittee with an update of

the status of the development of the District of Columbia’s performance management system. With your approval, I will submit for

the record my full statement and summarize it here.

I am joined here today by Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, Deputy

Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, and Charles Ramsey, Chief of

the Metropolitan Police Department.

I will present an overview of the District’s performance management system, our ultimate goals, the status of several issues that

we still need to address, and our prognosis about how long it will

take to resolve these issues.

Ms. Kellems will discuss the criteria she used to evaluate Chief

Ramsey’s performance during 2000, including the Chief’s FY 2000

4

performance contract with the Mayor and the Chief’s calendar 2000

scorecard of performance measures. Chief Ramsey will then discuss

his own evaluation of his performance and that of the Metropolitan

Police Department.

I am pleased to submit to you this morning the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Accountability Report, which

as you note was due on March 1. As we had advised your staff, we

have been trying to consolidate this process, we have been a few

days behind. But to assist GAO in their work, as you noted, we

have been providing them the chapters of this report as it was prepared. So several of those, about half of them, were in their hands

on March 1. We are committed, as we streamline this process, to

submit next year’s report well in advance of the March 1 deadline.

As you know and stated, Mayor Williams strongly supports the

development of strategic goals and the use of performance goals

and measures as a way of improving the delivery of municipal services to our citizens. He understands that this should not be a paperwork exercise, but needs to lead to a system of tracking

progress and managing against performance on an ongoing basis.

When fully realized, the District of Columbia’s performance management system will allow the government to set priorities that reflect the input of all relevant stakeholders, including citizens, local

businesses, non-profit organizations, the faith community, the City

Council, and the Congress; establish goals and measures that we

track over an extended period of time of at least 3 to 5 years, to

be able to deal with the concerns you and everyone have about

shifting the goals which we are measuring year to year; establish

goals and measures that tie the priorities into performance contracts between the Mayor and his cabinet agency directors that will

manage against those priorities, goals, and measures; and measure

and report performance to the public, the Council, and the Congress on a regular basis.

Implementing a complete performance management and reporting system is an evolutionary process, and we expect that additional improvements will need to be made over the next 2 years.

Nonetheless, especially judged against my experience overseeing

the Government Performance and Results Act for 3 years at OMB,

I think the District Government has achieved significant success

thus far in its efforts to establish a performance management system.

Let me give you a brief review of what we have achieved to date.

During 1999 to 2000, the District emphasized engaging citizens in

the development of its first citywide strategic plan. As we prepare

to update the citywide strategic plan this coming fall, we plan to

continue to engage District residents this spring and summer

through identifying neighborhood-specific priorities and needs by

developing 39 strategic neighborhood action plans. In addition, we

plan to seek input from the Council and the Congress in updating

the citywide strategic plan prior to the October 2001 Citizen Summit.

As you noted, over the course of the first 2 years of the Williams

administration, we have generated some inconsistencies by changing goals and measures during the reporting period and estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:17 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 72499.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
5

lishing different reporting periods—fiscal years for the budget and

calendar years for the District’s year 2000 scorecard.

Some of this inconsistency is not surprising in the early stages

of establishing a performance management system. Nonetheless,

we have directed agencies to review past years’ sets of goals and

measures and to consolidate them into a single set of goals and

measures consistent with the citywide strategic plan, agency strategic plans, the directors’ performance contracts, the budget goals

and performance measures, and the performance plans for the middle managers, the management supervisory service, and excepted

service personnel. Ultimately we will have one set of goals that are

consistent in all of our plans, budget submissions, contract reports,

and performance reports. They will allow us to track trend data

over a series of years.

In the past, agencies have tended to emphasize process measures

or inputs and outputs. While these goals are important, we are

asking agencies to shift their emphasis to measures of efficiency,

quality, and outcomes, such as improvement in health care vital

statistics or decreases in the number of fires throughout the District. As you noted in your opening statement, in effect, we are asking agencies to say what does the public expect of your Department

and how would we measure progress toward those expectations.

However, agencies will continue to monitor selected inputs and

outputs to support our efforts to develop program-based budgeting,

as illustrated in a significant chapter in the FY 2000 budget that

will be arriving here in the Congress in June.

Prior to the October 2000 oversight hearing before this Subcommittee, my staff worked with the General Accounting Office to

spot-check selected performance measures for quality. In general,

GAO found that District agencies did not adequately describe the

systems or procedures for ensuring the credibility of its performance data.

Verifying our results has been a concern of the Mayor’s from the

start of his administration. As a result, we asked, in June, the Inspector General to audit agencies’ calendar year scorecards and fiscal year measures to identify common areas in need of improvement, and best practices in agencies that can be shared with colleagues throughout the city.

One of the Inspector General’s initial findings was, across several

agencies, a lack of clear policies and procedures for recording, calculating, and analyzing performance data, echoing the GAO’s findings. By summer 2001, my office will develop a set of general

guidelines for agencies to document how they collect, manage, and

report performance data for the goals and measures in the agency

FY 2001 performance accountability reports and the 2003 performance accountability plans.

As much progress as we may have made in designing and implementing our performance management system, I believe we are at

least another year away from a fully integrated and seamless operation. We have the major components in place—a citywide strategic

plan crafted by our citizens to reflect their priorities; scorecards to

present clear goals and deadlines to the public; agency-specific strategic plans that outline fundamental changes in the way each of

our agencies conducts business; and individual performance conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:17 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 72499.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
6

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kellums appears in the Appendix on page 33.

tracts that translate our larger citywide plans into tangible personal commitments, measures by which the Mayor and the public

can judge the success of each of his cabinet members.

In future years, District budgets will be increasingly based on

past performance, and requests for new funds will be accompanied

by justifications tied to projected performance with and without the

new funds. We have included a special chapter, as I noted, on performance-based budgeting in this year’s budget for FY 2002 which

the Council is now considering, and it will have one or more performance-based budgeting presentations for at least one program

from each of seven major District agencies.

We anticipate presenting a full performance-based budget for at

least those agencies in our FY 2003 budget a year from now. Establishing these connections between expenditures and results is critical to both make work more meaningful for District employees and

to restore confidence in the District Government.

As I said at the outset, establishing the District’s performance

management system is an evolutionary process. We have accomplished a great deal in the first 2 years of the Williams administration, but we have more work to do. We appreciate the support we

have received from this Subcommittee, from the GAO, and we look

forward to working with both of you, as well as with the public, as

we continue to refine and improve and update the Mayor’s performance management system.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have now

or after Ms. Kellems and Chief Ramsey make their presentations.

Senator VOINOVICH. If it is all right with you in terms of your

time, I would like to hear from Ms. Kellems and the Chief. Would

that work out for you?

Mr. KOSKINEN. That is fine.

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Kellems.

TESTIMONY OF MARGRET NEDELKOFF KELLEMS,1 DEPUTY

MAYOR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ms. KELLEMS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the

opportunity to discuss the District of Columbia’s performance management system. As you requested, I will outline my evaluation of

the performance of Chief Charles Ramsey and the Metropolitan Police Department during 2000.

As Mr. Koskinen noted, I evaluated Chief Ramsey’s performance

against his FY 2000 performance contract.

Senator VOINOVICH. Can I interrupt you just a minute? If you

could speak a little bit closer? Even with my hearing aids, I am

having a tough time. And you can take your time.

Ms. KELLEMS. My husband tells me I talk too fast. Sorry about

that.

As Mr. Koskinen noted, I evaluated Chief Ramsey’s performance

against his FY 2000 performance contract, his calendar year 2000

scorecard, and other relevant activities and accomplishments.

I have submitted written testimony for inclusion in the record,

with your permission. That testimony outlines in much greater deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:17 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 72499.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
7

tail each of the performance goals and measures that I will briefly

highlight today.

Chief Ramsey’s evaluation was for his performance in 2000. But

by way of background, it is important to note that at the end of

1997, Part I crimes in the District totaled nearly 55,000. Chief

Ramsey assumed leadership of the MPD—— Senator VOINOVICH. I am sorry. What was that?

Ms. KELLEMS. Nearly 55,000 at the end of calendar year 1997 for

Part I crimes.

Chief Ramsey assumed leadership of the MPD in early 1998.

Less than 2 years later, Part I crimes totaled less than 40,000, a

drop of 27 percent. Homicides are the lowest in many years, as is

youth violence. Much of this decline in crime can be attributed to

Chief Ramsey’s wholesale reform of the Department. Incrementally

over the last 3 years, Chief Ramsey has implemented a communityoriented policing strategy, called Policing for Prevention, that the

Chief will detail more fully in his testimony.

Certainly, there are many areas in which MPD must improve,

but Chief Ramsey has exceeded expectations in controlling crime,

managing major events, rebuilding the credibility of the Department, and restoring a relationship with the community.

As I will describe today, his accomplishments in 2000 met or exceeded the expectations set by the citizens. But equally important,

Chief Ramsey has instilled a new pride and a new level of accountability in the Metropolitan Police Department, and the citizens of

the District of Columbia are much better served by their police

than ever before. He produced these outcomes while transforming

all aspects of a troubled agency.

I turn to a brief outline of the component parts of the Chief’s performance contract that were evaluated. Each agency director’s performance contract is divided into two sections, general requirements expected of all agency directors and agency-specific requirements that are drawn from the agency’s strategic plan.

Chief Ramsey’s performance was evaluated against a total of

nine contract requirements—three general requirements and six

agency-specific requirements. Chief Ramsey exceeded expectations

on four of the nine contract requirements, and met expectations on

the remaining five. The rating of ‘‘exceeded expectations’’ means

that an agency director has met 90 to 100 percent of the expectations.

The first general requirement area in each agency director’s performance contract was alignment to the Mayor’s Strategic Plan. In

this area, Chief Ramsey exceeded expectations. His strategic plan

outlined a series of performance objectives and measures, each

aligned to one or more of the five key areas in the Mayor’s Strategic Plan. The Chief’s plan primarily supports two of these five

areas—building and sustaining healthy neighborhoods, and making

government work.

His plan also projects these objectives out over several years,

with more rigorous performance standards each year. This longrange planning avoids the common problem of new programs and

initiatives that are started up and then disappear in the same

year, never achieving meaningful, lasting, and sustainable change

over time.

8

The second general requirement in each agency director’s performance contract is the establishment of performance agreements

for their senior managers. Chief Ramsey met expectations in this

requirement area.

He also met expectations in the third and final general requirement area in every agency head’s performance contract. The third

area is the development of a risk management plan for the agency.

In addition to the general requirements of all cabinet-level agency directors, each agency director’s performance contract includes

agency-specific performance requirements. Chief Ramsey’s contract

includes six such requirements drawn from his strategic plan.

Chief Ramsey received ratings of ‘‘met expectations’’ or ‘‘exceeded

expectations’’ on all six of these requirements. I will outline the

first two of these in some detail, but further details are provided

on all six in my written submission.

The first agency-specific requirement was to improve police-community coordination. This is one of the areas of most notable improvement in the Department. Under Chief Ramsey’s mandate, the

sworn members of the Department have received extensive training

in community-police relationship-building and Problem-Solving.

MPD supports the officers with literature, training, management,

and accountability.

Partnerships for Problem-Solving was established in 43 Police

Servicing Areas (PSA) in the year 2000 and is now in place in 55

of the District’s PSA’s. They will be in place in all 83 PSA’s by the

end of the fiscal year.

Additionally, MPD command staff participate in eight Neighborhood Service core teams in each of the city’s wards. These core

teams are multi-disciplinary groups that work with community

members to identify, prioritize, and resolve chronic neighborhood

problems such as nuisance properties that require the resources of

many agencies.

One significant weakness in this requirement area that was discussed during the evaluation process was the public perception that

MPD was unresponsive or uncooperative with the community in its

homicide investigations. The sentiment of many homicide survivors

was that their cases had been left unattended or uninvestigated.

Moreover, some felt that if MPD were more cooperative, more

homicide cases would be brought to successful closure. In FY 2001,

Chief Ramsey is implementing sweeping reforms in homicide investigations, and has committed to meeting his 65-percent closure rate

and to changing the public’s perception.

The second agency-specific requirement that was evaluated was

the Chief’s goal of increasing the presence and visibility of sworn

officers in the community. Some of the activities outlined in my

written testimony address the issue of officer visibility, but the

other essential element is raw numbers of officers deployed on the

streets.

In June 2000, MPD achieved its budgeted staffing complement of

3,600 sworn officers. Only 12 months before, the Department had

been at 3,450. In fact, at one point, in September 2000, MPD’s recruiting was so successful the Department was able to make use

of Federal grant funds to exceed 3,600 by 58 officers.

9

In addition to these 200 newly hired officers, Chief Ramsey nearly doubled that number again with his innovative redeployment

program. In fact, between new hires and redeployment, Chief

Ramsey put the equivalent of 344 additional officers on the street,

far exceeding his performance goal.

The third MPD-specific requirement that I evaluated was the

Chief’s obligation to improve MPD responses to emergency and

non-emergency service calls. The Chief met expectations in this

area, and again I would ask you to refer to the written testimony

that outlines more details about the progress we have made.

He also met expectations in the fourth agency-specific requirement, which was addressing the challenges of youth and domestic

violence and child abuse. Similarly, he met expectations in building

a high-quality workforce, his fifth agency-specific requirement. In

giving a rating of ‘‘met expectations’’ in this area, I focused mainly

on the Chief’s recruiting and training.

The final agency-specific requirement was facilities improvement.

Chief Ramsey exceeded expectations in this area. The most significant evidence of this is found in the MPD headquarters that now

has a state-of-the-art command center that allows the Department

to effectively manage daily operations, as well as major events such

as the Presidential Inauguration.

I will provide a very brief overview of the Chief’s performance

against his scorecard goals. The Chief will talk about these in his

testimony in much greater detail.

The performance goals, as Mr. Koskinen mentioned, are the public scorecard for agency performance. They contain the performance

measures that are important to measures of success for the community.

Chief Ramsey’s performance against his calendar year 2000

scorecard goals were also included. The goals were, first, put 200

more officers on the street. As I mentioned earlier, Chief Ramsey

exceeded this goal through recruiting new hires, lateral transfers,

and redeployment efforts that put 344 additional officers on the

street.

Second, achieve a 5-percent reduction in Part I violent crime. As

you noted in your opening remarks, the District realized a decrease

of approximately 2.6 percent, according to our preliminary data,

falling short of this target.

The third goal was to achieve a 5-percent reduction in Part I

property crimes. The Chief achieved a decrease of approximately

5.2 percent, according to preliminary data, meeting this target.

The fourth public scorecard goal was to achieve a 65-percent

homicide clearance rate. The actual clearance rate was approximately 57 percent. The national average for cities of comparable

size is approximately 60 percent. The Chief’s target remains 65

percent in 2001.

Based on my assessment of Chief Ramsey’s performance in 2000

against the contract and the scorecard goals, I felt an overall rating

of ‘‘exceeded expectations’’ was warranted. Mayor Williams and

City Administrator Koskinen concurred after our February evaluation meeting with Chief Ramsey.

As Mr. Koskinen discussed in his comments, we are encouraging

the agencies to set ambitious, stretch goals that they may not

10

1The prepared statement with attachments of Chief Ramsey appears in the Appendix on page

43.

achieve immediately, or even over the course of one single year.

Chief Ramsey’s goals were ambitious, and although he did not hit

every measure under every contract requirement, he did meet and

exceed expectations overall in each category.

Moreover, the citizens of the District of Columbia have benefited

greatly from his leadership. The quality of life in our neighborhoods and the quality of service delivery by our police officers are

evidence of his outstanding performance as our Chief of Police.

I also would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much.

Chief Ramsey.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY,1 CHIEF OF POLICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Chief RAMSEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

the opportunity to testify this morning.

The year 2000 was certainly a year of high-profile events for the

Metropolitan Police Department. It was also a year of everyday

challenges and quiet yet significant victories for our Department

and for the communities that we serve.

With the support of this Subcommittee and the Congress, as well

as Mayor Williams and the D.C. Council, the Metropolitan Police

Department continues to make significant progress toward making

the District of Columbia a safer, more attractive, and livable city

for our residents, workers, and visitors alike.

Year in and year out, no other municipal police department in

the country has to deal with the quantity or complexity of major

events that we do. I am very proud of how our members respond

to these challenges, in particular their handling of last April’s IMFWorld Bank meetings and the Presidential Inauguration. I truly

believe our Department has set a new standard for planning and

execution in these types of operations for ensuring that major

events can take place as scheduled, that protestors can lawfully exercise their First Amendment rights, and that public safety can be

maintained.

These events, however, are not without cost. Our Department

has incurred significant and sometimes unbudgeted expenses for

major events over the past year, both in terms of overtime and

equipment. Recognizing that these events take place in the District

of Columbia because this is our Nation’s Capital, Congress has

been very supportive in providing some financial reimbursement

for our costs.

Our Department’s performance over the last year involved much

more than handling major events, however. The past year also saw

continued reductions in crime, growing public confidence in the

Metropolitan Police Department and, as we build for the future,

tremendous growth and development of our community policing

strategy. I am extremely proud of our members for their accomplishments in these areas as well.

Our FY 2000 performance accountability plan included four

goals: (1) Put 200 more officers on the street fighting crime and

11

partnering with the community, (2) achieve a 5-percent reduction

in violent crime, (3) a 5 percent reduction in property crime, and

(4) achieve a 65-percent homicide closure rate. Detailed information

on our performance in each of these areas is included as an attachment to my statement.

I considered these to be stretch goals, deliberately set high to

give our members and the community something to strive for. For

example, we set out to achieve a 5-percent reduction in crime,

knowing full well that this would have come on top of significant,

often double-digit crime reductions in recent years. We also set a

65-percent homicide closure rate, despite the fact that homicide

clearances are falling nationally. While our Department did not

meet every goal, I am still pleased with our performance in these

and other critical areas over the past year.

Putting more officers on the street was a priority not just of the

Police Department, but of the Mayor and the community. We not

only met our goal of 200 additional officers, but exceeded it through

a combination of increased hiring and more effective deployment.

Our Department surpassed our hiring goals during FY 2000,

thanks to more effective recruiting, strong interest in our lateral

hiring program, and lower than anticipated attrition rates.

We ended FY 2000 with just over 3,650 officers, which was our

highest sworn strength in many years. Our strength has dropped

about 100 officers during the current fiscal year, as spending pressures have prevented the District’s Chief Financial Officer from

granting us the authority to hire new officers. That freeze, however, has now been lifted and we will begin hiring next month. Our

long-range goal, which is being supported by a $15 million grant

from the Federal COPS office, is to rebuild the force to our authorized level of 3,800 officers.

In addition to hiring more sworn officers, we have been creative

in how we deploy our personnel to ensure that we have uniformed

personnel on the street when and where they are needed the most.

Last year, we implemented a new shift schedule system that increased the number of officers working evenings and weekends,

when crime and calls for service are at their highest.

We created the Mobile Force, which is a team of officers working

voluntary overtime during the evening shift to target hot spots of

crime and disorder. More recently, we established a Narcotics

Strike Force which focuses on open-air drug markets. Using a special $1 million congressional appropriation, we were able to get the

Strike Force off the ground and provide it with state-of-the-art

equipment and technology.

Finally, we implemented a redeployment initiative, in which

most officers in specialized units or support assignments now spend

1 week each month in uniform patrolling a police service area, or

PSA. Redeployment is adding dozens of officers to community patrols across the city 5 nights a week.

More officers on the street is translating into continued reductions in crime. Reported crime in the District declined for a fifth

consecutive year last year, a 4-percent reduction overall according

to preliminary data. This follows a 9.4-percent reduction in 1999.

Homicides fell by nearly 2 percent last year, to their lowest level

since 1987. Homicides involving juvenile victims, a particular conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:17 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 72499.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
12

cern in recent years, fell by nearly one-third last year, from 28 to

19.

Other violent crimes did increase slightly in 2000, which means

we fell short of our 5-percent goal. However, property crimes such

as burglary and auto theft declined by more than 5 percent, falling

to their lowest levels in decades last year.

Crime is down not only because more officers are on the street,

but also because of stronger partnerships between police and community. Over the past year, we continued to enhance our community policing model, focusing on the critical areas of training, problem-solving, leadership, and accountability.

For example, we expanded our innovative Partnerships for Problem-Solving training program which provides residents and their

officers with information and techniques on how to work together

to strengthen leadership and accountability. We assigned a lieutenant to head up each PSA and provided those lieutenants with specialized tools and training on their role in community policing.

We created a new, more efficient system for police officers to access other city services that impact public safety, and we forged

new partnerships with social service agencies and other providers

to get at some of the underlying causes and conditions that contribute to crime in our city. For example, our Office of Youth Violence Prevention is working with the clergy and other community

stakeholders to put in place effective intervention and prevention

programs for at-risk youth.

As I noted earlier, the homicide rate in our city continues to

drop, which is encouraging. After declining 2 percent last year,

homicides are down almost 40 percent so far in 2001. My goal, and

this is certainly another stretch goal, is to end the year with fewer

than 200 homicides for the first time since the mid-1980’s. We plan

to accomplish this through a combination of focused law enforcement strategies targeting the most violent offenders, as well as

intervention and prevention strategies targeting at-risk individuals

and behaviors, including drug trafficking and abuse. I see this

short-term goal of fewer than 200 homicides as the next step toward reducing the homicide rate even more dramatically over the

next several years.

An equally important goal is to increase our homicide clearance

rate. Not just the Metropolitan Police Department but major city

police departments across the country are facing unprecedented

challenges when it comes to solving homicides.

Whereas 35 years ago police closed almost 9 out of every 10 murders, that number has dropped to between 60 to 70 percent in recent years. This trend is driven in part by the changing nature of

homicide itself. Years ago, most homicides involved family members or other people who knew one another. Today, homicides are

more likely to involve strangers arguing over drugs, gang territory,

and the like. This factor, combined with the reluctance of witnesses

to come forward and the greater sophistication of some offenders,

has led to a decline in homicide clearance rates across the country.

The District of Columbia has been no exception. Our homicide

closure rate for the year 2000 was 57 percent, down from 61 percent in 1999, and below our goal of 65 percent. Increasing the

13

clearance rate remains a key goal for our Department and we are

taking a number of steps to meet that goal.

These include a new standard operating procedure for homicide

investigations; an upgrade of our computerized criminal intelligence system; a new, more rigorous selection process for detectives; enhanced victim and survivor outreach; and expanded training. In the area of training, we are creating a new criminal investigators academy, with the advice and input of London’s New Scotland Yard, the world’s premier investigative agency.

In short, we will do everything we can to improve our ability to

investigate and close homicides and other violent crimes. To the

victims and survivors of these crimes, we owe nothing less than our

very best effort.

I just want to touch very briefly on other accomplishments over

the past year. These were not specifically identified as goals in the

year 2000, but they certainly contributed to our success last year.

One of the accomplishments is the dramatic reduction in the use

of force by members of the Metropolitan Police Department. Just

2 years ago, following a series of articles in the Washington Post

and a number of high-profile use-of-force incidents, I asked the

U.S. Department of Justice to come in and help MPD analyze and

reengineer the entire range of policies, procedures, equipment, and

training related to the use of force.

Since then, we have worked very hard internally and with the

Justice Department to make dramatic improvements in all of these

areas. We are now close to finalizing a memorandum of understanding with DOJ that will endorse the changes we have made

and avoid a formal consent decree that other departments have entered into.

Our reforms in this area have been substantially. We totally rewrote our use of force policy, introducing a use of force continuum

that includes verbal command and less than lethal weaponry. We

equipped and trained our officers with OC spray and new expandable batons, known as ASPs. We increased officers’ firearm training

from 8 to 16 hours a year, and expanded the course to focus on tactics and judgment, not just marksmanship. To improve investigations and recordkeeping, we created a first-ever Force Investigation

Team that responds immediately to the scene of all instances in

which officers use deadly force.

The results of these and other reforms have been dramatic. Over

the last 2 years, police-involved shootings have declined 78 percent.

In 1998, 32 suspects were shot by MPD officers, 12 of them fatally.

Last year, seven suspects were shot by the police, only one fatally.

In short, we have gone from being a national embarrassment in the

area of use of force to a national model for innovation and effectiveness.

Over the past year, we have also expanded our level of cooperation with other law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction in

the District. This enhanced level of cooperation was critical during

the IMF-World Bank protests and the Presidential Inauguration.

But cooperation is also taking place on a daily basis throughout our

city.

For example, a law that was spearheaded by Congresswoman

Norton and passed by Congress allows our Department to enter

14

into cooperative agreements with other agencies, permitting them

to extend their jurisdictions and to assist MPD. To date, we have

cooperative agreements in place with Amtrak and the Zoological

Police, and several more in the developmental stage. These, of

course, are in addition to MOUs that already exist with the U.S.

Capitol Police and the U.S. Park Police.

We are working closely with Federal agencies on critical problems of illegal drugs, guns, and arson. The DEA task force, for example, has provided us with valuable analysis of drug trends and

markets in the District, and the task force continues to assist our

enforcement efforts.

The ATF has provided the Metropolitan Police Department with

new computer technology that allows our Department to access

their Washington Regional Gun Crimes Center in order to trace

firearms more quickly and efficiently. We have also exchanged personnel with ATF and acquired a new arson truck, as we work together on reducing arson crimes in the District. These types of cooperative efforts will be critically important in the future as we

continue to focus on enhancing police presence and reducing crime.

For FY 2001 and 2002, we have made some changes in our system of defining performance goals, and I know you have some concerns around that. Rather than focus on a few relatively narrow

goals, we have broadened our goals and established specific objectives and performance measures within each goal. Detailed information on these specific goals and objectives is also attached to my

testimony.

While our approach to performance accountability has changed

slightly, our basic commitments remain the same, to reduce and

prevent crime, to hold offenders accountable, to enhance the public

sense of safety, to use force judiciously and fairly, to ensure customer satisfaction, and to continue developing our organization.

I know this hearing is focusing on year 2000 performance. In

closing, I would ask the Subcommittee to step back and take a

slightly longer view of the progress made in the Metropolitan Police

Department.

I became Chief of MPD almost 3 years ago. At that time, many

of our facilities were literally falling apart. Our equipment was

sub-standard, our computer technology was outdated, our policies

and training were spotty, especially on critical issues such as use

of force. Our recruiting was insufficient and ineffective. We were

actually losing more officers than we were attracting. Our community policing strategy covered only the basics. Morale within the

Department was low and community confidence in the police was

shaken.

Over the past 3 years, my management team and I have worked

very hard, and quite successfully I believe, to rebuild this police department. We have rebuilt not only the physical infrastructure; we

have also rebuilt the pride of our members and the confidence of

the people that we serve.

The fact that we are concentrating our energy and resources on

something as complex as improving our homicide clearance rate

and not on something as basic as equipping our districts with toilet

paper or making sure officers attend firearms training is a sign of

just how far we have come.

15

The comprehensive rebuilding effort we have undertaken could

not have been possible without the support of this Subcommittee

and the entire Congress. Not just your financial support, but your

leadership and assistance on public safety issues in general, have

made a tremendous difference to our Department and the residents

that we serve.

We still have a long way to go to make our city, our Nation’s

Capital, as safe and livable as it should be. But I am confident that

with the continued support of our Mayor, the District Government,

the President, the Congress, and especially our partners in the

community, we can and will continue to reduce crime and work toward making the Metropolitan Police Department a model for community policing in our Nation.

Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Chief. That was a very impressive presentation. I identified with many of the things that you

were talking about because, as you know, I was Mayor of Cleveland

for 10 years.

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir.

Senator VOINOVICH. And one of the challenges was to transform

our police department into a department that was responsive to the

community’s needs and one that people had confidence in. I think

the concept of your community officers working with the community is excellent because that is a way of breaking down the barriers between the police department and the people they are serving in the community.

I would like to get more information from you on how you are

dealing with the use of force. The fact that you were able to avoid

a consent decree is very impressive. My former safety director, who

went to work for me when I became governor and ended up being

head of the Department of Public Safety for the State, is now the

safety director in the city of Columbus and trying to come to grips

with that.

All over the country, we have got problems with use of force, and

I am not going to ask you to go into the details with it, but I would

love to see, maybe, several pages on what you did in order to put

that in place. You have had some good results with it, which is

very comforting to know. Sometimes, you put these things in place

and you don’t see the results.

Have you increased the diversity training on the part of the current officers and new officers? How do you handle that?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir, we have. Actually, prior to my arrival the

Department entered into an MOU with the Justice Department as

the result of an action that was filed by the Hispanic Police Association some years ago that required us to enhance our diversity

training. I took advantage of that and we expanded on that significantly.

We provide some 32 hours of training for recruits in the academy. We have in-service training now, which prior to my arrival

was not mandated. We have 40 hours a year now for all veteran

officers as part of our in-service training. Diversity is covered in

that.

At the district level, what we have begun doing is as new officers

come into a district, they have an orientation. The community parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:17 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 72499.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
16

ticipates in that and they learn more about the community that

they will be serving so we can more specifically target that population that is in that particular district, as opposed to just a more

generic type of diversity training for officers.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have a violence or use-of-force crack

team that comes in, or how does that work?

Chief RAMSEY. Mr. Chairman, we created a Force Investigation

Team. It is in our Office of Professional Responsibility; Internal Affairs, many agencies call it. Whenever an officer discharges a firearm at a person, at a human being, this team responds immediately to the scene and takes over the investigation. Previously,

those investigations were done at the district.

This team does a thorough investigation to find out whether or

not the shooting was within the policy of the Department, what

training implications may be——

Senator VOINOVICH. Excuse me. Is it just limited to shooting or

all the use of force?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, it is expanding to all uses of force. We started it off with just shootings. Now, they are moving into all areas

of use of force, whether a firearm is involved or not. So we have

just given them some added responsibility. We will have to staff

that unit up more so that they can handle more cases. But our feeling is that we need to attack all uses of force the same way so that

we can make sure that officers are always using only that level of

force that is necessary.

Senator VOINOVICH. You have a crack team of people on call 24

hours so that is the group that comes in and investigates rather

than the officers who are on the scene?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir, they are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week, whenever an incident takes place.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have any opportunity for citizens in

the community who are unhappy with the performance of the Department to file a complaint, like a police review board or civilian

review board?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir. Just recently, a Citizen Complaint Review Board was established. Citizens can make a formal complaint

either through our Department or through the CCRB which is now

functioning. They handle excessive force, verbal abuse, harassment,

those kinds of complaints. Our Internal Affairs now continues to

handle other issues regarding misconduct. My goal is to eventually

have our Internal Affairs handle all other forms of conduct, and

take all those investigations away from the districts.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to know more about that, also.

As you know, my staff has been working with the Department

in terms of expanding the memorandums of understanding between

the Department and the various other police outfits in the District.

After the shooting at the National Zoo, I think that emphasized the

importance of coordination between those various police departments.

It appears that you have signed agreements now with Amtrak

and the National Zoo Police, and that you are trying to work out

agreements with the FBI and the GSA. Is that correct?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir, it is.

17

Senator VOINOVICH. Are there any other agencies that you are

looking at entering into agreements with?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, we have made the offer obviously to all the

different agencies. The ones that we work on a regular basis and

already have MOUs with are the Secret Service, the Park Police,

and the Capitol Police, who cover the majority of the area in the

District. We work with them on a regular basis now and they do

have jurisdiction.

We have extended the offer to other agencies, the Mint Police, for

an example, the Federal Protective Service, and others. Many of

those are in the works in terms of what exactly it is that their area

would cover, what they can do. Many of the universities in the area

have expressed an interest in extending their jurisdiction beyond

their campus, which would be useful in many instances, so we are

working actively with them.

Senator VOINOVICH. I can tell you that the more of those agreements you have and the better understanding you can get and coordinate your effort, the more effective you are going to be. Three

thousand and eight hundred is a very ambitious goal, but you can

maximize your efficiency by working with other agencies and their

working with you, and by coordinating all the resources you have,

really make a difference.

Mr. Koskinen, I have looked at these performance issues, and the

first question I would like to ask is what are we going to measure

the FY 2001—what goals are you going to use?

Now, I mentioned in my opening statement that there were

goals, and I talked about 20 and you performed on four. One of the

questions I was going to ask is how did Ms. Kellems evaluate you.

And I thought she did a pretty good job, so I don’t need to ask that

question.

Mr. KOSKINEN. As you know, part of the problem with performance management is that at any one point in time you are reporting on the prior year’s results, acting on the current year’s goals

and planning the next year’s goals. For instance, we just submitted

the FY 2000 performance accountability report, are half-way

through FY 2001 and just submitted our FY 2002 budget to the

Council.

As the Mayor, the Deputy Mayors and I met with each agency

to review performance in 2000, we had to review some goals for the

fiscal year ending on September 30, 2000 and some goals for the

calendar year ending December 31, 2000. For FY 2001, all goals

will be reported on a fiscal year basis.

In addition, at the outset of the FY 2002 budget process, we

asked agencies to review all existing goals—FY 1999, 2000 and

2001—and to consolidate them into a single set of goals so that we

get as much continuity over time as we can, so we can look at

trend data over time and tell you and others how we did in 1999,

2000, and 2001. Those consolidated goals are presented in the FY

2002 budget that Congress will receive in June.

Senator VOINOVICH. So the goals that we are going to be looking

at next year will be what goals?

Mr. KOSKINEN. We have a set of goals right now for 2001 and

there have been some, although much less, changes from what was

in the budget presentation, which is where you have been looking

18

for goals, for 2001 because that budget was done last year. We

have modulated those in the performance agreements with the

agencies, and those will be public. They will be on Web sites. We

will be delighted to provide you and your staff with exactly what

those are. Those goals then build on and are consistent with the

goals that are in 2002.

One of the things we did with the agencies was wherever possible, we wanted in 2001 to continue with an expansion of whatever they had in 2000. Some agency directors said, well, those are

my 2000 goals, now I need to have a new set of goals. And our view

was no; if those were good enough goals in 2000, we need to build

on those. We may add goals, but we should, in fact, over time have

a view, as I say, of looking at what does the public expect of your

agency and how are you doing it.

Senator VOINOVICH. So I will specifically be able to know what

the goals are for 2001 so that we can look at those and go through

them item by item?

Mr. KOSKINEN. You will know, yes. In fact, the newest initiative,

trying to move this along, is we, in 2000, had scorecard goals which

were the performance goals extracted out of the process, and those

were very visible. If you went into an office, you saw what the

scorecard goals were of that department. We had a public rollout

and reported on the results in January.

What we are now moving to is we would like to, in every office

where you go, not only know what their goals for the year are, but

have regular, updated status reports on how they are doing in the

middle of that year. So if you go into the Department of Motor Vehicles, you not only know what their wait time goal is for car inspections, but you will see actually how they have been doing

month by month.

We need to have that on Web sites and we want to have that out

publicly so that when you walk into any District Government office,

you will see what their goals are for the year and how they are

doing and being measured against those goals as we move through

the year rather than just once at the end of the year.

Senator VOINOVICH. There were 20, and according to the information we have they are dropping 17 of them. Are there going to

be replaced with some other goals?

Ms. KELLEMS. Yes, they will be. Some of those are being replaced. Some of those are just being aggregated because of how we

are going to collect the data. For MPD, the proposed measures in

2001 and 2002—there are five major goals. Under each of those,

there are two or three specific measures, and I will give you an example. The Chief alluded to some of these.

The first goal is reduce and prevent crime and criminal victimization citywide. This goal will show up in 2001, 2002, 2003, and

beyond. Underneath that, there are three specific measures. One is

the percent change in Part I violent crime, one is the percent

change in Part I property crime.

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, but when you are talking about Part I

crimes, you will break them down by categories? We are not going

to get just one general number? We will be able to monitor the various levels of Part I crimes?

19

Ms. KELLEMS. I think the issue comes down to what that means,

where we are presenting that information. All that information,

publicly available statistics, are all available on the MPD Web site.

One of the things we are trying to consolidate is the amount of reporting that we are doing in the various avenues that we have to

report to. All of the crime statistics are broken down by type of

crime and that is public information.

Mr. KOSKINEN. One of the issues with GAO—and we had the

same problem with Federal agencies—one of the criticisms GAO

had was we had too many goals; they were all over the place. And

I think that was right. What we need, and our goal ultimately for

the Department is we need three or four very visible goals that the

public is concerned about in that department that we can measure,

and that we can measure over time and you can see how we are

doing.

There will be sub-sets. Some of them will be output goals, some

will be process goals that will be internal in the agency for management purposes. But ultimately what we want to do is be able

to have people understand quickly and easily what is the goal of

MPD, what is the goal of the Department of Motor Vehicles, what

are the major goals of the Department of Public Works, and then

be able to measure against them.

There will be sub-goals and statistics available behind that, but

we are trying to make it easier for people to understand. For instance, in fire, the ultimate issue and interest the public has is we

would like fewer fires and we would like faster response time.

Senator VOINOVICH. So we are going to have information on response time to fires, police calls, and EMS?

Ms. KELLEMS. Absolutely.

Mr. KOSKINEN. In fact, one of the reasons the goals have changed

is, again, it was a prior administration, but when you started in

1999 you had an approach and some of it was just pro forma. And

as we are moving through, one of the things we are going to do and

why the goals change is we are trying to refine and get better at

identifying exactly how to articulate the goal in a way that resonates with people. We need to manage against the data in terms

of how are we doing, but also we need to communicate that data

to the public in a way that they can comfortably understand.

Senator VOINOVICH. Are you confident that you have the wherewithal to do the measuring? There was some question about whether or not, because of the recordkeeping.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. In fact, the IG report has come out this

week. Last summer, we asked the Inspector General, and we have

been working with the GAO to take a look at what the data collection and procedures are. On the basis of their review of three or

four departments, we are now developing a set of policies and procedures for all of the government agencies, because it is one thing

to have the goal and one thing to have the data.

What you really want to make sure is that the data is accurate

and it is in the right time frame. In other words, if you are measuring on a fiscal year basis, you want to get as much data as you

can and make sure that the data being collected fits the time of the

goal. So I think we will have those standards and procedures, but

20

we have asked the IG to continue to work with us, and audit and

manage against that.

We, fortunately, and it didn’t surprise me, didn’t find anybody

actually manufacturing data. What we have found is that the data

is not being collected in all places in the same way and in an orderly way that can be replicated over time.

Senator VOINOVICH. Chief, in organizing your management team,

who decides—how many districts do you have?

Chief RAMSEY. Seven, sir.

Senator VOINOVICH. Seven districts?

Chief RAMSEY. Seven districts.

Senator VOINOVICH. And then you have specialty people in

charge of—what do you call them, bureaus?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, actually, we have organized now. It is all

part of Operations if it is an operational unit.

Senator VOINOVICH. But there are key people in the operational

unit?

Chief RAMSEY. Right.

Senator VOINOVICH. Who decides who those individuals are going

to be?

Chief RAMSEY. In terms of our command staff, I do. I began a

process for selection of people in the command ranks where they

actually apply, and submit a resume. I ask a series of questions

that they have to respond to in writing, and then set up interviews

for these people with a board that is established, where my executive assistant chief chairs along with a commander and another assistant chief. And then the top 8, 9, or 10 people, I will have oneon-one interviews with.

Senator VOINOVICH. The people in order to qualify—do you have

a pecking order where you go off and you get your sergeant and

move them up the line? We call them inspectors, the top—do they

have to achieve one of those levels before they could be considered

as a district commander?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir. Only captains right now, by our personnel regulations in the District, are eligible to move beyond that

rank. I cannot select from any rank other than captain.

Senator VOINOVICH. What are the ranks above captain?

Chief RAMSEY. Inspector, commander, assistant chief.

Senator VOINOVICH. And the ones below are lieutenants?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir. It would be police officer, detective, sergeant, lieutenant.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you feel that you have enough flexibility

with the way it is working out? My experience in Cleveland was

that many times the way the civil service thing worked was that

we got people that got to be inspectors, which was one of the highest ranks, and they didn’t have the interpersonal skills and the

management skills to get the job done. We had to reach into the

lower ranks to get people, and we gave the chief the opportunity

to select his own management team in terms of the district commanders and also the people who ran the bureaus.

Do you feel that you have enough flexibility there in terms of the

pool?

Chief RAMSEY. It is limited when you only have captains to select

from. The more flexibility, the better. But I think that you raise a

21

larger issue, and that is how we prepare people throughout the organization to move up the ladder, if you will.

The problem in policing is that the only way to advance financially, quite frankly, is through a promotional process. Many people

take a promotional test not because they necessarily want to be supervisors, but because it pays more money and they have families

to support. We need to carve out career paths for individuals that

don’t necessarily involve promotions into supervisory ranks, where

people can be compensated based on the skills they have and what

they bring to the table.

Everyone doesn’t want to be a supervisor, and we wonder why

a person was a heck of a detective but a terrible sergeant or a terrible lieutenant. They ought to be able to have a career path where

they can stay in investigations and be rewarded.

We also do not measure people appropriately, I don’t think, in

terms of judging their ability to move to the next level. Most performance evaluations deal with what you do in your current role,

and you could be very effective, but you need a second piece of that,

and that is a judgment on your readiness to move to the next level.

That is something that we are trying to put in place with our performance evaluation system that we are trying to develop within

our Department.

Senator VOINOVICH. When you have these PSA’s, do you have an

officer assigned to each one of them?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir. We have 83 police service areas in the

city. We average close to 14 people per PSA. Some PSA’s have

many more, some have slightly less. It depends on the work volume, but they are permanently assigned for at least a year. That

gives us a cadre of people who get to know the crime conditions,

and the community in that particular PSA.

Senator VOINOVICH. How often does your district commanders

meet with the people in those PSA’s?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, we have just begun a new process now

where our district commanders are required to have regular meetings with the PSA lieutenants and talk about crime and disorder

problems in the PSA. They have to do that at a minimum, monthly.

In some of the PSA’s that are more high-crime, they do it more frequently.

So they have sessions—we call them TOPS, Targeted Organizational Performance Sessions—where they actually go in detail

around all the crime and disorder problems, other performance

issues, people on the medical roll, people on limited duty, various

other personnel matters, too. Those lieutenants are the ones who

run that PSA, and their job is to see to it that the lieutenants are

running them properly and dealing with the issues.

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the things we found when we got our

group together that was amazing—where we had especially burglaries, the people in the community sometimes were more effective

in apprehending these individuals than we were because there was

a grapevine that was working out there. They were able to not only

help us with that, but also tip us off to some things that were happening in the community.

We called them police-community relations groups. The district

commander was required to meet with them once a month, and

22

then they would have the zone officers in also to break down the

barriers between the people and the department. It was just amazing, over an 8-year period, how the attitude of the folks in the

neighborhood toward the department and the department toward

folks in the neighborhood changed from one of an adversarial—

beat-up, screaming, yelling—to finally in the last couple of years

where the local groups would honor police officers and their families. Council members would get up and give tributes. It was just

amazing, and it was only because people started to meet together

and put each others’ shoes on that really made the difference there.

Mr. KOSKINEN. We are actually building on that same concept

into what we call Neighborhood Action, which is to go into the 39

clusters of communities in the District and reach out to the communities, all of the faith-based civic organizations, council staff,

etc., and on a regular basis develop the plans and priorities, as I

said in my testimony, and then also deal with chronic critical

issues in those neighborhoods, according to the neighbors’ priorities.

We pulled together all of the relevant city agencies for a safe and

clean community. So we have the Department of Public Works, and

Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. But most importantly, one of the

major, leading agencies for us has been MPD because they have

been there already in their community. So they and Fire and EMS

are critical parts of what we call the core teams in each of these

wards, who on a regular basis now are working not only for longerterm planning and priority-setting, but then organizing all of the

agencies to work together in a community to solve problems,

whether they are drug dens or abandoned housing or other kinds

of chronic problems in the neighborhood that historically we have

dealt with episodically, or one agency after another has tried for

each problem to get the relevant agencies together and solve that

individual one.

So, in effect, what we are doing is creating an ongoing set of

teams, cross-government teams. But it basically goes back to your

instinct, which is our experience as well, which is the people who

know best about what the problems in each individual community

are and what the right priorities are, are the people who live there.

And if you can engage them in a dialogue, first, you will be more

efficient and effective in your work. But, second, you will then correspondingly develop a much greater confidence and acceptance by

the community of the work that their government across the board

is doing.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it is amazing. I have gone back to

Cleveland several times, out in the neighborhoods, and our local

development corporations and our neighborhood housing organizations have just been unbelievable in terms of dealing with rehab,

new housing, code enforcement, and the rest of it. In fact, people

volunteer to do code enforcement for us, neighborhood people.

Mr. KOSKINEN. We have volunteers who go with us on our clean

city assessments. In one area, we are doing them every 2 weeks

and the assessors are volunteers from the neighborhoods, who have

said, gee, we will come out and help you. And then we publish

which streets are clean, which are hazardous. Again, we have had

23

this tremendous outreach from the community, who are very

knowledgeable and delighted to play a role with us.

Senator VOINOVICH. The last question, and we didn’t get a

chance to talk about it when you were in the office, but is there

any thought being given to instituting quality management in the

city? What I mean by quality management is the training of people

who work in the city in quality principles and problem-solving, creating quality management team facilitators, and in effect empowering the people who are charged with the responsibility to get the

job done, to come back and talk about how they think they can best

achieve what it is.

Mr. KOSKINEN. We are coming at that in two ways. One is we

started with performance agreements with the cabinet heads. We

now have performance agreements that are being developed, or

were supposed to be developed by now, with all the middle managers. We have a management supervisory service, who are managers who have agreed to be at will, rather than civil service-protected, in exchange for bonuses for performance, and then any

other manager. And then we are going to go down to performance

agreements with front-line workers, which again will allow everyone to be working in the same direction.

But at the same time, we have a citywide effort for what are

called labor-management partnerships, and we are developing partnership councils in each agency which are focused on just that

issue. With front-line workers and managers, how do we do the

work today? How could we improve the work we are doing so that,

in fact, we provide better-quality services and meet these performance expectations that we are generating?

We have some wonderful examples, as everyone does. It is the

Japanese quality circle concept that, again, workers on the front

lines are the best people at reengineering the process.

Senator VOINOVICH. Is it organized or is it more extemporaneous

department by department?

Mr. KOSKINEN. We have set up an Office of Labor-Management

Partnerships in my office. We have a citywide council chaired by

the Mayor and labor leaders, and one of their performance goals is,

in fact, to have active labor-management partnership councils in

every agency this year. We have training we provide. We have

trained facilitators.

In fact, one of the performance measures in the performance

agreement by the agency heads with the Mayor is to make progress

on labor-management partnerships and to meet the requirements

to make sure that their managers have performance agreements.

So we will measure each cabinet head on how they are doing in

those two areas, as well as how they are doing in overall performance.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like some more information on that

from you, OK?

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes, we would be delighted to provide that.

Senator VOINOVICH. How much time did you spend with the

Chief evaluating his performance?

Ms. KELLEMS. I spent a lot of time by myself evaluating it and

talking to other people and getting input from the community, from

staff in the organization, reviewing statistics and their reports. To

24

get an estimate on my time, I would probably say it was maybe 40

or 50 hours.

The Chief and I met and discussed these goals, and contents, and

what things he was being reviewed, on so that he had an opportunity to give me additional information if I hadn’t captured it. And

then the document that I drafted was presented to the Mayor and

to the City Administrator.

Senator VOINOVICH. How much time did you actually spend sitting with him and doing the evaluation?

Ms. KELLEMS. During the actual document presentation?

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, actually sat down with him and got all

the details and you did the backup stuff. How much time did you

actually spend sitting at the table?

Ms. KELLEMS. Maybe 2 hours.

Senator VOINOVICH. Pardon?

Ms. KELLEMS. Maybe 2 hours just in this part of it, but I think

it is important to note the Chief and I spend a good amount of time

everyday on the phone or communicating or in meetings. This is

very much an ongoing, daily management issue, not a drop in,

parachute in once a year and try to capture things.

And I told the Chief if I am not learning anything new in this

evaluation process, then I haven’t done my job and neither has he.

It was really a way of collecting and presenting the information to

make sure that it met all of the requirements to satisfy the Mayor.

Senator VOINOVICH. Chief, how much time do you spend evaluating your district commanders, how much physical time in a room

going through the procedure?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, I have a couple of things that I do. With district commanders and district chiefs, I have the targeted organizational performance sessions that I personally get involved in. I had

a staff meeting I attended yesterday, for an example, with all the

district commanders and assistant chiefs that went on for probably

about 3 hours and we looked at a variety of issues.

I have a weekly executive staff meeting, usually on Fridays,

where again for about a 3-hour period we get together and we go

through all the different issues—crime, and various other issues

that affect the Department.

Senator VOINOVICH. What I am saying is how many people in

your management team do you personally sit down with the paperwork and go through it and write the stuff down and then dialogue

with them and let them know where they are?

Chief RAMSEY. I do a quarterly one-on-one with command staff,

is what I do, and I allow an hour, an hour-and-a-half to go through

that. But, again, it is no surprise because we communicate on a

daily basis. There is absolutely nothing that we talk about that

they wouldn’t already be aware of.

Actually, after a couple of months have past, if there is an issue,

it is usually too late to really try to successfully resolve it. So on

a daily basis, I take a look at our crime summary. I take a look

at a variety of other issues. I get on the phone. I will make surprise

visits.

Senator VOINOVICH. Getting back to that time that you sit down

and you gather the information and you have to go through that

exercise of thinking about how did they do in terms of their goals

25

and then sit down and look them in the eye and say, you have this

yearly performance and it has been satisfactory, it has been better

than satisfactory, and let’s talk about next year, about how much

time do you personally do that?

Chief RAMSEY. I would say probably—and I guess I am not answering your question properly, but probably a quarter of my overall time is spent dealing with individual command staff.

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think what the Senator is after is when you do

the actual formal evaluation, what is that process? In other words,

sitting down and actually either quarterly or annually—— Chief RAMSEY. Because of the fact that these statistics are being

compiled on a regular basis and I review it on a daily basis, I

would say that for the formal evaluation it probably takes about 3

to 4 hours to prepare for it, so I go over all the information, and

then it takes another 11⁄2 to 2 hours to sit down with an individual,

depending on their command, depending on the issues, to spend

time one-on-one with them talking specifically about them.

Senator VOINOVICH. The reason I am asking is because we talk

about performance evaluation with individuals, and I know that it

is one of the most difficult things that I have had to do over my

career as a governor to sit down and go off someplace and get the

information and go through the form and fill it in and then sit

down with someone and talk to them about their performance and

have that kind of experience.

I think it is one of the things that we talk a lot about, but doesn’t

really get done as much as we would like it to. Too often, the quality of it isn’t as good as it should be. It is kind of neglected and

I think it is really important that it be emphasized.

Mr. KOSKINEN. And as I noted, and I didn’t give the details, the

culmination of all of this is the Mayor and I, often with the deputy

mayors, spend at least an hour with every cabinet secretary reviewing at the end of the year how they did for 2000. We will have

a cluster review with the Mayor for an hour-and-a-half at mid-year,

as well.

But you are exactly right. Having spent 35 years both in the private sector and the public sector as a senior manager, no one ever

actually looks forward to sitting down and going through that process. So what you need to do so everyone understands its value is

design a system that, in fact, makes that just part of the way the

operation works.

So at the citywide level, we do a mid-year review with the clusters, and then the Mayor and I—and it got delayed and part of the

reason it got delayed was his schedule. But we probably spent an

hour each in 30 different meetings, so we spent 30 hours, the two

of us, going department by department doing just what you said.

How did you do last year? What is your evaluation and what is the

evaluation of the deputy mayor? What are your goals for next year?

How do those goals relate? What are your resource needs?

Ultimately, everybody at the end of the process thinks it is

worthwhile. But you are right; when you look at the next time of

30 more of those meetings, you begin to think isn’t there some way

I could shorten this?

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, thank you very much for being here

today, and I look forward to working with you.

26

Ms. KELLEMS. Thank you.

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you, sir.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(27)

A P P E N D I X

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Æ