59

lion versions of what can occur goes out. We've also seen in one of
the tragic murders we had in town here—the murders of the three
people at Starbucks. Within the first 24 hours there were 15 dif-
ferent versions of what the people were investigating, what the mo-
tive was, what all different pieces and issues were.

We've had in place, in the department, in our general orders, a
release of information to the news media since 1973, specific things
that cannot be released and should not be discussed; information
which may jeopardize the successful conclusion of an investigation;
identity of a suspect prior—a whole list of very specific things;
things that are not followed on routine basis.

The essence of what we were doing with this piece here, with
this so-called secrecy agreement, is to say, if you’re working in
homicide, you’re not to divulge information about the homicide
case. If the media needs information, they can get information
through the public information office, or through the commander or
the lieutenant in the office. Every single person should not be talk-
ing about it.

The information about the case should not be discussed with just
anybody. Now that’s not to say they can’t talk to other law enforce-
ment people. That’s not to say that they don’t gather and collect
information. But you just don’t go out and throw intimate details
to the wind about homicide cases.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did the Booz-Allen report assist in discerning
whether or not your process was workable, appropriate?

Chief SouLsBY. In regards to?

Mrs. MoRELLA. In regard to the secrecy pledges.

Chief SoutsBy. No. No, they did not.

Mrs. MORELLA. They were not involved in that. And then with
regard to the closure rate for homicide, you’ve mentioned a lot of
that in your testimony. Do you want to add anything more to that?
It’s important to follow through.

Chief SOULSBY. Well, what we also found is there’s many missing
or misfiled jackets—many cases. We've checked many files and
found that a few days after the homicide, from that point on, vir-
tually no work done in case jackets.

Mrs. MorELLA. Was that just sloppiness, carelessness, or what
do you think?

Mr. Davis. Would the gentlelady yield for just a second?

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Davis. Is the lack of automation part of the problem here
too?
Chief SouLsBy. That might be part of the problem. But if you’re
not collecting information—if you don’t get a copy of the autopsy
report; if you don’t pick up a copy of the evidence reports, you don’t
collect information; you don’t write down what you're doing on the
file—virtually nothing put in the case jacket.

Ms. Norton. Will the gentleman yield——

Mr. Davis. It’s Mrs. Morella’s time.

Mrs. MORELLA. I’ll yield to you, yes.

Ms. NorToN. But when you say that those things weren't done,
and yet the overtime was extraordinary, what was the overtime
being used for?


123

available on time and in an on-duty status whenever
possible. During the trial, it will be the Primary Case
Officer's responsibility to minimize the time each
officer spends in court waiting to testify.

When the scheduled appearances of police
witnesses are staggered, the Primary Case
Officer will coordinate efforts to secure the
timely appearance of the witnesses. The
Primary Case Officer, in conjunction with
Court Liaison Division officials, will also
ensure that officers are signed out of court
immediately upon the completion of their
testimony unless the prosecutor or the court
requires the continued presence of the officer
as provided in Section III.A 2.c. on pages 3-4
of this Memorandum. During a trial or
hearing, release of officers may be done only
with the permission of the prosecutor and the
Court. If the prosecution requests the
officer's continued presence, the officer will
obtain whatever approval is necessary from
Court Liaison Division officials.

4. In the event it becomes necessary to change
the designation of an officer in a case as the
Primary Case Officer or Secondary Case
Officer, a representative of the USAO will
consult with the appropriate supervisor of the
officer or officers involved.

C. Scheduling Appearances

MPD shall provide the prosecutor with schedules for
all police officers involved in a case, showing the
shifts they will be working, days off and any scheduled
leave. All officers are under a continuing obligation
throughout the pendency of the case or investigation to
provide to prosecutors and to the lead officer any
changes in, or additions to, their schedules. This
should be accomplished through the implementation of an
automated system to the maximum extent possible.

MPD and the officer will provide the prosecutor
and/or the court with suggested dates for court
appearances. The prosecutor will advise the court of the
suggested dates.

14


25

> Robbery, a crime contributing to the sense of fear and
victimization in the community, was down 26 percent.

. Burglary, an invasive crime that makes citizens apprehensive
about the safety and security of their homes, was down 25
percent.

Stolen Auto, seen at this point last year as a crime that was
totally out of control, was down by 26 percent.

The total number of arrests that have been made by the men and women of
the department in the period of January 1, 1997, through August 31,
1997, have increased by 26 percent when compared to the same period in
1996. in 1997 the arrest trend has changed from a decrease to an
increase and the crime trend from an increase to a decrease.

While these crime reduction achievemerts are significant, | believe that we
can and must do even better. As | have already stated publicly, ! believe
that we can achieve even greater decreases in crime. The men and women
of the department are working hard to bring about a lasting sense of safety
and security to our communities. Our challenge is to continue this progress
in the coming months.

While | am discussing crime, let me take a moment to say a few words
about the most outrageous crime of all: homicide. | am certain that
members of the committee have seen the recent media reports about the
changes | have made in the department's Homicide Branch. A number of
management, supervisory, and process improvements are being made in
response to many deficiencies in those areas. | am also establishing a
working group, similar to the one used for the development of our New
Operating Model for patrol, to develop a new operating model for all
investigative functions. My ultimate objective is to make the Homicide
Branch more responsive and accountable to the survivors, families, and
friends of the homicide victims themselves.

A significant contributing factor to the problems with the investigation and
management of homicide investigations is the overtime problem. On the
average, homicide investigators. spend two-thirds of their time performing
post-arrest investigative and other prosecution-related

1


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

J. DENNIS HASTERT, lilinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. McHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South
Carolina

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BOB BARR,

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virgit

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Ulinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

HAROLD E. FORD, OR, ‘Tennessee

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)

Kevin BInGER, Staff Director
Dantet R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director
WILLIAM MoscHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
JupitH McCoy, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
STEPHEN HORN, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia
‘THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

Ex OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

RON Ham, Staff Director
HOWARD DENNIS, Counsel
ANNE MACK, Professional Staff Member
ELLEN BROWN, Clerk
Cepric HENDRICKS, Minority Counsel

ab


119

an Appearance CANS to perform investigative function number 16
listed below. Should the USAC employ USAO investigators, those
investigators shall be utilized to the maximum extent to
perform investigative functions listed below.

Investigative functions which are subject to the
Investigative CANS include for examp]:

1. Serving subpoenas;
2. Transporting witnesses to or from court;

3. Contacting witnesses for informational or
investigative purposes;

4. Picking up and delivering photos or other
evidentiary materials to the prosecutor's
office;

$. Performing additional-investigative work
on a case at the request of the prosecutor;

6. Obtaining handwriting or voice exemplars
from a suspect or a defendant;

7. Transcribing tapes or comparing tapes to a
voice exemplar;

8. Having a weapon test-fired;

9. Obtaining a property release from the
prosecutor;

10. Executing blood orders and delivering
serological evidence to the Mobile Crime Lab
and the FBI for analysis;

aa. Transporting or accompanying the
prosecutor to a crime scene for pre-trial
preparation;

12. Obtaining booking orders or processing a
prisoner at CCB as a result of a booking order
by the court;

13. Pre-arrest consultation and/or hearings
with prosecutors;

14, Obtaining or returning arrest warrants or
custody orders;

15. Obtaining or returning search warrants;

10


68

confident in what is going on. And I, for one, want to just thank
you for what you're doing. Let’s keep it up. We want to give you
the tools to do that.

I think we may have some questions by my colleagues before we
let this panel go. Mrs. Morella, do you have any additional ques-
tions?

Mrs. MorELLA. Just one additional question. Again, back to the
secrecy agreement, or whatever, I remember reading, as goes the
Washington Post, the article that this information is not shared
with other law enforcement agencies.

Could you explicate that? I mean, it seems to me that there is
secrecy, and then there is secrecy, and there is the—

Chief SoutsBy. Well, obviously that’s not the intent of that. The
intent is to talk about intimate little details.

We deal with other agencies all the times. We have FBI agents
who are assigned to the office, which they share our records; we
talk. But what we don’t want to talk about is exactly how the per-
son—something occurred in a crime. Those are the types of
things—is it a need to know, or is it just want to know. And I think
a lot of the reporting from the media is because they see their
sources.

As one Post reporter told me, “You’ve eliminated all my sources
in the homicide branch, and one fell through.” And the other thing
in that article they said was, “The reason we like this—we don’t
like the secrecy agreement—is because we’ve always been able to
get things beyond what public information tells us; we can intimate
little details.”

For instance, if you have a child murdered, like we had earlier
this week, it’s important that the investigators in the case know
the details of what occurred. Only the investigators should know,
along with the criminal, as we go through and try to find the crimi-
nal. It might be nice to know, it might be gossipy to know, but do
you really need to know every intimate little detail of a crime scene
in the media.

Now as far as working with other agencies, all this secrecy agree-
ment says is what they're talking about here is go to the super-
visor. If we need to share with FBI, tell the supervisor we've got
to go share some information with the FBI in regards to this. If you
need to give stuff back, it can be released. But we just don’t want
it open, going all over the place.

Mrs. MORELLA. So the procedure is an agency or department—
let’s say Montgomery County police department check in with a su-
pervisor—

Chief Sou.ssy. Right.

Mrs. MoRELLA [continuing]. Of the D.C. police, and then the de-
termination——

Chief SoutsBy. A homicide supervisor. I’m talking about a low
level supervisor; I’m not talking about a major supervisor.

Mrs. MORELLA. Right. And then that supervisor has criteria, ba-
sically criteria?

Chief Soutssy. They’re still working out the outlines. Trust me.
They will share, and they will deal the information. They're not
trying to——


19

This is exactly what the MOU Partners did, they empowered the Chief to run
the Department. The MOU Partners formed a protective shield around the
Department to promote confidence in and support of the MPD and its leadership and
then sought and obtained the structure, resources and internal authority to assume
control of the Department. There was no clear cut authority for the MOU Partnership,
but ‘compelling necessity dictated that action be takén and every MOU Partner
assumed the responsibility to take action. The Office of the Chief of Police as well as
the entire MPD has been energized, but the MOU Partners should be fully
authorized, for the continued health of the MPD depends on the continued work of
such an entity.

To implement the second Recommendation of the Plan, on March 1st of this
year, the Metropolitan Police Department initiated its "Zero Tolerance For Crime
initiative” and deployed over 400 additional metropolitan police department officers
to the streets of the District of Columbia. The theory of the strategy is that to reduce
crime there must be enforcement with respect to all crime from the least serious to the
most serious.

Is this theory valid? Yes. Today, six months after the genesis of the increased
deployment of officers, the court is in a position of analyzing and narrating the real,
actual net effect that has occurred directly due to the implementation of the "Zero

Tolerance For Crime Initiative.”


15

STATEMENT
OF
CHIEF OF POLICE LARRY D. SOULSBY

Good morning Representative Davis and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the you to discuss the
transformation of the Metropolitan Police Department.

Today, | am here to discuss the improvements that we have made to the
operations and organization of the Metropolitan Police Department, the
accomplishments that we have achieved, and the changes that are still to
occur. Clearly, we are on the road to success and regaining our position as
one of the best police departments in the country.

NEW DEPARTMENT CHARTER

In December of fast year an MOU partnership was formed comprised of
myself, the Mayor, the City Council, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court,
the Corporation Council, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and
the Financial Responsil and Management Assistance Authority to
address the public safety crisis facing the District of Columbia. One of the
first conclusions reached by the MOU Partners was the need to enhance the
authority of the Chief of Police.

Many of the problems confronting the department were, it was felt, caused
by undue interference with the Chief’s leadership and management of the
agency. The Mayor of the District of Columbi
instituted a new charter for the Metropolitan Police Department on February
26, 1997, which gives a Chief of Police the ability to manage and direct the
affairs of the agency in all critical areas.





74

MPD to emphasize modern management practices, integrity, ac-
countability, and high performance. And that is exactly what the
MOU partners did; they empowered the chief to run the depart-
ment.

The department then implemented—developed and implemented
its zero tolerance for crime initiative. Basically that deployed over
400 additional Metropolitan Police Department police officers to the
streets of the District of Columbia, and the theory of the strategy
is, that to reduce crime there must be enforcement with respect to
all crime, from the least areas to the most areas, and that is ex-
actly what began to occur.

As a direct result of that we begin to experience a tremendous
increase in the numbers of cases that we were receiving in the
courts immediately. We papered over 5,000 cases in the court in
March, then almost—just under 5,000 in April, and about 4,500 in
May. And all of these figures were a tremendous increase over the
case loads that we had been dealing with before.

All of these figures are set out in my statement, Mr. Chairman,
and I would refer you and the members of the committee to my
statement.

The surprising thing that we found as a result of this zero toler-
ance policy, is that our figures for supervising probationers in the
court began to make a dramatic climb, and starting with 7,800 peo-
ple under probation, they rose quite rapidly to approximately 9,200
people. In other words, zero tolerance has incapacitated a large
number of persons who would otherwise be committing serious vio-
lent crimes. These persons are under supervision by the court.

In closing, Booz-Allen & Hamilton has done an outstanding job
in virtually redesigning the Metropolitan Police Department, which
has enabled the department through a zero tolerance for crime ini-
tiative, and other management changes to greatly reduce crime and
the fear of crime in the District of Columbia.

The MOU partners have enabled the entire restructuring process
to be successfully, and the partners should continue in their

resent alliance for the foreseeable future, and be fully authorized.

oreover, all of the structural changes that have been made in the
department should also be made permanent.

I don’t want to give you the idea that the work of restructuring
the Metropolitan Police Department is by any measure complete; it
is not. You must remember that we started out with an almost
completely dysfunctional department, including all of its branches.

Booz-Allen, in its process, is in the process of studying the homi-
cide branch, and I am certain that the chief, with the assistance
and advice of Booz-Allen and the MOU partners, will design and
implement a state-of-the-art homicide branch that will greatly in-
crease the effectiveness and efficiency of that branch, as weil as
other branches of the department. And the court stands ready to
manage its judicial and administrative resources in such a way as
to continue to participate as a criminal justice partner in any ini-
tiative that has as its goal the reduction of crime and improvement
of the quality of life for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity, and
of course I stand ready to ask—any questions that——

[The prepared statement of Judge Hamilton follows:]


32

“WOISTAI

STAI] SuoNeSHsaAuT [eIoadg pue onOseN etp pareplosUoD

joayed yoea 103 soanpoooid aanensturupe mau paysiiquisy

“syoLNsip [owed uaaas ayy JO} suonesedo uoneis ay pormonysay,

“SIOLNSIP oNed ay} 0} paxaysueN d19M S[BIOJJO PUe S2AT9}0p UOISIAIG

suonespseauy [eloads pue sonoozeN 37 PuE SEIOYJO pue SaANoaIap Youelg apIoWOH AXIS

UOISIAIG SUONESNSoAUT [eUTUIID atp UI UN pozier]UgO e 0) paud|sse saanoaap Aq poredusaAut

9q 0} aNUNWUOD T]IM saseo aflyosd YBIYy pue ‘saseo pfoo ‘swJEap [EINE “SIOLNSIP joned usAas oI

0} paudisse saanoajap Aq pareSnsaaul are saseo qusLNd JEU) Os YOUeIG aploIWOH op poztuesi0sy

“SVS tp ont saotA1ag

qno, pue Ayunuru0D pue suoneSpsaauy pezifeieds-uou se yons syun pazifelsads pezifenuecsq

“SIS94JO JOMIO p] JO WINUITUIUI & pure ‘I901JJO Bd1A BUO ‘aANDS}0pP:

BUO ‘IBOJO [One Jaise & ‘Japea] 389q ay) Jo pasiidwoo vase yows Joy sures) Poyst[qEisy

*JOped] 19q aI SE BAIS OF Wd YOO 0} JWeaBlas B pousissy

“SVSd 2Uf 0} ‘219 ‘sorpes ‘seo mnoos se Yons Jusudinbs payeso][eoy

‘Jepou Sunyerado mau amp Jo uoNeIUaWadurt ayy Yoddns 01 sarrepunog yo1Nstp jored pausieay

“ease IBD INODS YET a9]OSGo ay BoeIda1 01 (YSd) SBAIY 2d1AI9g eOIIod EB POUSHqEIST
squauyedag aoyfog ueitjodonay op 10} Japout Buryezado mau & ponausoydu

suonesnsaauy PeUTUILD oy) out

“UOISIAIG suoHeladg jelsodg ay) 0) pouJaysuen sem UONDUNY 6-y 2UL
“UOIsIAIq:
suonEotuNUTUOD ay) UI Waysks Yyoredsiq paply JoInduIOD s,oUuNnsedap amp Joy popesddn aremyos

"8661 ‘Areniga.j ut [euotesado autos0q 0} wIaIsAg ‘“sIOLNSIp joned aye
siauostid Jo uoneayyuap] painginsiq 10} payers y00ford pue ‘papseme 19eNU0D ‘paisjdwo qwaulaNs0lg,

16-90-L0
96-90-L0

L6-70-LO

L6-10-L0


103

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here
today. Is this your first time before a congressional committee?

Ms. Leary. That’s right, but I’m very happy to be here, because
I think these are really important issues.

Mr. Davis, We appreciate all you're doing, and it sounds like
you've been innovative and creative. I can’t imagine what it’s like
in an urban setting to do prosecuting, and having the responsibility
you do with the superior court as well as the Federal court. It prob-
ably makes it unique among U.S. attorneys offices.

Ms. Leary. It’s totally unique, but it makes it the best U.S. at-
torney’s office in the country.

Mr. Davis. Well, we’ve heard some of the statistics today, and
we've seen that—the rates are down; the arrests are up. But let me
ask you, as you review cases and the people under you review cases
each day, are we finding—are we more efficient; are we more pro-
fessional; are we more productive, in terms of what we're seeing
from officers today, or will this follow, do you think? In terms of
the preparation for case as you work through it, is there any
change at this point in that? And I don’t know that you’d see that
yet.

Ms. Leary. I think that things are changing, and I would say
that we still have a long way to go. And that’s one of the reasons
that we work so hard with MPD to provide training. For instance,
we do mock testimony workshops, where they come in with our
new recruits to the U.S. attorney’s office, and we teach them all
about the courtroom procedure, and we do exercises to train them
in how to testify better; how to prepare their paperwork better;
how to investigate cases.

So, we’ve seen some improvement. We have a long way to go.
And clearly, some of the changes at MPD in supervision and in per-
sonnel, are going to require even more effort on our part. You have
a lot of people coming into homicide for instance, who have no real
experience; at least not the level of experience that you’d want
them to have. So, we’ve got work to do. Things are getting better,
but we still have a lot of work to do.

Mr. Davis. Do you see any change in attitude or morale, or any-
thing at this point, or are you distant enough from that where you
may not see that at at the street level?

Ms. Leary. Well, we see hundreds of officers everyday in our
cases, and I think’ that the things—people are of course takin,
some time to get adjusted to these major changes, but I do thin
in the long run this is going to work out better. I think that good
officers—and most of them are really good, hard-working, dedicated
officers—want to be held accountable; they want to get to know
their community; they want to be problem solvers, and that’s the
goal of this whole initiative.

Mr. Davis. Everybody wants to be on a winning team, and when
you start reversing the process, and just turning it around a little
bit, I think people feel they're a part of something exciting that’s
happening, and we need to continue to keep it going.

We want to continue to hear from your office, in terms of how
things are going. We'll probably have you all back here in a few
more months just to see how it is going, because you’re an impor-
tant part of that team that puts things together. You've got the of-


39

Leneie HUN SIBABUY Swi}ID REONEL JUOLILFEGER BOROd UNRYOCAROYY :60UNOS BEC AMURUIGI

166} 9661 S66t 661 661 2661 +66) 0661 6e6t ee6l

be isnBny y6nouu) , Aenuer
uosHedWOD eplolWwOH a}eq 0} |B}OL
jueWpedeq eo1|0g ueWOdoNEWy

00

ss{ 00%

0sz


64

Mr. MaTHER. I think we’ve spent $3 million so far, and that’s
what was done in Chicago. The Chicago effort took us $3 million
with less scope than this, and our expectation is we'll spend prob-
ably another $2 million over the next year or so. And depending
upon certain activities that the department might want to take on
that were not originally visioned in the effort—for example, the IT
activities. It’s conceivable we might get involved with some of that.
because it’s the most cost effective way to do it.

But I'd say that right now the plan calls for a total of about $5
million over the entire period.

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. It sounds like $3 million is less than was spent for
overtime in the homicide division, from what I’m reading.

Chief Sou.ssy. I only wish we had spent it 2 years ago.

Mr. Davis. I mean, you have given direction and focus. These
men on the street who are putting their lives on the line everyday
need that direction and scope. I think we're starting to see results,
and this is well spent money as I have seen in this city in a long
time.

Let me ask a couple questions. I refer to an article in the Wash-
ington Post on September 21st. “D.C. officials suspect police over-
time scam.” As I look at the numbers that are here in the paper,
it looks like as the overtime goes up, the closure rate went down;
that there were people getting over $100,000 a year in overtime.

Chief Soutssy. Right.

Mr. Davis. And it was referred to, not directly by you. I think
they quote Councilman Evans as saying you told him it was a
scam.

Would you describe this as a scam, or is this just the inevitable
result of the rules that weren’t being enforced by management, and
what are we doing to bring this in line with reality?

Chief SouLsBy. Quite frankly, I think it’s a little bit of every-
thing. And we’re doing a complete and thorough audit of the whole
process.

What happened is, prior to a hearing, I talked to him for about
30 seconds in regards to the fact that we've made a change in
homicides, and we didn’t have much time to talk, and he took a lit-
tle bit of a conversation and went a long way with it.

But he is one of the MOU partners; been very helpful through
the process, but what we do know is there is problems where peo-
ple got overtime that they shouldn’t have got it. We have managers
who were making more than they were making, working on cases
that they shouldn’t; doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.

Mr. Davis. Chief, do we even know for sure that this overtime
was actually logged? We know their cards were turned in.

Chief SOULSBY. Again, as I said, rules were not followed. Since
they didn’t follow the rules—they didn’t tell you what they were
working on, and they didn’t leave a record in the jacket, as they
were required, of what it was. If you had six people working over
on this case, and no one said what you did that day, I have no way
of knowing whether in fact you were even there.

Mr. MATHER. You can see systemically that if you’ve got two dif-
ferent organizations, both tasking the same individual, and one
pays them overtime, one pays them direct comp, that the system


L

MOLADY SOIAIIG [BOTUYoa], puke saoInosay UEWIN, .
MATADY WOISSIY JOLNSIG. .

MAIADY VOUBULIO}IEg WSd .

“gouvuuojied aSeuew pur ainseoul 0} pue sja31e) gouBULIO}I0d

jeuonezwe810 Ystiqeisa 0} wiaisX¢ uowaseuRW pasndo,{ sURULIOJIag stp Jo UoNEaWA[dUT ENT]

“YoUeIg aPlWOH Cag W ap JO MarAaT 499M OA BONUS 0} pareald
sem suodxa uoresysaaul aprormoy poysingunsip Jo pasiidwios preog Malay suOeSNsaAu] SplolwoH Y

“s}OLNsIp joned UaAas arp 0} poudtsse jauUosiad Joy wnjnoind Zufure) pedojsasq,

“spuny que13 suresZ01g AyMUMUIOD aAtsuaysidwioD Aq peptaoid sem sia8ed arp Jo OOP Joy Sulpuny
“Bulotjog AunumuoZ jo uoHEUaue|dun a—p 10 jauuosied WEq 0} aoUENssI Joy sI9Bed Q99 paseyoung

“s1oinstp joxed ay} 0} voIsIAlg SuoHoTUNUTOD
aU) pur UOISIAIG sploday pue UOnEdNUEp] ay Woy JoUUOSIad UJOMs AjUIM) poXofdapey

“sjoLnsip joned uaaas aup Jo yous ut Ayoud jeuoneredo isaydty ayp st Buyers YSq [PAe|-190NS eI
ainsua 0} SYSd €8 S,JuaUNTedap aI Jo Yous Joy sjUautauINbal Buysers WNUITUTWA AToJEpUeW peyst|qeis”

“Ayuompne jauuosied
aU S,JaTYD ay) YSnosp suosess Areurdiosip Joy poreuywiier 1am Gq ay JO SioquioU UJOMS UDAITA

“BIQUINJOD Jo IOLNSIC] ay YSnoM sasoys AeMazeS 6] UI PoYstiqzise a1om suONEIg Yom AUNUIWOD
“sajoIyaa joned payreu mau Uo SsuD EW pue eTUsisuT ay parepdy,
“NeaINg Sad{AJag EOTUYDA], 2p) 29819A0 0} JeUOIssayord & 10} YOI¥AS [eUOLEU eB poouNoUUY

“UOISIAIC] SA1AJag UONLULIOJUY at 3aS19A0 0} [eUOIssajord eB 10} Yoreas [BUONEU e peouNOUUY

16-80°60

L6-$0-60
16-10-60

16-10-60

16-10-60

LO-1E-80

16-62-80
16-82-80
L6-S7-80
L6-S7-80
L6-S7-80


67

it. And I think Chip’s spent a great deal of time with these people
on the operating model development, and I think when they were
turned loose on this problem, and got the chance to work the issue,
it was a magical thing. I mean, this whole group—the change in
them over a 3-week period, from sort of being quiet and reticent
when they first showed up to—I mean if you’d seen some of these
sessions they were something to behold. I mean these people were
engaged, they were passionate, they were really trying—let’s move
out on this, let’s get the thing done. I mean it was impressive.

Mr. STEWART. The other thing is, is that they've demonstrated a
lot of enthusiasm for problem solving. They’ve always been behind
the eight ball, always, and answering all of these calls. Now there
are more people on each of these PSAs than ever before, so they
have free time, and it’s being directed and focused, not on just
making arrests and giving citations, but on improving the quality
of life, the appearance of the neighborhood, and going after the
enablers of crime.

That’s been a real morale boost in itself to give the officers a
chance to deal with the enablers of crime, rather than the outputs.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. Let me ask all of you. Are there sufficient
inter-jurisdictional agreements? Ms. Norton referred to some of the
changes she put in the Balanced Budget Act, that I think have
helped coordinate some of the Federal agencies in working with
you.

What happens is that the city impacts the suburbs on all of these
issues, clearly. It’s a regional problem, and to the extent it becomes
bad in the city, it spills over. And to the extent that we are capping
these things, and solving it, and reducing crime in the city, it’s
going to have an effect region-wide.

So my question is, are there sufficient inter-jurisdictional agree-
ments in place to facilitate the necessary coordination, communica-
tion, and cooperation, which are so critical to the MPD’s mission?

Chief Soutssy. I think the big global answer to that is no, but
that’s one of the things that we’re going to be studying and looking
at over the next couple months.

Mr. Davis. Because I think everybody in the region—I know I
speak for our officers out in the Virginia suburbs, that we are all
interested in helping solve this problem. It is a region problem. It
affects all of us; people coming into town; people moving across
boundaries, back and forth. We clearly have moved the ball down
the field, to use a football analogy on this issue. We're still a long
way from the goal line and where we want to be. But I think we
have resources here that—whether it’s helicopters, boats, and ev-
erything—that we can continue to coordinate, and help give you
the technology and the assistance that your officers need out there.

I’m very impressed with the study—because this is just not an-
other study that is gathering dust on a shelf. We’re having the day
to day implementation. It is going to take a while to change the
culture, as I think Dr. Mather talked about earlier. We have to
keep our expectations in mind with how quickly you can turn some-
thing like that around.

But when we see some of these decisive actions, when we see
some of the scams, and some of the other problems that have been
around for years that haven’t been addressed, we feel a little more


104

ficers on the street, you’ve got the backup folks, but you're right
there in court, putting the cases together, deciding —

The judge talked about the zero tolerance and some of the Petty
crimes that used to not go forward, that are now going forward,
and it looks like a lot of these are being pled out very early in the
process. Instead of clogging up the courts——

Ms. Leary. Well, a lot of them are being pled out, and that’s a
good result.

Our case loads—I'll tell you quite frankly—have increased quite
a bit, as a result of this. But we feel that this is work that has to
be done, and so we're going to do it.

Mr. Davis. From the case load that your average attorneys have
there, as you start moving toward some of the zero tolerance of
lower level crimes, and those numbers increase what is that doing
to the workload, or are you getting enough pleas out of it that you
can—you still absorb them within your current structure.

Ms. Leary. Frankly, we're not getting enough pleas to absorb the
whole of it. Case loads have increased significantly, and I think the
court has also seen a big increase in their pending case load, which
means you can’t get these cases through the system.

Mr. Davis. You still have a wave coming.

Ms. Leary. So we still have that wave coming. Basically we’re
just working harder.

Mr. Davis. Would you talk to me a little bit? I know Ms. Norton
is going to ask you about these investigators that you have re-
quested——

Ms. Leary. Right.

Mr. Davis [continuing]. Getting more accountability into this sys-
tem. Because, clearly, if you don’t have to worry about paying for
the investigators, and you can just request them from the police de-
partment, it makes it a very easy decision.

Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, I think there’s been—there’s a mis-
understanding of how the system works.

When the police make an arrest, they make an arrest based on
a standard which is called probable cause. In order to convict some-
one—and I really do believe that the prosecutor and the police
must work together for that result. The end result cannot be just
making an arrest; an end result has got to be successful prosecu-
tion.

And so when they make an arrest based on probably cause, that’s
very very different from beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the
standard that we must meet-——

Mr. Davis. To get a conviction, sure.

Ms. Leary [continuing]. In order to convict. It’s a long road from
probable cause to reasonable doubt. And when the police make an
arrest, there is still a tremendous amount of investigative work
that must be done in order to convict.

When prosecutors send what’s called a CANS—which is a form
of subpoena to the police department, requesting the presence of
police officers, detectives, to work on a particular case—they’re
coming to meet with our prosecutors in order to do the following
things; interview witnesses, get leads, investigate those leads, go
out on the street and find the witnesses to this crime, testify before
the grand jury, because in the District of Columbia we are required


126

H. —- Pailure To Comply Or Report

If an officer fails to comply or report as required
by an Appearance or Investigative CANS notice, the Court
Liaison Division will take appropriate follow-up action,
by obtaining the presence of the officer or his
compliance with the request as submitted by the
prosecutor or the Court, and by initiating the
appropriate disciplinary procedures for such failures.

The procedures arising from failures to comply with
appearance CANS shall be initiated by the Court Liaison
Division, and need not be reported by the prosecutor,
although’ consultation with the prosecutor will be
appropriate in many circumstances. Procedures arising
from failures to comply with investigative CANS will be
initiated by the Court Liaison Division upon notification
of the prosecutor. MPD will notify the U.S. Attorney's
Office of the results of inquiry and/or disciplinary
procedures arising out of any failure to comply with a
CANS notice.

For trials and other court hearings, Court Liaison
Division will make all reasonable efforts to notify
officer who has failed to appear and arrange for his
immediate appearance. The results of that effort shall
be immediately communicated to the prosecutor and the
court. An official from Liaison shall also be available,
upon request, to appear in court to explain the absence
of any officer for a court hearing.

For witness conferences and grand jury conferences,
the Court Liaison Division will also make all reasonable
efforts to notify the officer who has failed to appear
and arrange for his or her immediate appearance. If
those efforts are unsuccessful, the prosecutor may
request an immediate follow-up conference for that
officer by filing an emergency CANS notice as provided by
this Memorandum.

If a CANS request has been timely submitted, and the
officer was not notified of the appearance, the Court
Liaison Division will begin an immediate investigation to
determine the reason the officer was not served.

aw


45

‘HUN S1eAeuY euiLLD monoR jeUIpedeQ eOFDY URMDdoNeY -cuNCg med KRURUEBG

| ster | 00rg
css | sore
cece, 28

sue
ones
e009
oe

uosuBdWwOD BsUeYO |-Hed
jusWpedaq sdl[0g ueWodoJe;y


87

Beginning in March, and continuing to-date, monthly "Supervision" figures were
7,823, 8,243, 8,563, 8,877, 9,108 and 9,266. (See: Figure 3)

In other words, Zero Tolerance has incapacitated a large number of persons
who would otherwise be committing serious and violent crimes. This is the
anticipated preventative aspect of Zero Tolerance.

The most surprising preventative effect of Zero Tolerance has been that as a
result of the increase in enforcement and increase in the number of adult
probationers-the court experienced a reverse dynamic that fewer juveniles were
being placed on probation. This suggests that due largely to adult probationary
services, and effectiveness of their programs, many probationers have become more
responsible parents who are learning to exercise their appropriate disciplinary,
parental authority over their children and controlling their behavior. (See: Figure 4)

IN CLOSING, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. has done an outstanding job in
virtually redesigning the Metropolitan Police Department which has enabled the
Department through its "Zero Tolerance for Crime Initiative" and other management
changes to greatly reduce crime and the fear of Crime in the District of Columbia.
The MOU Partners have enabled the entire restructuring process to be successful and
the Partners should continue in their present alliance for the foreseeable future and be
fully authorized. Moreover, all of the structural changes that have been made in the

Department should be made permanent.

13


8

suggested that the government go to a city-managed reform. That
might well be the best form of government for the District. I have
no idea, we have not yet studied it, and I could not accept the im-
position of a new form of government in the rescue package with-
out the consent of the governed.

The police approach had special credibility because it seemed to
be producing results. For that reason, it was unnecessary to take
down some more of the District’s home rule as the Faircloth attach-
ment ultimately did.

Now I'm hoping that the application of the police model to other
agencies as is now required, will quickly produce similar reforms
governmentwide. The quicker we do that, the better services we
will have, and the more ammunition will be available to reclaim
our rights.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.

I now yield to the vice chairman of this committee, Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MorELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you for holding this important hearing to address public safety in
the District of Columbia; welcome our panelists.

When the Control Board first issued their preliminary report it
was evidenced the Metropolitan Police Department suffered from
low morale and extremely poor management. Less than 10 percent
of the officers were assigned as scout cars; two-thirds of the MPD
officers made 10 or fewer arrests; half of those officers made no ar-
rest at all. MPD officers made less than their counterparts in the
surrounding jurisdictions, and most of them held a second job.

I remember at that time discussing the disconnect between the
police and the people that they were serving, and at that time
Booz-Allen recommended that the first step to reforming the MPD
was to empower the office of the chief of police. Control of the ad-
ministrative and managerial practices at the MPD was transferred
from Mayor Barry to Police Chief Larry Soulsby, who immediately
began reorganizing the police department. I commend you for that.

It is my understanding that crime is down in the District by 17
percent; that homicides have also declined by 25 percent; and yet
at the same time the number of unsolved homicides is on the rise.
I think the term that’s been used is a declining closure rate.

To his credit, Chief Soulsby asked Booz-Allen to conduct a review
of the Homicide Department, which has resulted in major shake up
of the homicide unit.

While the crime rate in the District has declined, so too has the
age of our criminals, and that concerns me greatly. Arrest of juve-
niles under 18 for violent offenses increased by more than 57 per-
cent between 1983 and 1992. And weapons violations among juve-
niles increased 117 percent. Murder and manslaughter increased
by 128 percent.

With a rise in unsolved homicides in the District, it is imperative
that juveniles should not get the message that the District is a
good place to get away with murder. Public safety is one of the top
concerns of people who live in the District, and obviously among
people who live in the surrounding suburbs.


OVERSIGHT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MET-
ROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
BOOZ-ALLEN MOU

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1997

HOUuSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis, Morella, Horn, and Norton.

Staff present: Howard Dennis, counsel; Anne Mack, professional
staff member; Ellen Brown, clerk; and Cedric Hendricks, minority
counsel.

Mr. Davis [presiding]. Good afternoon, and welcome. This is the
first meeting of the subcommittee since the President signed land-
mark legislation this summer to fundamentally restructure the re-
lationship between the Federal Government and the Nation’s Cap-
ital.

We can all take great pride in the substance of the historic new
laws and the processes by which we achieved our goals, and with
patience and perseverance, working in a true bipartisan way, we
seized the opportunity to improve the complex relationship between.
the Federal Government and the District.

Just 2 days after the President signed this legislation the city re-
ceived a rare positive signal from the bond market, a key indicator
of confidence in the action taken.

This subcommittee has worked diligently and cooperatively to
formulate, along with other stakeholders, including the administra-
tion and the congressional leadership, a strategic approach which
addresses the key issues.

I particularly want to thank the ranking member of this sub-
committee, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, for working with me in such a
collegial way, as we strive to achieve the reforms that are nec-
essary for the city to survive and thrive.

The economic recovery of the Nation’s Capital will benefit the en-
tire reason in the country by helping to realize the bipartisan vi-
sion that has been so often expressed by top administration and
congressional leaders.

e key elements of the revitalization package include Federal
assumption of certain functions performed by State governments,
and incentives for economic development and private sector jobs.

e))


levee Wun fegmury eUID ORE, wound etd UNAOEHEN| :ecUNDS HEC AMUN

2661 ‘8} Jequie}deg yBnosy | Aenuer
uosuedwod jseuy / ssueyo Aue|6ing

juowpedeg 9o1|\04g ueWodojeyy


73

Fortunately, the MOU partners had on December 31, 1996, re-
tained Booz-Allen & Hamilton to review the Metropolitan Police
Department, with a view toward jnaking recommendations for a
new model to operate which would greatly increase the efficienc:
and effectiveness of the Department. The review was accelerated,
and Booz-Allen submitted its interim plan for reducing crime, fear
of crime and disorder in the District of Columbia on February 26,
1997, 21 days after Officer Gibson was murdered.

Booz-Allen’s research documented clearly and scientifically that
the District of Columbia in the early part of 1997 was in the
throws of a bad case of the broken window syndrome, as the syn-
drome is defined by George Kelling and Catherine Coles, in their
work, “Fixing Broken Windows”. This syndrome is marked by an
ever-increasing state of lawlessness, where crime breeds on crime
at an exponential rate, and if left untreated will consume an ever-
increasing area.

The research showed that this process had indeed set in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and that the city was indeed in a state of law-
lessness, where daylight street robberies were virtually committed
at will, and persons were not even safe on the streets when they
traveled in groups in cars, and the worse such area was that of Ta-
koma Park in the vicinity of the metro station, where some resi-
dents had been robbed on numerous times and assaulted with dan-
gerous weapons, even when they were traveling in groups of three
or more.

The research also showed that there were increasing amounts of
the District that were becoming open air drug markets, open air
beer gardens, and fertile areas “br aggressive anhand] ling. In
short, the research showed that numerous crimes, fe from minor qual-
ity of life crimes to robberies, had reduced large areas of the city
to very dangerous and undesirable areas to live or work, or even
just visit.

Booz-Allen reported that the primary cause of this state of affairs
was a dysfunctional Metropolitan Police Department. The depart-
ment was dysfunctional because the common structure had become
weakened; the leadership of the department lacked the structured
resources and the power to study the crime problem, and craft a
plan to reverse the broken window syndrome as it then existed.

e officers were depressed, demoralized, disrespectful of author-
ity, and for the most part, were waiting simply for the best time
to retire.

What caused this deplorable condition in the department? The
chief of police just did not have the internal structure and the
power to run the department. The chief of police needed to be em-
powered, to plan, procure, hire, fire, and promote, and make any
action taken in this regard stick, and everyone needed to know and
understand that in the department the buck started and stopped
with the chief.

Indeed Booz-Allen’s interim plans, stated at page 3—Booz-Allen
has recommended that the MOU partners concentrate their reform
efforts in three important areas; 1) empower the office of the chief
of police and energize the entire MPD; 2) work with the MPD to
implement immediately anti-crime measures that reflect best prac-
tices in leading edge crime-fighting strategies; 3) restructure the


82

date the number of arrests for felonies and the execution of warrants leveled off. At
the same time, from May to the present, the number of arrests for misdemeanors
remained high.

Then, a most unexpected statistic occurred-at least one which would have
been subtle to any casual review of the 6-month post-intervention statistics. The
couit’s ‘Social Seivices Division's caseload as to both ‘felonies ‘and misdemeanors’
increased, as some of the arrestees early-on plead guilty and were placed under court
supervision. Those arrestees that went to trial may have been allowed to participate
in one of the numerous court-supervised diversionary, alternative programs, and
others still within the case management systems are yet to be disposed as we speak
today, but will continue to be followed throughout the upcoming months.

But this progression of handling the new arrests, whereas concentrated at the
time of arrest and still concentrated at arraignment, soon takes on the form of “case
Joad pending" in the various Divisions or Branches of the court and reside on court
calendars that are assigned to adjudicate the matters. Therefore, the influx of cases
initially at the arraignment court level, soon become distributed and spread out over
many months, carried in the number of “pending cases", until all matters are heard
and a final disposition is taken. Even upon final disposition, there are areas of the
court that remain involved for other reasons, even after the case itself is “disposed”

out of statistical caseload pending counts. For instance, if a Defendant is incarcerated,


OVERSIGHT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METRO.
POLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
BOOZ-ALLEN MOU

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 1997

Serial No. 105-99

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

ae

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-810 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
‘Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-056475-1



108

Ms. Leary [continuing]. Overtime burden.

Ms. NorTON. How much? How are you going to use them? Will
they be deployed so that—how much less—have you figured out
how much less police time—remember this is on the street police
time—will be necessary if you get 42 new investigators?

Ms. Leary. Well, Ms. Norton, I can tell you that they will be able
to help us locate witnesses. They will be able to help us review the
evidence. They will help us prepare exhibits for trial. There are a
number of tasks that we could do with our own in-house investiga-
tors that most D.A.s’ offices have throughout the country.

Ms. Norton. Most D.A. offices use police officers in this way as
well?

Ms. LEARY. Most of them do use police officers to investigate,
however, there are differences. The fact that we have to present all
our felonies to a grand jury in the District of Columbia makes us
unique. Most prosecutors’ offices don’t do that.

Ms. Norton. Do you believe that’s necessary?

Ms. Leary. I believe that it’s beneficial to the system.

Ms. NorTONn. So you would not want to change that?

Ms. Leary. No, no.

Ms. NorTON. But most offices don’t do that, and yet we ought to
do that. And we ought to pay for that, even though most D.A. of-
fices don’t do that. Why should we do that?

Ms. Leary. I think that the grand jury process actually works to
the benefit of the system as a whole, because cases do work out in
the grand jury system, so that you either get pleas or dismissals,
based on the information——

Ms. Norton. So why doesn’t anybody else do it?

Ms. Leary. It’s a constitutional requirement. We’re not exempt
from the requirement. In the District of Columbia we're not exempt
from the requirement that felonies go to a grand jury.

Ms. Norton. So we don’t have any choice, you’re telling me.

Ms. Leary. That’s right.

Ms. Norton. I see.

Ms. Leary. But I can assure you that those investigators will
make a difference.

Ms. NorTON. Well, you know what, that’s not good enough. I be-
lieve that in light of the overtime scandal—if it turns out to be
that, and almost everyone—almost all the testimony here indicates
that at least some scamming was involved here—that ought to be
able to represent the taxpayers in the District of Columbia, that a
substantial amount—and I think at the very least we're entitled to
a ball park figure—of the overtime that has, by the way been a
constant problem between the U.S attorney. We're not talking
about something that arose through the discovery in the past few
years; this is something that one has heard over and over again,
about overtime and people going over to the U.S. attorney’s office.

I think we deserve more than saying to the U.S. attorney, here
is some new investigators for you. I think we deserve to know how
much you think that will help relieve overtime by our own police
officers, who would otherwise be assigned to crimes in the streets,
and for whom we are paying, not straight time, but overtime—a
city still in the throws of trying to pull itself up. And yours is not




109

one of the offices that has had to be cut; it’s services out here that
have had to be cut.

So I would like your office to submit to this committee, within
the next week, before your—before the conference is over on your
appropriation, how much you think 42 new investigators might be
used to relieve some of the overtime pressure on the D.C. police de-
partment.

Ms. Leary. We'll be happy to do that, Ms. Norton.

Ms. Norton. Appreciate it.

(Note.—The information referred to can be found at the end of
the hearing.]

Ms. NorTOon. Thank you very much. I’ve concluded my questions.

Mr. Horn. I would just like to ask you a few questions about an
area that maybe you have no involvement or legal authority with.

What role, if any, does the U.S. attorney’s office have in collect-
ing alimony when people have fled the jurisdiction of the District
of Columbia? There are Federal laws, I believe. Could you tell us
a little bit about your role in that area?

Ms. Leary. We can prosecute people under the new Federal—it’s
what's called the Deadbeat Dad Statute.

Mr. Horn. Right.

Ms. Leary. But it should be called the Dead Beat Parent Statute.
And we have an assistant U.S. attorney, senior person in our office,
who is designated to pursue that type of investigation and prosecu-
tion.

Mr. Horn. How many cases—Do you know how many cases were
handled, and how do you judge, fiscal year or calendar year?

Ms. Leary. This year we had one Federal prosecution under that
particular statute.

Mr. Horn. Under that. How many cases have been referred to
that U.S. attorney?

Ms. Leary. I don’t have that number off the top of my head, but
I will tell you this. Because the system in the District of Columbia
for tracking child support payments is not very—it’s not function-
ing at a very high level; that’s one of the biggest problems we've
had. We're handicapped by a lack of referrals.

Mr. Horn. We're lacked at—where is the level that is missing
outside your office?

Ms. Leary. At the city level. The agency’s——

Mr. Horn. Well, what part of the city are we talking about?

Ms. Leary. I believe it’s Department of Human Services. I’d have
to check on that, but I believe that’s correct.

Mr. Horn. Do they have to make a recommendation before the
USS. attorney acts?

Ms. Leary. We have to get referrals, because they’re the ones
who know whether the child support payments are being made or
not.

Mr. Horn. Well how about the individual knowing if they don’t
get the check? Can they walk into your office and get service?

Ms. Leary. We have not had any such referrals.

Mr. Horn. Do the individuals in the District of Columbia even
know that the Federal Government has a role in this now, and can
be helpful to them? Have we tried to educate them?


z

“uonetidoidde jeuoisser3u09 vor ¢1¢ ay) Aq paptaoid Surpuny -paseyomnd asom suoneisyiom
Aandwios GE] ‘Wass yomIaU s,JUoUNIEdep oy) pue YOIJa JUaWAaINI0Id YEH om UOddns Oo],

‘uoneidoidde feuorssos8uos voy Cg 24) Aq papiaoid Surpun,y “sajotyaa GW JO}
paseysind oxam sa8eo uodsuen Qo] ‘uodsuen sauostid Sutnp jauuosied Gg JO} Aaundas apraoid oF,

“uonetidoidde jeuorssex3u09
vor $1$ tp Aq papracid Supun.y ~soure Kpogysisoa 11e-o1p-Jo-9181S OOF JO AzaAlJop [eNTUT PaAlsooy

“L661 ‘TE I8NINY UO parajdutos FuTMIEI], “eIquINJOD Jo IoLNSIC ay Jo suazHIO
Alp 0} Bd{AJOs JUALOYJa JOU! aptAord ued Aap eM OS S199JO YoIeag aulsdg SUID OZ] SuruIEN ueFog

“uorstAiq suonesedg jeisadg ayp pue sionstp joned ax wosy paatacar
Uaaq aAzy JeYY SUSZINO 0) sOder JUSpIoo" Jo UONBUTWASsIP ay oAcIduT! oy WesSoid & pawwauiatdu]

“BIQUNJOD Jo IOLNSIG BqP J0J japous Burstjod mou e dojaaap
0} UOYTWEH 3 Ud|[Y-ZOog IPM ¥JOM 0) UTED) UaUIdoJaAap Jopow ZuNeJado Mou CW Ue powog

“sampeooid pue sajru Areurjdiosip pue yonpuoo s,juaunsedep Mataal 0} aaytUNUOD paysttqeis”,

“s1apueUmUod UO pasejd ZuIaq
Aupiqeunosse 197e213 ur Bupnser ‘uonesuaduiod jeuoNIppe yIM YURI S,JopueunO > Mau e paystqeis”,

“LOGI ‘9 19q0}9 JO} pa;Npayos si Word Butstex puny yssy oy, “JouUOSIed yuouNLedap 10} Wourdinba
parejas pue Ajajes Jo aseyound arp 10y spuny astes 0) poysi[qeisa sem “ouy ‘uoNepuno,s AID weaIg OyL

“BIQUIN[OD Jo IDINSI IP UW! suOIA SuNysty suNID :wodey eur]-eseg Jo souenss]

“sare Qui1I9 07 Ajpides axowl s19914330 Aojdep 0} wwaunedop
at safqeua siyy, ‘jweuNredap axp Jo sioquiout Woms Joy Adtjod Surjnpayss Aep gz ap papuadsng

L6-S0-S0

L6-70-S0

16-82-60

16-12-60

L6-S1-P0

L6-P1-b0
L6-¥1-40

16-90-40

16-010
L6-€0-60

L6-¥7-£0


89

SBujpeccoig ‘sedgam|
Sued) O'Cie

| sowowepen ‘sn

Auoje sme


84

Court received 188 cases from arrests made for the most part on February 28, 1997.

Then, on March 3, 1997, the Court received 252 cases from arrests made on March 1
and March 2, 1997. This trend of greatly increased arrests continued throughout the
spring and summer of this year, and then tapered off. Specifically, in March and April
the average daily arrests processed in the Court were 189 and 180, respectively.

The entire criminal justice systein'in the District of Columbia answered. the call
and pulled together to meet the concentrated influx of cases. (See: Figure 1)

In March, there were 5,009 new filings in the Criminal Division. This number
is comprised of the following four major categories: Felony (987); U.S. Misdemeanor
(1,947); D.C.-Traffic (1,787); and Special Proceedings (288). These 5,009 new filings,
as compared in that one month (March) to averages of the two previous months
(January, February) spiked from an expected average of 3,558 per month to March's

5,009. D.C.-Traffic also spiked in March to 1,787 from an expected average of 1,002.

U.S. Misdemeanor spiked in March to 1,947 from an expected average of 1,457; and
lastly, the more serious crimes, Felony, spiked to 987 from an expected average of
838.

As we expected, the new case filings, as a direct result of the Zero Tolerance

Initiative, continued at higher than expected monthly averages, as experienced in
January and February prior to the accelerated police presence. The total filings

beginning with March, as compared to an "expected" total filing of 3,558, was the

10


12

a team comprised of patrol officers, detectives, and vice officers.
This is a decentralization of personnel and authority from special-
ized units to basic street level patrol teams. The team provides 24
hours, 7 days a week coverage to a geographically, manageable
neighborhood-based area.

An essential feature of the new model is that, to the extent pos-
sible, officers remain assigned to the individual PSAs, so that it
can better know and serve the Specific neighborhoods. The long-
term assignment is meant to reinforce the team members’ sense of
ownership and accountability to their PSA and the community.

Another crucial accountability and a management factor is that
each team is led by a single PSA sergeant, who has overall respon-
sibility for police service in the PSA. The PSA sergeant is required
to develop a thorough knowledge of the area, and will soon be
equipped with a beeper whose number will be provided to residents
and business people in each PSA.

Within reason in a non-emergency situation, citizens can page
their PSA sergeant to seek or provide information, volunteer for
neighborhood anti-crime projects, or register concerns.

The PSA structure is designed to serve several purposes; to es-
tablish and maintain a closer alliance with the community; to re-
duce crime and the fear of crime; to provide each and every neigh-
borhood with a clear channel for input into the PSA plans and the
operations; and to greatly enhance police ability to obtain the com-
munity support, time, and energy in achieving community objec-
tives.

Accompanying the reorganization of patrol is the application of
a new strategy, problem-solving approach to drugs, guns, gangs,
and disorder, these factors that led to cycles of serious crime and
disruption in the community. The problem-solving approach is re-
sponsible for many of the crime-fighting success stories in other
cities that you have heard about.

Problem solving operates by 1) identifying the underlying cause
of clusters of criminal incidents; 2) determining the best plan to
eliminate or neutralize the cause; 3) putting the plan into action;
and 4) making certain that it works. It is aimed at the source of
the chronic crime and disorder, whether they be homicides, the
neighborhood drug markets, street corner prostitution, or garbage-
clogged alleys that suggest that no one cares about the conditions
in the neighborhood.

The new approach means that the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment no longer will spend all of its patrol time responding to 911
calls, and reacting after the fact to criminal incidents. With a sig-
nificant increased number of police officers on the street, the PSA
team will have the time and training to attack neighborhood crime
and disorder through planning analysis, skillful application of the
best practices developed throughout the Nation.

As a part of the new operating model we have consolidated police
patrol station operations and decentralized many of our specialized
units and headquarters investigative functions to the PSAs, includ-
ing the transfer of 22 sworn members from our Identification and
Records and Communications Division to patrol. In addition, ap-
proximately 50 percent of all patrol district support staff has been
redeployed to the PSAs.


54

e Have! noticed an increased MPD presence?

And there are output measures on the department's side of the
equation. For example:

e Are officers trained in the new District policing strategy?

e Is there increased community involvement in police initiated
activities?

«Is there increased patrol time for officers?
The answer to this last question is especially important.

Our baseline review last spring found that only six percent of the
average patro! officer's time was available for crime prevention and
community-involvement activities. The relatively few officers on the street
at that time spent most of their tours answering one emergency call for
service after the other.

In sum, the Performance Focused Management System
establishes a clear structure of accountability that links all of MPD's
activities to the department's new mission.

| believe creation of the system to be one of our firm's most
important contribution to the long-term success of the department.

We plan to monitor closely its implementation.

Our other efforts include creating new structures to make each of
the seven district headquarters more efficient and supportive of
operations.

Moreover, we have begun the process of finding ways to
restructure Headquarters at 300 Indiana Avenue.

The purpose, of course, is to make Headquarters operations more
productive and to free additional officers for patrol.

One of our firm's most important projects is to revamp and upgrade
the department's infrastructure, including:

the fleet system with its recurring problems with patrol cars


96

educated to agree are the kinds of things that lead to decay in the
communities, and to lawlessness, and more serious crime.

One of the projects that our prosecutors have actually been ve!
actively involved with along those lines is a nuisance property tas.
force, to act as a catalyst to rid neighborhoods of abandoned cars,
boarded up buildings, crack houses, and the like; those kinds of
things that lead to violent crime and more serious problems in the
neighborhood. As prosecutors, quite frankly, we would love to put
ourselves out of business, through these kinds of efforts that would
make the neighborhood safer and would reduce crime.

Every indication so far is that this approach has been extremely
successful, and we expect that success to continue. We do have
pending on the Hill right now, a budget request that would allow
the office to expand that initiative city-wide, and we hope that
when it gets to Congress the right result we'll obtain.

There are a lot of good things like that initiative to report, but
we have to be candid and say, there’s an awful lot of work ahead
of us. You saw Chief Soulsby removal of the entire management
team at the homicide section in recent weeks, and his expressions
of concern about excessive use of overtime.

Those issues underscore this point; there’s a lot of work ahead
of us, and we are going to be working very very closely with MPD
to help get that work done. I think one of the most important con-
tributions that we can make is one that we've redoubled our efforts
in, and that is in training of the police department.

Historically, we’ve provided a significant number of training pro-

‘ams for MPD, but uring the course of the MOU partnership we

ive intensified those efforts. And in 1997, just in the first 9
months, we've already provided 11 specialized training institutes
for MPD, each one a duration of several days. And in addition to
that we have worked with MPD to coordinate Federal assistance
from our partners at DEA, FBI, and ATF, on several specialized
initiatives. We have worked just in the last few days to garner Fed-
eral assistance for MPD in dealing with this nightmare of a homi-
cide issue which has come to the floor, and it’s been in the press
in the last few days.

We've modified our intake procedures to accommodate this huge
influx of cases that are coming out of MPD’s zero tolerance efforts.
We have streamlined the procedures, whereby we can authorize the
release of property that may have been held as evidence to free up
MPD’s storage areas. And we have worked with MPD to help them
find other resources in the Federal Government, to help them in
all of their law enforcement efforts. We expect to continue to do
that. We will be a very very active MOU partner as we have been.
And I ex, that the entire community will benefit from the suc-
cess of that effort, and certainly we know that the safety of this
community depends on the success of that effort. So I thank you
for your time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary follows:]


75

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EUGENE N, HAMILTON
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SEPTEMBER 26, 1997

Chairman Davis and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony regarding an evaluation of the progress made in
implementing the recommendations of the preliminary interim Booz-Allen study of
the Metropolitan Police Department, released in March of this year. Specifically, |
have been asked to present my views on the effectiveness and impact of any changes
apparent at the trial court level, and my views on the effectiveness of these changes in
improving public safety.

By the end of 1996, crime and the perception of crime in the District of
Columbia was at an alarmingly high rate. The event that just sent a bone chilling
shock wave throughout not only the District of Columbia, but the entire Washington
Area was the assassination style murder on February 5, 1997 of Master Patrol Officer
Brian T. Gibson of the Metropolitan Police Department, as he was seated in a marked
Metropolitan Police Department Scout Car at the intersection of Georgia and Missouri

Avenues in full Metropolitan Police Department Uniform.


8

“L661 ‘1 4990190 Uo BuruTEN UIBaq [TIM OYA Poid9[9s SIOIwSNSOAU! SOUD[OIA ONsauiop [eUONIPPY
“some povopuege Jo [BAOUIAZ oI) pue ‘suONEDo] SYjt9eds Woy SLIqap pue YyseD

JO [RAOWOI Otp IHL Ca 9tp isisse oF SHLOM4 O1IGnd Jo wounzedag amp tpIM diysrouyzed v poystqusy
“Bunuodas porewiome

pue ‘Supndutos ajiqour ‘waisXs waureSeuew spi0sas Gq ap dojsasp 0} Jopusa stp se pa1os[2s FLD
“suonejnsaz jouuosied

Suruss0U09 WC op Jo g Jodeys 07 soBuey> Burus9A08 suone;nBe1 Aoussaws peredaid poyrwuiqns

*posreduit Suyreoy pue Jeop tp 30} 116
0} ssoooe jenbe amnsue 0} sauyoeUs (@C_L) Jed OY} JO} s2d1A9q SUOHBoTUNUTOD9Ia], UOAIS poseyound

“SVSd §,J01NISIP Ot 02 VdIAJas [[eIaA0 puw AjANONpod

saordury 01 UoIstAl] spiossy PUE UOHEOLHUSP] SYP 0} POUBiss¥ar SEM VONOUTY MTAST JUS OL,
“sxandwioo wep afiqoul pue ‘yaredsip popre 19ynduios ‘swiaysXs wawaseueul

yoda ‘sod1AJ9s UONBULIOJU! JO UOTEUTPIOOS SYp JO} JOVeNsTUTUpY sUIaISKg porEIZoq] & Porso[9g
“uoneridosdde jeuorssa18uo9 vor ¢1¢ ap Aq papraosd Sutpun.y

+491099 suOTEOTUNUTUOD §,jUsUNIEdap ot UI SofosUCD sUOTEDTUNUTIOD MaU Jo LOHETEISU! 2) UesIg
“wea) woweseuEUt

¢nau 8 Ipim pooejdas a1am siiun aptorwoy oLNsIp jouNed pue Youesg aplorwioy] axp JO s[eIOYJO TV

“suorreoyrenb
gof yeaur 0} amyrey Joy payeuruia) oom JoSpng pue soueUIJ Jo 291jO oI Jo saaXojduss uENIAIS SoM,

16-22-60

16-61-60

16-91-60

L6-S1-60

16-51-60

L6-ST-60

L6-S1-60

L6-¥1-60

L6-€1-60


48

Independent complaint examiners and investigators would inves-
tigate cases. Less serious complaints would go to conciliation or
mediation. Retired or senior judges would review more serious alle-
gations, and send recommendations for disciplinary action to a
three-member police tribunal. The tribunal’s decisions would be
made public, and could be appealed to the police chief. The commit-
tee of the community members would review the actions quarterly.

And I must say, we've agonized over different ways that one
might position such a function, from being totally residing within
the police department, to being totally resident within some kind
of a community group. And I think that what’s at work here is a
balancing between the functions of such a group, and the actions
that have to take place, and where do you get that position such
that it can be most effective. And that was the basis of our rec-
ommendation.

Another thing that has been discussed already is the business of
homicide. Booz-Allen brought in an outside team of veteran homi-
cide experts to examine MPD’s homicide division, and has been re-
ported the team found several deficiencies.

We had no institutionalized process for homicide investigation;
no clear audit trail, no selection criteria for picking homicide detec-
tives; little, if any, expert training, no performance standards; and
an absence of accountability. And so it was clear that we needed
a restructuring process, in our view, for the entire investigative
function, not just homicide, but homicide seemed like the right
place to begin with.

The chief has taken several steps to deal with the immediate
roblems in the homicide division, which he mentioned. In the
longer term, we plan to submit the department’s entire investiga-
tive structure to the same process we used to upgrade patrol.

With the help of our staff and outside consultants, a select team
of MPD detectives will design an operating model for investiga-
tions, just as the team of 20 sworn officers I mentioned earlier, and

civilians, successfully develop the department’s new police service
operating model.

I think to sum up, Booz-Allen is engaged in recasting the struc-
tures and converting processes that will substantially transform
the MPD, and help it to fulfill the department’s new mission.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mather follows:]


i

work done for that prosecutor on a particular case or
Investigation, off-duty officers will be required to appear only as
specifically ‘provided in this Memorandum, or with the prior
approval of the Director of the Court Liaison Division.

It is the policy of the USAO and the MPD to make the Computer
Assisted Notification System (CANS) work as effectively and
efficiently as possible. All Appearance CANS notifications, filed
in accordance with this Memorandum, shall be treated by the MPD as
if they were subpoenas.

It is the policy of the USAO and the MPD that any employee of
either organization who fails to carry out his or her required
duties in sending or responding to an Appearance or Investigative
CANS notice or who abuses the overtime system will be subject to
appropriate discipline.

To forecast better the need for officers to appear in court,
to ensure that there will be adequate staffing on all tours of
duty, and to facilitate the communication between agencies
necessary for the successful prosecution of‘cases, the CANS system
has been devised to include two types of notification:

1, An Appearance CANS which is to be used only to summon
an officer for an actual appearance in any court
proceeding, grand jury or witness conference.

2. An Investigative CANS which is to be used to notify
MPD personnel of administrative or investigative case-
related functions which must be performed for the
successful prosecution of the cases in question. Sei
Section III.D. on pages 10-11 for specific functions
which are subject to the Investigative CANS process.

III. OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

A. Use of the Appearance CANS
1. General Procedures

a. Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs)
may summon officers to appear only
for a time when they reasonably
expect to be available to speak with
them or to present their testimony.
Except as set forth in Section -
III.B.2 on page 5-6, there is no set
time for which officers must be
summoned.


53

The department currently lacks an overall management system that
establishes performance targets for the department and programs to
manage overall performance.

The Performance Focused Management System has three
components: team reviews, executive committee leadership, and an
individual performance appraisal system.

| will not get into flow-chart details, but | note that even Chief
Soulsby will get a report card.

The entire system is geared to how well MPD accomplishes its
mission.

In the language of management consulting, the new review system
provides a valuable measure of organizational performance across
several dimensions including the following:

* alignment of mission to community needs

© alignment of resources to mission

* performance of individual operations elements
° performance of supporting activities

© performance of individual officers and civilians

The new system establishes organizational performance targets
and a mechanism to measure and manage performance.

This approach translates into determining, for example, how well
the police address basic community concems:

¢ Are the streets safe?
e Dol feel threatened by quality of life offenses?
© Do the police care about my problems?

Those are what we call outcome measures. What about output
measures? For example:

e Has my PSA officer introduced himself to me?


49

Good afternoon, Chairman Davis, members of the subcommittee,
and ladies and gentlemen. | am Gary Mather, Senior Vice President of
Booz-Allen & Hamilton. | have overall responsibility for our firm's role in
helping to transform the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of the
District of Columbia.

My purpose today is to review the steps which Booz-Allen &
Hamilton has taken during the past eight months to fulfill that role.

We are all aware of conditions in the city early this year when the
D. C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
(“Control Board”) chose our firm to work with MPD.

High rates of crime and violence beset the city. The reality of crime
and the fear of crime combined to drive residents and businesses from
Washington and erode its tax base. At home and abroad, the Nation's
capital appeared besieged by crime and disorder.

Concerned with crime's heavy toll, the Control Board charged our
firm with doing far more than just compiling another report diagnosing the
police department's problems and failures.

Booz-Allen & Hamilton's job was also to find solutions to those
problems and actively help in implementing the needed transformation of
MPD.

Let me note that transforming any large, flawed organization is
difficult, but it is a craft that we have developed.

Management firms can prepare studies and offer advice.
Washington, DC is papered with consultants’ studies.

The tough job — the one we have mastered — is creating and
sustaining change.

Over the past ten to fifteen years, much has been leamed about
what works in causing fundamental change in organizations.

Booz-Allen & Hamilton has embraced this knowledge which we are
now using to drive the transformation of MPD.


18

Department lacked the structure, resources and the power to study the crime problem
and craft a plan to reverse the "Broken Window" syndrome as it existed.

The Officers were depressed, demoralized, disrespectful of authority and for
the most part were waiting for the best time to retire.

What caused this deplorable condition in the Department? The Chief of Police
just did not have the intemal structure and the power to run the Department. The
Chief of Police needed to be empowered to plan, procure, hire, fire and promote and
make any action taken in this regard stick and everyone needed to know and
understand that in the Department, the buck started and stopped with the Chief.

Booz-Allen's Interim Plan stated at p. 3:

Booz-Allen has recommended that the MOU partners concentrate their reform
efforts in three important areas:

One: Empower the Office of the Chief of Police and energize the entire
MPD.

Two: Work with the MPD to implement immediately anti-crime
measures that reflect best practices and leading edge crime fighting
strategies.

Three: Restructure the MPD to emphasize modern management

practices, integrity, accountability, and high performance.


88

! don't want you to get the idea that the work of restructuring the MPD is by
any measure complete. It is not. Remember we started out with an almost completely
dysfunctional Department, including all of its Branches. Booz-Allen is in the process
of studying the Homicide Branch and | am certain that the Chief with the assistance
and advise of Booz-Allen and the MOU Partners will design and implement a state of
the art Homicide Branch that will greatly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
that Branch as well as the other Branches of the Department.

The Court stands ready to manage its judicial and administrative resources in
such a way as to continue to participate as a Criminal Justice partner in any initiative
that has as its goal the reduction of crime and the improvement of quality of life for
the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. | will be happy to answer any questions that you
may have, or provide additional data, now or at any future date that meets with your

convenience. Thank you.

24


43

selves ‘YUN SIBABUY BUD ROROR) WeUILEdEG 890q EYEE :20INDS BEC AEURURAL

2s 6s L6er ((seuval @SUg} 10m)

eez
soy Ley
wequieydes| ysnBny Ane

mmo

62 vez zee
095
‘oun

OOF
ozs
wiew | Kenigeg | ienuer

g
8

1661 ‘81 sequieydes yBnosyy | Avenuer
uosuedwoy jselly / BSuUsJO jjNessy

juewyedeg 810g ue}jOdoje/\


lalit at tate Head Pd
ait Pla Her fists, Ula,
va a (UG
ha iit EFI inl it r) lil
ap Hae Ulead ii
cl ats hii HT nl
Bug Bie ae ee le
flay Hua (idl alle le
aig edi seal dives ie
Be Ue
an
HA les es Nu
ite ea Hi He au
A a

i iF fil a3 or HHH ay i
Se cn nh


118

2

Witnesses are often in great fear of their safety and must be protected from threats and
intimidation. All of this is very labor intensive, and requires sophisticated teamwork.

How much MPD overtime cost might be saved simply cannot be estimated with any
reliability, However, it may be helpful to conceptualize the potential cost savings by
employing the following analysis: On the assumption that all of the work done by USAO
investigators would replace work currently being accomplished by MPD homicide
investigators on overtime, we can multiply the hours that would be worked by 43 USAO
investigators (89,440) by the average hourly wage of homicide investigators on overtime
(834.00). Applying this calculation, a little over $3 million of MPD overtime money could
theoretically be saved annually by the use of USAO investigators. This would yield the
maximum overtime savings for MPD, which could, of course, be reduced substantially by
MPD?s use of sound management practices.

Some have suggested that a solution could be found by simply allocating a certain
amount of money to the U.S. Attomey's Office to pay MPD's overtime costs. However, this
would be completely unworkable because Assistant U.S. Attomeys would not be able to
persuade MPD investigators to do any post-arrest investigation during their regular tours of
duty, thus depleting any pool of overtime funds very quickly. In other words, the allocation
of overtime work can only be done by an investigator's MPD supervisor who is aware of the
workload the investigator is carrying and can make decisions about whether particular tasks
should be accomplished during the investigator's regular tour of duty or on overtime. Since
‘Assistant U.S. Attomeys do not supervise MPL investigators, nor control their overall
workload, particularly with respect to open cases, this approach would not be feasible.

Unfortunately, there has been a substantial amount of misunderstanding about the
level of supervisory contro! which Assistant U.S. Attorneys have over MPD investigators.
They do not work for us in any sense of the term. They are employees of the District of
Columbia, The relationship is one bom of professional cooperation and commitment to
getting the job done. Once an accused has been arrested and held in jail by the court, the
government is under an enormous burden to move the investigation along as quickly as
possible toward indictment and trial, or, in rare circumstances, to exoneration, We and the
police have a strong moral and ethical obligation to prevent the case from languishing.
However, while Assistant U.S. Attomeys must get the work done well and promptly, we
have no control over, nor involvement in, establishing the duty or pay status of MPD
investigators when they assist in investigations.

I want to make very clear that several years ago the U.S. Attorney's Office made great
efforts to solve this problem. We were concemed that the process of investigating cases after
arrest relied too heavily on the availability of money for overtime. We asked then Chief of
Police Fred Thomas to work with us to create a system that would allow our prosecutors to


122

b. The Primary Case Officer will be
responsible for calling MPD Court
Liaigon Division for the Preliminary
Hearing or Detention Hearing date by
8:30 a.m. on the day after papering.
The Primary Case Officer shall
report for the ‘Preliminary or
Detention Hearing by 8:30 a.m. on
the scheduled date.

cc The Primary Case Officer will
assist the prosecutor in securing
witnesses and developing their
testimony. He or she will be
responsible for participating with
the prosecutor in all stages of the
investigation of the case and in all
investigative witness interviews
through the final disposition of the
case.

a. The Primary or Secondary Case
Officer may be summoned for all
grand jury and witness conferences
by means of the Appearance CANS.

2. Role nai

During trial, it will be the Primary Case
Officer's responsibility to ensure the
presence and availability of all MPD evidence
in MPD's court evidence office, to transport
that evidence to the appropriate courtroom and
to ensure its safe return to the property
office at the end of each court day, including
when the evidence is needed during jury
deliberations.

3. Other Res! i sé
Officer

In conjunction with Court Liaison
Division, it will be the Primary Case
Officer's continuing responsibility throughout
the investigation and prosecution of the case,
including during the trial, to assist in
ensuring that all officers working on the
investigation or testifying at trial are made

13


127

Failure to notify an officer of a timely CANS notice
will be a rare occurrence,

V. DURATION

This Memorandum shall remain in effect until cancelled by
mutual consent of the parties hereto and contingent upon available
funding and beneficial cost savings. "However, each agency retains
the right to terminate this agreement at any time by deliverance
of thirty (30) days notice to the other agency. Upon termination
of this Memorandum, all equipment will be returned to the supplying
agency unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. This agreement
shall commence on the date of acceptance by MPD and USAO as
signified by the signatures of the authorized representatives and
remain in full force and effect until termination as provided
herein. 7

VI. REVISION

The terms of this Memorandum may be amended by written
approval of the parties. Any modifications to this Memorandum
shall have no force and effect unless and until each modification
is reduced to writing and signed by all parties. Such
modifications are effective upon the date of approval.

VII. APPROVAL

Tppay D. AOULSBY, CHIEF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.
et¢opoYjkan Police Departyent. United states Attorney
District of Columbia District of Columbia

13-7E

DATE

18


CONTENTS

Hearing held on September 26, 1997 ..
Statement of:
Hamilton, Hon. Eugene, Chief Juc

1, District of Columbia Superior

Court; and Mary Lou Leary, acti attorney general 72
Soulsby, Larry D., chief of police, Metropolitan Police ‘Departmen ; and

Gary Mather, senior vice president, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc ........... 9

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Hon. Thomas M.a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .. 3
Hamilton, Hon. Eugene, Chief Judge, District of Columbia Superior

Court, prepared statement of ... 75
Leary, Mary Lou, acting U.S. attorney general, Prepared ‘statement of 97
Mather, Gary, senior vice president, Booz-Alien & Hamilton, Inc. pre-

pared statement of 49
Soulsby, Larry D., chief of police, Metropolitan Police Department, pre:

pared statement of 15

dm)


106

book” to do work. We don’t even have any knowledge of when peo-
ple are doing that, so our hands are tied on that.

But I think it is—I have to stress that it’s a partnership. It’s the
job of both the prosecutor and MPD, to ensure that we have suc-
cessful convictions, not just arrests.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. Let me yield to my friend and colleague,
Ms. Norton.

Ms. NorTON. Ms. Leary, let me thank you for your work, during
the time when we're in transition, and for the smooth way in which
you're clearly working with the police department.

Ms. Leary. Thank you.

Ms. Norton. Now, I want to caution you, that for a while there
you were talking like the doctors talk about their work; what they
need is—they got a patient, and they’ve got to do whatever it takes
to make that patient well. As a result, increasingly they don’t con-
trol whether they make that patient well, because the cost of
health care ran away with the doctors, and they now have been left
in the wake.

You just said you don’t care whether it’s the middle of the night
or the first thing in the morning. Well, I tell you who does care
whether it’s the middle of the night or the first thing in the morn-
ing. And that’s the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, because
if it’s in the middle of the night it might be overtime; for that mat-
ter if it’s the first time in the morning it might be overtime too.
It’s according to when the officer was on duty.

And I must tell you, that I didn’t get from Chief Soulsby’s testi-
mony that this was—his testimony clearly implied that this was
the U.S. attorney, and the U.S. attorney needs these things, and
that wasn’t under his control. And you make it sound like, well, it
really is their fault because they don’t have the proper manage-
ment in place. And what that says to me, that both of you are right
to some degree, and that the offices on this matter simply do not
coordinate what they do.

Ms. Leary. And that’s the importance of this tool that we
worked—spent all that time working out with them, so that they
could exercise management over that. And when I say I don’t care
if it’s the middle of the night or the first thing in the morning,
what I mean is, that’s up to MPD to manage that time. We need
to get the work done on the cases, but they can manage it so that
it can be done on a regular time, and not on overtime.

Ms. Norton. Yes, but one really wonders whether or not the
U.S. attorney’s office doesn’t really call the shots here. I mean,
you've got to go to court; you've got to get this thing done, and
without some real discipline on both sides, it seems to me that the
U.S. attorney’s like the doctor, I’m sorry I need this because we
need this to get well. The U.S. attorney says, I need this because
I got this case going to court. If nobody—if on both sides people
aren’t sitting down and saying right.

Now, when do you go to court, and could this guy do it tomorrow
morning? Do you have in place something that would allow that
question to be asked?

Ms. LEary. Exactly, Ms. Norton. We sat down and talked about
this over a period of about 2¥2 or 3 years with MPD, recognizing
that both agencies have a very serious responsibility with respect


66

Chief Soutssy. It would help me greatly if you would help them
get that 42. I think it will save me literally thousands, possibly
millions of dollars.

Mr. Davis. It’s accountability for the moneys. The U.S. attorney’s
office agrees—we’re dealing under a situation that was pre-exist-
ing. I don’t think anybody disagrees we need to rectify it. But I ap-
preciate you advancing this, moving this forward, and making the
appropriate changes, that I hope we can follow through.

's. Norton asked how much we’d spend. How much are you sav-
ing the city for that $3 million? Obviously we've helped bring crime
down, which is important.

Mr. MaTHER. I think when we were asked that question—and
you can answer it in different ways. I mean there’s some cost effec-
tiveness where you’ve chopped out functions and moved things
around. But I mean, if you take a look at the fact that we rede-
ployed a whole pile of officers up to that 1,460 number, and officers
that if you’d not been redeployed, if you’d added them from the
cop’s program or something like that, I don’t know what the com-
pensation would be of that difference. Now when you've taken that
many officers—900 officers, and deployed them in a different way
as opposed to hiring more, that is a huge number right there.

If you look at the infrastructure numbers, you’re probably look-
ing at somewhere between $25 and $50 million in that alone.

Now the thing that we always get in trouble with on this is, is
it a cost savings that you could remove from the budget, or is it
a cost avoidance that says, we want to take those same resources
and redeploy them in a different way. And to date what we’ve been
doing is taking resources, and redeploy them in a different way,
thereby saving money that you’d have to invest in that thing if you
didn’t do it that way. And if you want some very detailed analysis
on that, we have it. I don’t have it with me.

Mr. Davis. If you bring it in, we’d be happy to put it in the
record.

Mr. Matuer. OK.

Mrs. More La. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. Davis. I'd be happy to yield.

Mrs. MoRELLA. I just want to bring out this whole concept of the
morale of the police force, in terms of how that equates in terms
of it being a valuable asset.

Do you sense that, that they feel more involved? Can you give
us any examples of the differences you’ve seen, if any?

Chief Soutspy. For the most part the sergeants and officers in
these PSAs have taken ownership, and they’re enjoying it, and
they’re telling you—and we are with them. We have COMP-STAT
meetings which are—crime meetings with them all over the place.

"Theyre very pleased. They're coming in on their own time.
They’re calling back. They’re giving people their phone numbers. It
really is working well. The morale is up significantly. And we’ve
got a long way to go yet, but the morale is up significantly this
year compared to last.

Mrs. MORELLA. And you talked to them too, Mr. Mather?

Mr. MarTHER. Well, I think what you're discovering in the cor-
porate world is that, if you empower the grassroots people, the:
will step up to the challenge, and get motivated, and just get with


52

That is why we have created for the MPD a system of Police
Service Area Performance Review which is being instituted.

The review is tied to efforts to determine how well each PSA is
doing to achieve the department's mission and to provide feedback and
direction.

The system reviews a PSA unit's efforts to build itself into a
successful team and to establish and foster close ties with the
communities.

Were the PSA sergeants and his or her colleagues successful in
identifying and categorizing top community concerns? Did they do the
same for top police concems?

PSA teams are to be evaluated on how they identify the chronic
crime- and disorder-causing problems in their areas.

How do they analyze a problem and what action do they plan to
resolve it — whether the problem is a neighborhood crack house or litter-
filled alleys or street-comer prostitution? What outcomes do they
anticipate from their problem-solving efforts?

The teams are also evaluated on resource utilization and the
activities of each team's detectives and vice investigators and on the
contributions of support personnel.

The PSA Performance Review system will permit supervisors along
the line and through to headquarters to gauge how well each of the 83
PSAs are performing and what additional guidance and help they will
need to achieve their goals.

Why spend so much effort on a system to evaluate tiny slices of the
MPD's overall patrol effort?

Because it is at the PSA level that the efforts begun early this year
to prevent crime, to dissipate fear of crime, and to address disorder will be
won or lost.

But it is not just the efforts of frontline officers and their operations
that are going to be subject to performance review.

Booz-Allen & Hamilton has developed what we call a Performance
Focused Management System for the work of the entire MPD.


101

ATTACHMENT

‘The United States Attorney's Office is committed to improving the quality of law
enforcement in the District of Columbia. To that end, our office has worked closely with the
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") to provide training for MPD
officers throughout their careers.

‘The first training that an MPD officer receives from the United States Attorney's
Office ("USAO") occurs when he or she is a recruit at the Police Training Academy. The
USAO regularly supplies Assistant United States Attorneys ("AUSAs") to lecture recruits at
the Academy on Constitutional Law issues, including the law on arrest, search and seizure,
Miranda, and other rights of the defendant. These Constitutional law classes are taught by
AUSA’s from our Appellate Division and are quite detailed and extensive.

The USAO also regularly provides lecturers to The Police Training Academy to
address police recruits on the issue of an officer's obligations when he or she testifies in
court. This training addresses problems that might arise during an officer’s testimony, an
officer’s obligations to preserve his notes and reports under the Jencks Act, as well as
‘matters related to an officer's demeanor and appearance in court. In addition to receiving
lectures on the topic of testifying in court, recruits often receive practice and instruction in
testifying in conjunction with the Attorney Basic Training Program that we provide to new
AUSAs. Most recently, members of the current class of recruits participated in direct and
cross examination exercises with our new attorneys on the 19th and 22nd of September 1997.

After an officer has graduated from the Academy, he or she may receive specialized
training that is provided or sponsored by the USAO in a number of areas throughout his or
her career. The specialized classes are conducted and sponsored by the USAO’s Law
Enforcement Coordinating Committee ("LECC"). These classes are varied and address a
wide range of issues affecting law enforcement. A few of the training classes provided by
the USAO are described more fully below.

Bvidence Technician Training focuses on the collection and preservation of evidence
at the crime scene, as well as the presentation of that evidence at trial. These classes provide
lectures of techniques, as well as practical experience in photographing crime scenes and
evidence and in lifting latent fingerprints. In addition to a basic course in evidence
technician training, we have also provided a one-week recertification program for evidence
technicians. ‘The most recent Evidence Technician Training classes were offered in April,
June and July of 1997. The re-certification program was recently offered from September 8
to September 12, 1997.

Homicide Investigato® regularly receive training from the USAO. These classes
focus on the investigation of homicides, processing the homicide crime scene and legal issues
that are of particular interest to homicide investigators. Since 1990, we have offered at least
twelve training programs specifically designed for homicide investigators.

~

1


26

activities for the U.S. Attorney's Office. Most of this time is outside of an
investigator's regular tour of duty, a situation which mandates the payment
of overtime compensation.

This prosecutorial investigative function is performed in most other
jurisdictions by investigators employed by the district attorney's office or
other prosecuting agency at either the state or local level. The District of
because of its unique jurisdictional status, does not have either a
istrict attorney's office or state investigative agency. The burden of
this additional investigative function falls on the Metropolitan Police
Department, at a point in most localities where the arresting officer would be
telieved of additional investigative duties.

am aware that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia is
requesting authorization and appropriations to hire 42 investigators to
provide investigative support to its prosecutors. Approval of this request
would relieve the department of providing this type of support and would
result in a significant reduction in overtime expenditures. | strongly urge the
committee to support the U.S. Attorney's request.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

| have indicated the principal actions taken to date. Each of these actions is
having a positive impact, but much work remains to be done. This week, |
have assigned several experienced sworn and civilian employees to work
directly with BoozeAllen project teams on implementation of the major
infrastructure blueprints. In addition, one of the teams will be auditing the
New Operating Model to ensure that our changes are becoming
institutionalized in the department's patrol districts and other operational
elements.

Our overriding objective remains focusing our sworn strength, to the greatest
extent possible, in two areas: direct front-line service delivery to the
community or investigative and specialized operations which directly support
front-line service. Among the tools we are exploring to achieve this
objective are: the consolidation of functions, automation of reporting
processes, civilianization, and technology enhancements.

12


22

arrests; and tracking repeat offenders. The message here is: not everyone
has to be locked-up every time for every offense. For example, civil action
permanently closing down a nightclub known for persistent drug trafficking
can be more effective than recurring police raids.

CONSOLIDATION AND DECENTRALIZATION

As a part of our New Operating Model, we have consolidated patrol district
station operations and decentralized many of our specialized units and
headquarters investigative functions to the PSA’s, including the transfer of
22 sworn members from our Identification and Records and Communications
Divisions to the patrol districts. In addition, approximately 50 percent of all
patrol district support staff have been redeployed to the PSA’s. Today, 71
percent of all sworn department personnel are assigned to the seven patrol
districts with another 17 percent assigned to investigative and direct PSA
support functions. This means that 88 percent of all department personnel
are assigned to positions that provide direct services to the public or are
directly assisting PSA officers in the provision of services to persons living,
working, and visiting the District of Columbia.

Ultimately, one-fourth of all sworn personnel not currently assigned to the
Patrol districts will be redeployed to the PSA’s. This will result in the
number of officers assigned to the patrol districts being significantly higher,
which means greater visible police presence and more patrol officer time
available for preventing crime and disorder.

The department's Narcotics and Special Investigations Division and Criminal
Investigations Division have been consolidated into one operational unit.
This consolidation allows for greater utilization of our investigative personnet
and frees both uniformed and undercover detectives for strategic positioning
in the PSA’s. As a result, 88 detectives have been reassigned to the seven
patrol districts.

MANAGEMENT AND STANDARDS
At the same time that we are undertaking a comprehensive reorganization of

the patrol districts, we are also moving forward on several other fronts to
improve the management and operations of the department. These include:


105

to present every felony to a grand jury, and the police are the ones
who must provide that testimony.

Mr. Davis. You don’t have a preliminary hearing?

Ms. LEary. We do have a preliminary hearing.

Mr. Davis. Do you have both?

Ms. Leary. We have both. And so there’s a tremendous amount
of work that must be done by the police after an arrest is made,
in order for us to successfully convict.

In the Federal system often times they’re not working off an ar-
rest. You’ve got an investigation going up front, and so all the in-
vestigative work is done before an individual’s arrest. That’s al-
ways true, but it’s true in many Federal cases.

In the superior court division, on street crimes you have the op-
posite dynamic; you make the arrest, you’ve got to get this guy off
the street. And then you have all this investigative work to do, or
he’s going to be right back out on the street again, because you
won't be able to get him held at a detention hearing, and you won't
be able to get him convicted when it comes time for a jury trial.
And that is the goal of the work that we do with the police depart-
ment.

Second, I would like to stress, that MPD controls overtime. There
seems to be a perception that the U.S. attorney’s office can order
the police around, and decide how they’re getting paid or when
they’re getting paid, and that is a total misperception.

We request of MPD that they send their officers to us, and when
they’re there they are very busy doing just the kind of work that
I’ve described to you. And how they get paid is MPD’s business.

We actually spent about 3 years——

Mr. Davis. And whether they go or not can be MPD’s business.

Ms. Leary. That’s MPD’s business.

We spent about 3 years, working with MPD, to help them de-
velop a management tool, to control overtime, and to give them
control over when their officers do the kind of work that I’ve de-
scribed to you that has to be done.

In other words, they can send somebody over on his regular shift
to do the work; we just need to get the work done. I don’t care if
you do it in the middle of the night, or first thing in the morning,
as long as it gets done in time so that we can successfully prosecute
this case.

That particular tool, which was an MOU, with respect to what
we call the CANS system, or the notification system, is ready to go.
Unfortunately MPD does not have the technology that’s required
for the automation that we need to make that system work, but
they are working on it, and they expect to have it up and running
they say probably around the first of the year. But that manage-
ment tool—and that’s a management issue. Hopefully it would be
in their hands.

Mr. Davis. So the scam—I don’t want to get you in the middle
of the verbiage on this, but the scam is really one where manage-
ment has the opportunity to oversee your requests, and they just
didn’t have those tools in place.

Ms. Leary. They did not have those tools in place. And they also
have their own systems, whereby they allow officers to sign “on the


9
“8661 ‘Arenuer ySnomp enunuod qm SuTuIEN ay] “sySd 9 0) pausisse are
oym quaunredap ayy Jo sJoquiour [Te Joy poywowtajdun sem uresZosd Sururen Burajos-wiajqoid Aep om y
“SVSd
al} Joy siapea] Jeaq se pousisse ore OYM sWWeaBIOS Eg OY) 10} paronpuCo sem ureIZ0Id Sure Aep om) Y
“Ayo om
UI SIaqUIdUI ues JUDIOIA IsOUT at IsauIe puE ‘yoeN ‘AsNUSp! OF soNTiqedes CID ap oUKYUS oF WOISTAIG
SUONEBYSOAU] FEUTUNIIZ stp 0} poUsisseer sem UOIsIAIG suONeIedH [etsedg at) Jo UONDag TELE A OY,
“JOO[ [19D [eswaD ap ul sZopyorq sayeurwta pue Burssaooid ouostid
Ttesaao sanoadunt aBuvyo sry] “¥IquiNjo; Jo JOLNSIC IP UTI paysauze sapuaant [fe Jo Surpuey
tp Joy Warsds BuIssoo0id o]uaanf pezienuso & paystiquiss UOISTAIG SeotAJag Ajrurey pu TNO, YL,
“yuounredap ou) WTI JUaUTOATOAUT
Ayununuo souryus 01 ABaeNg WoWsAjoAUy AITUNUMUOD 403 yIIdan]q & Buidoyeaap Jo sseoosd ay uLBag
*yonuo Ayredoad eaoidun
0} suonepusunuosas sureIOD ‘uorstAIq Auadoig ap Joy 1uidaniq usIsepes osmonnsesyul ue podojsaag
“QOUSJOIA ONSaUOp Jo sjwaploUt
Ul JUBUIDAJOAUT SJaqUIaW Woms BuTUIE.OD Me] [BJ9P9J PIM soue!|dutos sinsus 0} AaAmns paronpuod
“Aroyesoge’] SUNT aIIgoW 21p 01 pousisse 19M S1991]9O YoIWag BUZ9g SUNLID feUONIPpe samt],
suonetidosdde jeuorssa3u09
WoL STg au Aq paplaoad Surpuny “1294 Ystua|das 01 s1eo doIJod mau OCT Jo jWaUIdrys paatsoay

“we8png pue soueuLy Jo 99130 oy? 01 oddns a1s-uo opraoid oF poudisse
313M YS§D Woy systjeiseds omy ‘quauidinba pue saijddns jo yuaurommoosd ax ut aU UL Gq AUD IsIsse OL,

1661-80

16-71-80

16-01-80

26-01-80

16-80-80

16-90-80

16-080
16-£0°80

16-10-80

L6-87-L0


115

additional attorneys as Special Assistant U. S. Attorneys to try these cases. We anticipate
that we will be able to identify subjects with delinquent obligations in excess of $5,000, then
prioritize and screen the list for parents who are appropriate subjects for Federal
prosecution.

‘Our Office has not yet had occasion to make use of the Debt Collection Improvement
Act of 1996 in cases brought under the Child Support Recovery Act; however, we have made
effective use of debt collection provisions dealing with administrative offset for other types
of debt. We fully expect that continued use of the Act will enhance our ability to recover
certain debts owed to the United States.

Congressman Hom also asked the number of cases our drug court has handled. Since
its inception in 1994, the Superior Court Drug Court, under the leadership of Chief Judge
Eugene Hamilton, has placed 1038 defendants in the drug intervention program.

Ifyou or members of the Subcommittee have any further questions, I will, of course,
be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

——
Tt van 7
MARY LOU LEARY

United States Attorney

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Minority Member


58

Mr. Davis. OK. Thank you very much. That’s great testimony. I
think it puts everything in perspective; where we've come over the
last 9 months; where we're going. The subcommittee now has a few
questions. I’m going to start with the vice chairman of the commit-
tee, the gentlelady from Maryland, Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MorELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have
both of you testify, and I think this is a very important hearing,
as I said. in the opening comments, to find out what has been hap-
pening, and particularly the ongoing monitoring and review that’s
being done. I think it’s critically important that we have that kind
of hands-on review and oversight.

Chief Soulsby, we all read the newspapers and the reports that
we see on television, and really for the past several weeks there
have been disturbing reports of excessive overtime in the depart-
ment; reports of secrecy Pledges; and as I mentioned in my opening
comments, the unacceptably low closure rates for homicides.

I just wondered if you could touch on each of those three points,
in terms of the policy, what the changes are, and the impact of the
Booz-Allen report in those areas.

Chief Soutspy. OK. After information from the team looking at
the homicide branch made the changes as a result of their initial
findings—in regards to overtime, specifically in that branch, as I
said in my statement, about two-thirds of their time is spent out-
side, where they’re in court; where they’re summoned into court.
Some with cases they’re not assigned to. There’s many other issues
they're looking at.

Our professional responsibility unit—the internal affairs unit—is
going back auditing all those records at this time.

We also have internal guidelines within the homicide branch that
said that if you worked on overtime on a case, that you had to list
the case that you were working on a slip that you turned in for
overtime; and you also had to have a résumé, or whatever you did
on that case in that jacket. And what we found many times is those
things are not there. We have many people working overtime—no
indication at all what they worked over on.

As we found in most things—it’s a study found—what protocols
and procedures that were in place were in fact not followed, no cor-
rective actions were taken, no managerial reports, no anything,
nothing to do. Many things—some other reports that they had—it
should have been implemented; they did not implement it. It was
a lack of supervision, a lack of management within the entire unit.

Mrs. MORELLA. Are you involving the Inspector General’s office
in helping, and the U.S. attorney’s office? Are you getting their as-
sistance in pulling together this scam?

Chief SoULsBY. Obviously we'll work on all these things. It’s re-
ported out as a scam, and I think that came out of a 2-second con-
versation, that was then later reported.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to call it a scam. What we're doing
is we're auditing all the reports, and anything that we find are in-
appropriate, action will be taken, and we'll working with the
U.S. attorney’s office and the other office as we move forward.

In regards to the so-called secrecy agreement, we have seen first
hand in this city—in this country—“what occurred in Atlanta, with
the Richard Jewell situation with the Atlantic bombing, of 50 mil-


112

U.S. Department of Justice

© United States Attorney

District of Columbia

‘The Honorable Thomas M. Davis
Chairman, Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia
Committee on Government Reform & Oversight
USS. House of Representatives
‘Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Iwas very pleased to have the opportunity to testify before the House Government
Oversight Subcommittee on the District of Columbia regarding improving public safety in
the District of Columbia. Several questions were raised at the hearing to which I am happy
to respond.

Questions from Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

‘Congresswoman Norton asked how the 43 investigators we have requested for the
Superior Court Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) will be used and how much
in police overtime costs the investigators will save.

As we discussed in our FY 98 budget justification (pertinent portions attached),

tors are badly needed by the sections of our Superior Court Division which
investigate and prosecute violent crime, particularly homicides. Most local prosecutors’
offices employ investigators in a variety of ways to assist their local police departments. In
the District of Columbia we would use them to assist the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) by collecting evidence and preparing cases for trial. As recent events have made
painfully clear, this kind of assistance is very much needed.

‘When an arrest is made in any case, but particularly in a homicide case, there remains
a great deal of critical investigative follow-up to be done to raise the quantum of evidence
from probable cause, required for the arrest, to beyond a reasonable doubt, required for trial.
In today's typical homicide case, this usually involves extensive efforts to corroborate the
testimony of witnesses with other evidence which must be painstakingly assembled,


16

The murder of Officer Gibson drove a stake through the spirit and will of the
entire community of those who live and work in the District of Columbia and the
Metropolitan Police Department Officers were virtually completely demoralized.
Many persons who live and work in the City and the Officers were just about ready to
throw up their hands in complete resignation to the belief that the City was
irrevocably lost to crime.

Fortunately, on December 10, 1996, the MOU Partners, The Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, the Chairman
of the Council of the District of Columbia and the Chair of the Council's Judiciary
Committee, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Corporation Counsel of the
District of Columbia and the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure the
safety of the District, reduce crime and the fear of crime and improve the quality of
life and public order throughout the District of Columbia.

Fortunately also, the MOU Partners had on December 31, 1996 retained Booz-
Allen and Hamilton, Inc. to review the Metropolitan Police Department with a view
toward making recommendations for a new model to operate which would greatly
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department. The review was

accelerated and Booz-Allen submitted its Interim Plan For Reducing Crime, Fear Of


LO6T ‘bS 294799405

syaouryst{durcs0 yy
ZO6T 799X [999

LNAWLYAV TAT
ADNTOd NVLITTOCOULAW



94

on the courts. Does that mean that you can—there is room to ab-
sorb more in the way of new people coming before the courts?

Judge HAMILTON. No, it has increased our workload and our case
load tremendously. I didn’t say anything about it in my oral state-
ment, but it’s contained in my statement.

Our numbers have been up tremendously that we’ve been dealing
with.

Ms. Norton. I just caution, we all need to—before they get to
the point where—you're not going to get anymore judges, so—
you've got to do what other jurisdictions have done. But before we

t there it’s going to be important for us all to talk about what

ind of action may we take to prevent the cloggings of the courts,
so that we have a good result.

Let me ask you about sentencing commission. Unfortunately,
we've gone to determining sentencing and abolishing parole, when
there were ways, it seems to me to get at the same goal without
that kind of drastic action.

Now there are more than one way to skin this cat though; that
is to say the 85 percent of sentenced served.

One way is simply to give the judge no discretion—and to say
this is the sentence you will apply. That’s more like these insane
Federal sentencing guidelines, that is putting a generation of black
men behind bars for penny ante, though from our point of view, se-
rious drugs problems, but certainly not the kind of drug problems
that the kingpins have, and get less time for.

There’s a second way of doing so as well, and that is to have de-
terminate sentencing, but to leave it to the judge to decide what
that number will be. Which do you believe is the preferable prac-
tice?

Judge HAMILTON. The latter.

Ms. Norton. And why is that, sir?

Judge HAMILTON. Well, because it leaves with the judge the dis-
cretion to determine what the appropriate sentence is, knowing
when you impose as sentence—as you point out—85 percent of that
sentence will be served, which has to be faced upfront. And I think
it really puts the entire responsibility where it should be, and
that’s with the sentencing fu .

Ms. Norton. And you think we can do this—while not creating
new disparities, which is the reason for the sentencing guidelines
in the first place, for the disparities among judges.

Jus HAMILTON. Yes, I do, yes, ma’am.

Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Judge, well, hopefully you can get back.

Judge HAMILTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Leary, thank you for being
so patient, and welcome.

Ms. Leary. Well, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here,
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. And I will sim-
ply summarize of the comments that I made in my written submis-
sion, because I know the hour is late, and we’ve heard from some
of the MOU partners on some of the same issues.

Td like to begin by emphasizing the same point that you heard
from all of those who testified before you , and that is that,
it’s clear that violent crime on the streets of the Capitol is down,


9

1 look forward to an update of the findings of the review of the
MPD by the firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton. I look forward to hear-
ing from our expert panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mrs. Morella.

Tl now call our first panel to testify, which will consist of Larry
D. Soulsby, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department; and Dr.
Gary Mather, the senior vice president of Booz-Allen & Hamilton.
Dr. Mather is accompanied by James Chip Stewart of Booz-Allen,
who will be available to answer any questions.

As you know, it’s the policy of this committee that all witnesses
be sworn before they may testify.

Would you please rise with me and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Davis. I ask unanimous consent that any written statements
be made part of the permanent record. At this time I ask Chief
Soulsby for his statement, to be filed by document.

STATEMENTS OF LARRY D. SOULSBY, CHIEF OF POLICE, MET-
ROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND GARY MATHER,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.

Chief SouLsBy. Good afternoon, Representative Davis and mem-
bers of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you and discuss the transformation of the Metropolitan Po-
lice Department, and please bear with me—I’ve got the first cold
of the season—as I go through this.

Today, I’m here to discuss the improvements that we have made
in the operation and organization of the Metropolitan Police De-
partment, the accomplishments that we have achieved, the changes
that are still occur. Clearly, we are on the road to success and re-
gaining our position as one of the best departments in the country.

In December of last year MOU partnership was formed, com-
prised of myself, the mayor, city council, the chief judge of Superior
Court, Corporation Counsel, the U.S. attorney of the District of Co-
lumbia, and members of the Financial Responsibility and Manage-
ment Assistant Authority to the address public safety crisis faced
in the District of Columbia.

One of the first conclusions reached by the MOU partners was
the need to enhance the authority of the chief of police. Many of
the problems confronting the department were, it was felt, caused
by under influences with the chief's leadership and the manage-
ment of the agency. The Mayor of the District of Columbia, as an
MOU partner, instituted a new charter for the Metropolitan Police
Department on February 26, 1997, which gives the chief of police
the authority to manage and direct the affairs of the agency in all
critical areas. I’ve included a copy of the charter in my statement
for you.

Once the Metropolitan Police Department’s new charter has been
established, it was used as the foundation for developing a new de-

artment mission statement; one that is a simple, clear, straight-
Forward description of the department’s mission. A mission state-
ment that serves as a guiding principle on which all future actions
must be based.

The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to elimi-
nate crime, fear of crime, and general disorder, while establishing


17

Crime And Disorder In The District Of Columbia on February 26, 1997, 21 days after
Officer Gibson was murdered.

Booz-Allen's research documented clearly and scientifically that the District of
Columbia in the early part of 1997 was in the throws of a bad case of the "Broken
Windows" syndrome as that syndrome is defined by George L. Kelling and Catherine
M. Coles in their-work Fixing Broken’ Windows . This syndrome’ is marked by an’
ever-increasing state of lawlessness, where crime breeds on crime at an exponential
rate and if left untreated will consume an ever-increasing area.

The research showed that an ever-increasing amount of the City was in a
Jawless state, where daylight street robberies were virtually committed at will and-
persons were not even safe on the streets when they traveled in groups or cars. The
worst such area was Takoma Park in the area of the Metro Station.

The research showed there were an increasing amounts of the District that
were becoming open air drug markets, open air beer gardens and fertile areas for
aggressive panhandling. In short, the research showed that numerous crimes from
minor quality of life crimes to robberies had reduced large areas of the City to very
dangerous and undesirable areas to live or work or even just visit.

Booz-Allen reported that the primary cause of this state of affairs was a
dysfunctional Metropolitan Police Department. The Department was dysfunctional
because the command structure had become weakened, the leadership of the


83

‘or on probation, some types of court services, although less concentrated for that
particular case, may from time to time be called upon to again play a role with that
particular Defendant prior to his/her return to the community without some type of
court supervision.

As | would like to point out from today's perspective, some six months after the
first intervention of March'1, 1997, 'am now in the uniqué pésition of being able to
have followed most of the arrests that resulted directly from the "Zero Tolerance For
Crime Initiative.” 1 would like to report to the Chairman and members of this
Subcommittee my findings, as follows:

At the end of 1995, there were 8,262 cases pending in the Superior Court's
Criminal Division, and by the end of 1996, there were 9,367 cases pending in the
Criminal Division. Comparing years 1995 and 1996, the court experienced a 13%
increase in end-of-the-year inventory of criminal cases. Court statisticians account for
“cases pending" at any statistical review or report, to which new filings are added,
and naturally some of the total caseload is also disposed, reducing the pending. In
the Criminal Division in 1995, there were 45,011 new cases filed and in 1996, there
were 47,309 new cases filed. 1997 opened the year with a pending caseload of
8,919 cases, a 13% increase from pending at the close of 1995.

On March 1, 1997, the Metropolitan Police Department commenced its

enhanced enforcement activity in the District of Columbia. On March 1, 1997, the


IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY. WE WILL EXAMINE THE RESULTS TO DATE AND THE
PLANS TO FURTHER IMPLEMENT THE INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CONSULTANT CHARGED WITH HELPING THE CITY DO A BETTER JOB OF CRIME
PREVENTION.

THERE HAVE BEEN MAJOR CHANGES IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT THIS YEAR. PRIOR TO THE BOOZ-ALLEN REPORT CRIME HAD GONE
UP IN THE DISTRICT WHILE IT HAD GONE DOWN IN THE COUNTRY AND IN OTHER
MAJOR CITIES. THE UPSURGE IN CRIME PRIOR TO THE BOOZ-ALLEN REPORT
OCCURRED DESPITE THE FACT THAT POPULATION IN THE DISTRICT HAD GONE
DOWN.

THAT TREND HAS NOW BEEN REVERSED. THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF POLICE IS
NOW MUCH MORE IN CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING PROMOTIONS,
AND THE NUMBER OF HOMICIDES AND OTHER MAJOR CRIMES IS WAY DOWN.

AT THE SAME TIME, ALSO AS A RESULT OF INFORMATION PREPARED BY
BOOZ-ALLEN, MAJOR CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HOMICIDE UNIT. THERE
ARE DISTURBING REPORTS OF EXCESSIVE OVERTIME, CLOSURE RATES THAT ARE
UNACCEPTABLY LOW, AND ‘SECRECY PLEDGES’ THAT ARE APPARENTLY BEING
APPLIED TO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE NEEDS
A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THESE MATTERS AS PART OF ITS OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITY.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE KEEP UP THE PACE OF MODERNIZING OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT MISSION. THE NATION'S CAPITAL MUST BE KNOWN AGAIN AS A

3


111

Mr. Horn. Now my last question is this. Do you have drug courts
in the District of Columbia?

Ms. Leary. Yes, we do ~

Mr. Horn. How successful are they?

Ms. Leary. They have been very successful over time. Although
I will say that when mandatory minimum penalties for drug of-
fense were eliminated in the District of Columbia, a number of par-
ticipants in the drug court decreased. But the drug court program
is continuing, and it is quite successful in the sense that people are
getting the kind of treatment that they need, and when people get
the appropriate treatment we do see some decrease in recidivism.

Mr. Horn. The reason I asked that question, I frankly hadn’t
heard of them, and yesterday I happened to vote for Ms. Waters’,
of California, amendment, and Dr. Colburn, who also had an
amendment there. He’s read a lot of the literature, and he noted
that there have been great results from the drug court, especially
in reducing recidivism.

Ms. Leary. Right.

Mr. HorN. And of course given the jammed nature of our court,
if you can get those cases out and dealt with by somebody that
knows what they’re doing, and some common sense, that might
solve a lot of our problems.

Ms. Leary. Well, I agree with you entirely. And these zero toler-
ance efforts on all fronts—drugs or quality of life offenses, what-
ever—are going to require creative approaches like that to deal
with people, if you’re going to prevent—unless you want the courts
to get completely clogged.

Mr. Horn. Right. I thank you very much.

Ms. Leary. Thank you.

Mr. Davis. Ms. Leary, thank you very much. We appreciate your
being here. You have a couple of things you are going to submit
to the record. But I want to thank you for being here.

Ms. Leary. Well, it was a pleasure being here.

Mr. Davis. Your debut was very successful. I want to thank ev-
erybody. Without objection, the record will remain open for 10
days. Without objection, I ask that a written statement submitted
by the Control Board, and any other written statements from busi-
nesses or members be made part of the permanent record.

The subcommittee will continue to work with all interested par-
ties in an ongoing effort to continue the progress that has been
made in implementing the Booz-Allen report of the Metropolitan
Police Department. These proceedings are closed.

That’s going to be made part of the record.

Mr. Horn. Stick it in the record.

Mr. Davis. That’s a good point.

Mr. Horn. The case that the drug court has had, and how many
did they process.

Mr. Davis. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record as well.

These proceedings are closed.

(Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned sub-
ject to the call of the Chair.]

(Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]


81

U.S, Marshals Service
D.C. Court of Appeals
Probation

Department of Corrections

These arrests, as an intervention to reduce crime, have had a far-reaching
impact on the Criminal Justice systern.- This particular interventién initiated new,
unanticipated arrests into the system at a concentrated, unprecedented flow, that set
up a new "change" dynamic that was neither "typical" nor "statistically expected", and
was without precedent. Not only did these new arrests begin to flow into the system
in unprecedented numbers at the beginning of March, 1997, but the new arrests that
begin life through an "intake" process at the Metropolitan Police Department, quickly
become "intake" for all of the other supporting players throughout the Criminal Justice
System-the courts, probation, and all the way through, in some cases ultimately to the
Department of Corrections.

While this dynamic is occurring as a direct result of the deployment of
additional officers, a paraltel-and somewhat reverse dynamic also occurs. As the
impact of the "Zero Tolerance For Crime Initiative" started to have its intended effect
and the "message" got out that the citizens of the District of Columbia had “had
enough” and new arrests for both felonies and misdemeanors, as well as the number

of warrants that were executed peaked during March and April. Then from May to


107

to this particular issue, to keep costs down, to work efficiently, and
to make sure that things get done in the best way possible for both
agencies.

Ms. Norton. Ms. Leary, what have you done to keep this cost
down? Not you, I’m sorry. What has the U.S. attorney’s office done
to keep this cost—this cost of this overtime down? What measures
have you taken? We know what they didn’t do. What measures
have you taken to keep the cost of this overtime down?

Ms. LEARY. We took the initiative to develop a Memorandum of
Understanding with the police department, so that we would give
them contro] over when the police officers come to do the work on
the cases. We took the initiative and we were leaders in that effort
over this lengthy period of time.

Second, we have certainly made strong efforts within the office
to education AUSAs about problems associated with overtime. Su-

rvisors in the individuals sections of the U.S. attorney's office

ve to sign off on many of the requests that go over to the police
department for police officers to come and appear, under cir-
cumstances where for instance you need a police officer to come at
the last minute because some kind of an emergency has arisen in
the case. So we have developed our own accountability systems
within our office.

Ms. Norton. Well, all I can say is, this scam went on, and the
use of detectives went up. It looks at the very least the testimony
said two-thirds of the time it’s gone to the U.S. attorney’s office. He
testified that they're working on closed cases. And while we have
been clear with Chief Soulsby, the concern we have about that, it
seems to me we have to equally be clear with the U.S. attorney.

Now I want to be clear with it because of 42 investigators. Now
$10 million in overtime—I guess that was the last fiscal year; 42
investigators would be about—new investigators would be about $3
million.

Ms. Leary. That’s correct.

Ms. Norton. So that means that we ought to be able to save—
with the addition of 42 investigators, I would take it therefore that
we would not have to have our cops pulled out and pulled into
overtime, because you would have investigators of your own to do
the work.

Ms. Leary. Ms. Norton, I can’t—having our own investigators
would help the problem enormously. It will not eliminate the need
for police officers to work on cases after they have made an arrest.

is. NORTON. So how are you going to use these investigators? I
understand of course that the police officer has to come to—the po-
lice officer has made the arrest. The police officer has to come to
court; the police officer has to testify. it I do not understand is
that the police officer has to be the investigator on these cases from
start to finish; that I do not understand. And I don’t understand
why I should support 42 new investigators unless you can tell me
that some of those investigators will be used to relieve some of this
overtime that comes almost exclusively on the taxpayers of the Dis-
trict of Columbia.

Ms. Leary. Well that’s exactly what they will do. They will be
relieving some of this overtime——

Ms. Norton. How much?




60

Chief SouLssy. Again, part was in court, and part to work on
cases. That’s in essence why we made the change that we did in
regards to leadership and supervision. The rules are not followed;
lack of accountability across the board. Procedures that were in
place, standards were not set.

If an employee is not doing what they’re supposed to do, and his
supervisor doesn’t correct it, or the manager is two levels—the
managers above that supervisor don’t correct it, then it’s time to
make a change.

Mr. MATHER. Chief, there’s one other dimension of this I might
mention, and that is that the U.S. attorney’s office could task indi-
vidual MPD officers to carry out functions to help flesh out a case
in an investigation, and the MPD themselves would have no knowl-
edge of that being done. So somebody could, for example, work an
8-hour shift, and then go work another 8-hour shift or more, or
work an 8-hour shift and not really be focused that much on that
8-hour shift, and then work another 8 hours, and that’s how these
big numbers that you’ve been reading about have accumulated.

So I think that, you never want to have two independent agen-
cies tasking the same resource, and you don’t know when somebody
shows up for work that they've just been on an 8-hour shift doing
something else; that just doesn’t make any sense.

But I mean, this disconnect between the total abuse of homicide
people, I think is an issue that’s got to be resolved.

Chief SouLsBy. And one sidepoint of that. The overtime spent in
court was to be 8 to 12 hours a day in many cases, is overtime
spent on cases that are already closed. That’s not closing new
cases. That doesn’t do anything to help your closure rate. All that
overtime is spent on processing a closed case through the judicial
system, after an arrest.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. It shows also, something we have passed a law
for the Federal sector, that we could really look to in terms of the
District of Columbia, called the GPRA, the Government Perform-
ance and Results Act, where each agency has to establish what
their mission is, how they're going to fulfill it, and in what way.
And it almost ties into your need for more training that you men-
tioned also.

I just have one other point. Do you work with the orange hats?
Let me just tell you, one night I went out with—I met them on the
street. I went out with your police department; you’ve got some
great people who are police officers. And we went out with a group
called HIPS. You know HIPS, don’t you? Helping Individual Pros-
titutes Survive. And we met with some of the orange hats too in
the various communities.

Do you work—I know you mentioned 83 PSAS. Do you work with
these civilian and citizen groups? Well? Is that something that
needs more improving? What kind of reaction are you getting from
these people who are trying to help in their own neighborhoods to
preserve safety and avert crime?

Chief Soutssy. I'll say it in two phases. We have worked well in
the past, but well is not good enough. What we’ve done now is
we've rebuilt this department through the new operating model


56

We believe we have developed an independent, outside review
process that can achieve fairness for both sides.

Simply put, the process would use retired judges and mediators to
review citizen complaints and recommend disciplinary action.

They would work within a special office created within the D.C.
Superior Court.

Independent complaint examiners and investigators would
investigate cases.

Less serious complaints would go to conciliation or mediation.
Retired judges in senior status would review more serious allegations,
convene hearings, obtain sworn statements, and send findings to the
three-member disciplinary police tribunal.

The tribunal's decisions would be made public and could be
appealed to the police chief. A committee of community members would
review the actions periodically.

A final contribution is to upgrade the MPD's investigations process.

Part of that effort was to bring in an outside team of veteran
homicide experts to examine the MPD's homicide division.

As has been reported, the team found several deficiencies -- no
institutionalized process for homicide investigation, no clear audit trail, no
selection criteria for picking homicide detectives, little if any expert
training, no performance standards, and an absence of accountability.

Chief Soulsby has taken several steps to deal with the immediate
problems in the homicide division.

In the longer term, we plan to submit the department's entire
investigative structure to the same process we used to upgrade patrol.

With the help of our staff and outside consultants, a select team of
MPD detectives will design an operating model for investigations just as
the team of 20 sworn officers and civilians successfully developed the
department's new Police Service Area operating model.

We believe this longer-term effort will markedly and permanently
improve MPD's investigations.


18

MPD Information/Enabling Technologies
Mey 13, 1997

The MPD information infrastructure needs to support the
department's new operating mode! and the increase needs
caused by the new policing strategy.

District and Beat Boundary Restructuring
June 3, 1997

The key to an effective problem-solving approach to crime and
order maintenance is to ensure that officers have the time to
develop and implement solutions to problems in their
communities. To this end, patrol districts and PSA boundaries
were realigned to provide equal work load across the city.

New Policing Strategy
uly 3, 1997

To move the department away from the traditional system of
policing, a new operating model has been developed. The new
model introduces problem-solving as the basis to address
community problems and concerns, while providing the sense of
ownership necessary to effect cultural changes within the
department.

Fleet Management Baseline Analysis and Blueprint
July 15, 1997

Report contains recommendations to enhance management
controls and improve maintenance performance. It is estimated
that recommended improvements will take up to six months to
implement.

ID&R Division Baseline and Blueprint
July 21, 19!

Developed the identification and Records Division Baseline and
Blueprint. Contains records management improvements that are
achievable in next six months.

4


47

the country; a framework for them to think through what might
work to get crime to come down. And I think that within a couple
of days it became clear to them that geographic accountability was
the only way that one could really focus on preventing crime, and
being accountable for the crimes, that get committed within a par-
ticular geography, was the way to get that done. And so the model
that the chief described was put in place.

Putting a model in place, and restructuring, and putting people
in different—an organizational construct, is sort of a stage setter
for the real transition, because, just because you put people into a
new structure doesn’t mean that they’re fundamentally different
people. They still have 30 years, in some cases, of experience of
doing things a particular way.

And so what’s happening now is there’s a performance manage-
ment system and a series of transitional steps that will get these
officers heading in a different direction over time. This is not going
to happen instantaneously. I mean, you cannot change the fabrie
of an organization on a dime; it has to happen through processes
that you put in place that the chief has adopted, and so on.

That’s one of the reasons why we created for the MPD a system
of the Police Service Area Performance Review. The review is tied
to efforts to determine how well each PSA is doing; to achieve the
department’s mission; and to provide feedback and direction.

Why spend so much time on something like this? Because at the
PSA level is where the action is, and the efforts begun early this
year to prevent crime and dissipate fear of crime, and infuse order,
will be won and lost at that level.

But it’s not just the efforts of the front line officers and their op-
erations that are going to be subject to performance review. The de-
partment currently lacks an overall management system that es-
tablishes performance targets for the department, and programs to
manage overall performance. So we’ve developed a Performance Fo-
cused Management System for the work of the entire MPD.

The system seeks to determine, for example, how well the police
address basic community concerns, and I think that’s an important
thing. You need to focus on what the people feel, not what you
might think is important for you to do; but what do the people and
the public feel directly, and how can we do things that cause that
to change. Things like, are the streets safe. Do I feel threatened by
quality of life offenses? Do the police care about my problems?

So overall, the Performance Focused Management System estab-
lishes a clear structure of accountability that links all of MPD’s ac-
tivities to the department’s new mission.

Let me skip the part about restructuring district operations, and
headquarters, and all that, because I think the chief talked about
that already.

Another important contribution of our firm is to help formulate
a fair, workable citizen complaint process. We believe that we've
developed an independent outside review process that can achieve
fairness for both citizens and police officers. Simply put, the proc-
ess would use retired judges and mediators with the D.C. Superior
Court to review citizen complaints and recommend disciplinary ac-
tion.


51

Patrol is the heart of policing. Unless a police agency's uniformed
force is on the streets and in the neighborhoods in sufficient number, it
cannot begin to gain the confidence of citizens and fight crime.

Our firm's first objective was to fix the MPD's patrol problem. As a
temporary measure, 400 officers were assigned to supplement patrol in
high-crime areas and crime rates began to drop.

But for long-term structural repair, we looked to a hand-picked
team of 20 MPD captains, lieutenants, sergeants, officers, and civilians
who worked with our staff in developing a new operating model for the
department.

The team's model divides the city up into 83 Police Service Areas
(PSA) staffed by an average 18 officers and led by a PSA sergeant. Each
team includes street officers, detectives, and vice investigations.

The model's basics are that

e Each team is responsible for both preventing and
fesponding to crime in its geographic area

e Each team is to nurture police-community efforts against
crime and the fear of crime

e Each team uses an approach called problem-solving to
target the chronic causes of crime: drugs, gangs, guns, and
disorder

Since the new model was activated in July, the number of police
officers on the streets has grown to about 1460 from 570.

As other parts of the department are streamlined, more officers
likely will be available. Chief Larry D. Soulsby will speak to the success of
the PSA model and the invigorated sergeants and officers who are
leading efforts to achieve the MPD's new mission in Washington's
neighborhoods.

We know from work in both the private and government sector that
it is not enough to create a model and set it in motion.

Those who animate a model -- who seek to achieve its ends --
must be held accountable.


80

It is easy to see that a direct result of a deployment in large numbers of officers
to the streets of the District of Columbia, who had orders to closely scrutinize all
suspicious activities that might be infractions of the law, would soon deliver the
intended outcome-arrests. That was understood by all at the time. But let me
explain that the natural progression that directly results from any arrest within the
District's Criminal Justice System first begins by engaging the services of almost all of
the participants in the Criminal Justice System, at appropriate intervals of time during
the case, drawing each of them, in their own role to "touch" the case as each arrest
enters the system and/or moves through the system.

At first, the Metropolitan Police Department's increased intervention did net an
increase in arrests, as was the expectation. Next, arrests moved to one or more, and
frequently all of the “other” players after the Metropolitan Police Department, as
follows:

United States Attorney's Office

Corporation Counsel

Pretrial Services Agency

Criminal Justice Act Office (Public Defender Service)
Court's judicial Officers

Court's Criminal Division

Court's interpreter's Services


13

Today 71 percent of all sworn department personnel are assigned
to the seven police districts, with another 17 percent assigned to
investigative and direct PSA support street functions. This means
that 88 percent of all the department’s personnel are assigned to
positions that provide direct service to the public or directly as-
signed, assisting PSA officers in providing the services to persons
living, working, and visiting the District of Columbia.

Ultimately, one-fourth of all sworn personnel not currently as-
signed to patrol districts will be redeployed to PSAs. This will re-
sult in a number of officers assigned to patrol districts being sig-
nificantly higher, which means greater visible police presence, and
more patrol officer time available for preventing crime and dis-
order.

At the time that we are undertaking a comprehensive reorga-
nization of patrol districts, we are also moving forward on several
other fronts to improve the management and operation of the de-
partments.

They include: Sworn members of the department were granted a
10 percent pay raise, using District of Columbia funds, effective
July 6, 1997. While the 10 percent raise is very helpful, the pay
scale still lags behind that of other jurisdictions in the metropolitan
area.

In June and July of this year a 1-day new operating model ori-
entation session was held for all district personnel. In August a 2.
day training session was held for all 83 PSA sergeants. Also begi
ning in August, the training division began conducting 2-day train-
ing sessions for all PSA team members.

The specialized training covers problem solving, communication
skills, and other issues relevant to the implementation of the new
operating model. This training is in addition to the in-service and
specialized training routinely provided to sworn members.

The department implemented a random drug testing program on
May 15, 1997. Members are selected at random to undergo drug
screening. To date, 313 members have been tested; results have
been negative in all cases.

The department’s entry level recruiting standards have been re-
viewed to ensure accuracy. The standards exceed those required by
the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.

The department’s recruiting procedures have been revised to re-
quire more documentation from applicants, and to ensure that case
files are thoroughly reviewed. The recruiting unit has been reorga-
nized, and a new recruiting campaign has begun.

Mr. Davis. Chief, you don’t have to read the whole thing if you
don’t want to.

Chief SouLsBy. Oh, I’m sorry.

Mr. Davis. No, it’s fine. But I think we want to get down to the
crimes and arrest. You’ve got a cold, so we want to save you for
the questions.

Chief Soutssy. OK. We’ll skip down to the crime part, abso-
lutely.

When we look at the crime and what’s occurred, from January
1 through September 24, crime is down 18 percent; crimes against
persons, down 16 percent; crimes against property, 18 percent.



55

e the delays in procurement that undermine and sometimes
prevent the most cost-efficient purchase of needed
equipment

« the inadequate state of the MPD's technological capacity.
In information technology, to cite four examples:

When we began work with the MPD, the information systems were
tun from an unreliable 1981 mainframe which was no longer supported by
hardware or software companies.

Unlike most urban police departments, MPD did not have mobile
data computers in patrol cars.

The department had advanced crime mapping technology, but
lacked the capacity to use it for such relatively sophisticated purposes as
crime analysis.

Detectives lacked computers that were geared to use programs
designed to aid investigations.

Booz-Allen & Hamilton now is in the process of creating an
integrated information technology system for the MPD that will link new,
advanced records management and computer-assisted dispatching
systems to sophisticated mobile data computers in patrol cars and
personal computers specially configured for investigators.

Designing, obtaining, installing, and sustaining a first-class,
productive information technology system for the MPD is a long-term
challenge but one we must meet if the department is to fully achieve its
mission.

There have been instances in the past of technology plans and
purchases that did not work out. This time, technology must be
successfully placed in the service of the MPD.

Another important contribution of our firm is to help formulate a fair,
workable citizen complaint process.

Cities and their police departments around the country grapple
regularly with the challenge of creating a process to investigate and
review citizens complaints of police misconduct and abuse that is fair to
both citizens and police officers.


2

Through cost avoidance of the fastest-growing parts of the budget,
such as Medicaid and the criminal justice system, the city is in a
much stronger position to deliver the essential municipal services
that citizens have a right to expect, such as personal safety. And
that’s indeed why we're here today.

Our hearing today seeks updated information on strategies to im-
prove public safety. We will examine the results to date and the
plans to further implement the interim recommendations of the
consultant charged with helping the city do a better job of crime
prevention.

There have been major changes in the Metropolitan Police De-
partment this year. Prior to the Booz-Allen report, crime had gone
up in the District while it had gone down in the country, and in
other major cities. The upsurge in crime prior to the Booz-Allen re-
port occurred despite the fact that population in the District had
gone down.

That trend has now been reversed. The Office of Chief of Police
is now much more in charge of the department, including pro-
motions, and the number of homicides and other major crimes is

lown.

At the same time, also as a result of information prepared by
Booz-Allen, major changes have been made in the homicide unit.
There are disturbing reports of excessive overtime, closure rates
that are unacceptably low, and secrecy pledges that are apparently
being applied to other law enforcement agencies. This subcommit-
tee needs a clear explanation of these matters as part of its over-
sight responsibility.

it is imperative that we keep up the pace of modernizing our law
enforcement mission. The Nation’s Capital must be known again as
a safe city, where lawbreakers are quickly identified, arrested,
prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. The evidence is overwhelming
that a new direction is necessary.

So while we’ve made progress in the area of law enforcement, we
clearly have a long way to go. This subcommittee will continue to
address this very important regional and national concern in the
months ahead.

I now yield to Delegate Norton, ranking member of the sub-
committee, for any opening statements she may wish to make.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]


72

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that
any written statement you care to submit be made part of the per-
manent record. I think the Members have read it, so you can sum-
marize it so we can get to the questions as quickly as possible.

I understand this will be the first time that Ms. Leary will be
testifying before Congress, since assuming the role as acting U.S.
attorney. We’re happy to have you here today. I saw you on Fox
this morning; I thought you did a very credible job, and thank you
very much.

Ms. Leary. Thank you, it’s a pleasure to be here.

Mr. Davis. We'll let the judge go first.

STATEMENTS OF HON. EUGENE HAMILTON, CHIEF JUDGE,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT; AND MARY LOU
LEARY, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Judge HaMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Davis
and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to present testimony this afternoon, regarding an eval-
uation of the progress that’s been made in implementing the rec-
ommendations of the preliminary interim Booz-Allen study of the
Metropolitan Police Department, which was released in March of
this year.

Specifically, 1 have been asked to present my views on the effec-
tiveness and impact of any changes apparent at the trial court
level, and my views of the effectiveness of these changes in improv-
ing public safety.

yy the end of 1996—to set the stage in this matter—crime and
the perception of crime in the District of Columbia, from the trial
court level, was at an alarmingly high rate, and the event that
we're all familiar with that sent a bone chilling shockwave
throughout the entire District of Columbia and the Washington
area, was the assassination style murder on February 5, 1997, of
Master Parole Officer, Brian T. Gibson, of the Metropolitan Police
Department, as he was simply seated in a marked Metropolitan Po-
lice Department scout car at the intersection of Georgia and Mis-
souri Avenues, in full police uniform.

The murder of this officer really drove a stake through the spirit
and the will of the entire community of those who lived and worked.
in the District of Columbia, as well as the Metropolitan Police De-
partment officers were virtually completely demoralized by this
dastardly incident; and many persons who live and work in this
city, and officers were just about ready to throw up their hands in
complete resignation to the belief that the city was irrevocably lost
to crime.

Fortunately, however, on December 10, 1996, the MOU part-
ners—that is to say the Mayor, the chief of police, the chairman of
the council, the chair of the council’s Judiciary Committee; the
chief judge of the Superior Court; U.S. attorney for the District of
Columbia; the Corporation Counsel; and the D.C. Financial Re-
sponsibility and Management Assistance, had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to ensure the safety of the District
of Columbia, reduce crime, and the fear of crime, and improve the
quality of life in public order throughout the District of Columbia.


27

CONCLUSION

The transformation of the department will help to fulfill two personal goals
that | have set. The first is to provide the dedicated men and women of the
Metropolitan Police Department with the opportunity to intensify their
professional skills and focus their talents on the essence of policing:
Preventing crime, eliminating disorder, and serving citizens.

My second goal is that in the coming months, every resident of the District
of Columbia will be on a first name basis with at least one member of their
neighborhood PSA team. The police are a part of the community and are
empowered by the community, it is not a matter of us-versus-them. It is a
matter of we -- citizens and police -- working together to improve the quality
of life for all who live, work, and visit our Nation’s Capital by eliminating
crime, fear of crime, and general disorder, and establishing mutual respect
and trust within the community.

In closing, | want to emphasize that the Metropolitan Police Department is
well on the road to success, performance has increased and morale has
greatly improved. The transformation which is underway will result in a
police department in which all citizens can take great pride.



70

If people get us some results, I think that, and that more than
anything else, will have the effect of turning around some of this
alarming flight.

My question though is, how do we know that the—and how do
you know, since you must measure yourselves—how do we know
that the progress we see—and I can only look at data and be con-
vinced by data. You’ve got the data there.

How do I know that that progress results largely, or if all, from
the implementation of your reform initiatives?

And second, what are your priorities now for the coming fiscal
year, now that you have done your work with front line officers and
the need to get people out on the street?

Mr. MATHER. Well, I mean, if you look at the charts that the
chief has submitted over the course of the project, it’s very convinc-
ing. When you notice that over a 10-year period you had a situa-
tion, and then you suddenly took this action, and it just instanta-
neously happened now.

That could be a fluke. I mean, I don’t know if there’s any way
we can convincingly prove that it wasn’t. But I mean if you look
at where the crime reduction occurred, it occurred right where
these actions took place.

Second, as the thing picked up there was a natural kind of a
sprinkle effect that occurred throughout the city, where when you
put an initiative like this, I mean people take notice, and they
react to it.

So my sense is that, I’d extremely surprised—I mean if we had
a very cold winter, you know one could start saying, well, you
know, people don’t like to commit crimes when it’s uncomfortable
for them to do it; but we didn’t. I mean it wasn’t that—so there
was no other factor that I could see that would come into play.

Ms. Norton. Are there any other contributing factors?

Mr. MATHER. I don’t see any. I mean there could be, I suppose.
But I mean, the cause and effect were just so obvious. When these
actions were taken, the impact just happened, almost instanta-
neously, and it continues to.

And my feeling is that, there was a big job to be done here. When
you start something like this you just don’t realize what you're
dealing with, and a lot of people told us it couldn’t be done. I mean,
it was just too complicated, too embedded, and this and that. And
that was a little bit of a challenge in itself.

I think what’s happening here—what you're seeing is—that the
onion is slowly but surely being peeled back, and we're very fortu-
nate to have a chief that’s on this. I mean, I think the chief from
day one has made the comment, “Don’t worry about me in this.
Don’t worry about what happens to me. Let’s get this department
changed. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s keep this thing moving.”
And we have never had a reluctant client in this. I mean every
time we've identified things, the chief has jumped right on it and
made things happened proactively.

So I think what’s going to happen, if you look at the next 6
months or 9 months, we'll get this homicide thing straightened out.
We've move on to the investigative function. We'll get the infra-
structure straightened out. There’s the job of getting a new tech-


63

So when the Baseline Report was done our first conclusion was,
where do we want to focus; what’s the right place to focus. And it
seemed clear to us that there was a huge number of people in
buildings, whether they were supporting operations, whether they
were detectives, what they were doing. I mean, they’re either in
district headquarters or they were in headquarters, in the field and
out of the field.

And so our feeling was that the crime breventign agenda could
be best served by first rolling out this PSA model, and that was
an all consuming process. I mean, it took up the entire team, be-
cause you had the group of 20 out there. We were basically meeting
all day with these people, and at night we would turn it around
and have decks ready for them in the morning so that we could get
the next wave.

That whole process was just all consuming. And as that process
started to take—and I think it was important for us to do this be-
cause they had to get convinced; they had to be disciples that
would go out there to each of the districts and saying, this is the
right thing to do. And they had to be taking the word out there.
It couldn’t be just coming from the chief, or from us, or from the
guys from the top. It had to be people that were buried in the orga-
nization that believed that this was the right thing to do.

And as that thing started to take, and it did, we then said OK,
we've got infrastructure to deal with, which was going on in par-
allel to that process; we had the support operations; and we knew
all along that we had an investigative problem. All we had to do
is look at the closure rates. We looked at the numbers of people
that were in the investigative operations. We knew we were going
to get to it. And as soon as things started to move over here, we
then shifted team resources over to homicide, brought in that team
of seven, which we initiated—I don’t know what the business is
with the the Post; I think the the Post got wind of it after we
brought the team in. Because I know we initiated that effort. We
went down to the chief and asked him if we could do it, and we
wanted to put that team in place to look at it.

They came back with a bunch of recommendations—really more
observations than recommendations—and then the Booz-Allen
team took those operations, and boiled it down to five or six sys-
temic problems which I said earlier.

So I don’t know if it was the right order that you would have
used, but that’s the way—

Ms. Norton. Well, it was the right order. We obviously wanted
to get a few cops out on the streets. You can see the problem.

Mr. Chairman, just let me get two figures on the record. Is crime
down in all 83 police service areas? In other words, is this reduc-
tion in crime reflect every police service area?

Chief SouLSBY. We know that in fact crime is down in every sin-
gle district, but I can’t tell you right now whether it’s in every area,
but I can certainly tell you that by tomorrow.

Ms. Norton. But it’s in every district.

Chief SouLssy. Every district crime is down, substantial.

Ms. Norton. Thus far, what has been the cost of the Booz-Allen
contract?


20

NEW OPERATING MODEL

On July 1, 1997, a New Operating Model was implemented for the
Metropolitan Police Department. The New Operating Model itself is the work
of a team made up of 20 experienced and dedicated sworn and civilian
department employees representing field and support organizational elements
throughout the department. The “Group of 20" (or “G20” as they are
sometimes called) worked closely for several weeks with the BoozeAllen
project team to develop a new community-oriented philosophy for delivering
police services to residents of the District of Columbia.

The Group of 20 surveyed their colleagues in the field for ideas, which they
then brainstormed and analyzed to develop the New Operating Model and
District Policing Strategy. Men and women on the front lines of policing in
the District were able, for the first time, to contribute their knowledge,
expertise, and common sense on how the department organizes and deploys
its resources. The plan transforms police patrol in the District, lays the
groundwork for productive and sustained citizen-police cooperation. it
establishes accountability to neighborhoods for reducing levels of crime, fear
of crime, and disorder.

Our New Operating Model realigns patrol district boundaries and divides the
city into 83 Police Service Areas (PSAs) that operate within the framework
of the artment's seven patrol districts. Each PSA is served by a team
comprised of patrol officers, detectives, and vice investigators. This is a
decentralization of personnel and authority away from specialized units to
basic street-level police patrol teams. The team provides 24-hour, seven
days-per-week coverage to a geographically manageable, neighborhood-
based area.

An essential feature of the new model is that, to the extent possible, officers
remain assigned to individual PSAs so they can better know and serve
specific neighborhoods. The long-term assignment is meant to reinforce the
team members’ sense of ownership and accountability to their PSA and
community. Another crucial accountability and management factor is that
each team is led by a single PSA sergeant who has overall responsibility for
police service within the PSA.


37

“9OUSJOIA ONSsWOp pue Zut~puey suodeam
‘SurpreSax mej pes9poy YM aouetfdutoo ut jauuosiad usoms Joy sxoayo ArO)sIY JeUTUTIID parajduI0D

(O91 Gd) "S991A1as pue ‘juourdinba ‘sayjddns jo uonisinbas ay) soy ssao0id poulyweans Jo uoneuswajdwy
‘JopueUTUIOD YDUEIg SpIoIWOF] Joy Yeas poreNTUy

“sanbruyoat
UoneZoLaIU! pue MATALSIUL SpNyoU! pue JaquIZAON UI payeodal aq {IM ssUfo SIYY “BuTUTEN ue3eq CaN
WO S2ANIOIEP Z{ JO SSEID ISI BY “POYsiiquisa sem ssepo s1oyeBNssauy aploiwopy diseq feuoISo1 y

“wnoyreyd
XINNA Mau 0} UOneISIW STIDVL 10} suoNeoy!pous suoNeorMUNUOD puke uruneIZ0Id porajdui0D

L6-¥7-60

L6-€2-60

16-22-60

16-22-60

16-27-60


57

To summarize, Booz-Allen & Hamilton is engaged in recasting the
structures and converting processes in patrol and investigations, in the
essential area of performance management and review, at Headquarters
and in the seven district headquarters, in infrastructure and technology,
and in citizen complaint review -- that will substantially transform the MPD
and help it to fulfill the department's new mission.

Our firm is deeply grateful for this opportunity.

Thank you.


23

Sworn members of the department were granted a 10 percent pay
raise using District of Columbia funds effective July 6, 1997. While
the 10 percent pay raise is very helpful, the pay scale still lags behind
that of other jurisdictions in the Washington Metropolitan Area.

In June and July of this year a one-day New Operating Mode!
orientation session was held for all district personnel. In August, a
two-day training session was held for the 83 PSA sergeants. Also,
beginning in August the Training Division began conducting two-day
training sessions for all PSA team members. The specialized training
covers problem-solving, communications skills, and other issues
relevant to the implementation of the New Operating Model. This
training is in addition to the in-service and specialized training
routinely provided to sworn members.

The department implemented a random drug testing program on May
15, 1997. Members are selected at random to undergo drug
screening. To date, 313 members have been tested; results have been
Negative for all tests.

The department's entry level recruiting standards have been reviewed
to ensure adequacy. The standards exceed those required by the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.

The department's recruiting procedures have been revised to require
more documentation from applicants and to ensure that the case files
are thoroughly reviewed. The Recruiting Unit has been reorganized
and a new recruiting campaign begun.

Starting on October 1,1997, the Training Division will begin using a
computer-assisted judgmental training program as a part of our
recertification program. A computer-assisted training program for
domestic violence is also installed in the seven patrol districts,
the Special Operations Di in, the Criminal Investigations Division,
and the Youth and Family Services Division. This new system will
allow us to conduct training off-site, thereby eliminating the need for
officers to travel away from their units for needed ti





snes WN srefeuY ewHD joRDE, weuRNEdeR somo UEHDOORER :90INS wEC KeURLRY
“Ze

cert e6es ve OLdt SleL
cating” | meses | emma ee ‘omacng | Paveen: | enmuosest
4 elt va sob is Coy el rT 02 mnyeeuy 2661
4 6 tet Le Slt Ne dst <4 b<4 you 9661
96z +9 49 28g 999 us 908 ves toe ma SSUEUO L661
sty 492 soe dvL 75 veh 986 206 8001 | mmesUeUO 9661
seque\des | ysnbriy Aor eunr Ten wey wien | Kenges | Kenuer

L661 ‘8} sequiejdeg YyBnomy | Arenuer
UOSHeAdWOD Set / SSUBYO O}NY UE]O}S
juowpedsag sd1j0g uey|OdojEW\y


85

5,009 in March, then 4,950 in April, then 4,390 in May and then really tapering off
with 4,134 in June, 4,042 in July and 4,078 in August. This dynamic of the initial
“spiking” and then the gradual tapering off was a direct indication of the effectiveness
of the program. Those who were committing crimes, or were already being sought
‘on warrants, were being picked up and brought into the Criminal Justice System, and

for the most part were now tinder court supervision.” (See: Figure 2)

Cases that grow out of the large number of arrests that have been made will,
most likely, take months before they can be disposed of by a judgment of guilty or not
guilty and during this time, these cases and the defendants must be managed by the-
Courts and other criminal justice agencies. In addition, after a judgment of guilty,
these cases and defendants might continue to be “managed” for many years
thereafter. Managing these cases and defendants requires that both judicial officers
and court staff bring to the task a great deal of attention, care, technical knowledge
and skills. Case management requires highly complicated legal, psychological, social
and other principles. In short, the heightened arrests in many instances are just the
start of a long, intensive and expensive process.

Most of the new arrestees are persons who are charged with quality of life
offenses. A large proportion of these persons’ criminal behavior is driven by their

personal, social, mental health and substance addiction problems, which in many

1


62

But you see those records—we were paying that money out. And
Td like to ask Mr. Mather this as well. We were paying these offi-
cers. Moreover, the chairman said something very important, that
your arrests were up and your crime was down.

Now in this unit your overtime was up and your closures were
down. I mean this one almost could not be avoided. And the reason
Td like to know about it, is because it shakes our confidence in the
reform process. We say, oh, my God, there’s another shoe that came
down, and we thought all the shoes were on the ground and they
were polishing them up.

I'm really asking if there is—and I understand your priorities.
And you know that I think enough of what you’ve done to have
wanted this to be the model of the entire city. But I can’t under-
stand how something this clear, clearly out of synch, gets discov-
ered, not by Booz-Allen apparently, but by the the Washington
Post, or whoever put it in the Freedom of Information request, and
then tells us all about it in the newspapers.

Mr. MATHER. Actually I think—usually, it’s the committee that
discovered it. Let me just comment on that.

I think part of what’s happened here is the process that you use
to try to get your arms around an organization when you come in,
and you don’t know anything about it, except what you read in the
paper, and you've got to take some kind of a logical order to it.

If you look at the way we approached the work, when we first
showed up on the scene 9 months ago we wanted to get a feeling
for the cradle that the department fit within. Now what was the
outside environment that this department fit within, and was that
an issue relative to budgeting and finance, and the power that the
chief had, and so on. Because, if in fact there was a problem there,
then when one got to recommendations you couldn’t really imple-
ment them anyway.

I mean, we were only 3 weeks into the effort, and I went be-
fore the Control Board and said, we really need to empower this
chief. And then we got to the issue of the second team, and all that
kind of stuff. So that was a progression.

The first thing you do in an effort like this is, you really want
to know for real how the people are deployed; where is the cost,
where are the people, what are they doing. And if you recall our
first effort was that diagnostic which was the Baseline Report. It
wasn’t how well are they doing it, it was just what are they doing;
and where are they physically, and how do they spend their time,
and all that kind of thine.

Ms. NorTON. Well, did you do that in the homicide unit?

Mr. MATHER. No, we did not do it—we knew that there were a
certain number of people in the homicide division, and we knew
that there was an issue there, but we weren't trying to determine
the effectiveness of the operation, as much as just figure out where
they are and what they’re doing. And I think if you recall those
first press conferences—actually, I think I made this point at the
first press conference, was that famous waterfall chart that said
you started off with 100 percent of the people, and you get down
to 16 percent by the time the people are making contact with the
public. And that’s what we wanted to have a feel for.


86

cases are controllable with professional intervention, strict supervision by the court's
staff and the imposition of graduated sanctions where necessary by judicial officers.
These persons who come into the criminal justice system charged with quality of life
crimes are perfectly capable of more serious and violent offenses, if left on the street
Jong enough unsupervised.

” The. court's Social’ Services ‘Division ‘administers® Probation Services: for the
District of Columbia. Not impacted initially at the beginning of the Zero Tolerance
Initiative, Probation by this date, is now the “player” within the Criminal Justice
System presently providing services to some of those first arrestees. As the numbers
of arrestees dropped and tapered off from the first spiking-the second spiking was
found to be in Adult and Juvenile Probation Services. Court statisticians account for
those receiving probationary services within two major categories: Diagnostic and
Supervision. In March and April, "Diagnostic" spiked as some of the new arrestee
plead guilty and quickly moved into appropriate diversionary programs. In later
months, those of May, June, July and August, the number of cases within Diagnostic
remained at levels over 30 percent of what had been expected prior to the Zero
Tolerance Initiative. A Probationer goes from Diagnostic during the Pretrial Phase to
Supervision after sentencing until all terms of probation are successfully completed.

Therefore, the “Supervision” caseload, beginning in April and to-date really spiked.

12


121

3. Promptly deliver all CANS notices to
listed officers each of whom will be required
to acknowledge receipt;

4. Promptly communicate through TACIS the
service of a CANS notice to the Court Liaison
Division and the AUSA who sent the CANS
notice;

5. Promptly deliver investigative CANS
Notices to the listed officers to whom they
are addressed and to the MPD commander
responsible for supervising the performance of
the requested work;

6. Timely deliver information, documents,
evidence or other work requested in an
investigative CANS notice by the most
appropriate means; e.g. a telephone call, a
FAX delivery, a package delivery, a personal
delivery by any officer or by the officer
doing the work;

7, Promptly notify the AUSA who submitted the
CANS if an officer is unable to appear in
response to an Appearance CANS and the reason
for the non-appearance and

8. Promptly notify the USAO of any system
failures which impact the service of CANS
notices on MPD members.

B. Primary and Secondary Case Officers

In all criminal cases prosecuted by the USAO, MPD
shall designate an officer or investigator as the
“primary Case Officer" on the MPD Form 168. Any officer
so designated must be knowledgeable of the facts of the
case. In many cases an officer may be designated on the
MPD Form 168 as the Secondary Case Officer. In the
absence of the Primary Case Officer, the Secondary Case
Officer will have the same responsibilities in the case
as the Primary Case Officer.

1. ole mary Case Offi in case
Investigation

a. Whenever possible, the Primary

Case Officer will be present at the
USAO for the papering of the case.

12


124

Officers who are present at papering and who are
needed for grand jury must discuss their schedules with
the prosecutor and, whenever possible, set appropriate
grand jury dates at that time, consistent with this
Memorandum.

D. Investigative CANS

All investigative work will be done on duty except
with the approval of the commanding officer.
Investigative CANS forms will be directed automatically
via the electronic time and attendance system to the
pertinent officer, (who ordinarily will be the lead
Officer) through the officer's commander, both of whom
will be responsible for ensuring that the investigative
work requested by the prosecutor will be accomplished on
or before the date specified. ‘*

EB. Extended Investigations

Upon a supervisory attorney's written notice to the
unit commander, MPD will assign an official to supervise
all major investigations, defined as those requiring the
commitment of more than the Primary and Secondary Case
Officers for an extended period of time, j.e., more than
28 calendar days. It will be that ‘official's
responsibility to staff the investigation appropriately,
keeping overtime expenses to a bare minimum, and to keep
other officials within the MPD apprised of the course of
the investigation, as appropriate. That official will
not be summoned for an appearance to work on the case,
unless he or she is also a fact witness or is needed for
discussions concerning the progress of an investigation.
Such limited appearances will be scheduled in accordance
with this Memorandum. Sergeants are supervisors and
shall be used only to ensure that necessary work has been
performed; they shall not be used as lead or
investigating officers without the specific approval of
their commander.

In extended grand jury investigations, defined as
those investigations running on a day-to-day basis for
more than 28 days, MPD will ensure that the Primary and
Secondary Case officers and any other officers it assigns
to that investigation will be placed on a day-work tour
of duty for the duration of the investigation, unless or
until it determines it would be unwise to do'so.

15


31

€

“spuny queJ3 suresBo1g AyununuoD aatsusyasduto; Aq paptaoid

@ATeNTUL sty 10} Zurpuny *AUNUTUIOD Jat Ut BuLIND90 syusAa [BoD Jo auoYydatay Aq susZHIO AyHOU
0} pasn aq ues uresZoid oy] “wWeIZolg (116 2819A9y) Yore AA Oplar-AMD Ystjqeise 0} UaWdinba paseyong
-uonetdosdde peuoissas8u09

wort $1¢ amp Aq poptaosd Surpun,y -sa[oho10}0u! epuOH] OQT Jo 1SI1J ay aAteoas 0} URBAG
‘uoneidoidde [euoissaizuo9 wort

ST$ Ot Aq paptaoid Surpuny “2661 “$1 49q0190 Jo 422m aip sNdd0 [1M apessdn waIshg “waISAS
voneMOsUT jLdreBury payewoIny ap Jo WaUIsoUEYUe Jy) 10} panss! sem YeNULLY OF PIEMe YL
“spury jues8 sures801g Ayrununuos aaisuaysidutog Aq popiaoid aanentut sip Joy Surpun.y “Bu1ojog
AsuNTUIOD Ur syns9a1 aotjod Joy Bururery [eeUBpny apraosd 0} paseysind azemyos pue sroyndwoD
‘uorstaiq suoneiado jeisadg amp out uonoury wp, Supus, amp peziTENUTD

“L661 ‘81 Aing uo parejduros sem Burures, “fepour

Sunesodo mau oy Surpsear jauuosied Gq 10} un8aq sem wresZoid Sutures) ONEIUaLIO Aep-su0 Y

*sasodind
WaUIDIOJUS ME] 10} 9[QeIOIAIES JoBUO] OU axe TEMP Sa[DTYDA do1[od QQZ AaAIns 01 ssad01d ueZag

“weld VMVA [2J9pay & YBnomp pourergo eanentul sty 10} Sutpuny “UIT
OY VdUZ|OIA SHsaWOG k Payst{quise soUs[OIA, SNsoWO Isulesy UONteOD “D°q ay YA VoNOUNfUOD UT

“Gd tp Jo staquiaus usoMms Jo} ureIBo1g BuNsey, Bq Wopuey ay paluswedwy

“ouuosiad wioms Aq pjay Apuauind
‘suonisod uo suonepusUMOde SxeU! PUR SUONISOd URIIIAL 1UaLIND MAIAaI 0} BoNIWIWOD B Payst{qeisa

L6-10-L0

L6-S7-90

L6-£7-90

16-71-90
16-80-90

16-50-90

16-10-90

16-10-90
L6-91-S0

L6-7I-SO0


7

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chair-
man’s willingness to hold this hearing.

This hearing is in furtherance of this subcommittee’s responsibil-
ity to assure that management reform of District agencies occurs
speedily and effectively as the D.C. Responsibility and Manage-
ment Assistant Authority Act requires.

The police department is the only D.C. agency that shows evi-
dence that systemic, top-to-bottom reform is in progress. It is the
only agency that gives at least some sense of what agency reform
might look like, and even what success might look like.

e reported 23 percent drop in crime and 40 percent decline in
homicides, for May 1996 to May 1997, may not be all due to MPD
reforms, but they are fair markers that reform is underway.

One important indication that reform is not complete however, is
the recent report of actual decline in homicide closure rates over
the past several years, coupled with suspicions of overtime fraud
by some detectives in the unit.

This report was shocking, because we had thought that the bad
news was all out, and that a department in a reform mode would
be reporting at least some improvement everywhere. We would
want to know why such acute problems in the homicide unit have
come to light so late.

I am particularly interested in the department’s progress for an-
other reason as well. In the 104th Congress I went to Senator
Orrin Hatch, and got $15 million of $42 million that the Speaker’s
D.C. Task Force, working with D.C. residents, the department, and
other officials, had concluded was necessary for the department.

Senator Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
promised to help me get the remaining $27 million, “if the money
was spent well.” There was delay in spending the money because
of pro lems with the D.C. procurement process. I will be anxious
to hear whether those problems have been remedied. I hope the de-
partment will regard the possibility of additional funds as an incen-
tive for even faster reform.

The department is soon to get help from other Federal agencies.
l appreciate that Chairman Davis allowed the inclusion of my D.C.
Police Coordination Act in the recent budget rescue package.

The new D.C. police coordination bill requires that Federal police
officers, from up to 30 Federal agencies, assist D.C. police with
crime prevention and other law enforcement activities in the Dis-
trict.

D.C. police will therefore be freed up to give greater attention to
our neighborhoods, because Federal police officers will patrol
around their own agencies. In addition, they will operate on radio
frequencies with the MPD; donate and share equipment and sup-
plies with MPD, and process and prepare the paperwork on sus-
pects they arrest, rather than turning them over to the D.C. police
to process.

‘inally, I am particularly interested in the police approach to re-
form because it seems to be producing results that might be rep-
licated elsewhere. The existence of the police reform model is re-
sponsible for the fact that a city management form of government
was not summarily imposed on the District. The police reform
model became my counter-proposal when Senator Lauch Faircloth


46

Mr. Davis. Chief Soulsby, thank you very much. We will hear
from Gary Mather in just a minute. But first, I want call to atten-
tion again to page 11 of your testimony where you say the total
number of arrests that have been made have increased by 26 per-
cent, while the number of crimes are down 18 percent.

I think that says a lot in terms of what these officers are doing
day to day on the street, given appropriate direction. They’re reduc-
ing crime, making more arrests, and that’s certainly the way you
want the trend lines to go.

Mr. Mather.

Mr. MATHER. Thank you. I won't go over all my written remarks.
I just had a few comments that I'd like to make.

So good afternoon, Chairman Davis, members of the subcommit-
tee, and ladies and gentlemen. I’m Gary Mather, senior vice presi-
dent of Booz-Allen & Hamilton. I have overall responsibility for our
firm’s role in helping to transform the MPD.

When the D.C. Financial Control Board chose our firm to work
with the MPD, high rates of crime and violence beset the city. Con-
cerned with the crime’s heavy toll, the Control Board charged our
firm, not only with diagnosing the police department’s problems
and failures, but also to find solutions to those problems, and ac-
tively help in implementing them.

And transforming any large, flawed organization is difficult. Over
the past 10 to 15 years much have been learned about what works
in causing fundamental change in an organization. And I think
that is a key point that I'd like to make; is that the process of
change in many corporate settings is the deal. There’s lots of inter-
esting strategies and things that one could do, and reports that
could be generated. But the step by step, and the methods that
causes fundamental structural change in an organization is the
most difficult part, and the part that most organizations have trou-

le with.

The need for change was evident when we began our work last
winter. We found a basic disconnect, as we said earlier, in the de-
partment between how resources were used, and what the public
expected from the MPD.

e department was absorbed in responding to calls for service
and pursuing and arresting suspects after crimes occurred. Mean-
while, the city’s residents and the business community wanted the
department to prevent and combat crime.

ur first advice, and what appeared to us to be the most impor-
tant thing to get done, was to adopt a new mission that reflected
the needs of the District of Columbia, and not the inertial course
the MPD was on. So to fulfill this mission, Booz-Allen & Hamilton
embarked on several major projects that were designed to make
permanent structural changes in the .

The patrol is at the heart of policing, so our firm’s first objec-
tive—hence the order that happened between the PSAs and homi-
cide, and other things that we're doing, we felt patrol was the most
important thing that needed to get fixed. And relative to the proc-
ess for getting this thing done, we picked 20 sworn officers who
came out to our facilities for 3 weeks, and worked 10 hours a day,
and we would create a framework really for them to think through
being exposed to different approaches that had been used around


SAFE CITY, WHERE LAWBREAKERS ARE QUICKLY IDENTIFIED, ARRESTED,
PROSECUTED, CONVICTED, AND SENTENCED. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING
THAT A NEW DIRECTION IS NECESSARY.

SO WHILE WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS IN THE AREA OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,
WE CLEARLY HAVE A WAY TO GO. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO
ADDRESS THIS VERY IMPORTANT REGIONAL AND NATIONAL CONCERN IN THE
MONTHS AHEAD.


40

019216 “MUN sreAQeuy eUILI MORE, weuTEdeG Eoqod URYREAHEMY ‘Sang HEC BURLEY

266) mm 966)

SOWUD [| Hdl SOWD | Hed

y\°

_.| 00001

orese ‘SE

onmn samme | sl

Le isnBny yGnosy; | Avenuer
UOSUBdWOD jseuly SIIUSANL 9 NPY

juewpedsag sd1|04g ueW|OdojEy;


120

16. Participating with the prosecutor in
conferences with other witnesses conducted at
the grand jury, trial or hearing preparation
stage which are investigatory in nature.

Questions arising from the use of the Investigative
CANS should be directed to the Director of the Court
Liaison Division.

E. Resolving Questions And Problems

Should MPD have any questions concerning a CANS
notice issued by an AUSA, MPD will timely notify the
AUSA's supervisor. The AUSA's supervisor will
investigate and report on the reasons for the CANS notice
to MPD. If the CANS procedures were violated, the AUSA's
supervisor will take the necessary steps to ensure
compliance, and take appropriate disciplinary action, if
warranted. | USAOQ supervisors should have frequent
discussions with MPD supervisory officials concerning the
compliance by AUSAs and by MPD members with the
procedures set out in this Agreement.

Should the USAO have any questions concerning a CANS
notice, a representative of the USAO will contact MPD in
a timely manner. MPD will investigate and report back to
the USAO.

IV. OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT

A. Operational Requirements Of The CANS System

The MPD will take all necessary actions to prevent
any failures of the CANS notification system. MPD will
continue to improve its current automated system to serve
CANS notices, including the following steps:

1. Promptly serve all unserved appearance CANS
notices that are delivered to the Court Liaison
Division including the implementation of procedures
to serve officers when they check out of the Court
Liaison Division Office with any unserved CANS
notices;

2. Promptly and accurately input and review

data regarding new CANS notices into the CANS
system;

an


19

> Infrastructure Redesign: Property Division
July 23, 1997

An infrastructure redesign blueprint for the Property Division that
contains recommendations to improve property control.

Performance Focused Management System (PFMS)
July 23, 1997

Currently, the MPD lacks an overall management system that
establishes performance targets and programs to manage overall
performance. The PFMS sets and gauges progress on agency
and individual performance.

. Citizen Complaint Process
September 19, 1997

A system for the independent review of citizen complaints
against police offices that is under the jurisdiction of the D.C.
Superior Court.

ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT EFFORT

While the information was being collected for the baseline report, we
recognized that we could not wait for its release before taking action, but
had to take immediate action to stop the rise in crime that was occurring in
our city. As a consequence, on March 7, 1997, the department initiated an
Enhanced Enforcement Effort that targeted specific areas of the city to
demonstrate and to reassure citizens that their personal safety and the
protection of their property was our foremost objective. By July, crime in
these targeted areas has been reduced by 24 percent and citizens feelings of
safety in their neighborhoods had begun to improve.

|, and the other members of my executive team, quickly recognized that the
success in crime reduction that was occurring in the targeted areas had to
be expanded to all areas of the city. What we have now done is to remake
the department so that the same level of high visibility, community
interaction and participation, dramatic reductions in crime, and the
elimination of fear are realities in every neighborhood in the city, not simply
in a handful of target areas.



14

Homicide is down 23 percent. It’s the lowest period of time since
1988. Robbery is down 26 percent; burglary down 25 percent; stolen
autos down 26 percent.

The numbers of arrests in the city, while crime has gone down
18 percent, has gone up by 26 percent.

This one piece I’ll go through. While I’m discussing crime, let me
take a moment to say a few words about the most outrageous crime
of all, homicide.

I am certain that the members of the committee have seen the
recent media reports about the changes I have made in the depart-
ment’s homicide branch. A number of management, supervisory
and process improvements are being made in response to many de-
ficiencies in those areas.

I am also establishing a working group, similar to the one used
for developing the department’s new operating model for patrol; to
develop a new operating model for all investigative functions, start-
ing with the homicide branch. My ultimate objective is to make the
homicide branch more responsive and accountable to the survivors,
families and friends of the homicide victims, and close more cases.

A significant contributing factor to the problems with the inves-
tigation and management of homicide investigations is the over-
time problem. On the average homicide investigators spend two-
thirds of their time performing post-arrest investigative and other
prosecuted-related activities for the U.S. attorney’s office. Most of
this time is outside an investigator’s regular tour of duty, a situa-
tion that mandates the payment of overtime, but not under the su-
pervision of the police department.

This prosecutorial investigative function is performed by most ju-
risdictions by investigators employed by the district attorney’s of-
fice, or other prosecuting agency at either the State or local level.
The District of Columbia, because of a unique jurisdictional status,
does not have either a local district attorney’s office or State inves-
tigative agency.

The burden of this additional investigative function falls on the
Metropolitan Police Department, at a point in most localities where
the arresting officers will be relieved of additional investigative
functions.

I am aware that the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Co-
lumbia is requesting an authorization and appropriation to hire 42
investigators to provide investigative support to its prosecutors. Ap-
proval of this request would relieve the department of providing
this type of support in many cases, and would result in a signifi-
cant reduction in overtime expenditures. I strongly urge this com-
mittee to support the U.S. attorney’s request.

Tl skip through some things. In closing, I want to emphasize
that the Metropolitan Police Department is well on the road to suc-
cess, performance has increased, and morale has greatly improved.
The transformation which is underway will result in a police de-
partment which all citizens can take pride in.

It has been a significant undertaking in what we've done the last
year. It’s been very difficult, difficult times, but I am convinced the
department will move forward and be better.

The prepared statement of Chief Soulsby follows:]


ot = eke oe
So Cove renonED EM conDnESS Sees:

i
t
i

Congress of the United States es

iH
/
if

Foapaat Bouse of Representatives Seca
aod ‘COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT a
ae 2187 Ravaume Hove Grree Bava ea
ise Wassanoron, OC 20615-6143 Ee

CHAIRMAN TOM DAVIS
OPENING STATEMENT
HEARING ON PUBLIC SAFETY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
‘SEPTEMBER 26, 1977

GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME, THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING OF THIS
SUBCOMMITTEE SINCE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED LANDMARK LEGISLATION THIS
SUMMER TO FUNDAMENTALLY RE-STRUCTURE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NATION'S CAPITAL.

WE CAN ALL TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE HISTORIC NEW
LAWS AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE ACHIEVED OUR GOALS.

WITH PATIENCE AND PERSEVERANCE, WORKING IN A TRULY BI-PARTISAN
WAY, WE SEIZED THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. JUST 2
DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THE CITY RECEIVED A
RARE POSITIVE SIGNAL FROM THE BOND MARKET, A KEY INDICATOR OF

CONFIDENCE IN THE ACTION TAKEN.


110

Ms. LEARY. I think there’s been—I mean, I’ve seen a lot of public-
ity about this particular statute, so I think the general public is
aware of it. And we have been meeting with city agencies to try
to educate them about it, and try to educate them about the kinds
of things that they need to do in order to make—to get referrals
over to our office.

Mr. Horn. Now is the senior U.S. attorney involved in this par-
ticular area, a male or a female?

Ms. Leary. Female.

Mr. Horn. OK. Well, usually I find females do pretty good col-
lecting, especially if they've been divorced and they didn’t get any
alimony, so I’m all for it.

Let me ask you on this. I'd like furnished for the record at this
point, how many people walk through the door, how many ref-
erences came from the appropriate department of the District of
Columbia, and how many cases were prosecuted, and what’s the re-
sult, if any, of that case being prosecuted?

Ms. LEARY. I can provide you with that information.

Mr. Horn. OK. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to have that
material put in the record at this point.

Mr. Davis. Without objection, so ordered.

(Note.—The information referred to can be found at the end of
the hearing.]

Mr. Horn. Now, I authored a loan collection bill 2 years ago, that
has delighted many people that are trying to chase dead beat dads,
and many people that just owe the State and/or the District of Co-
lumbia money, and have skedaddled. In other words, they could get
a loan on housing, and they’ve taken the money and run.

It was part of the omnibus Appropriations bill; it’s about 100
pages long. But the State officials, like the commissioner of revenue
in Massachusetts, said I’d made his day, because he collect millions
of dollars of alimony through that law, which one, means access to
the Federal tapes to get the address of where that person is now
employed, pa’ ing Social Security, whatever; and two, getting the
lien on that checking account. And I just wondered if you're taking
advantage of that Loan Improvement Act of 1996, or whenever it

was.

But I'd like to know at this point in the record, is that law being
used. It’s being used by States all over the United States, and this
is a unique jurisdiction, so in a sense, you’re the commissioner of
revenue when it comes to this case; unless the commissioner here
is doing it.

Do we know if D.C. has an operation like a State does, where
you’ve got a commissioner of revenue, and they worry about uncol-
lected taxes, uncollected alimony; anything owed to the institutions
of the State, and they get into alimony through the court system
being a State court system.

Ms. Leary. Well, I believe the District of Columbia has some
mechanisms for dealing with that, but I'd be happy to provide you
with some information, subsequent to the hearing.

Mr. Horn. OK. We'll put at this point in the record, Mr. Chair-
man, if you would.

Mr. Davis. No objection.


69

Mrs. MorRELLA. Would any of the information be shared with
Congress?

Chief SouLSBY. Yes.

Mrs. MORELLA. But it would be the same way.

Chief Soutssy. It would be shared with Congress, obviously.

What we're talking about is just clamping down on just the loose
talking of everything. And again, all this is, what was already in
our orders for the most part, but they weren’t enforced upon.

When you read 15 versions of what might have occurred at a
crime scene, and then you go pick up the case jacket, and none of
that’s in the case jacket, it makes no sense.

Mrs. Morz La. Is that OK with you, Dr. Mather and Mr. Stew-
art?

Mr. MATHER. I think that’s correct.

Mrs. MorELLA. You think it’s fine. Good. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NorTON. Just one more question. Mr. Chairman, you will of
course see us, you will see the Control Board, you will see citizens
pushing you further, but I think we ought to say for the record,
that what the police department did was a breath of fresh air in
a city which had no evidence of change before and after or anyplace
else. It was helping to drive people out of the city; that the mani-
fest evidence of change simply wasn’t there, and I’m sure there’s
all kinds of change going on.

But you focused on the right place. You focused on putting the
officers out in the streets, because the moment you put them out.
there, people from all—the press went out and said, “Have you
seen any, have you seen any?” And uniformly people say, yes, I see
more, and your crime began to go down.

Your priorities are really on straight, even though you will hear
criticism, and you will hear public officials like us pressing you. It’s
very professional what you’ve done; there’s a lot more to be done.
But people are working hard and producing some results that de-
serve to be told.

I agree with the chairman; this is money well spent. Because I
am convinced from the lack of change in the District Government,
that there is no internal capacity by the District Government to re-
form itself from top to bottom. If that were so then surely we would
have seen something now.

It may be because of buyouts and early retirements. It may be,
as I suspect, because in order to do the kind of wholesale reform
we need you need some kind of outside understanding of the state-
of-the-art, and that is why I will not complain about consultants
being brought in.

I agree with the chairman. That $3 million is very well spent,
when you consider the two-page story that the Washington Post
ran, in the middle of the negotiations, I might add, for the rescue
package; showing that, and documenting by dollar and cent that
there were hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted in the D.C.
government. Compare that to whatever we’re going to spend on
consultants.


24

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

The department is instituting a Performance-Focused Management System to
consolidate and focus organizational and individual performance standards
under a single, interrelated umbrella. The achievement of specific
department-wide goals will be reflected in the performance ratings of
individual members, especially for the ranks of captains and above.

The department's Performance Management System for the ranks of officer
through lieutenant concludes its pilot rating year on September 30, 1997.
The individual performance standards for the 1997-98 rating year have been
revised to reflect the performances requirements of the New Operating
Model and District Policing Strategy.

The ranks of captain through assistant chief are being added to the system
for the coming year. These ranks will be more focused on the achievement
of department and organizational element objectives, rather than the
traditional personal performance indicators.

CRIME & ARRESTS - JANUARY THROUGH SEPTEMBER

When looking at the preliminary crime and arrest statistics for the first nine
and one-half months of 1997, you will see that our efforts are having an
impact. Crime from January 1 through September 24, 1997, is down 18
percent city-wide when compared to the same time period in 1996. Each of
the department's seven patrol districts have achieved crime decreases, with
five of the seven districts having double-digit reductions.

Looking at individual crime categories for the same time period we find that:
. Crimes Against Persons were down 16 percent.
» Crimes Against Property were reduced 18 percent.
> Homicide was down 23 percent. The homicide total through

the end of August was the lowest number for the first eight
months of any calendar year since 1988.

10


10

respect and trust within the community. The new mission state-
ment is carried by all sworn members and civilian members as a
small pocket card to remind them of the department’s primary ob-
jective in serving the community.

The Metropolitan Police Department has embarked on a com-
prehensive transformation of its organization and operations; the
outcome of which is the development and implementation of imme-
diate and long-term organizational and strategic improvements to
meet the goals of eliminating crime and disorder, reducing fear of
crime in this city, and establishing respect and trust within the
community.

The nationally known and respected management consulting
firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., was retained to conduct a
comprehensive management study of the department. Many of the
initiatives which I speak about today are a result of close working
relationships between my executive leadership team, Booz-Allen &
Hamilton, and the rank and file members of the department, and
are based on the findings which resulted in the Baseline Report:
Crime Fighting Efforts in the District of Columbia, that was re-
leased on April 3, 1997.

The following reports are examples of major issues addressed by
the study and subsequent studies. All of them, individually and cu-
mulatively, are having a significant and positive impact on the de-
partment’s operations.

Policing 2000 Investment Strategy is a comprehensive list of ma-
terial needs that the department will need in our efforts to fight
crime and disorder in the city.

The new MPD District model, dated April 28, 1997, is a new op-
erating model that coordinates and deploys all available resources
on the beat. The model is built upon the principle that members
must accept responsibility for eliminating crime and disorder in the
community.

The information and technologies piece, dated May 13, 1997, is
the Metropolitan Police Department’s information infrastructure
needs to support the department’s new operating model, and the
increased needs caused by the new policing strategy.

The District Beat and Boundary Restructuring, dated June 3,
1997; the key to effective problem solving approach to crime and
order maintenance is to ensure that officers have the time to de-
velop and implement solutions to problems in their communities.
To this end, patrol districts and PSA boundaries were realigned to
provide equal workload across the city.

The new policing strategy, dated July 3, 1997; to move the de-
partment away from the traditional style of policing a new operat-
ing model has been developed. The new operating model introduces
problem solving as the basis to address community problems and
concerns, while providing the sense of ownership necessary to af-
fect cultural changes within the department.

The Fleet Management Baseline Analysis and Blueprint, dated
July 15, 1997, is a report that contains recommendations to en-
hance managerial controls and approved maintenance performance.
It is estimated that recommended improvements will take up to 6
months to fully implement.


g

1

“L661 ‘€1 Ain Uo papua aANENTU! STL “soua[OIA puw autLIO Jo saves IaystY ain peouaLiedxe rey Ai10
‘at JO seaze UaAas OW! jouUOsIad Wioms OOP peAojdapar rei UOyyy JWaWaoIOJUq pooueyU” ayy payentuy

“sula[qoid soueusjureul Jopi0 pur
auILIO 0} yoeosdde soues2]0) OFez & PaYst|qeise ‘aANBNTU] WausorOJUg peoueyuY mp WIM voNUN[UOD UT

“quounsedaq so10g uenjodonayy ayy Jo} JUaWI}EIg UOISSI, MOU B Payst[qeisy,

*91]0d JO

JOY 9tp JO 04JO amp sJomodwa rey usunsedaq ao1jog weMjodonayW ap 40} JoWEYD Mou e padojensq
“Cd atp ut soBueys qwoursjduny

0} Aressacau Aquoupne yWeulesnsoid pue ‘aBpnq ‘[auuosiad ayp ao1J0g JO JoryD at 01 UoNeBajap eIOAEW,

‘a0l[og JO SJalyD auestssy payutodde Ajmou aenp Jo dn opeus urea) woweSeueW mou e perioddy

L661 “1 3290190,
pauado aq 0) UoNeIs-qng “IOLNSIG WXIS stp 10} UOHEIS-qns B Surysi{qeisa Jo ssaoid ayy ueseg

ssuoneoytenb
gof 120ur 0} ainjrey Jo} payeurULIA a19M 19Bpng pue soUKUTY Jo 994JO oy Jo SoaAojdusa UeIPIALD UDASTY

“suonesedo pue uoyeztuedio
dW JO MaIAal SAISUaIXa Ue JONPUCD O} PoUlEIO! sem UOITWEH 7% Us|[Y-Zoog Jo WU ZuNjNsUCD ey,

(ssoued NOW ) “FIquINJOD Jo OLNSIC| atp BuLsey

sistio Ajayes a1jqnd ay ssarppe 0} diyssoured anbrun e ayeou9 01 Aon souRIsIssy wsWaSeULy
pue Autpiqisuodsay etoueul arp pue ‘eiquinjoD Jo 191NSIG auf 10} Asusony “S*7) ap ‘HoUNOD
uonesodio; atp ‘unoD so1edng amp jo a8pny JoryD amp “ound AND ap “soAeW ay YIM Poulos

L6-LO-£0
16-10-€0

L6-10-€0

16-97-20
16-97-20

L6-¥7-10

96-82-71

96-61-21


98

In addition to a substantial reduction in the crime rate, much that is good has been
happening. For example, a little more than a year ago, the U.S. Attorney's Office, in close
coordination with the Police Department, embarked on a pilot project in the Fifth Police
District called Community Prosecution. This project reflects the wave of the future of
successful law enforcement across the entire country by uniting police, prosecutors and
citizens in a cooperative effort to rid our communities of both crime and public nuisances
which can make life dangerous, difficult and, at the very least, unpleasant.

We have created within our office an entirely new section of experienced Assistant
U.S. Attorneys whose mission is to attack and prevent crime in the Fifth District. By
becoming very familiar with the problems in each neighborhood and by working closely
with the officers, community groups, and citizens who live and work there, these
prosecutors are able to devise strategies to use the criminal justice system and related
government regulatory agencies to rid the Fifth District neighborhoods of the many
problems of troubled neighborhoods. This effort often involves focusing not only on
violent crime but also on quality-of-life offenses which can make a neighborhood both feel
and be unsafe. We have learned that these low-level offenses, previously thought to be
“minor” and unimportant, are, in fact, harbingers of the kind of social decay that leads not
only to dangerous, violent crimes but also to a substantial deterioration in the quality of life
in affected neighborhoods, ultimately causing residents and businesses to leave the area,
which, in turn, may lead to the decline of a neighborhood. When criminals see an area that
appears lawless because of neglected, abandoned buildings and automobiles with trash,
weeds and debris everywhere, they are often emboldened to commit crimes. Conversely,


91

¢ eunBiy

uojauedngm



11

Identification and Records Division Baseline and Blueprint,
dated July 21st, contains records management improvements that
are available, and should be completed within 6 months.

The Infrastructure Redesign of the Property Division, dated July
23. It contains recommendations to improve the property control
system.

The Performance Focus Management System, dated July 23.
Currently the Metropolitan Police Department lacks an overall
management system that establishes performance targets and pro-
grams to manage the overall performance. The PFMS system sets
and engages progress on agency and individual performance.

The Citizens Complaint Process, dated September 19. A system
for the independent review of citizen complaints against police offi-
cers that is under the jurisdiction of D.C. Superior Court.

While the information was being collected for the Baseline Re-
port, we recognized that we could not wait for its release before
taking actions, but had to take immediate steps to stop the rise of
crime that was occurring in this city.

As a consequence, on March 7, 1997, the department instituted
an enhanced enforcement effort that targets specific areas of the
city to demonstrate and to reassure the citizens of their personal
safety and the protection of their property was our foremost objec-
tive.

By July crime in these areas had been reduced to 24 percent, and
the citizens’ feeling of safety in their neighborhoods had begun to
improve. I and the other members of my executive team quickly
recognized that the success and the crime reduction that had oc-
curred in the targeted areas had to be expanded into all areas of
the city.

What we have now done is to remake the department so that the
same level of high visibility, community interaction participation,
dramatic reduction in crime, and the elimination of fears are reali-
ties in every neighborhood of the city, not simply in a handful tar-
get areas.

On July 1, 1997, a new operating model was implemented for the
Metropolitan Police Department. The new operating model itself is
the work of a team made up of 20 experienced and dedicated,
sworn and civilian department employees, representing field and
support organizational elements throughout the department.

ey worked closely for over several weeks with Booz-Allen &
Hamilton’s project team to develop a new community-oriented phi-
losophy for delivering services to the residents of the District of Co-
lumbia. They surveyed their colleagues in the field for ideas, which
they then brainstormed and analyzed to develop a new operating
model and a District policing strategy.

Men and women on the front lines of policing in the District were
able to combine their knowledge and expertise and common sense
on how the department organizes and deploys its resources. The

lan transforms police patrol in the District, lays the groundwork
for productive and sustained citizen-police cooperation. It estab-
lishes accountability to neighborhoods for reducing fear, crime and
disorder.

Our new operating model realigns patrol district boundaries, and
divides the city into 83 police service areas. Each PSA is served by


oT

‘Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

It is a pleasure to be here today to testify on behalf of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the District of Columbia and to have this opportunity to address the efforts we are making to
improve public safety in the District of Columbia.

I would like to begin by emphasizing one key point: According to the latest police
department statistics, violent crime on the streets of our Nation's Capital, though still much
too high, is clearly decreasing. Today, we are safer in our homes and places of work than
we were just one year ago. For example, the murder rate alone has dropped 24 percent.
‘The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), despite a number of serious, continuing
challenges, is an organization that appears to be on the mend. We are making real
Progress.

I believe the most important factor which has resulted in this progress, and which
will be critical in bringing about continued improvement, is the vital spirit of cooperation
and commitment to change we have witnessed among the members of our local working
group which has come to be called M.O.U. Partners. This group, which includes
representatives of the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
the City Executive and City Council, the Corporation Counsel, the Superior Court, the
Police Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, meets every two weeks and has forged a
solid and productive working relationship focused on reducing crime by improving law
‘enforcement. We are all determined to do everything in our power to continue to make our
Nation’s Capital a much safer place. Even more importantly, we are laying a solid
foundation of cooperation among all members of the criminal justice system so that in the
future we will be able to continue to work together to address critical community needs.


102

At least two or three times a year, the USAO provides training for firearms
examiners within the MPD Firearms Units. During this training, AUSAs act as prosecutors,
defense counsel and judges during a moot court session. After the session, supervisors from
the Firearms Unit and the participating AUSAs critique the furure examiners and discuss
issues relating to testifying in court. The USAO has also provided training for firearms
instructors five times since 1993. This training is available to firearms instructors at MPD.
The most recent firearms instructor training was held on September 8-19, 1997.

At least once and sometimes twice a month, AUSAs provide in-service training to
MPD on testimonial issues, including testifying on direct and cross-examination and an
officer's obligations under the Jencks Act.

Currently, AUSAs are participating in an on-going training program for officers who
will be members of the 82 Police Service Areas (PSA). We are focusing on our commitment
to the PSA concept as well as specific issues concerning community policing and
prosecution.

The USAO has offered specialized courses for law enforcement in a number of areas.
For example, in addition to specialized training for homicide investigators, we have provided
specialized training to sex offense, domestic violence and youth division investigators. In
1995, sex offense investigators from MPD attended a two-week training program conducted
by the USAO. Most recently, MPD officers attended a three-day seminar on physical child
abuse and received specialized training on interviewing child victims from the USAO’s Child
Interview Specialist.

In addition to our current training programs, the USAO is developing additional
programs for MPD; for example, a program on Constitutional law issues for police officer
instructors at the Academy. We are also looking forward to participating in the creation and
review of computer-training programs that are being developed by MPD. These programs
will be available to officers to use on their own schedules and will address a wide array of
law enforcement topics, including advice on how best to testify in court, In October of
1997, the USAO in conjunction with the United States Secret Service and Bell Atlantic
NYNEX is planning a seminar on cellular telephone technology. This seminar will address
both the prosecution of cases involving cellular telephone fraud, as well as the use of cellular
technologies by law enforcement investigators.

In partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Attomey’s
Office has provided training for MPD officers beginning with their days as recruits at the
Police Training Academy through their service in specialized units within the police force.
‘Whether it be on “the basics" of police investigations or the use of the newest technologies in
solving crimes, the USAO remains committed to providing training for MPD officers.


118

supervisor's approval. The circumstances
under which such a request would ordinarily
be approved include the following:

(a). in the days immediately
following the defendant's arrest,
the officers are essential for grand
jury witness conferences;

(b) a witness has been located on
short notice

(c) a prosecutor's schedule has
changed due to circumstances such as
a trial date continuance or a guilty
plea;

(a) the officer is needed for
preparation of motions hearing
testimony; or,

(e) the officer is needed to
complete a witness conference
terminated because of unforeseen
events such as the unavailability of
a grand jury or the witness!
assertion of a privilege; or

5. git appearance requested by the esergency
CANS notice is the result of the offi
failure to appear on a date for which a timely
CANS notice was submitted to MPD, a copy of
which should be attached. Under these
circumstances, if the prosecutor wishes to
file an emergency CANS notice, he or she must
do so within 10 days of the officer's initial
failure to appear.

D. Use Of Investigative CANS

If a prosecutor needs to obtain documents of any
kind (including notes of police officers), to have
subpoenas served or a telephone call returned, or to have
any other investigative work performed, the prosecutor
must use an Investigative CANS form to notify the officer
and the officer's supervisory officials. All officers
performing investigative functions 1 through 15 below
must be notified by an Investigative CANS. Only Primary
and Secondary Case Officers may be notified by means of


65

is set up systemically for problems. And a lot of individuals would
basically run to daylight in a situation like that, and say, look,
there’s money to be made here. And whether they would be prone
to abuse—some would be prone to abuse, and some thinks they’re
doing the right thing.

But I mean systemically this is not a good situation. 1 mean you
should not ever have that kind of a structure.

Chief SouLsBy. You had a choice of doing two jobs, one you get
straight time, the other you get time and a half, which one would
you choose, right?

Ms. NorRTON. Would the gentleman yield a moment?

Mr. Davis. I'd be happy to.

Ms. Norton. And if you got a choice from here—now that you’ve
dealt with the front-line problems and most urgent problems, if you
got a choice of going at something that’s costing us this much out
of taxpayers’ pockets, and something that doesn’t cost us this
much, I hope you will choose the one that cost us this much. I
mean, this is a lot of money that the District doesn’t have.

Mr. MATHER. We're going at it.

And the worse is, these aren’t the guys on the street that we’re
talking about in this case. This isn’t time on the street, and the clo-
sure rate was going down, while the overtime was going up.

Chief SoutsBy. Again, the overtime they were using was on
closed cases for the most part; cases that are already closed.

Mr. MATHER. This is a big time problem, and we’re on it.

Mr. Davis. Gary, let me ask you——

Ms. Norton. Well, I—.

Mr. Davis. Sure, I’d be happy to.

Ms. Norton. When he says close, does he mean solved?

Mr. Davis. Solved, yes.

Ms. Norton. Well, why would anybody be working on solved?

Chief SouusBy. As I said in my testimony, the end of my testi-
mony, once you solve a case; you make an arrest, it goes to court,
the U.S. attorney does not have investigators. In their 1998 budget
they’re asking for 42.

Since they don’t have investigators, they CANS our homicide and
other investigators over to their office, and they sit in there and
check up on little details of the case. In other words, get it ready;
be the assistant to get ready and go to trial.

So two-thirds of their time—of all their time—if you had regular
duties and other, two-thirds of their time they spend over there,
not being supervised, or totally supervised there——

Mr. Davis. That’s time away from solving a case.

Chief Souussy. Absolutely.

Mr. Davis. We'll hear from the U.S. attorney.

Ms. Norton. That ought to come right out of the U.S. attorney's
budget, because the U.S. attorney would be a lot more careful in
spending that money if it came out of its budget. And I want the
U.S. attorney to hear this, because I’m going oppose your 42 inves-
tigators, if you don’t start using those investigators out of your own
budget, and stop taking it out of the police department where we
will need them in our neighborhoods.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this. Let’s charge them for it.

Mr. Davis. All right.


71

nology architecture to map against this new operating model, be-
cause the current technology doesn’t map against it.

There’s a whole bunch of stuff to do, and I think our job is to
pick the right sequence, and just get these things in play, and react
to what the chief would like to do, and so on, and it will happen.
I think we've turned the corner.

Mr. STEWART. It is not quite done. I want to be sure that every-
body doesn’t declare victory, because we are not there. We have the
right indicators.

One of the things that you asked about is, how do you know
you're on the right track. Well, homicides are now being solved in
the PSAs, in the districts, by investigators that have been deployed
out in the field in the new model. They have a closure rate out
there in some of those places, as high as 60 and 70 percent. That
is a tremendous trend; that is extraordinarily good news. And they
are moving ahead, and the enthusiasm is there. And there has
been a lot of cynicism on this department, and in the media, and
in the community, that nothing could be done, except they've just
added more officers and more money.

We've been able to show that with a better strategy, with a man-
agement team in place, and with accountability, that you can make
a difference, and a significant difference.

Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, may I ask it for the record. The part
of the tardiness in getting to management at all, Mr. Chairman, I
think is because neither the Control Board nor the city laid out in
advance what its goals were for a given period or a given fiscal

year.

May I ask that Chief Soulsby, with the help perhaps of Booz-
Allen, submit for the record what the geal of the department are
for achievement during the fiscal year that begins October Ist.

Chief SouLsBy. We're in the process of developing that. We've al-
ready discussed it with MOU partners, and we're trying to come up
with those things. But I'll certainly get them to you very shortly.

Mr. Davis. Thank you, we'll make it part of the record.

Let me just say that for our money here we’re not just buying
just a study or a report, but_we’re buying implementation. That’s
what makes this so much different from some of the things we’ve
done in the past. The key indication here is that crime is down,
and yet the number of arrests are up.

We have some tangible evidence that it’s working. We're a long
way from where we want to go and need to go, but we're going in
the Tight direction. We just want to say, thank you. Keep it up.
We'll have you back here periodically for reports, and when you
need resources, we hope you won't hesitate to call, but thank you
very much.

Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Now, I'd like to call our next panel to testify, which
will consist of Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton of the District of Co-
lumbia Superior Court; and Ms. Mary Lou Leary, the acting U.S.
attorney. We appreciate you all being here, and sitting through the
previous testimony.

As you know it’s the policy of the committee that all witnesses
be sworn before they testify, and you can just stay seated and raise
your right hand.


16

Charter of the
Metropolitan Police Department

‘The Charter for the office of the Chief of Police, of the Metropolitan Police
Department of the District of Columbia, is to develop and execute effective strategies
that prevent and reduce crime, disorder, fear of crime, and improve the quality of
life for all citizens in the District of Columbia. This will be accomplished in
partnership with the community, and other appropriate government agencies, and
in accordance with constitutional values and applicable laws. The Chief of Police
will serve as the Chief Execative Officer of the department; as such, the Chief is
responsible for establishing professional standards that maintain a higher level of
integrity and ethical conduct that is generally accepted of others, and will be
responsible and accountable for all activities invotving the Metropolitan Police
Department. All operations of the department, including planning, organizing,
staffing, coordinating, directing, reporting, and budgeting of department and related
community resources, will be oriented toward serving the needs of a diverse
community, as well as the federal interests associated with Washington's unique role
as the Nation’s Capital.

NEW DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT

Once the Metropolitan Police Department’s new Charter had been
established it was used as the foundation for the development of a new
department mission statement, one which is a simple, clear, straightforward
description of the department’s mission. A mission statement that serves as
the guiding principle upon which all future actions must be based.

Mission of the
Metropolitan Police Department

‘The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to eliminate crime, fear of crime,
and general disorder, while establishing respect and trust within the community.



99

when a neighborhood is well maintained and police are vigilant in arresting those
committing offenses involving public disorder, before the problems get out of hand, all
levels of criminal activity decrease.

By all accounts, our cooperative effort has been quite successful and is expected to
complement the recent reorganization of the police department into Police Service Areas,
thus bringing police and prosecutors together with residents to prevent crime and restore
peace to troubled neighborhoods in every part of the city. It appears to us that the law
enforcement strategy of attacking not only violent crime, but quality-of-life offenses,
actually works. Neighborhoods not only look and feel safer; they are safer.

Because we believe strongly that we should expand our community prosecution effort
citywide in conjunction with the police department’s reorganization into a community
policing structure, I should mention that the President's budget request for additional
prosecutors and support staff, which would enable our office to implement this critically-
needed approach on a citywide basis in every police district, is currently pending before
Congress; and we are very hopeful that it will be fully funded. In addition, the President
has requested that the Superior Court Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office be permitted to
hire its own investigators to work closely with MPD homicide investigators to assist them in
their work by assuming the responsibilities typically handled by investigators in local
prosecutor's offices.

However, as much as we have accomplished by rolling up our sleeves and
working together, a great deal remains to be done to make the Metropolitan Police
Department as good as it should be. Chief Larry Soulsby’s recent removal of the entire


21

The PSA sergeant is required to develop a thorough knowledge of the area,
and will soon be equipped with a beeper whose number will be provided to
residents and business people in the PSA. Within reason and in non-
emergency situations, citizens can page their PSA sergeant to seek or
provide information, volunteer for neighborhood anti-crime projects, or
register concerns.

The PSA structure is designed to serve several purposes: to establish and
fain a closer alliance with the community to reduce crime and the fear
of crime; to provide each neighborhood with a clear channel for input into
PSA plans and operations; and, to greatly enhance police ability to obtain the
community's support, time, and energy in achieving common objectives.

PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH

Accompanying the reorganization of patrol is the application of a new
strategic problem-solving approach to drugs, guns, gangs, and disorder,
those factors that lead to cycles of serious crime and disruption in

. The problem-solving approach is responsible for many of the
‘success stories in other cities that you may have heard about.
Problem-solving operates by (1) identifying the underlying cause of a cluster
of criminal incidents; (2) deter ing the best plan to eliminate or neutralize
the cause; (3) putting the plan into action; and (4) making certain it is
working. It is aimed at the sources of chronic crime and disorder, whether
they be homicides, neighborhood drug markets, street corner prostitution, or
garbage clogged alleys that suggest no one cares about conditions in a
neighborhood.

The new approach means that the MPD no tonger will spend all its patrol
time responding to 911 calls and reacting after the fact to criminal incidents.
With the significantly increased number of officers on the streets, the PSA
teams will have the time and training to attack neighborhood crime and
disorder through planning, analysis, and skillful application of the best police
practices developed throughout the nation.

Problem-solving encourages officers to use a variety of methods, not just
arrests, to solve problems. These methods include using civil laws to control
public nuisances, offensive behavior, and conditions contributing to crime;
attaching new conditions to parole and probation; issuing citations in lieu of

7


50

Working side-by-side with teams of select officers and civilians
revamping MPD's patrol and investigations is just one example of the
tested methods we use to produce permanent, improved processes.

This method creates disciples who sow enthusiasm for productive
new models.

The process of change can be painstaking and long term. But as
we apply a variety of proven approaches, needed vital changes will take
hold in MPD.

‘When we began our work last winter, we found a basic disconnect
in the department between how resources were used and what the public
expected from the MPD.

The department was absorbed in responding to calls for service,
pursuing and arresting suspects after crimes occurred, writing reports and
gathering data, and providing testimony in court. The MPD reacted to
crime rather than confronting it.

Meanwhile, the city's residents and the business community
wanted the department to anticipate, prevent, and combat crime -- to be
actively deployed against crime.

Our first advice was for the department to adopt a new mission that
reflected the needs of the District of Columbia and not the inertial course
the MPD was on.

The mission the department embraced early this year has been the
lodestar for all parties working to transform the department. | will read it:

The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to
eliminate crime, fear of crime, and general disorder while
establishing respect and trust within the community.

To help the department fulfill this mission, Booz-Allen & Hamilton
embarked on several major projects that are designed to make
permanent, structural changes in the MPD.

Development of the projects was prompted by what was
discovered in our baseline review of the department.

One of the review's most important findings was that only about 16
percent of the department's sworn officers were available for uniformed
patrol.


95

and we are all gratified by that particular result. We're safer in our
homes, we're safer in our places of work than we were just a year
ago. Homicide rate is down; all violent crime is down. And we hope
and believe that along with that the fear of crime is dissipating,
and that the Nation’s Capital is becoming a more desirable, more
comfortable place for people to live.

I really do believe that one of the most important factors in this
progress that we’ve made has been the unprecedented level of co-
operation that we’ve seen through the MOU partnership, and
you’ve heard about the membership of that particular group, which
includes the Control Board, the U.S. attorney’s office, the court,
Corporation Counsel, and others.

That group has come together; we meet very often, and we've
really forged a very productive working relationship, looking at the
problems of crime and the criminal justice system in the District
of Columbia. And I would like to stress, the emphasis has been on
looking at the Metropolitan Police Department through the Booz-
Allen review, but I think—I believe that one of the other great ben-
efits of the MOU partnership is that we are coming together for the
first time to look at a system as a whole, and everyone of the MOU
partners is doing what he or she can with his or her particular
agency to improve the overall picture, and we all have a respon-
sibility for that.

We are laying the foundation for a group that could continue to
work, and for a cooperative spirit, for people to come together on
these criminal justice issues over the course of the coming years.
The U.S. attorney’s office is very happy to be a part of that project.

I can tell you about some of the things that we have done as
MOU partners, or some of the initiatives that we’ve undertaken
that potually work hand in glove with the goals of the MOU part-
nership.

I think one of the most significant initiatives of the U.S. attor-
ney’s office in the last year, works absolutely hand in glove with
the reorganization of MPD along these police service area lines,
and that is our pilot project in the 5th District of the Metropolitan
Police Department. And it’s called Community Prosecution Pilot.

We've taken a team of 19 very experienced prosecutors, and we
have devoted those prosecutors to the prosecution of crime in one
particular geographic area, defined by MPD’s 5D borders.

You’ve heard the phrase, geogra ic accountability, when Chief
Soulsby testified. We are working along the exact same lines. Those
prosecutors have forged new relationships in the community in the
5th District. They go to community meetings, they go to the
schools, they meet with the police officers, they show up at roll call
and provide specialized training for issues that they see arising in

We have two prosecutors who are dedicated to community work;
they don’t carry case loads. They screen and process the intake of
cases just in that district, and they are based in 5D; not downtown
in our office, but out in the neighborhood, where they meet with
citizens, where they are available to the police to provide consulta-
tion where they work as coordinators with other D.C. government
agencies, to address, not just the prosecution of violent crime, but
the kinds of quality of life issues that I think we all have become


“SaplOlWOY JO/PUL SUILID JUSJOIA JO
saourisu isoydiy oup aney reUp Arto ayy noyBnoMN seary SsdIAIag sotJog sNOLEA oF GOS Jo soyouesg |[e
woyy jauuosied sXojdap yoy uoIstaiq suonesedy jetsedg oyp urypim uresZoud josyed ouitto & payentuy

“spuny 10W SdOD pue uoNetdordde jeuoissaxBuo9 uoN|U
SI 2M Aq papiaosd Surpuny “sojoryoa aoyod ul UoNeITEISU! 10} parepso sJayndwoD IEC eI!GOW LLT

“SYJUOUI XIS IXOU UT a[qeAsTyoe are JeY SJUaWsAOIduN! JUoWIaZeURWL
spiooal sureiuo) “juLideng pue uljaseg UOIsIAIq splooey pue UOREOYRUaP] aI pedojeasq

“ques jesopey & Aq popraoid
SANENIUL Sp Joy Burpuny “VOISIAIC] SUOTTESNSOAUT [PUIUILID ap pue ‘UoIsIAI suoTTDTUNUTOD ‘COS
‘siounsip jomed ayy ye uTUTeIL, ail][91eg DUaIOILA ONsauog |[eISUt 01 paseyoind azemyos pue sraindwod

“quowrajdunt 01 suour x1s 0} dn oye) [[IM stuswoAoduT
poepusuruosal 1etp pareuNsa si 1] “eoueULOJJed soueUMULEUI oACIduy! pue sfoNUOD JUsWasEUEW aoUEqUS
0} Suotepuaumuooal surejuo yoday “wudan|g pur siskeuy ouljaseg jUoWaTeURW 1991.4 aI) Pedojaneq

-uonetdosdde

[euorssaxBu09 vor ¢T¢ ayp Aq paptaosd Burpuny *sa[o49 Joow uosplaeq ape ZI JO AJOAIep

300, L6-01-LO uoneridosdde peuorssoxBu0o vor S{$ amp Aq pepiaosd Surpuny -warsXg sousd jou]
[eUIWTID eazy UOISUIYse A S,JUaUNIEdap am 01 ss205e 10} aJeMIOS parejar pue ‘siajUTId Jase] ‘slsinduroo
doy dey yo aseyoind ayy 10} uoNe10dI0> [esauaD eeq OY 03 pamIWns sem Japso aseyoind ayL,

“UOISIAIG.

sooialag Aplurey pue yINo A o1p Jo} areMYOS BUPFORN aseo ITU Uosrag Susi PaInyNIsu! pue paseyosng
“suonoipsiinf Suipunons jo Aed aesoae ay) 03 Jasojo hed

s,Joquiaul pareaaja astes Aed siyy, “Jauuosied wioms {Je 40} payynsur sem aster Aed % QT WnTey Pood ¥

L6-77-L0

L6-12-L0

L6-1Z-L0

16-12-40

L6-SI-LO

L6-S1-L0

L6-ST-LO

16-90-L0


17

The new mission statement is carried by all sworn and civilian members on a
small pocket card to remind them of the department's primary objectives in
serving the community.

BASELINE REPORT

The Metropolitan Police Department has embarked on a comprehensive
transformation of its organization and operations. The outcome of which is
the development and implementation of immediate and long-term
organizational and strategic improvements to meet the goals of eliminating
crime and disorder, reducing the fear of crime in the District of Columbia,
and establishing respect and trust within the community.

The nationally known and respected management consulting firm of
BoozeAllen & Hamilton, Inc., was retained to conduct a comprehensive
management study of the department. Many of the initiatives of which |
speak about today are the result of a close working collaboration between
my executive leadership team, Booz*Allen & Hamilton, and rank and file
members of the department and are based upon the findings that were
presented in the Baseline Report: Crime Fighting Efforts in the District of
Columbia that was released on April 3, 1997.

The following reports are examples of the major issues addressed by the
study. All of them, individually and cumulatively, are having a significant,
Positive impact on department operations.

+ Policing 2000 Investment Strategy
March 21, 1997

A comprehensive list of material needs that have been forwarded
to the Office of Management and Budget to support the
department in its efforts to fight crime and disorder in the city.

io The New MPD District Model
April 28, 1997

A new operating model that coordinates and deploys all available
resources on the beat. The model is built upon the principle that
members must accept responsibility for the elimination of crime
and disorder in their community.

3


61

within the last 6 months; totally rebuilt it. And we’re trying to
straighten our act up from the inside.

We've got to correct, and have our employees do the right thing.
Our supervisors supervise and managers manage. And a great big
part of that then is, once we are capable of performing, then we
Must reach out to every single citizen, no matter orange hat or
whatever, and work with them closely. But we do walk with orange
hats; we do work with them a lot. But we need to do more.

Mrs. MORELLA. My time has expired. At another time Id like to
talk to you more about that other part, the HIPS group, and what’s
being done.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mrs. Morella. Now, I'll recognize the
ranking member, Ms. Norton.

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you a ques-
tion, and let me tell you why I ask it.

The question is, what took you so long to discover the problems
of the homicide division? The reason I ask it is because the public
sees you in a total reform mode, not in a discover the problem
mode.

This problem is so clear with the overtime, so completely off the
charts, it’s difficult to see how it could have been missed, so I want
to know why it wasn’t discovered at the same time that you discov-
ered all the other problems. And I want to know if there are any
other surprises out there like this.

Chief SouLssy. First of all the numbers reported in the media
the other day, where they said the homicide branch had used $6
million of overtime, which was one-third. That was incorrect. The
Freedom of Information request that they received showed that
there was gross moneys paid at $6 million. The overtime money
was $2.5 or $2.4 million.

What we've done here as we said back when we started, is we
went to the patrol first, because that’s where you prevent crime,
and then we're going through every single division of this depart-
ment, reviewing and trying to eliminate—whatever it is, to put peo-
ple on the street.

What we had here, is in the past year we heard that we needed
more manpower. Within the last year we've added 20 detectives to
the homicide branch. We talked about we needed vehicles; they got
more vehicles. We had supervision, but when you get down to the
bottom line, it was a matter of employees at the first level not
doing some things they should be doing; supervisors, worked right
above them, not correcting them or supervised them, also making
as much or more overtime than they were; the first two levels of
management over top of them also not doing any corrective—no ad-
verse actions, no corrective actions.

So if you have three layers of supervision over employees who
don’t correct and don’t tell you what’s going on, it’s very difficult
to know everything in every area.

Ms. Norton. Well, Chief, I think you’re right, and I think you
did the right thing by not just going to the officers, going to the
management as well, because if you can’t depend on your manage-
ment, you're lost.


the United states At "@ Office wilt ide a bi
4 Diste! jun tina
allow the ice
wit Stical needs.
Provided the resources, by the percentage of arrested violators

of 1
y of Anvest: cS
" an
We will measure cur esccess, if

i sttls 4 i i
H sft: 3
et
j Wie 3 phi Hi
afl] Fatt
Hata 1 jbl
rh Het 4 it ay
cee
GuBE sea
u ude ; is nie F
vie alge
Pall ele Ei
ae
Litas & bt ii
oe
WT. 2 sscesces
Hy


114

3

investigate cases by providing MPD management the opportunity to become involved in the
process. The Memorandum of Understanding (copy attached) we entered into with MPD
would allow MPD officials to assign the work requested by prosecutors and would
encourage them to take responsibility for ensuring that the work was done properly, with as
Tittle reliance on overtime as possible. Unfortunately, because of delays in installing the
necessary computer system (TACIS), that M.O.U. has yet to be implemented and the
problem persists. However, through our M.O.U. Partners we are attempting to bring TACIS
on line as quickly as possible, but estimates for completion are for early next year.

Questions from Congressman Steve Horn

Congressman Hom asked about our role in collecting child support, including the
number of cases referred to our Office by the District of Columbia child support office, the
number of people who have walked through our door seeking our assistance, the number of
cases prosecuted and the results. He also asked whether we are using the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 to do these cases.

‘Two cases have been referred to this Office for Federal prosecution by the District of
Columbia Office of Patemity and Child Support Enforcement (OPCSE), one in March and
another in April, 1996, Both matters were declined, one because of an invalid child support
order and the other because the non-custodial parent did not have the ability to pay the
obligation.

Our *walk-ins* to date number two, Both were referrals from private counsel. The
first was successfully prosecuted in Federal court in July 1997 resulting in a conviction and
payment of restitution in the amount of $21,000, The second was just recently referred and
is being reviewed by our Office.

‘The District of Columbia Office of Patemity and Child Support Enforcement has been
closely scrutinized recently due to concerns about mismanagement and an overwhelming
caseload, currently estimated at 93,000. Privatization of OPCSE is under consideration. In
recognition of these problems, the U.S. Attomey’s Office has adopted a proactive approach
to generate Federal referrals. In a series of meetings this summer with the Family Services
Division of the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel, and the United States Department of
Health and Human Services Inspector General's Office, a Memorandum of Understanding
was developed. The Office of Corporation Counsel, which is charged with enforcing child
support orders in the District of Columbia, will screen its pending cases, prepare referral
packages with the investigative aid of H.H.S. Inspector General agents, then forward
‘appropriate cases to this Office for Federal prosecution. Cases meeting our intake criteria
will be investigated and prepared for filing and trial, again with the assistance of H.H.S.
Inspector General agents. The Office of Corporation Counsel has agreed to provide


116

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON
THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF THE
OFFICER COURT APPEARANCE SYSTEM

I. PURPOSE

The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and
the Chief ofthe Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia, as signatories for the agencies which are parties to this
Memorandum of Understanding, are committed to the identification
and prosecution of all persons who commit crimes in the District of
Columbia.

We recognize the current financial difficulties facing the
District of Columbia and the need to make the investigation and
prosecution of crime as thorough, fair and efficient as possible,
as well as to minimize police overtine costs.

Recognizing our shared commitment to these goals, we hereby
agree to the Principles and Rules outlined below to be followed for
reducing the number of officers necessary to prosecute a given case
and for expeditiously and efficiently notifying and supervising
those officers who are necessary for further investigative work and
court appearances.

II. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

It_is the policy of the U. S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) that prosecutors and police
officials must work together, using the command structure of the
Metropolitan Police Department, to ensure that all necessary case
Preparation, including testimony before the grand jury and in
Court, is accomplished professionally, promptly and efficiently in
all cases.

It is the policy of the USAO and MPD that a case will not be
considered closed until the prosecution is completed and post-
conviction matters have been resolved.

It is the policy of the USAO that police officers will be
asked to complete the investigation and assist in the prosecution
of cases only while they are in an on-duty status, except as
specifically provided in this Memorandum. Police officers will not
be summoned to the USAO to perform routine investigative work which
should be done on their assigned tour of duty. Because a
prosecutor's signature on a MPD 140 constitutes formal
authorization for the payment of compensation to the officer for


THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY AND COOPERATIVELY TO
FORMULATE, ALONG WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP, A STRATEGIC
APPROACH WHICH ADDRESSES THE KEY ISSUES. I PARTICULARLY WANT TO
THANK THE RANKING MEMBER OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE, ELEANOR HOLMES
NORTON, FOR WORKING WITH ME IN SUCH A COLLEGIAL WAY, AS WE STRIVE TO
ACHIEVE THE REFORMS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO SURVIVE AND
THRIVE.

THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY OF THE NATION’S CAPITAL WILL BENEFIT THE
ENTIRE REGION AND COUNTRY BY HELPING TO REALIZE THE BI-PARTISAN VISION.
THAT HAS BEEN SO OFTEN EXPRESSED BY TOP ADMINISTRATION AND
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS.

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE REVITALIZATION PACKAGE INCLUDE FEDERAL
ASSUMPTION OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND
INCENTIVES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS. THROUGH
COST-AVOIDANCE OF THE FASTEST GROWING PARTS OF ITS BUDGET, SUCH AS
MEDICAID AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE CITY IS IN A MUCH STRONGER
POSITION TO DELIVER THE ESSENTIAL MUNICIPAL SERVICES THAT CITIZENS HAVE.
A RIGHT TO EXPECT, SUCH AS PERSONAL SAFETY. THAT INDEED IS WHY WE ARE.

HERE TODAY.

OUR HEARING TODAY SEEKS UPDATED INFORMATION ON STRATEGIES TO
2


93

Mr. Davis. You have a swearing in at 4:30, it’s my understand-
ing, is that right?

Judge HAMILTON. That’s right.

Mr. Davis. Well let me try to—Ms. Leary, with your permission,
let me just try to move him off quickly, and then we can move to
you.

I appreciate your statement. A couple things caught my eye. You
note on page 13 that zero tolerance has incapacitated a large num-
ber of persons who'd otherwise be committing serious and violent
crimes. That’s the way it’s suppose to work, and you are validating
the observations we've seen in other cities, and we're told today by
Booz-Allen & Hamilton and the chief that that is working.

Judge HAMILTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Davis. But you go on to say—and I think I’ve never really
thought about this—the most surprising preventive effect of zero
tolerance has been, that as a result of the increase in enforcement,
and increase in the number of adult probationers, the court experi-
enced a reverse dynamic with fewer juveniles being placed on pro-
bation because their folks were learning parenting skills and be-
coming better parents, which when you talk about working the sys-
tem stops crime at its root. Here you have law enforcement—strict-
er law enforcement really helping that dynamic, and that was
something that we don’t hear much about.

Judge HAMILTON. That's exactly right, Mr. Chairman. We have
gone from approximately 1,200 juveniles on probation in January
of this year, down to 1,057 in August of this year; and that is a
direct result of the caretakers of these children exercising increased
parental responsibility.

Mr. Davis. I just say that traditionally the arguments up here
on the Hill are, you’re either going to be preventive or you’re going
to be a strict requirement enforcer. Here we find that the strict en-
forcement really helps the prevention aspects by helping people be-
come better parents.

I really appreciate you sharing your observation on that, because
I think it helps bring some focus to the debate that these are not
mutually exclusive objectives.

Judge HAMILTON. Exactly.

Mr. Davis. I don’t know if any of my colleagues want to make
any comments or questions at this time.

Mrs. MorELLA. Just hope that leadership team is working. I
know that you’re one of the partners——

Judge HAMILTON. Yes.

Mrs. MorELLA [continuing]. And I know you're streamlining the
court procedures. Are you satisfied with the progress that’s being
made in all objective——

Judge HAMILTON. Yes, ma’am, everything seems to be going fine.

Mrs. MORELLA. Keep up the good work. We want to hear from
you all again too, as we continue to do our oversight. Thank you.

Judge HAMILTON. Thank you.

Ms. NorTON. Just two brief questions, Judge Hamilton. I was
surprised that you didn’t say anything—and perhaps that’s because
there’s no problem—about the effect of this front end work; more
people being arrested, more work being done by the front line cops


Lewes “Wun SreArsuy ow WORE, WeuIZEdeR soFOd UYEdONEHY :ecINOS WEG ARUN

€- cee yOE 2661== 966) =
comes se-emqarmm | 96-eng orem
OL 6% ve ee L4 4 oO &% 6e 266+
8% or ov 6z Ov se 92 9% ov 9661
vequerdes | ysnBny or oun Tew way en | Kennqey | Kenuer
0

266} ‘EZ Jequeydes YyBnony | Aenuer
uoswedwoy eploiwoy Ajyjuoy
jusWedaq 8dl|0q UeWOdoONjEyy


125

F. Authorization To Leave Court Briefly For Investigative
Purposes

MPD commanders and the Director of the Court Liaison
Division officials are authorized to allow an officer who
is signed into court to leave court briefly for the
purpose of locating a witn or visiting a crime scene
with the prosecutor provided that these activities are in
direct furtherance of thi . Officers signed into
court must, however, have the specific authorization of
an official of the Court Liaison Division to do so.

G. Sign Out Policies And Procedures

If a prosecutor signs out an officer and needs to
see the officer at a time more than tvo hours later in
the same day, the intervening time will be evaluated by
CLD Court Liaison Division officials to determine pay
status. An officer may be excused from court by an
official of the Court Liaison Division for cause, after
consultation with the appropriate AUSA supervisor.

Any officer who is checked into Court Liaison
Division for a witness conference or grand jury
appearance for a period of time greater than three hours
will be routinely audited. The results of the audit will
be forwarded to the appropriate attorney supervisor for
inquiries when deemed appropriate by the Director of
Court Liaison.

Officers will not request a prosecutor to sign them
out on behalf of another prosecutor. ‘Officers who cannot
be signed out by the prosecutor must report to an
official of the Court Liaison Division and explain the
reason the appropriate prosecutor was unavailable to sign
them out.

When an officer who has finished testifying is
released by the prosecutor in a continuing trial, the
officer shall immediately check out of court; however, it
will be the officer's responsibility to advise the
prosecutor before being excused if the officer will be
unavailable to be called back again at a later point in
the trial if needed by the prosecution or the defense.
Ina trial, if an officer who has completed testimony and
has been released is needed for further testimony or
investigative work, the Court Liaison Division will make
all reasonable efforts to ensure the officer's
appearance.

16


100

management team of the department's homicide squad and his expressions of concern about
allegations of excessive use of overtime by homicide investigators dramatically underscore
this point. From technology to investigations, from evaluations to training, there is a long
toad ahead of us, but we are all fully committed to working together to do what needs to be
done. For example, it is widely understood that training is a critical means of improving
the performance of any organization, and the M.O.U. Partners have identified this as an
important issue for MPD. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is strongly committed to assisting the
police department with training in everything from how to testify in court to how to
investigate homicides. Over the past several years, our office has invested enormous energy
and personnel resources in training police officers and we fully intend to continue to do so.
Indeed, recently we have intensified our training efforts in order to assist MPD with its
reorganization. We have attached an addendum to our written testimony which spells out in
some detail the nature and extent of the training we are providing to the police department
on a daily basis.

In conclusion, I want to thank this Subcommittee for inviting us to testify about
public safety in the District of Columbia and for the strong support it has shown for our
efforts. ‘The cooperative spirit and hard work of all of the M.O.U. Partners have been
critical to the successes we have attained thus far and I am certain will continue. The safety

of our commmunity will depend on it.


41

Lenes TWN syEAReUY eID FeORZEL WeUILEdER SOR LENEOGONEY eoUNDS weg AMUNUFE

et | zee | tLby st | ose | gags
FRO | ys | mmvouees | [PRES | masons | emmoaes
ve oor oe 6 we BL 8 6 8 mm POY 266)
ee 6 OL 6 oe ee at abe 204 weuly 9661
ore ery av cor sey aor ves gos 469 mm CPUCUD L661
mm CCUSUO 9661
0
coz
oor
009
008

L66/ ‘8} sequiaydag yBnoiy; | Arenuer
uoswedwos }seiy / esuayO Aeqqoy
juswedeq sdlj0Oq ueW|Odose/\