S. HRG. 109–334, PT. 2 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

District of Columbia 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2007 

109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

S. 3660 

PART 2 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
District of Columbia Appropriations, 2007 (S. 3660)—Part 2 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–993 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–334, PT. 2 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 3660 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND OTHER ACTIVITIES CHARGEABLE IN 

WHOLE OR IN PART AGAINST THE REVENUES OF SAID DISTRICT FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

PART 2 

District of Columbia 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex officio) 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

MARY DIETRICH

KATE ELTRICH (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

LASHAWNDA SMITH
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006 

Page 

District of Columbia: Courts ................................................................................... 1 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 

District of Columbia ................................................................................................ 35 

(1) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 3:03 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Brownback and Landrieu. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

COURTS

STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC T. WASHINGTON, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, AND CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

HON. RUFUS G. KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

HON. ANITA JOSEY HERRING, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY COURT 

ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

COURTS 

JOSEPH SANCHEZ, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Senator BROWNBACK. The subcommittee will come to order. I 

have just been informed that we have a series of stacked votes this 

afternoon starting at 5 minutes after 3 p.m. Therefore, if it is seven 

and these are going to be 10 minutes apart votes, we are just not 

going to get much of a hearing going. So I am going to put my 

statement in the record. What I would like to do is just briefly introduce each of you, and could each of you make a couple of statements about your key points so we can get that much at least in 

the record. Your full statement will be in the record, because what 

I am fearful of is otherwise we are just—we will have to cancel the 

hearing, and I would really like to get at least some of your 

thoughts into the record of what we need to do. 

The Honorable Eric Washington, the Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Good to have you here, Judge Washington; the Honorable Rufus King, Chief Judge, District of Columbia Superior Court; Ms. Avis Buchanan, Director, Public Defender 

Service; Honorable Paul Quander, Jr., Director of Court Services 

and Offender Supervision Agency; and Reverend Donald Isaac, Ex-
2 

ecutive Director of East of the River Clergy-Police-Community 

Partnership and Assistant Pastor of Southeast Tabernacle Baptist 

Church. 

We will start off with Chief Judge Washington, if we could. I am 

apologetic for doing this, but I do not think you want to reschedule 

this and we have got everybody here. So if you can just make really 

a couple summary statements, and all of your written material will 

be in the record. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Good afternoon. This hearing will come to order. Today, we are considering the 

fiscal year 2007 budget requests for the District of Columbia Courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and the Public Defender Service. Since the 

enactment of the National Capital Revitalization Act of 1997, the federal government has provided the sole source of funding for these agencies. 

For fiscal year 2007, the President has requested $196.7 million for the Courts, 

which is $20.1 million below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. I would like to hear 

from Chief Judge Washington about how this proposed funding cut might affect the 

ongoing Courthouse renovation and construction projects, which are critical to the 

fulfillment of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001. 

Today we will also hear from Ms. Avis Buchanan, Director of the Public Defender 

Service for the District of Columbia, who will present her agency’s fiscal year 2007 

budget request. PDS provides legal representation to indigent adults and children 

facing criminal charges in the District of Columbia. Ms. Buchanan’s agency also provides legal representation for individuals in the mental health system and for children in the delinquency system, including those who have special education needs 

due to learning disabilities. 

Finally, Mr. Paul Quander, Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, will present his agency’s budget request. CSOSA is responsible for 

supervising adults who are on pretrial release, probation, or parole supervision in 

the District of Columbia. The President has requested $214.4 million for CSOSA in 

fiscal year 2007, an increase of $15 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

I am particularly interested in how CSOSA is working with the faith community 

to help ex-offenders successfully return to their communities. CSOSA’s ‘‘Faith Community Partnership program’’ embraces more than 25 member institutions, and its 

volunteer mentoring program has matched more than 80 returning offenders with 

individuals who are committed to helping offenders stay out of prison. 

Joining Mr. Quander today is one of CSOSA’s key faith partners, the Reverend 

Donald Isaac. Rev. Isaac is Executive Director of the ‘‘East of the River Clergy Police Community Partnership.’’ Last year, this subcommittee provided $300,000 to 

help Rev. Isaac’s organization renovate a building to begin operations of a 15 bed 

transitional housing facility for ex-offenders. I’m eager to hear more from Rev. Isaac 

about how these funds are helping the faith community serve the critical need for 

housing for ex-offenders. 

Thank you all for appearing before this subcommittee today. You will be limited 

to 5 minutes for your oral remarks, while copies of your written statements will be 

placed in the record in their entirety. The record will remain open for 30 days. 

I want to congratulate Chief Judge Eric Washington who began a 4-year term as 

Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on August 6, 2005. This 

is his first appearance before this Subcommittee and we welcome him as he presents the Courts budget. 

Now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator 

Landrieu, who has passionately advocated for Family Court reform here in the District and who has helped steer this subcommittee to ensure adequate funding of the 

Courts and with whom I have worked in the Senate on so many efforts to ensure 

the health, safety, and well-being of children and their families. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Good afternoon. As the first hearing of the District of Columbia subcommittee I 

would like to first thank Chairman Brownback for making the review of our Federal 

responsibilities a priority for our hearing schedule. 
3 

Before I share some of my thoughts on the issue at hand, I would like to take 

this opportunity to suggest other areas for this committee to focus on this year. As 

you well know, the primary purpose of the D.C. subcommittee is to ensure the immediate and long term economic health of the District. There are many ways we 

can do that. We can continue our work to correct what GAO has identified as a 

structural imbalance between the cost of providing city services and their ability to 

take in revenue. But at the same time, we must focus on other tools for bringing 

greater prosperity and long term stability to the District. Cities that have good public schools, safe communities and strong families are cities that have strong economies. If we focus ourselves on providing these things in the District, we will go a 

long way toward the economic independence the city needs and deserves. 

I think we have come a long way toward reforming public education in the District. One of the driving forces behind this change has been public charter schools. 

In the District, charter school students now make up 20 percent of the public school 

population, some 16,500 students. When people ask me why I support charter 

schools, I tell them it is because I believe in public education. I firmly believe that 

if we work to modernize the system of delivery for public education, allow greater 

opportunities for innovation and hold schools accountable for results, then we can 

provide a high quality public education for every child in America. One size does 

not fit all, and if we give our parents choices, they will choose what is best for their 

child. 

Until now, the focus of the charter school movement has been to increase the 

quantity of charter schools. But if we expect this to be more than a movement, we 

must shift our focus from quantity to quality. As the Washington Post put it, ‘‘The 

District’s experiment with charter schools has proved hugely popular with parents, 

but the schools vary widely in quality and have yet to demonstrate that they are 

doing better than the city’s regular public schools in raising student achievement.’’ 

Our focus today is oversight of the Federal entities which provide the city’s criminal justice functions, generally considered to be ‘‘state level function’’. There are several areas in which this committee has invested in the city’s infrastructure or services where we are striving for results. One of these projects, initiated by the committee in 2003, is the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) 

new Re-Entry and Sanctions Center at Karrick Hall which has made a difference 

in the lives of 1,500 D.C. residents rejoining the community after serving in prison. 

I hope to hear this was a successful investment made by this committee. Another 

major investment has been the revitalization of Judiciary Square and improvement 

of Court facilities. This is a substantial project, which I look forward to discussing 

shortly. 

The District’s criminal justice activities are under the direct oversight of this subcommittee and are comprised of the main entities here today: the D.C. Courts, the 

CSOSA and the Public Defender Service. These agencies encompass the representation, adjudication, and supervision of offenders in the District. The final component 

of criminal justice, corrections, was successfully transitioned by the D.C. Correction’s Trustee, closing Lorton prison and moving all adult felons to the Federal Bureau of Prisons in December 2001. Corrections of D.C. adult felons are now the sole 

responsibility of the Federal system; some 6,400 D.C. inmates housed in the Bureau 

of Prisons are scattered in 77 prisons nationwide. Though we do not fund the corrections of D.C. adult felons, we do fund re-entry of offenders and the ensuing challenges and impact on the District community—particularly, the ability of offenders 

to maintain close ties with children and families. 

The CSOSA is the primary entity responsible for successful re-entry, as well as 

supervision of citizens before trial and after conviction, or pre-sentencing. I welcome 

Director Paul Quander back to the committee, thank you for your leadership and 

we look forward to your testimony. In fiscal year 2007 CSOSA requests $214.4 million, an increase of $14.9 million (7.5 percent) from fiscal year 2006 and increases 

staff by 15 for a total of 1,486 positions (a 1 percent increase in staffing). The main 

increase ($3.4 million) is to staff the new Re-Entry and Sanctions Center which will 

provide a 30 day intensive re-entry program for the highest risk offenders. The 

President’s budget also recommends increases over fiscal year 2006 for the two other 

primary functions, Pre-Trial and Public Defender Service, to continue their critical 

services. I look forward to hearing from their directors, Susan Schaffer and Avis Buchanan, to explore the request further and discuss creative areas of supporting your 

functions. 

The other Federal component under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, the D.C. 

Courts, is responsible for the administration of justice for District residents. I am 

glad to welcome back Chief Judge Rufus King and welcome the new head of the 

Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, Chief Judge Eric Washington. In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the new presiding judge of 
4 

the Family Court, Anita Josey-Herring, who has served superbly as deputy and will 

continue the great gains made for children and families begun by Judge Lee 

Satterfield. 

The Courts have submitted a separate request for a total of $350 million for fiscal 

year 2007. Funding is proposed to support court system operations and capital improvements. This is $131 million more than the enacted level in fiscal year 2006, 

which is nearly a 60 percent increase. Of this increase, the majority is for the capital improvement plan for Judiciary Square, which entails major renovation of the 

five main buildings on the square. The President’s request for fiscal year 2007 for 

the entire Court’s is $196.6 million, which is a decrease of $20 million from fiscal 

year 2006 (or a cut of 10 percent). My primary concern is the President did not keep 

the promise in this budget to the restoration of Judiciary Square, a project which 

requires the renovation of multiple buildings simultaneously. The Courts budget 

justification states you will require $188.7 million in fiscal year 2007 to continue 

the major renovations and the maintenance program. This request is an increase 

of $108 million over what was provided last year and it is impossible to see how 

this committee can provide such a substantial increase, but it is equally disheartening to think the renovations will be further delayed, possibly not complete until 

well beyond 2015. We have much work ahead of us to determine the needs of the 

Courts and how to meet them in a stretched Federal budget year. I would like to 

focus today on the critical gap in the President’s request of $23 million to fully fund 

the contract, just signed by the Court, to restore and re-open the Old Courthouse. 

The committee has already provided $76 million for this project and we must focus 

on how to complete it. 

The Master Plan was begun in 2003 with our commitment to fund renovation of 

the entire court system, but with a particular eye to creating a model Family Court 

building. The committee has provided $142.5 million since fiscal year 2002 for renovations in the Capital Master Plan. I understand that each project hinges on the 

first being completed, because there is no room for swing space downtown. However, 

I am dismayed that the President’s budget does not provide the remaining $23 million to have a functional Old Courthouse, which would allow people to move out of 

the Moultrie building to facilitate the Family Court expansion. Beyond this, I question spending greater sums on maintenance of buildings. We have limited resources. 

Chairman Brownback and I must write a bill which chooses among a limited pool 

of funding. None of us want court employees or the public that comes to the court 

every day to work in the conditions I have seen there. But we cannot do it all, and 

it may be sensible to complete major projects which drastically improve working 

conditions rather than ‘‘band-aiding’’ small corridors for years to come. 

Under Chairman Brownback’s leadership in 1997 the D.C. Revitalization Act 

eliminated the $600 million Federal payment appropriated by Congress to the District. The Act transferred several functions of the D.C. government to full Federal 

responsibility, areas traditionally carried out at the state level: criminal justice and 

District employee pensions. I hope Chairman Brownback and I can focus this year 

on the effect of the Revitalization Act, and work to find the appropriate balance between the Federal government and the District. 

I look forward to your testimony today and working together to meet the needs 

of the District’s criminal justice sector, as well as meeting the responsibility of Congress to the city. 

Judge WASHINGTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Basically—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Would you get that on? 

Judge WASHINGTON. I think I am on now. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Judge WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 2007 budget request of the District of Columbia Courts. I am Eric T. Washington. I am appearing in my capacity as the chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration 

for the District of Columbia, which is the policymaking body for the 

D.C. Courts. As you know, I also serve as chief judge of District of 

Columbia Court of Appeals. 

I just want to introduce those who are with me today very quickly, because I think I am going to be the only one, unless you have 

some questions, who will be making an extensive, now modified, 
5 

oral statement. With me this afternoon are: Chief Judge Rufus 

King of the Superior Court; Judge Anita Josey-Herring, the Presiding Judge of Family Court; Ms. Anne Wicks, the court’s executive officer; and Mr. Sanchez, Joseph Sanchez, our administrative 

officer. 

The critical focus, getting to the nub of the issue and your point, 

of our 2007 budget request is ensuring that the courts of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure and first-rate security for the 

approximately 10,000 members of the public who visit our courthouses each and every day. The courts’ capital needs are significant 

because we are responsible for over 1 million gross square feet of 

space in Judiciary Square in five buildings, which range in age 

from 30 years to 200 years. We must maintain, preserve, and build 

court facilities that are safe, functional, and emblematic of their 

public significance and character. 

The courts’ capital budget addresses these responsibilities as a 

comprehensive matter based on the master plan for facilities, 

which delineates our space requirements, outlines plans to address 

maintenance needs, and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization both in the near and in the long term. 

The old courthouse is an architectural jewel and an historic landmark. Built from 1821 to 1881, it is one of the oldest buildings in 

the District of Columbia. Inside its walls Daniel Webster and 

Francis Scott Key practiced law and John Surratt was tried for his 

role in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. 

Because of its age and condition, the structure requires extensive 

work to meet health and safety building codes and to re-adapt it 

for modern use as a courthouse. The restoration of the old courthouse is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the court system as 

delineated in the master space plan. By relocating the court of appeals to the old courthouse, nearly 40,000 square feet of space will 

become available in the Moultrie Courthouse, space needed for the 

relocation of Superior Court functions so that we can fully consolidate all of the services needed for family court. 

Thanks to your support, the old courthouse renovation project received funding in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. At the time, the General Services Administration and independent construction consultants believed that the renovation could be completed for the 

amount appropriated. However, since those cost estimates were 

made, construction costs have skyrocketed due to circumstances beyond our control. In addition, the unwillingness of construction 

companies to bid on a phased-funding project delayed our start 

date for the construction, thus contributing to the overall increase 

in costs. As a result, appropriations to date will not permit the 

courts to complete the restoration of the old courthouse as approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Historic Preservation Review Board. 

Just this past week we concluded our procurement process for 

that construction project and we learned that the construction contract for the renovation of the old courthouse requires an additional 

$23 million in fiscal year 2007. 

Should funding not be provided, the courts would have to reprogram nearly half of the capital funds included in the President’s 

2007 recommendation. This would bring the majority of our infra-
6 

structure maintenance initiatives to a standstill. The negative impact on the safety and security of the public we serve would be immeasurable. We will therefore be submitting a revised request to 

you shortly. 

The courts are committed to ensuring that the old courthouse 

renovation is completed on time and within budget, as have each 

of our prior capital projects. 

Another critical priority for the District of Columbia courts in 

2007 is the enhancement of security for the public as well as for 

our staff and judges, particularly in light of the recent incidents 

around the Nation. The President’s 2007 recommendation for the 

courts finances additional security officers for the family court and 

some security enhancements for our facilities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to recognize, of 

course, Senator Landrieu for your involvement and your leadership 

on issues involving the courts. We appreciate more than I can tell 

you the support we have received from Congress in the past, and 

we certainly look forward to working with you throughout the year 

on this appropriation. 

We are prepared to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Judge Washington. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE ERIC T. WASHINGTON

Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you for this 

opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request of the District of Columbia Courts. I am Eric T. Washington, and I am appearing in my capacity as the 

Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, the policy-making body for the District of Columbia Courts. I also serve as Chief 

Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 

As you know, this jurisdiction has a two-tier court system comprised of the D.C. 

Court of Appeals, our court of last resort, and the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia, a trial court of general jurisdiction, which includes our Family Court. Administrative support functions for our Courts are provided by what is known as the 

Court System. 

My remarks this afternoon will summarize our overall budget request and highlight our most critical priority, our capital budget. With me this afternoon are Chief 

Judge Rufus King, III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Ms. Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer for the Courts, and Mr. Joseph Sanchez, our Administrative Officer. 

We are prepared to answer questions on the budget request for the D.C. Courts. 

INTRODUCTION

We live in a changing environment, facing new challenges to our nation, our Nation’s Capital, and our court system. Whatever challenges we face, the fair and effective administration of justice remains crucial to our way of life. The District of 

Columbia Courts are committed to responding to the changing needs of our society 

and meeting these new challenges. We have been steadfast in our mission, which 

is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes 

peacefully, fairly and efficiently in the Nation’s Capital. Through our Strategic Plan, 

the D.C. Courts strive to enhance the administration of justice; broaden access to 

justice and service to the public; promote competence, professionalism, and civility; 

improve court facilities and technology; and build trust and confidence in our courts. 

We appreciate the support of this Subcommittee which makes possible the achievement of these goals for our community. 

The D.C. Courts are committed to fiscal prudence and sound financial management. Although we have requested funds for several important operating initiatives, 

the critical focus of our fiscal year 2007 budget request is ensuring that the courts 

of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure and first-rate security. Only by in-
7 

vesting in these areas will the Courts be in a position to ensure that our facilities 

are in a safe and healthy condition and that the type of security necessary to protect 

our citizens and our institution is in place. Focus on these capital areas is particularly critical now to meet these needs and to ensure that the quality of justice is 

not compromised. 

To support our mission and goals in fiscal year 2007, the Courts budget submission requested $334,839,000 for court operations and capital improvements. Of this 

amount, $9,529,000 is requested for the Court of Appeals; $94,675,000 is requested 

for the Superior Court; $57,175,000 is requested for the Court System; and 

$173,460,000 is requested for capital improvements for courthouse facilities. In addition, the Courts requested $54,000,000 for the Defender Services account. 

THE PRESIDENT’S RECOMMENDATION

I am pleased to report that the President’s recommendation for fiscal year 2007 

supports some of our most important priority items; however, the level of capital 

funding is not adequate to complete critical projects nor to keep our capital projects 

on the schedule established by our Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities (hereinafter Facilities Master Plan). The President’s recommendation includes capital investment in physical security and funds to hire additional security officers for critical courtroom proceedings not protected by the United States Marshal Service, such 

as those in Family Court. The President’s recommendation also finances completion 

of new holding facilities for juveniles appearing in Family Court and of Building A 

modernization, as well as continuation of much-needed infrastructure work. 

Unfortunately, the President’s capital budget recommendation of $51 million, from 

a $173 million request, is not adequate to complete construction of the Old Courthouse nor to initiate other facility projects scheduled to begin in fiscal 2007. Restoring the Old Courthouse for use by the Court of Appeals and preserving it for future 

generations is the lynchpin in the Courts’ Facilities Master Plan. In 2002, when the 

Facilities Master Plan was completed, there was a shortfall of 48,000 square feet 

for Court operations—with a projection of a 134,000 square footage shortfall within 

10 years. The restoration of the Old Courthouse, and the subsequent relocation of 

the Court of Appeals from the Moultrie Courthouse, is critical to implementing our 

plan to ensure adequate space for the justice system in the Nation’s Capital. Until 

this building is restored, the Courts cannot begin to renovate and relocate other 

court facilities and operations, including Family Court. To address courtwide space 

needs and facilities deficiencies, the Courts have developed a tight schedule of renovation, modernization, and reorganization. The President’s recommended 2007 

funding level would delay numerous projects, and, as we have learned in a very 

painful manner recently, any delay in construction projects significantly increases 

their cost. Inadequate funding will also result in an inordinate delay in occupancy 

and reoccupancy of space critically needed for efficient court operations. 

We are gratified by the Presidents support for key items, but to meet our facilities 

needs in a timely and cost effective manner, additional resources are required in fiscal 2007. 

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

As the Courts approach the ninth year of direct federal funding in fiscal year 

2007, we continue to enhance services to the community and demonstrate our commitment to fiscal responsibility. We are particularly proud of our recent achievements that include the following: 

—commencement of the restoration of the Old Courthouse, a building of historic 

and architectural significance that is critical to meeting our long term space 

needs, following approval of the project by the National Capital Planning Commission, Commission of Fine Arts and Historic Preservation Board; 

—development and approval by the National Capital Planning Commission of a 

Master Plan for Judiciary Square, an urban design and renewal plan to revitalize this historic area of the District of Columbia that dates to the original 

L’Enfant Plan for the Nation’s Capital; 

—further implementation of the Family Court Act, including: newly constructed, 

family friendly facility on the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse in fiscal year 

2004, which houses the new Central Intake Center to provide one-stop public 

service; implementation of the one family-one judge principle; development of 

attorney practice standards and creation of attorney panels for neglect and juvenile cases; establishment of a Family Treatment Court for mothers with substance abuse issues and their children; creation of a Self-Help Center for indigent and unrepresented litigants; opening the Mayor’s Services Liaison Center 
8 

1See Examining the Work of State Courts 2004: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project, by R. Schauffler, R. LaFountain, N. Kauder, & S. Strickland (National Center for 

State Courts 2005). 

in the courthouse to coordinate the provision of needed social services; and 

transferring all required children’s cases to Family Court judges; 

—courtwide implementation of a five-year strategic plan, Committed to Justice in 

the Nation’s Capital, to ensure that the Court’s goals, functions, and resources 

are strategically aligned for maximum efficiency and effectiveness; 

—installation and conversion to a new case management system, the Integrated 

Justice Information System (IJIS) which consolidates 19 distinct automated 

databases into one comprehensive system, thereby ensuring complete information on all cases pertaining to one individual or family to enhance case processing and judicial decision-making; 

—establishment, by the Court of Appeals, of the District of Columbia Access to 

Justice Commission to enhance access to justice for all persons without regard 

to economic barriers; 

—comprehensive revision of the Court of Appeals rules of practice, the first such 

revision since the mid-1980’s; 

—development and implementation of a pilot appellate mediation program to assist parties in reaching satisfactory case outcomes more expeditiously, thereby 

saving them and the Court of Appeals time and money; 

—revision of the Criminal Justice Act plan to improve quality legal representation 

for indigent criminal defendants in the Court of Appeals; 

—continued enhancements to the Courts’ website, designed to increase public information and access, including implementation of on-line juror services; 

—achievement of an ‘‘unqualified’’ opinion for the fourth year in a row on the 

Courts’ independent financial audit, conducted in accordance with OMB Circular No. A–133; 

—creation of a Landlord Tenant Resource Center to provide free legal information 

to unrepresented parties and referrals to legal and social service providers; 

—promulgation of draft probate attorney practice standards and creation of the 

Probate Review Task Force, to enhance service to incapacitated adults and 

other parties in probate cases; 

—reengineering of the Appeals Coordinator’s Office to enhance service to the public and facilitate appellate case filings by establishing a single point of filing for 

all appeals; 

—comprehensive space renovation, including mechanical, electrical and security 

upgrades; new space for the Landlord Tenant and Small Claims courts and juvenile probation (the Social Services Division of the Family Court) in Building 

B; and renovated space in Building A for the Crime Victims Compensation Program, as the Courts’ Facilities Master Plan is implemented. 

CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRIORITY—INFRASTRUCTURE

The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately 10,000 courthouse visitors 

each day, process more than 200,000 cases each year, and employ a staff of 1,200 

who directly serve the public, process the cases, and provide administrative support. 

The District of Columbia Courts are among the busiest and most productive court 

systems in the United States 1. For example, a published report indicates that the 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia has the tenth highest number of cases 

filed per judge, and the second highest number of civil case filings per capita of all 

state courts in the nation, and that our Court of Appeals has the highest number 

of appellate filings per capita among all states. 

The Courts’ capital needs are significant because we are responsible for five buildings, including the Moultrie Courthouse, one of the busiest and most heavily visited 

public buildings in the District of Columbia. Our funding requirements include 

projects critical to maintaining, preserving, and building safe and functional courthouse facilities essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice in our Nation’s Capital. To effectively meet these demands, the Courts’ facilities 

must be both functional and emblematic of their public significance and character. 

The 2007 capital budget seeks to address these issues in a comprehensive manner. 

Facilities that provide adequate and efficiently designed space are essential to enhance the administration of justice, simplify public interaction with courts, and improve access to justice for all. In contrast, facilities with inadequate space for employees to perform their work, with evidence of long-deferred maintenance and repair, and with inefficient layouts can detract from the public perception of the dignity and importance of a court and impair its ability to function in the community. 
9 

2Don Hardenbergh with Robert Tobin, Sr. and Chang-Ming Yeh, The Courthouse: A Planning 

and Design Guide for Court Facilities, National Center for State Courts, 1991, p. xiii. 

This negative perception impacts public trust and confidence in courts, a nationally 

recognized critical requirement for the effective administration of justice. The National Center for State Courts succinctly states the relationship between courts and 

their facilities: 

‘‘Court facilities should not only be efficient and comfortable, but should also reflect the independence, dignity, and importance of our judicial system. . . . It is difficult for our citizens to have respect for the courts and the law, and for those who 

work in the court, if the community houses the court in facilities that detract from 

its stature.’’ 2

The D.C. Courts presently maintain 1.1 million gross square feet of space in Judiciary Square. The age of the Courts’ buildings range from 30 years to 200 years. 

Deferred maintenance forced by limited financial resources left these buildings in 

a state that may be perceived to detract from the stature of the Courts. We are beginning to see improvements, thanks to your support in recent years, but much 

work remains to be done. 

The Courts’ fiscal year 2007 budget request seeks resources to meet health and 

safety building codes and to provide safe facilities for the public. For example, adequate ventilation must be provided in the courthouse buildings. Electrical systems 

must be upgraded, both to meet modern office needs and to limit risk of fire. Fire 

and security recommendations from the U.S. Marshals Service must be implemented. Safety hazards posed by disintegrating flooring materials must be remedied. 

The halls of justice in the District of Columbia must be well maintained, efficient, 

and adequately sized to inspire the confidence of the members of the public who 

enter our buildings. The Courts’ facilities plans reflected in the fiscal year 2007 

budget request will, over the next 10 years, meet the well-documented space needs 

of the Courts and return the buildings to a condition that inspires trust in the justice system of the Nation’s Capital. 

The Courts’ facilities plans will also enhance the efficient administration of justice 

and improve public access to justice in this jurisdiction by co-locating related functions. The restoration of the Old Courthouse for the Court of Appeals, for example, 

will provide the public with a single location for services that are currently located 

on different floors and in different buildings from most Court of Appeals offices. Offices related to the Family Court will be consolidated in the Moultrie Courthouse, 

which will be made possible only as we renovate space in other buildings, converting 

usage to public court proceedings and relocating operations from Moultrie. More efficient location of these offices will not only facilitate public access to the Courts, but 

will also enhance the efficiency of operations. 

In addition, basic mechanical systems impact the administration of justice. A broken air conditioning or heating system, for example, can force suspension of trials 

when courtroom temperatures reach unbearable levels. 

Facilities in the Courts’ Strategic Plan 

The capital projects included in this request are an integral part of the Courts’ 

Strategic Plan, completed in fiscal 2003. I am pleased to have co-chaired the Strategic Planning Leadership Council, which, with broad input from the community, 

developed the Strategic Plan of the D.C. Courts, entitled Committed to Justice in 

the Nation’s Capital. The Strategic Plan articulates the mission, vision, and values 

of the Courts in light of current initiatives, recent trends, and future challenges. It 

addresses issues such as implementation of a Family Court, increasing cultural diversity, economic disparity, complex social problems of court-involved individuals, 

the increasing presence of litigants without legal representation, rapidly evolving 

technology, the competitive funding environment, enhanced public accountability, 

competition for skilled personnel, and increased security risks. 

Facility improvements were identified as a high priority among all constituency 

groups surveyed by the Courts as the Strategic Plan was developed. Employees, 

judges, and stakeholders were asked to identify the most important issues the 

Courts must address in the coming years, and each ranked ‘‘enhance court facilities’’ 

among the highest priorities. In addition, approximately half of judges and 65 percent of employees reported inadequate light, heat, air conditioning, and ventilation 

in their workspaces. 

‘‘Improving Court Facilities and Technology’’ is the Plan’s Strategic Issue 4. The 

Strategic Plan states— 
10 

3Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, 2002. 4 Building Evaluation Report, 2001. 

‘‘The effective administration of justice requires an appropriate physical and technical environment. Court personnel and the public deserve facilities that are safe, 

comfortable, secure, and functional, and that meet the needs of those who use them. 

Technology must support the achievement of the Courts’ mission.’’ 

Overview of the D.C. Courts’ Facilities 

In preparing the fiscal year 2007 capital budget request, the Courts carefully assessed the capital requirements essential to performing our statutory and constitutionally mandated functions. Significantly increased space needs for court operations 

and inadequate capital funding in prior years that necessitated maintenance deferral compel the Courts’ significant capital request for fiscal year 2007. The Courts’ 

request for capital funding is particularly critical in fiscal year 2007 because of the 

need: (1) to address essential public health and safety conditions in our busy court 

buildings, including the Moultrie Courthouse to which some 10,000 people come 

each day; (2) to meet the Courts’ space requirements for conducting their business, 

which includes our new Family Court recently established by Congress; and (3) to 

avoid interruption of ongoing projects and the Facilities Master Plan schedule as 

delays result in substantially increased costs. 

The Courts currently maintain four buildings in Judiciary Square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the Moultrie Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, 

N.W., and Buildings A and B, which are located between 4th and 5th Streets and 

E and F Streets, N.W. In addition, when the District government vacates Building 

C, the old Juvenile Court, later this year it will be returned to the Courts’ inventory. 

Recent studies by the General Services Administration (GSA) have documented both 

the D.C. Courts’ severe space shortage 3 and the inadequacy of the physical condition of the Courts’ facilities.4

The Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, conducted by experts in architecture 

and space planning, and secured through the GSA, defined a shortfall of 48,000 

square feet of space in 2002, with a shortfall of 134,000 square feet projected in the 

next decade. The experts proposed to meet the Courts’ space needs through three 

mechanisms: (1) renovation of the Old Courthouse for use by this jurisdiction’s court 

of last resort, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which will free critically 

needed space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations and Family 

Court consolidation; (2) construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse, to 

include a separately accessible Family Court facility; and (3) the occupation of 

Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. 

Old Courthouse 

The restoration of the Old Courthouse for use by the District of Columbia Court 

of Appeals is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the court system. Thanks to your 

support, this project received substantial funding over a two-year period in fiscal 

years 2005 and 2006. At the time, it was estimated by the GSA and independent 

construction consultants that the renovation could be completed for this amount. 

However, construction costs have skyrocketed because of market conditions which 

are beyond our control as well as the phased funding approach. Based on current 

market conditions, we now know that appropriations to date ($76.5 million) will not 

permit the Courts to complete the restoration as designed and approved by the 

Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Historic Preservation Review Board. The Courts completed the procurement process 

last week and issued a Letter of Intent to the winning bidder. The construction contract for the Old Courthouse restoration is $99 million. Therefore, the Courts are 

requesting that Congress provide an additional $23 million in fiscal year 2007 to 

fully fund the construction contract. The Courts have a history of completing capital 

projects on time and within budget. We are confident that the Old Courthouse restoration will be managed in the same manner. 

The Old Courthouse, built from 1821 to 1881, is one of the oldest public buildings 

in the District of Columbia. Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and Francis 

Scott Key practiced law and John Surratt was tried for his part in the assassination 

of President Abraham Lincoln. The architectural and historical significance of the 

Old Courthouse led to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its 

designation as an official project of Save America’s Treasures. The unique character 

of the building, together with its compact size, makes it ideal for occupancy by the 

highest court of the District of Columbia. At the same time, the structure requires 

extensive work to meet health and safety building codes and to readapt it for modern use as a courthouse. The restoration of the Old Courthouse for use as a func-
11 

5 By public face we mean those offices, courtrooms and waiting rooms that are used by children and families having business before the court. Administrative space, such as file rooms, 

was not included in the Interim Space Plan. 

tioning court building will not only provide much needed space for the Courts, but 

it will also preserve a historic treasure of our nation and impart new life to one of 

the most significant historic buildings and precincts in Washington, D.C. It will 

meet the needs of the Courts and benefit the community through an approach that 

strengthens a public institution, restores a historic landmark, and stimulates neighborhood economic activity. 

Moultrie Courthouse 

Investment in the restoration of the Old Courthouse not only will improve efficiency by co-locating the offices that support the Court of Appeals, but also will free 

up 37,000 square feet of space in the Moultrie Courthouse which is critically needed 

for Superior Court and Family Court functions. The Moultrie Courthouse is uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial court. It has three separate and secure 

circulation systems—for judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners 

present in the courthouse each day. Built in 1978 for 44 trial judges, today it is 

strained beyond capacity to accommodate 59 trial judges and 24 magistrate judges 

in the trial court and 9 appellate judges, as well as senior judges and support staff 

for the two courts. Essential criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy 

office space in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Courts have clearly outgrown the space 

available in the Moultrie Courthouse. The space is inadequate for this high volume 

court system to serve the public in the heavily populated metropolitan area in and 

around our Nation’s Capital. 

Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities 

The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of capital projects since 

fiscal year 1999, when the Courts assumed responsibility for our capital budget from 

the District’s Department of Public Works. In 1999, GSA produced a study for the 

renovation of the Old Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals. In 2001, GSA 

prepared Building Evaluation Reports that assessed the condition of the D.C. 

Courts’ facilities. These projects culminated in the development of the first Master 

Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, which delineates the Courts’ space requirements and 

provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization, both in the near and long term. 

The Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, completed in December 2002, incorporates significant research, analysis, and planning by experts in architecture, 

urban design and planning. During this study, GSA analyzed the Courts’ current 

and future space requirements, particularly in light of the significantly increased 

space needs of the Family Court. The Master Plan examined such issues as alignment of related court components to meet evolving operational needs and enhance 

efficiency; the impact of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law Number 

107–114); accommodation of the Courts’ space requirements through 2012; and 

plans to upgrade facilities, including, for example, security, telecommunications, and 

mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space shortfall for the Courts over the 

next decade of 134,000 occupiable square feet, and, as noted above, proposed to meet 

that need through renovation of the Old Courthouse; construction of an addition to 

the Moultrie Courthouse; and reoccupation of Building C. In addition, the Plan determined that all court facilities must be modernized and upgraded to meet health 

and safety standards and to function with greater efficiency. 

Family Court in the Master Plan 

The Facilities Master Plan incorporates an Interim Space Plan for the Family 

Court that provides the facilities necessary to implement fully the Family Court Act 

and to centralize the public face of Family Court operations.5 It also incorporates 

a Long Term Space Plan for Family Court that optimizes space and programmatic 

enhancements for the Family Court. 

Interim Family Court Space Plan 

The Interim Space Plan for Family Court was completed in the summer of 2004 

and procedural changes have been implemented within the Family Court to meet 

the requirements of the Family Court Act. Recently completed components of the 

Plan are straightforward. 

—During fiscal year 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured space in the 

Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate nine new Family Court magistrate judges 

and their support staff. The Courts also constructed four new hearing rooms in 

Building B for Family Court magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect 

cases, and renovated short-term space for the Mayor’s Services Liaison Office. 
12 

—Two Superior Court operations formerly located on the JM level of the Moultrie 

Courthouse, the Small Claims and Landlord Tenant Branches of the Superior 

Court’s Civil Division, were relocated in November 2003 to renovated space in 

Building B to free space for the Family Court in the Moultrie Courthouse. 

—Construction in JM Level of the Moultrie Courthouse for the Interim Space 

Plan of the Family Court was completed in the summer of 2004, and significant 

progress has been made toward establishing a fully consolidated Family Court. 

The project provided the Family Court with three new courtrooms, three new 

hearing rooms, the Mayor’s Services Liaison Office, a Centralized Family Court 

Case Filing and Intake Center, a family-friendly child waiting area, and a new 

Family Court entrance from the John Marshall Plaza into the Moultrie Courthouse. In addition, the corridors and hallways along the courthouse’s JM-level 

were redesigned to create family-friendly seating and waiting areas. 

Given the Courts’ commitment to meet the requirements of the Family Court Act 

as expeditiously as possible, we decided to move forward with consolidating as much 

of the Family Court operations and offices as possible within existing space, pending 

the construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse. 

Long-Term Family Court Space Plan 

The long-term plan for the Family Court includes expansion of the Moultrie 

Courthouse. Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art facility for Family 

Court operations, with its own identity and separate entrance, which will be a 

model for the nation. The plan envisions a safe facility that will be inviting and welcoming to families with children of all ages and that will incorporate a ‘‘one-stop’’ 

concept by locating all related court and D.C. government units in one place to make 

it easier for families to access needed services. The interim Family Court plan is 

designed to transition smoothly into this long-term plan, and to maximize the efficient use of time and money. 

When the Family Court Act was enacted, the Courts studied the cost and feasibility of consolidating all functions and services required to meet the mandates of 

the Act in each of our facilities. After extensive study, it was determined that only 

the Moultrie Courthouse had the amount of space necessary to meet these requirements. Given that court operations already exceeded the capacity of the Moultrie 

Courthouse, it was apparent that certain court operations would need to be relocated to other buildings to make room for Family Court. The approach adopted in 

the Facilities Master Plan was developed with the overarching objectives of keeping 

the court system continually operating efficiently while carefully complying with the 

Family Court Act. 

Capital projects related to the Family Court Act include the renovation and expansion of the Old Courthouse for the Court of Appeals, to free space in the 

Moultrie Courthouse; renovation of Buildings A & B for civil court functions (including Small Claims and Landlord Tenant operations which have been relocated to 

Building B, thereby making Family Court space available on the JM level of the 

Moultrie Courthouse, and Probate and Multi-Door Dispute Resolution operations 

which will be moved to Building A at the end of 2006 and in early 2007); occupation 

and renovation of Building C for Information Technology and alternative dispute 

resolution operations, providing additional space in Moultrie for Family Court social 

services; leasing of space for court support functions (such as budget, personnel, procurement and contracts); and renovation and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. 

These projects will shift operations currently located in existing Court facilities (1) 

to create ‘‘swing space’’ that permits the required construction to take place in an 

operating courthouse that receives 10,000 visitors daily and (2) to make contiguous 

office space available for all related Family Court activities. 

Historic Judiciary Square 

The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square lend dignity to 

the important business conducted by the Courts and, at the same time, complicate 

somewhat efforts to upgrade or alter the structures within the square. Great care 

has been exercised in designing the restoration of the Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the square, to preserve the character not only of the building, but also of 

Judiciary Square. As one of the original and remaining historic green spaces identified in Pierre L’Enfant’s plan for the capital of a new nation, Judiciary Square is 

of keen interest to the Nation’s Capital. 

Buildings A, B, and C, dating from the 1930’s, are situated symmetrically along 

the view corridor comprised of the National Building Museum, the Old Courthouse, 

and John Marshall Park and form part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. The Moultrie Courthouse, although not historic, is also located along 

the view corridor and reinforces the symmetry of Judiciary Square through its simi-
13 

lar form and material to the municipal building located across the John Marshall 

Plaza. Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most Court of Appeals, 

Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk’s offices. 

Judiciary Square Master Plan 

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) required that the D.C. Courts 

develop a Judiciary Square Master Plan—essentially an urban design plan—before 

any construction could be commenced in the area. The D.C. Courts have worked 

with all stakeholders on the Plan, including the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund), the Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department. A draft Judiciary Square Master Plan was approved in August 2003. The final plan was approved 

in August 2005. 

The Judiciary Square Master Plan resolves important technical issues related to 

access, service, circulation, and security within a rapidly changing and publicly oriented area of the District, while re-establishing the importance of this historic setting in the ‘‘City of Washington.’’ It provides a comprehensive framework for capital 

construction for all local entities, including the D.C. Courts, as we implement the 

Facilities Master Plan, and it lays the groundwork for the regulatory approval process with the National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S. Commission of Fine 

Arts, the District of Columbia Office of Historic Preservation, the District of Columbia Office of Planning, and the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, 

among others. 

The Judiciary Square Master Plan recommends (1) re-introduction of landscaped 

green space around court buildings and the construction of secure underground 

parking garages to house vehicles now parked in surface lots; (2) integration of service areas, security features and landscape concepts; and (3) coordination by the Memorial Fund, with the Courts, as they plan to construct a museum within the Judiciary Square. 

The Judiciary Square Master Plan will ensure the preservation of one of the last 

green spaces in the District of Columbia awaiting revitalization, incorporating areas 

where the public can gather and relax, and creating a campus-like environment 

where citizens can feel safe and secure. The Judiciary Square Master Plan will be 

of great benefit to the city of Washington, D.C. 

COMPLETE BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY

To build on past accomplishments and to serve the public in the District of Columbia, the Courts require resources in fiscal year 2007 to invest in capital infrastructure; security; strategic management; self-representation services; services for 

the most vulnerable; enhanced and more timely customer service; financial, materiel, and facilities management; and human resources. Without additional capital resources, the courthouse and the District’s historic buildings will continue to deteriorate; without targeted investments in these critical areas, the quality of justice in 

the Nation’s Capital will be compromised. The fiscal year 2007 request addresses 

these requirements by: —Investing in Infrastructure.—To ensure the health, safety, and quality of court 

facilities and to address court space needs, the fiscal year 2007 capital request 

totaled $173,460,000. The fiscal year 2007 capital request incorporates a multitude of projects. The request is a comprehensive, five-year plan, with projects 

divided into phases to the extent practicable. To avoid unduly increasing costs 

and disruptive delays in completing construction projects essential to operations, it is particularly critical that projects underway not be interrupted. To 

keep on schedule and complete the Master Plan in 2013, the Courts’ capital 

funding request for fiscal year 2007 must be met. 

The first part of the capital budget request identifies projects to renovate, improve, and expand court facilities, as specified in the Facilities Master Plan, and 

totaled $112,160,000. (1) As noted above, the main focus of our capital program 

is the Old Courthouse restoration. The Courts’ original fiscal year 2007 budget 

submission, which was prepared before the procurement process for the restoration of the Old Courthouse was completed, included $7.8 million for the Old 

Courthouse. We now know that the construction contract for the Old Courthouse is $99 million and, therefore the Courts will require $23 million rather 

than $7.8 million in 2007. We will be submitting a revised 2007 budget request, 

and are here today to request an additional $23 million beyond the President’s 

recommendation. (2) In the Moultrie Courthouse, $36.7 million is requested for: 

the renovation and expansion of juvenile holding for Family Court, the Indiana 

Avenue expansion for security improvements, and the renovations and reorganizations work to consolidate Family Court operations. (3) To renovate Building 
14 

C for court use, $27 million is requested. (4) For construction in Building A and 

Building B, $14.7 million is requested. (5) To design and prepare signage to 

guide the public through the court complex, which will become increasingly important as trial court operations move out of the Moultrie Courthouse, $5 million is requested. (6) To implement campus perimeter security features around 

Judiciary Square court buildings including installation of plinth walls, bollards, 

fencing, and security furnishings and the widening of sidewalks, $16 million is 

requested. (7) To begin design work on a new East Underground Garage project, 

$5 million is requested. 

The second part of the capital budget request addresses the condition of the 

Courts’ existing infrastructure, including projects necessary for the health and 

safety of the public in the courthouse, and totals $61,300,000. The Courts have 

expanded the scope of the Fire and Security Alarm Systems project to include 

installation of a sprinkler system for the entire Moultrie Courthouse. This is a 

significant health and safety infrastructure upgrade for which $10 million is requested in fiscal year 2007, as recommended by GSA and U.S. Marshals Service 

studies. For HVAC, Electrical, and Plumbing Upgrades $25 million is requested. 

To renovate restrooms used by the public and court staff, $2 million is requested. In addition, $5 million is requested for projects in courtrooms and secure areas. For general repairs $16.5 million is requested. To upgrade elevators 

and escalators, $0.8 million is requested, and $2 million is requested for technology infrastructure projects. —Homeland Security.—To protect the 10,000 daily visitors to the courthouse and 

meet increased security threats that face courts nationwide and public institutions post-September 11, 2001, the Courts’ request includes $6,240,000 in operating funds. ($26,000,000 was requested above in capital funds for security enhancements.) The Courts’ ‘‘Enhancing Public Security’’ initiative in the operating budget would provide 95 additional contractual security officers to protect 

the judges, staff, and members of the public inside the court buildings. —Investing in Information Technology (IT).—To achieve the Courts’ strategic goal 

of improving technology, including providing a case management system with 

accurate, reliable data across every operating area available to the judiciary, 

the District’s child welfare and criminal justice communities and the public, the 

Courts request $2,378,000 in fiscal year 2007. This amount includes staff and 

contractual services to enable the IT Division to make optimal use of the new 

case management system and to meet courtwide requirements for technological 

solutions including a system to enhance service to District citizens serving as 

jurors. —Strategic Planning and Management.—To support long-range strategic planning, performance measurement and reporting, and public accountability, 

$645,000 is requested for the Office of Strategic Management. This request 

builds on the Courts successful strategic planning effort by coordinating enterprise-wide projects and enhancing the Courts’ performance measurement capability. The request would finance performance management software, training, 

and staff to analyze court performance, direct strategic planning, and coordinate 

and prioritize enterprise-wide projects, activities, and resources. This will enable the Courts to more accurately determine how well we are doing in meeting 

our objectives, serving the public, and administering justice. 

—Serving the Self-Represented.—To enhance equal access to justice for the more 

than 50,000 litigants without lawyers who come to the courthouse each year, 

especially in the Family Court, Civil Division, and Court of Appeals, $1,724,000 

and 10 FTEs are requested for staff and facilities for a Self-Representation 

Service Center. This initiative would utilize best practices and build upon the 

limited pro bono services currently available in the courthouse. It is particularly 

vital to the public we serve, as a recent study found that local agencies providing legal services to the poor turn away more than 50 percent of persons who 

seek assistance. These individuals require assistance when they arrive in the 

courthouse with no choice but to represent themselves. 

—Services for the Most Vulnerable.—To enhance services to some of the District’s 

most vulnerable residents, $1,096,000 and 3 FTEs are requested. This figure includes $940,000 and 2 FTEs to provide statutorily-mandated advocates for mentally retarded individuals who are wards of the District; $100,000 to provide 

services to youths under court supervision, and $56,000 and 1 FTE to enhance 

monitoring of the cases of incapacitated adults. 

—Enhanced and More Timely Public Service.—To enhance and provide more timely services to the public, the Courts’ fiscal year 2007 request includes 

$1,374,000 and 22 FTEs. Included in the total is $619,000 to consolidate parties’ 

identities in the new case management system; $54,000 and 9 FTEs to enhance 
15 

case processing efficiency and accuracy; $104,000 to enhance the reference materials in the library; and $57,000 and 1 FTE to undertake community outreach. 

—Investing in Human Resources.—To help the Courts attract, develop, and retain 

highly qualified employees and address the risks of high retirement eligibility, 

$1,087,000 is requested, including $800,000 for succession planning and tuition 

assistance and $287,000 to enhance training for court personnel. Currently, 

nearly 60 percent of the Courts’ executives and nearly 45 percent of managers 

and senior staff are eligible for retirement in the next five years, representing 

a potential loss of experience and talent that the Courts must plan now to address. 

—Financial, Materiel, and Facilities Management.—To enhance financial, materiel, and facilities management, $1,880,000 and 15 FTEs are requested. Included in the total are $652,000 and 8 FTEs to build upon financial and program management improvements, including creation of an independent internal 

audit function; $783,000 and 1 FTE for materiel management, including warehouse space, equipment, and staff; and $445,000 and 6 FTEs to enhance facilities management and administrative support, including building engineers and 

equipment leases. 

—Built-In Increases.—The fiscal year 2007 request also includes $4,139,000 for a 

COLA increase, $880,000 for non-pay inflationary cost increases, and $1,753,000 

for within-grade increases. The Courts’ request includes within-grade increases 

for employees because, unlike typical agencies which may fund these increases 

through cost savings realized during normal turnover, the Courts have a very 

low turnover rate (7 percent in fiscal year 2004) and do not experience such cost 

savings opportunities. Due to our low staff turnover and increasing personnel 

services costs as a result of cost increases for retirement and health benefits, 

the Courts are beginning to face difficulty filling positions due to budgetary constraints. 

—Strengthening Defender Services.—In recent years, the Courts have devoted particular attention to improving the financial management and reforming the administration of the Defender Services programs. For example, the Courts have 

significantly revised the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Plan for representation of 

indigent defendants to ensure that highly qualified attorneys represent indigent 

defendants. In addition, the Courts have developed a new Counsel for Child 

Abuse and Neglect (CCAN) Plan for Family Court cases, adopting attorney 

practice standards and requiring attorney training and screening to ensure that 

well-qualified attorneys are appointed in these cases. The Guardianship Program for probate matters involving incapacitated adults has also been revised, 

imposing a training requirement on attorneys participating in the program. 

In the Defender Services account, the Courts’ fiscal year 2007 budget request 

represents an increase of $10 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of 

$44 million. Of the total increase, $1 million is requested to cover projected increases in the base program. The remaining $9 million reflects a compensation 

adjustment for attorneys from $65 to $90 per hour, to keep pace with the rate 

paid court-appointed attorneys at the Federal courthouse across the street from 

the D.C. Courts. 

CONCLUSION

Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, the District of Columbia Courts have long enjoyed a national reputation for excellence. We are proud 

of the Courts’ record of administering justice in a fair, accessible, and cost-efficient 

manner. Adequate funding for the Courts’ fiscal year 2007 priorities is critical to 

our success, not only in the next year but also as we implement plans to continue 

to provide high quality service to the community in the future. We appreciate the 

President’s support for the Courts’ funding needs in 2007 and the support we have 

received in the past from the Congress. We look forward to working with you 

throughout the appropriations process, and we thank you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request of the District of Columbia Courts. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Would Judge King III or others be making 

comments, or is that the summation? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUFUS G. KING III

Judge KING. I am happy to just respond to questions. Maybe I 

could get in two words, one hyphenated word and one stand-alone 
16 

word. The hyphenated word is ‘‘twenty-three’’ and the stand-alone 

word is ‘‘million.’’ 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE RUFUS G. KING III 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2007 budget request. I am Rufus 

G. King, III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. As you 

know, the Superior Court is the trial court for the District of Columbia. It is a unified court of general jurisdiction, hearing matters brought to court under all areas 

of District of Columbia law. 

Chief Judge Washington’s testimony on behalf of the Joint Committee on Judicial 

Administration details the Courts’ complete budget request, so my testimony will 

highlight specific budgetary needs of the Superior Court as part of the larger D.C. 

Courts budget request and capital project needs. 

CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST

While we are most grateful that the President’s 2007 recommendation supported 

additional court security officers for Family Court, as Chief Judge Washington has 

outlined, there are some significant capital budget needs that were not included by 

the President. In order to stay on schedule with our construction projects over the 

next several years, our capital request must be funded. There are several Family 

Court facility enhancements that are scheduled in 2007 and 2008, as well as several 

court functions that are scheduled to move into the consolidated Family Court space 

in the near future. I have included at the end of my testimony a timeline that details the Family Court projects scheduled over the next several fiscal years, as well 

as relocations and enhancements have already taken place. 

For the past several years we have focused on consolidating all the public functions of the Family Court; the Centralized Intake Center, at which all family cases 

are filed; the Family Court Self-Help Center, which assists litigants without lawyers; the Mayor’s Services Liaison Office, which coordinates the provision of needed 

social services; and family-friendly courtrooms, family waiting areas, and attorneyclient conference rooms. This summer we will complete a new entrance to the Family Court on the John Marshall level of the Moultrie Courthouse, with enhanced security, an ADA and family-friendly, stroller-accessible entry, and improved public 

waiting space. 

To complete consolidation of all Family Court Operations Division and Social 

Services Division offices, programs, courtrooms and the juvenile holding area on 

time, we need continued, long-term support for our capital budget request, and we 

need $23 million beyond the President’s recommendation for 2007, to ensure that 

the Old Courthouse restoration proceeds timely. I realize that the Subcommittee has 

a wide array of competing budget priorities to address, but I urge you to provide 

the funding we need to stay on schedule with the upgrade and consolidation of the 

Family Court. I need hardly remind the Committee that, in addition to the need 

for logistical continuity, the cost of these renovations and additions goes up geometrically the more the projects are delayed. We can assure you that all of the work 

has been, and will continue to be, done in budget and on time, but even the best 

contracting administrator and staff cannot do anything about spiraling materials 

and construction costs. We urge the view that a dollar spent timely buys more building than several dollars deferred. 

Aside from the capital projects, the Superior Court has made great strides with 

the Family Court in launching new initiatives to address community needs. Let me 

review some of the highlights. 

FAMILY COURT IMPLEMENTATION

The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 changed the way the court 

handles family cases, most notably abuse, neglect and juvenile cases. The Act authorized additional judges, a ‘‘one family/one judge’’ case management approach, and 

numerous other procedural changes that enable the Court to better serve our community. 

The Family Court, ably led first by Judge Lee F. Satterfield and now by Judge 

Anita Josey-Herring as Presiding Judge, examined best practices around the nation 

and made changes where required by the Act and where improvements could be 

made. Through close collaboration with Executive Branch agencies in the child welfare system, the Family Court is making great strides in improving the lives of children and families in the District. 
17 

Let me provide an overview of just a few of the more significant changes we have: 

—Renovated and restructured the John Marshall level of the courthouse as the 

Family Court level. It is now the ‘‘family-friendly space’’ that Senators DeWine 

and Landrieu envisioned several years back. It includes a one-stop shopping approach for the public with a Centralized Intake Center, Mayor’s Services Liaison Office, and a Pro-Se Self Help Clinic where persons without legal counsel 

can obtain materials about Family Court processes and seek assistance with 

court forms. The space presents a family-friendly environment with comfortable 

waiting areas decorated with artwork created by children from the D.C. Public 

Schools. 

—Established the Benchmark Permanency Program for older youth in foster care 

to help them make decisions and plans for the future and to coordinate a full 

range of services necessary for them to successfully make the transition to independent living. Children 15 years of age or older make up 35 percent of children 

under court supervision in the neglect system. 

—Held annual training programs for judges and stakeholders on Family Law and 

related topics, such as child development. 

—Expanded operation of the Child Protection Mediation Program, which has been 

found to result in significantly faster adjudication, disposition, and permanency 

in children’s cases and a significantly lower rate of recidivism by parents and 

guardians in neglect cases. 

—Developed a Family Treatment Court Program that provides a residential drug 

treatment program to mothers with substance abuse problems, that allows their 

children under age 11 to remain in their care while they undergo treatment, 

parenting classes, counseling and other services. In this way the children do not 

have to enter foster care. Inpatient, residential care is followed by six-months 

of after care by D.C.’s Addiction Prevention Recovery Administration (APRA). 

—Launched the ‘‘Hooked on Books’’ program, which encourages literacy by providing each child who visits Family Court with a book of his or her own. 

—Collaborated with the Metropolitan Police Department to create Operation Prevent Auto Theft to address an increase in unauthorized use of motor vehicle 

crimes by juveniles. 

—Working with the city’s Truancy Task Force, established two new truancy initiatives: 

—To heighten enforcement of the D.C. Compulsory School Attendance Act, elementary schools refer to the Attorney General’s office the names of parents 

whose children have 15 or more unexcused absences in a semester. These parents are brought before a judge to address the issue and learn that it is their 

responsibility to get their children to school or face jail time. Community 

collaboratives work with the family to determine whether services—such as 

parenting classes—are needed and monitors the family’s progress to make 

sure the children are back in school. There was a 40 percent decrease in elementary school truancy in the fall of 2004 compared with the fall 2003. 

—To address the problem of teens who do not attend school regularly, and intervene before the truancy becomes ingrained and the child is too far behind 

to participate in high school, we launched the first-ever D.C. middle school 

truancy initiative at Garnett-Patterson Middle School. Judge Satterfield conducted this program, which involved weekly meetings with parents and students, and community collaboratives working with the families. The first 

graduation ceremony was held on January 24. Deputy Mayor Brenda Donald 

Walker joined Judge Satterfield at the ceremony to congratulate the students 

and parents who completed the course. This semester the middle school program will be operating at a second school, Kramer Middle School in Southeast; Family Court Presiding Judge Anita Josey-Herring will conduct that 

program. 

As I mentioned earlier, we are very pleased that the President’s recommendation 

included support for some of our security initiatives; specifically, funding in the 

amount of $3.8 million for additional court security officers for the Family Court and 

$10 million for fire and security alarm system enhancements. While we had requested $6.2 million for additional security officers to protect more of our courtrooms, we are pleased to see that the President’s recommendation recognizes the increasing concern over court security threats in recent years. 

INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM

The Court’s major information technology initiative to consolidate 19 different 

databases and provide comprehensive information to judicial officers has now been 

implemented throughout the Superior Court. The final stage was to bring the Crimi-
18 

nal Division on line, which happened in January. We are now making adjustments 

and enhancing performance and report generation capabilities, but I am proud to 

report that the system is fully implemented. 

IJIS implementation has been a multi-year project that took place while the District engaged in an effort to improve information technology within and among the 

District’s child welfare and criminal justice agencies. The Courts’ IJIS platform is 

designed to integrate with the District’s new system, and our database configuration 

has been shared to ensure information sharing. Once the District’s system is fully 

implemented, it will allow participating agencies to store and retrieve data electronically, to make information available to the public, and to exchange vital information with law enforcement and homeland security agencies much more effectively. 

The Family Court was the first court division to go on line with IJIS, and the 

new system has significantly enhanced our ability to identify cases that should be 

consolidated before one judge under the Family Court Act’s ‘‘one judge/one family’’ 

approach and to track compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I want 

to thank the Subcommittee for its support over the past several years. It has enabled the Superior Court to implement IJIS and enhance case processing and judicial decision-making. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, the D.C. Courts are proud of our efforts to serve 

children and families, to implement technology that enhances our service to the public, to respond to the community and to provide safe, secure, open facilities in which 

that can occur. We appreciate the support you have shown in helping us carry out 

all of those goals. In return, we believe we have been good stewards of the taxpayers’ hard earned funds. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

FAMILY COURT CONSOLIDATION TIMELINE 

Family Court Consolidation Activity Timetable 

Built 9 chambers for new Family Court Magistrate Judges ....................................................................... Fiscal year 2002 

Built 4 hearing rooms for abuse and neglect proceedings ........................................................................ Fiscal year 2002 

Constructed 3 new courtrooms and 3 new hearing rooms for family matters .......................................... Fiscal year 2004 

Renovated JM-level of Moultrie for Family Court, including creation of: Central case intake office, 

Family waiting room, Mayor’s Liaison Offices for provision of social services, Self-Help Center for 

unrepresented litigants, Attorney/family conference areas, and Family friendly environment (e.g., 

play area, couches, carpet, toys and books, children’s art).

Fiscal year 2004 

Construct new Family Court entrance with accessible grade/ramping, welcoming lobby with sculptures, enhanced security, and improved signage.Fiscal year 2006 

Construct new holding facility for juvenile offenders ................................................................................. Fiscal year 2007 

Renovate Family Court 1st floor public hallways to create family friendly environment (carpet, sofa, 

children’s art, family waiting area).

Fiscal year 2007 

Renovate C Street level and relocate Social Services Division’s Child Guidance Clinic, Family Counseling Unit, Juvenile Drug Court Program, and Juvenile Diagnostic and Probation Supervision 

Branch Staff from Building B.

Fiscal year 2007 

Renovate northeast section of JM-level and relocate Paternity and Support, Domestic Relations, Juvenile and Neglect and Marriage Bureau Staff.Fiscal year 2008 

Renovate 1st floor secure corridors and adjacent offices to create family friendly public space and relocate remaining administrative Family Court Offices (Director, Mental Health, CCAN).Fiscal year 2009 

Relocate Marriage Bureau to JM level ........................................................................................................ Fiscal year 2009 

Construct addition to Moultrie Courthouse (lamination); includes a new Family Court entrance, courtrooms, judicial chambers and staff offices.Fiscal year 2010 

Senator BROWNBACK. Message received. I understand. 

Ms. Buchanan, do you want to—would you care to go ahead and 

make a brief statement? 

STATEMENT OF AVIS E. BUCHANAN, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER 

SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. BUCHANAN. Yes, thank you. I am Avis E. Buchanan. I am 

honored to serve as the director of the D.C. Public Defender Service 
19 

(PDS). As you know, I represent people who cannot afford their 

own attorneys. We provide constitutionally mandated defense representation to those individuals. We practice under the Criminal 

Justice Act and we handle primarily the most serious, most intensive cases that come through the system. We represent people 

charged with the most serious felonies, children charged with serious delinquency matters or offenses, parole—we represent people 

in parole revocation cases, and we represent people who are subject 

to involuntary civil commitment proceedings in the mental health 

system. 

For fiscal year 2007, PDS requests an increase of approximately 

$3 million, for an overall budget request of $32.7 million. PDS did 

not request or receive an increase in its budget in fiscal year 2006. 

We used that year to improve our internal operations and our performance measurement and performance management. We also engaged in a compensation study to support our staff and to support 

our clients. 

We are asking for the increase so that we can absorb inflationary 

cost increases and salary increases for our very talented staff, who 

dedicate themselves to our clients on a daily basis. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We have done a number of things over the last fiscal year, including engaging in reentry efforts. We organized an expungement 

seminar for people who have an interest in getting their records expunged. We also provided access to social services organizations 

who could deal with housing and employment needs and drug 

treatment and counseling needs that this population has. We held 

a seminar for attorneys who represent veterans, focusing on their 

reentry needs and their specific housing and employment needs. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Ms. Buchanan, if I could interrupt, the vote 

was called at 3:05 and we are going to have to close this hearing 

down probably at about 3:20. So I have got about 10 minutes here. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AVIS E. BUCHANAN

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is Avis E. Buchanan, and I am the Director of the Public Defender Service for the 

District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you today to provide testimony in support 

of PDS’s fiscal year 2007 budget request. We thank this Subcommittee for its support of our programs in previous years. 

In 2005, Public Defender Service marked its 35th anniversary by continuing to 

build on its reputation of providing quality defense representation to people in the 

District of Columbia. Since 1970, when PDS was established as a model public defender serving in the newly created District of Columbia Superior Court, PDS has 

developed and maintained a reputation as the best public defender office in the 

country—local or federal. PDS has become the national standard bearer and the 

benchmark by which other public defense organizations often measure themselves 

in a number of practice and administrative areas. 

In fiscal year 2007, PDS plans to continue on its trajectory toward better human 

capital management and better performance management. PDS’s fiscal year 2007 

budget request supports these plans by seeking a budget that loses no ground to 

inflationary pressures. PDS requests $32.71 million, including an increase of $3.175 

million, to permit the office to absorb salary increases and the cost increases associated with inflation. PDS’s fiscal year 2006 budget remained at the level of the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request; with this ‘‘flat’’ fiscal year 2006 budget, PDS 

has focused on increasing and improving our internal efficiencies and has planned 

no increase to staffing levels. Without an increase in its fiscal year 2007 budget, 
20 

1D.C. Code § 11–2601 et seq. (2001 Ed). 2 An additional 75 CJA attorneys handle juvenile matters. 

3 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. 4 As a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 

1997 (the ‘‘Revitalization Act’’), PDS was established as a federally funded, independent legal 

organization governed by an eleven-member Board of Trustees. In accordance with the Revitalization Act, PDS transmits its budget and receives its appropriation as a transfer through the 

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) appropriation. Pub. L. No. 105–33, 

Title X (1997). 

PDS will be challenged to continue to evaluate its strategic direction for human capital and the amount of support required by the legal divisions. The increase sought 

will provide PDS with the flexibility to further develop its data collection for quantitative and qualitative performance measures as we continue to transition to performance-based budgeting and management that assist in maintaining quality representation for indigent persons in the District of Columbia courts. 

BACKGROUND

In the District of Columbia, PDS and the local District of Columbia courts share 

the responsibility for providing constitutionally mandated defense representation to 

people who cannot pay for their own attorney. Under the District of Columbia’s 

Criminal Justice Act (CJA),1 the District of Columbia courts appoint PDS generally 

to the more serious, more complex, resource-intensive, and time-consuming criminal 

cases. The courts assign the remaining, less serious cases and most of the misdemeanor and traffic cases to a panel of approximately 350 pre-screened private attorneys (‘‘CJA attorneys’’).2 Approximately 110 PDS staff lawyers are appointed to 

represent: 

—the majority of people facing the most serious felony charges 

—a substantial number of individuals litigating criminal appeals 

—a significant number of the children facing serious delinquency charges 

—nearly 100 percent of people facing parole revocation 

—the majority of people in the mental health system who are facing involuntary 

civil commitment. 

While much of our work is devoted to ensuring that no person is ever wrongfully 

convicted of a crime, we also provide legal representation to recovering substance 

abusers participating in the highly successful Drug Court treatment program, and 

to children in the delinquency system who have learning disabilities and require 

special educational accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.3

The Public Defender Service, unique among local public defender offices in that 

it is federally funded,4 has always been committed to its mission of providing and 

promoting constitutionally mandated legal representation to adults and children facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia who cannot afford a lawyer, and 

we have had numerous significant accomplishments in pursuit of that mission. In 

addition, PDS has developed innovative approaches to representation, from instituting measures to address the problems of incarcerated clients who are returning 

to the community to creating a one-of-a-kind electronic case tracking system. Other 

public defender offices across the country have sought counsel from PDS as they 

have patterned their approach to their work after ours. 

As part of its statutory mission to promote quality criminal defense representation 

in the District of Columbia as a whole, PDS continues to provide training for other 

District of Columbia defense attorneys and investigators who represent those who 

cannot afford an attorney, and to provide support to the District of Columbia courts. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST

PDS seeks an increase of $3.175 million in order to keep pace with inflation and 

salary adjustments. The additional funds, coming after a fiscal year for which PDS 

requested no increase from its fiscal year 2005 funding, are vital if PDS is to sustain 

the level of quality advocacy that trial and appellate judges are accustomed to seeing from PDS staff. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

As part of its human capital strategy, PDS recently engaged the services of a consultant to assist in evaluating PDS’s compensation and performance evaluation 

practices with the goal of maintaining the current culture of excellence and collaboration while updating and expanding the options available to PDS managers and 

improving the link between compensation and individual performance. PDS has also 
21 

5 In re P.S., 821 A.2d 905 (D.C. 2003). 

6 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 

contracted with a new payroll service provider, vastly improving record keeping and 

access to ‘‘real-time’’ information. In addition, PDS has improved its data collection 

capacity in support of its first-ever strategic plan and annual performance plan, establishing more baselines for use with future performance assessment. 

GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Collaborative Work 

While well-respected and widely known for zealously advocating on behalf of clients in the criminal justice system’s adversarial process, PDS also works closely 

with criminal justice agencies (e.g., the Metropolitan Police Department, the United 

States Attorney’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Corrections, and the Superior Court) and the courts to make the criminal justice system 

function more efficiently and fairly. 

Collaborative work, essential to an efficient and fair criminal justice system, can 

be difficult for a legal entity such as PDS. PDS must always be mindful of its professional obligation to individual clients. PDS cannot waive any current or future client’s right to assert a particular position or challenge a procedure. This can be frustrating to other criminal justice agencies that are not similarly constrained. In addition, PDS’s collaboration is often with traditional adversaries that view PDS with 

suspicion. Nonetheless, PDS continues to collaborate, producing both large and 

small changes that improve the criminal justice system. 

Support for District of Columbia Family Court’s Authority.—In fiscal year 2002, 

PDS successfully argued on behalf of an individual client that under District of Columbia law, Superior Court judges lose their authority to monitor delinquent children committed to the custody of the District’s youth rehabilitation agency once the 

judge orders the commitment.5 Following this win in the District of Columbia Court 

of Appeals, PDS provided support to the District of Columbia Council as it developed legislation for an appropriate role for judges following a commitment order. As 

a result, legislation has been enacted allowing judges to respond to post-commitment changes in circumstances or to enforce conditions imposed by the Court at the 

time of the commitment. 

Courtview Access.—The District of Columbia Superior Court very recently converted to a new information system for maintaining its criminal case docket. This 

change has a direct impact on PDS. PDS used the previous system to upload information into its case management system and to efficiently determine each arrestee’s 

financial eligibility for counsel on a daily basis. PDS has established the ability to 

obtain limited electronic information from the Court’s new system, and we are beginning discussions with the Court concerning whether it will grant PDS greater access for more efficient eligibility determinations and case management. 

The Court, in combination with law enforcement agencies, is developing a robust 

data repository for all criminal cases. In addition to providing law enforcement with 

more coordinated data, the system also has the potential to provide all agencies 

with data relevant to performance. PDS’s access to this information is the subject 

of some debate within the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC). PDS will 

continue to work with the CJCC to develop access commensurate with its role as 

the institutional defender in the District of Columbia. 

Crawford Litigation.—During its previous term, the Supreme Court decided a 

case, Crawford v. Washington,6 that revived the common law right to confrontation 

adopted by the Sixth Amendment, establishing a rule that categorically requires 

confrontation for all ‘‘testimonial’’ hearsay. Unfortunately, the Court did not provide 

any firm definition of what constituted ‘‘testimonial’’ hearsay. This led to great confusion in courts around the country, including the District of Columbia courts, about 

when the defense would be able to confront witnesses in criminal cases, and when 

the government could try their case based solely on paper accusations in what were 

often described as ‘‘witnessless’’ trials. Because witnessless trials are common in the 

District of Columbia, and because the Supreme Court is the only court that can 

clearly resolve whether Crawford continues to permit these trials (which were forbidden in 1791 when the Confrontation Clause was adopted), PDS searched the 

country for good cases for the Court to use to provide a definition of testimonial 

hearsay. 

PDS identified two such cases: Hammon v. Indiana and Davis v. Washington. 

After identifying the cases, PDS (working with our private bar counterpart, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) filed a brief as a ‘‘friend of the 

court,’’ explaining to the Supreme Court why these cases were good vehicles to use 
22 

to resolve the definition of ‘‘testimonial’’ hearsay. PDS drafted the brief on behalf 

of our office and the NACDL and urged the Court to grant review in Hammon and 

Davis in order to end the confusion around the country on the issue. The PDS brief 

was the only friend of the court brief filed at the certiorari stage of the case, and 

the only brief that identified why review should be granted in both Hammon and 

Davis out of the literally dozens of cases last year in which the Court was asked 

to resolve this ‘‘testimonial’’ hearsay question. In response, the Supreme Court did 

exactly as PDS suggested, granting review in both cases—and only those cases—and 

ordering that they be argued in tandem. Following the grants of review, dozens of 

friend of the court briefs have now been filed from around the country, including 

additional briefing by PDS and NACDL. The oral arguments are scheduled for 

March 20, 2006. 

Faith-Based Regional Directory.—Working with the D.C. Jail Ministries, Citizens 

United for Rehabilitation of Errants, a church member who is the former director 

of the D.C. Department of Corrections, and a ministries group, PDS is participating 

in developing a regional directory of social services resources for use by the greater 

community, including regional church leaders and staff and church members. 

Other Program Accomplishments 

PDS engaged in a number of activities during the past year that had significant 

implications for individual clients or that improved the overall administration of justice. 

Individual Clients 

The core work of PDS is the representation of individual clients facing a loss of 

liberty. As you know, the criminal justice system is premised on an adversarial system, and PDS has able adversaries in the District’s Attorney General’s Office and 

the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. A fair criminal justice system depends on having all components (judges, government, and defense) 

fulfill their respective roles. PDS plays a pivotal part in ensuring that all cases, 

whether they result in pleas or trials, involve comprehensive investigation and thorough consultation with the client, and that the trials constitute a full and fair airing 

of reliable evidence. As it has every year since its inception, PDS won many trials 

in fiscal year 2005, fought a forceful fight in others, and found resolution prior to 

trial for many clients. Whatever the outcome, PDS’s goal and achievement for each 

client was competent, quality representation. 

All of these cases and their outcomes are far too varied and numerous to recount 

here, and the ethical rules that protect all clients’ confidences, regardless of their 

economic circumstances, preclude me from providing detailed examples. Instead, the 

following cases, absent identifying information, are a small sample of how competent, quality representation can change lives. 

Unlawful Detention.—In a case of mistaken identity, PDS obtained the release of 

a Latino man who was unlawfully held at the D.C. Jail for three months, in part 

because of a language barrier, for an offense he did not commit. The man had been 

brought to court on a probation matter that had been resolved previously. On that 

same day, another individual with the same name but a different date of birth was 

sentenced in court in two cases. The Latino man was mistakenly transferred from 

the court to the D.C. Jail without ever having seen a lawyer or a judge. Three 

months later, during a presentation by PDS for Latino inmates at the D.C. Jail, the 

innocent man approached Institutional Services Program bilingual staff and urgently pleaded for assistance. In researching the circumstances, PDS learned of the 

mistaken identity and instantly notified the U.S. Marshals Service, the D.C. Department of Corrections, and the Superior Court. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court 

signed a release order, ending the man’s unlawful incarceration. 

Ensuring Fairness.—Following a trial attorney’s allocution during a sentencing 

proceeding, a judge imposed a sentence harsher than the trial attorney thought appropriate. As a result, when the judge inquired whether counsel had any additional 

comments to make to the court, trial counsel asked the court to reconsider its sentence. In response to trial counsel’s continued allocution on behalf of his client, the 

court doubled the sentence. PDS promptly filed a notice of appeal, and within 

weeks, PDS’s Appellate Division filed a brief challenging the decision of the judge 

to impose a harsher sentence after the attorney’s protest. PDS argued that the second sentence was arbitrary and capricious, was based on improperly vindictive motives, and exceeded the court’s authority to revise an already pronounced and otherwise lawful sentence. After reviewing the PDS brief, the government agreed that the 

trial court had erred. As a result, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued 

an order vacating the illegal sentence and directing the trial judge to reduce the 
23 

7 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

sentence. Because the PDS Trial and Appellate Divisions took immediate action, the 

client did not spend any extra time incarcerated due to the illegal sentence. 

Defending the Public’s Access to Courtrooms.—During a public proceeding, a Superior Court judge apparently heard an individual talking in his courtroom. The judge 

inquired if the man had a matter before the court. The man informed the court that 

he was waiting for a relative’s case to be called. Apparently hearing the man talking 

again, the judge, sitting on the bench before a crowded courtroom, told him to leave 

the courtroom. When the man did not leave immediately, the court, rather than asking the deputy U.S. Marshal to escort him from the courtroom, or asking the deputy 

to personally instruct him not to talk while in the courtroom, ordered the individual 

stepped back into the holding cell. In addition to incarcerating the spectator, the 

judge also ordered that he be subjected to drug testing. While in the holding cell, 

the man asked a PDS staff attorney present in the area for assistance. Within 

hours, the client was released, and no testing was performed. 

Discovery Litigation.—Over the past year, PDS lawyers have engaged in lengthy 

litigation over discovery issues in Superior Court. A hotly contested area of litigation involves Brady 7 evidence—evidence that is favorable for or tends to exculpate 

the client. What constitutes Brady evidence and when that evidence must be disclosed to the defense are strenuously disputed issues in Superior Court. PDS is at 

the forefront of this litigation. PDS has filed dozens of pleadings in trial cases over 

the past year and was asked to file a ‘‘friend of the court’’ brief in an appellate case 

addressing Brady and the government’s conduct in a specific case. While the appellate case has not yet been decided, the trial level litigation has resulted in a number 

of acquittals and, on occasion, determinations by the government that the charges 

should be dismissed. Examples of evidence produced through litigation include evidence that a detective was under investigation for pressuring witnesses to change 

their testimony; evidence that the complaining witness was drunk at the time of the 

alleged incident; evidence that a detective had interviewed two witnesses claiming 

that someone other than the client had committed a homicide; evidence that a police 

officer had provided sworn testimony before the court that was contradicted by the 

complaining witness’s sworn testimony before the grand jury; and evidence that the 

complaining witness left the government a voicemail message recanting her complaint. Evidence of this nature can and does affect juror views of a case. In a homicide case in which PDS represented a 16-year-old client with no prior contacts with 

the criminal justice system, discovery litigation led to disclosures that another individual had the opportunity and motive to commit the offense. Following a trial in 

the matter in which the jury acquitted the PDS client of all the charges, defense 

counsel had an opportunity to speak with members of the jury and to learn firsthand how the exculpatory evidence played a significant role in the jury’s decision 

to acquit the client. 

Special Education Services.—In recognition of our efforts to ensure that children 

of the District of Columbia receive the appropriate educational services instead of 

being labeled delinquent, two Superior Court judges referred two separate special 

education students to PDS. We represented these two students successfully against 

D.C. Public Schools for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education 

Act. As direct result of our representation, each student received full-time special 

education private school placements within the community after facing expulsion 

from their public schools. Once appropriately enrolled in these schools, the court 

closed their cases. 

Appellate Division 

The Appellate Division’s appellate litigation has an impact throughout the District’s criminal justice system as decisions in its cases often establish or clarify the 

standards trial court judges and litigants must follow in criminal and juvenile cases. 

The complex and novel legal issues the Division is called upon to address therefore 

are best handled by experienced and talented attorneys—which the Division does 

not lack. 

Properly Instructing the Jury.—Following briefs and oral argument, the District 

of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a PDS client’s armed manslaughter conviction. In this case there was evidence the client had acted in self-defense and no evidence that the client had provoked or started the fatal fight. Nonetheless, the trial 

judge, over the objection of the trial attorney, advised the jury that someone cannot 

defend on the ground of self-defense if he or she instigated the fatal confrontation. 

As a result, even though the evidence showed many reasons to conclude that the 

client justifiably defended himself with deadly force, he was unfairly deprived of the 

right to have the jury determine if he acted in self-defense. 
24 

8Fletcher v. Reilly,lF.3dl(D.C. Cir. January 6, 2006). 

Fairness in Jury Selection.—The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that 

PDS made out a prima facie case of racial and gender discrimination in jury selection by the prosecutor, who removed a markedly disproportionate number of black 

women from the jury pool in a case in which our client—whose mother and sister 

are black—defended himself against criminal charges on the grounds that he was 

protecting his sister from the person who had just hit his mother with a metal 

pole—the client’s mother and sister are black. The Superior Court erroneously believed that peremptory strikes aimed at black women did not offend either Batson 

(the Supreme Court case that forbids racial discrimination in jury selection) or 

J.E.B. (the Supreme Court case that forbids gender discrimination in jury selection). 

On the contrary, said the Court of Appeals: ‘‘By definition, discrimination against 

black females in jury selection is both discrimination against certain female jurors 

solely because they are black and discrimination against certain black jurors solely 

because they are female. It thus is both racial discrimination of the kind condemned 

in Batson and gender discrimination of the kind condemned in J.E.B.’’ Moreover, the 

Court of Appeals refused to remand the case to allow the prosecutor to demonstrate 

that he had been motivated by a non-discriminatory purpose. Instead, the Court of 

Appeals reversed the conviction outright, concluding that ‘‘the explanations for the 

prosecutor’s seemingly discriminatory strikes could [not] be tested fairly and adequately at this late stage.’’ 

Special Litigation Division 

The Special Litigation Division litigates systemic issues in the District of Columbia criminal justice system before every court in the District of Columbia—the Superior Court and Court of Appeals in the local system, and the District Court, the 

Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court in the federal system. These are some of 

the highlights of our litigation: 

Fairness in Parole Procedures.—In Fletcher v. Reilly,8 PDS led a lawsuit filed in 

federal court challenging new guidelines issued by the U.S. Parole Commission 

(USPC) that refused to allow for the consideration of post-incarceration conduct— 

education and skills training—in inmate reparole hearings. (Reparole hearings are 

held when an inmate is paroled, violates, serves a significant amount of time in 

prison, and seeks ‘‘reparole.’’) The challenge was brought on behalf of an inmate, 

Thaddeus Fletcher, who, following a parole violation in 1995, had obtained a bachelor’s degree while incarcerated, completed hundreds of hours of jobs and skills 

training (including values development, woodworking, insect extermination, food 

preparation, computer skills, business practices, and stress and anger management), 

accepted meaningful responsibility, and demonstrated a genuine understanding of 

his past actions. In fact, the USPC hearing officer who heard Mr. Fletcher’s case 

in 2004 noted Mr. Fletcher’s ‘‘sincere remorse’’ for his criminal conduct, and described Mr. Fletcher’s rehabilitative behavior in prison as ‘‘phenomenal,’’ noting that 

‘‘it is rare to see a case with this many accomplishments.’’ The USPC officer also 

noted that Mr. Fletcher had ‘‘consistently received excellent work reports and had 

also received numerous commendations.’’ Mr. Fletcher also has never had a disciplinary infraction during his time in prison, which is very unusual. 

Under the USPC guidelines, adopted in 2001, all of this post-incarceration conduct was irrelevant at Mr. Fletcher’s reparole hearing. The new guidelines instead 

focused the hearing on the application of mechanical sentencing guidelines in determining whether he would be released to parole, and those guidelines did not account 

at all for rehabilitative post-incarceration conduct. Mr. Fletcher challenged these 

guidelines on the basis of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing 

that application of the old D.C. Parole Guidelines in effect at the time of his offense 

would likely have shortened his sentence, because they would have not only allowed 

consideration of his behavior in prison, but would have focused on that conduct, 

making rehabilitative efforts the primary factor in the decision whether Mr. Fletcher should be reparoled. The D.C. Circuit agreed, in a 21-page opinion that made 

very clear that the USPC’s reparole regulations cannot be retroactively applied to 

D.C. inmates, since doing so creates a significant risk of increased punishment for 

any inmate with a history of good conduct in prison. This decision will not only affect many D.C. inmates covered by the reparole guidelines in a positive way, but 

it will encourage those inmates to behave in prison. It will also encourage inmates 

to improve themselves through education, since doing so can again result in a shortened sentence, just as it did under the D.C. Parole Board regulations in effect at 

the time of their offenses. The decision will also force the USPC to pay more attention to individual characteristics of the offender in reparole cases, rather than rely 

solely on mechanical guidelines. 
25 

9 Civil Action No. 1519–85 (IFP). 

Special Education for Incarcerated Youth.—The Special Litigation Division challenged the failure of the D.C. Department of Corrections and the D.C. Public Schools 

to provide special education services to eligible youth incarcerated in the District of 

Columbia Jail. This year, the parties in the case, J.C., et al. v. Vance, et al., agreed 

on a resolution of the lawsuit, and the United States District Court has approved 

the settlement agreement. Facts developed in connection with the lawsuit, including 

sworn testimony from the special education teacher at the jail, demonstrated that 

the District had made virtually no progress in establishing a working special education program at the jail despite its claims to the contrary to the federal district 

court. The settlement terms call for the District to develop a special education manual within a year and to complete and implement a special education system within 

two years. 

Incarcerated Children.—For 20 years, PDS has litigated the lawsuit challenging 

the juvenile detention system in the District, Jerry M., et al. v. District of Columbia, 

et al.,9 and we are closer to a resolution than we have been in many years. The 

lawsuit and the resulting consent decree focus on the conditions of the juvenile detention facilities and on the treatment and rehabilitation provided to youths at the 

facilities to reduce their risks of recidivating and increase their opportunity of becoming productive members of the community. Last year, the Division’s Jerry M. 

lawyers asked the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the District’s Youth Services Administration (now the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services) until the 

consent decree’s mandates could be met. While the request was pending, the court 

held the District in contempt for violating several consent decree provisions. The 

District then agreed to the appointment of a special arbiter to resolve disputes and 

formulate a new model for juvenile justice in D.C. The Special Litigation Division 

and the District are now well on their way toward the formulation of a comprehensive work plan to address the systemic issues that have plagued the District’s juvenile justice system for years. 

Most recently, the lawsuit has led to: 

—The passage of legislation by the D.C. Council creating a cabinet-level position 

for the YRS director with its own independent budget authority. 

—The hiring of a child-friendly director with extensive juvenile justice experience 

committed to the care and rehabilitation of the District’s children. 

—The hiring of additional trained, qualified youth correctional officers to fill the 

gaps at Oak Hill, the District’s main youth detention facility, and provide a 

safer environment for the children. 

—The closure of the girls’ unit at Oak Hill and the transfer of all detained girls 

to a newly constructed Youth Services Center. 

—The fulfillment of the consent decree’s requirement of single cells for boys by 

reducing the male population. 

—The improvement of fire safety, suicide prevention, mental health, environmental health, and safety measures at Oak Hill. 

—The transformation of a unit at Oak Hill into a model unit to create incentives 

and merit-based programs for children to earn their release into a less restrictive environment when appropriate. 

—The opening of the pre-release unit for children who are to be released within 

30 days from Oak Hill to establish school and job placement in the community. 

—The redrafting of the intake criteria for arrested children and the focus on diversion programs for children not meeting those criteria. 

—The initiation of an assessment of the District of Columbia juvenile justice system to be performed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The assessment will 

include a detailed analysis of the YRS population in secure and community settings, as well as the programs and services needed for the full continuum of 

care, including both community alternatives and secure confinement. 

Unbiased Judicial Officers.—SLD challenged the District’s mental health commissioners’ practice of hearing cases involving the District’s Department of Mental 

Health while simultaneously having ongoing contractual relationships with the Department, a practice the Superior Court deemed impermissible in 1971. This challenge is pending before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 

Community Defender Division 

The Community Defender Division provides services through four programs: the 

Juvenile Services Program, which focuses on children confined to the Oak Hill 

Youth Detention Center in Laurel, Maryland and placed in residential facilities 

across the country; the Community Re-entry Program, which responds to the legal 

and social needs of newly released D.C. parolees and assists them in making a suc-
26 

10The Revitalization Act shifted responsibility for D.C. parole matters from the D.C. Board 

of Parole to the United States Parole Commission. 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.214(b)(1) and 2.216(f). 

cessful transition back into the community; the Institutional Services Program, 

which serves as a liaison to D.C. Code offenders in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the Community Outreach and Education Program, which educates members of the community about their legal rights and responsibilities in the 

criminal justice system. 

Expungement Summit.—In September 2005, PDS worked with several service providers to host an Expungement Summit. Modeled on a similar effort in Chicago, the 

Expungement Summit offered assistance to individuals with criminal records, determining whether the individuals might be successful in seeking to seal their arrest 

records, and providing them with social services resources. PDS’s Community Defender Division coordinated and hosted the event. Approximately 250 individuals attended, obtaining information about housing, child support, public benefits, and 

other legal services issues from staff and volunteers from the D.C. Employment Justice Center, the Neighborhood Legal Services Program, the Washington Legal Clinic 

for the Homeless, and D.C. Law Students in Court. In addition, a number of programs were present to help with employment, housing, substance abuse, and other 

non-legal needs that complicate the lives of those who have been involved in the 

criminal justice system. Another approximately 150 individuals who had scheduling 

conflicts or who were concerned about privacy called the Division before and after 

the day of the Summit to seek PDS’s assistance. The Summit was so successful that 

PDS has already begun planning a second such event. 

Truancy Initiative.—The Community Defender Program is working closely with 

the Family Court, the D.C. Public Schools, and the D.C. School Board to address 

the truancy problem by developing a program modeled after one in Louisville, Kentucky. The initiative is a family intervention program created to address the root 

causes of truancy. A community team of judicial officers, school personnel, social 

services providers, mental health providers, and substance abuse rehabilitation providers would work together to identify families for whom intensive services would 

help resolve barriers to school attendance. The program is based in the schools, 

rather than in the courts, allowing the team to make weekly visits to the school, 

with regular contacts between the case manager and the family in between the 

school visits. Twelve of the first 15 students enrolled in the program have ‘‘graduated,’’ demonstrating significantly improved attendance as a result of the program’s intervention. The truancy initiative is an ongoing program; plans are being 

made for a new group of students to participate in it. 

PDS Legal Services at the New Juvenile Detention Center.—The District’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services has provided space to PDS in the newly 

opened Juvenile Detention Center. The facility replaces the long-closed Receiving 

Home for Children as a short-term detention facility for children alleged to be delinquent. PDS will replicate at this new facility some of the services, such as representation at disciplinary hearings, that PDS currently provides to children detained at 

the Oak Hill Youth Detention Facility, the District’s longer-term detention facility 

Maryland. 

Re-entry programs.—In fiscal year 2006, the Community Re-entry Program sponsored a day-long conference, ‘‘Representing Combat Veterans in the Criminal Justice 

System,’’ on providing assistance to veterans. The conference, which placed a special 

emphasis on veterans of the U.S.-Iraq war who are charged with criminal offenses, 

focused on the defenses and sentencing options available to them, and on the resources that are available for the health, employment, and education problems most 

encountered by veterans. 

Parole Division 

The Parole Division provides required representation to parolees facing revocation 

before the United States Parole Commission.10 This Division represents nearly 100 

percent of the D.C. Code offenders facing parole revocation. 

Working with the Parole Commission.—PDS’s Parole Division continues to monitor closely the work of the U.S. Parole Commission and to seek out areas of collaboration. Most recently, a pilot program using expedited plea offers has been instituted, and the Division is providing feedback and suggestions for improving the 

process in a manner that allows clients to make fully informed decisions. If successful, this program could help reduce the current population levels at the D.C. Jail 

and the Central Treatment Facility. 
27 

TRAINING

PDS conducts and participates in numerous training programs throughout the 

year. The annual Criminal Practice Institute and the Summer Criminal Defender 

Training Program address the training needs of the court-appointed CJA attorneys 

and investigators. In fiscal year 2006, PDS attorneys and investigators also taught 

sessions at many D.C. law schools. PDS attorneys were also invited to teach elsewhere locally, including at the D.C. Bar, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the Defender Services Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts, and at D.C. law firms offering pro bono services in Superior Court cases. 

Forensic Science Conference.—In September 2005, PDS sponsored its third forensic science conference; this one focused on developing defense attorneys’ cross-examination skills in challenging DNA evidence. The conference built on the expertise 

PDS’s Trial Division has developed in challenging nuclear DNA evidence, 

mitochondrial DNA evidence, and cases arising out of database searches. The innovative design of the conference gave attorneys an opportunity in small group sessions to practice cross-examining experts from around the country using a specially 

prepared case and to receive immediate feedback from experienced attorneys. The 

conference—the first of its kind in the country—was planned in anticipation of the 

President’s initiative to reduce the backlog of DNA cases and to better educate lawyers and judges about DNA evidence. By all accounts the conference was a success. 

A number of public defender offices have contacted PDS to explore ways of reproducing the training in other parts of the country, and participants gave the conference 

very high marks, with the most common score being a 5 on a 5-point scale. 

In the face of growing evidence that most wrongful convictions are based on erroneous eyewitness identifications, the 2006 Forensic Science Conference will bring 

the latest social science research and experts in the field to Washington, D.C. The 

conference is designed to provide defense attorneys with the information and tools 

necessary to properly investigate cases to guard against erroneous identifications 

and to educate jurors and judges about pitfalls surrounding eyewitness identification procedures currently in use by many law enforcement agencies. 

The Criminal Practice Institute Manual.—The only comprehensive criminal practice manual for the District of Columbia is produced by PDS. Judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors practicing in Superior Court rely on this two-volume treatise. 

The 2005 edition of the Criminal Practice Institute Manual has been substantially 

rewritten to reflect recent changes to the law and the most current and developing 

practice areas. All relevant District of Columbia and federal case law and statutory 

changes through August 2005 have been included. Most chapters underwent substantial revision, including the chapters on sentencing, civil commitment, immigration, search and seizure, investigations, voir dire, jury issues, insanity, hearsay, and 

discovery. PDS’s emphasis on the use of experts and the growing need for defense 

attorneys to understand DNA science and other types of scientific evidence led to 

the addition of a new chapter devoted entirely to expert testimony. 

PDS Attorney Training Program.—PDS’s training program for its new Trial Division attorneys is well-respected, and it is often cited by attorney applicants as one 

reason they are interested in working at PDS. The attorneys participate in a rigorous six- to eight-week training program that starts immediately upon their arrival 

and before they are assigned to any cases. The training includes lectures and demonstrations given by PDS attorney alumni, as well as mock hearings over which actual Superior Court judges preside. When the U.S. Department of Justice’s Law Enforcement Assistance Administration conducted a study of PDS’s operations and designated PDS as an ‘‘exemplary project’’ in the mid-1970s, the training program was 

cited as contributing substantially to the quality of our program. 

PDS recently directed its attention toward improving the training that occurs 

after those new attorneys begin representing clients. All attorneys are placed in 

‘‘trial practice groups’’ or ‘‘TPG’s,’’ based on their practice level—felony I, juvenile, 

etc.—for regular, ongoing training sessions led by a Trial Division deputy chief. PDS 

recently revamped the TPG program to move away from conducting it as a set of 

more informal sessions planned independently by each deputy chief toward having 

a more coordinated set of training modules. PDS identified all the major advanced 

skill sets and substantive knowledge areas an attorney should acquire as he or she 

gains experience and transitions from one practice level to another and organized 

them into a ‘‘tiered’’ or ‘‘sequenced’’ TPG program. Supporting materials are being 

developed to accompany the sessions so that the TPG program, like the first-year 

training program, is self-sustaining, yet adaptable. We are reviewing the revised 

TPG program to assess its efficacy and its ability to meet the needs of the staff and 

the office. 
28 

ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Relying more extensively on technology, PDS continues to strive to be a model 

public defender in its administrative operations as it is in its client representation. 

PDS has created greater links between its payroll and finance operations, and has 

responded to emphasis from Congress on continuity of operations plans and telecommuting by exploring ways of supporting employees away from their offices. PDS has 

invested in new technology in the form of both hardware and software that allow 

key staff to have access to electronic files and databases from remote locations. 

Continuity of Operations.—PDS has acquired the capacity (e.g., Blackberrys and 

docking stations) to provide staff with access to their case files and to relevant databases from locations other than the office. Currently, key managers can access electronic files and databases from remote locations. In fiscal year 2006, PDS’s IT staff 

will be developing the capacity to support this technology for all key staff, using a 

combination of existing staff and contractors. 

Government Performance and Results Act.—PDS has expanded the use of Atticus, 

PDS’s self-created case management system, within the organization. More staff 

now are able to enter case and performance data into the system, better positioning 

PDS to report on performance. 

‘‘Duty Day’’ representation.—PDS has reorganized its approach to providing walkin and call-in services to the public. PDS traditionally assigned a staff attorney on 

a rotating basis to be available to answer questions or handle matters from individuals who walked into the office or called. PDS’s paralegals have now been trained 

to serve as the first-line point of contact on ‘‘Duty Day’’ matters—without providing 

legal advice. This filters the calls, reducing the number that are ultimately forwarded to an attorney and freeing the attorneys to concentrate more exclusively on 

legal matters. 

CONCLUSION

I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee for your time and attention to these matters and for your support of our work to date. I would be happy 

to answer any questions the Subcommittee members may have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. If I could, Mr. Quander. I do not mean to 

cut you off, but I have got to if I am going to hear from the others. 

A brief summation, Mr. Quander? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES 

AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY 

ACCOMPANIED BY REVEREND DONALD ISAAC, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

EAST OF THE RIVER CLERGY-POLICE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP 

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Brownback, and good afternoon, Senator Landrieu. 

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOA) supervises approximately 15,500 men and women who are on adult 

probation and parole. The Pretrial Services Agency on any given 

day supervises about 7,000 defendants. These individuals are in 

the criminal justice system and we are responsible for their supervision. 

One of the major undertakings that we have is a reentry initiative. In any given year, there are approximately 2,000 men and 

women who are returning to the District of Columbia from a place 

of incarceration. Reentry is a major focus of how we re-integrate 

them back into the District of Columbia. We have a partnership 

with the faith community. Donald Isaac, Reverend Donald Isaac, is 

here to talk about those things that we have done in the partnership. 

But what our needs are for those men and women who are coming back is education, housing, substance abuse. We have to figure 

out a way to help those individuals to maintain their sense of in-
29 

volvement and to be embraced by society as they try to make that 

transition from a criminal lifestyle to a pro-social lifestyle. 

With that, I will defer to Reverend Isaac to talk about housing 

and some of the partnerships that we have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR. 

Chairman Brownback and Members of the Subcommittee: It is my privilege to appear before you once again this year to present the fiscal year 2007 budget request 

of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), which includes the 

D.C. Pretrial Services Agency (PSA). 

Let me begin by thanking the subcommittee for your continued support of our 

agency and our initiatives. It has been truly gratifying to me that our efforts to 

build a model supervision agency, grounded in the field’s best practices, here in the 

nation’s capital, have continually met with your interest and enthusiasm, and that 

you have worked to make as many resources available to us as possible. CSOSA’s total budget request for fiscal year 2007 is $214,363,000, an increase of 8 percent over our fiscal year 2006 enacted budget. Of this, $135,457,000 is for the 

Community Supervision Program, $46,196,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency, 

and $32,710,000 is for the Public Defender Service, which is funded as part of 

CSOSA’s appropriation. The majority of our requested budget increase consists of 

adjustments to base, with the reduction of PSA’s extensive supervision caseload 

being our sole new initiative. We believe these requests are essential to our mission, 

and we look forward to your continued support as we implement strategies to 

achieve that mission. 

When we think of community supervision, we tend to visualize a fixed period of 

time: six months of probation, two years of parole, etc. The offenders pass into, 

through, and out of our system. They either succeed or they fail. But for the offender, CSOSA supervision is often just one in a series of episodes that, taken together, constitute a lifetime of contact with the criminal justice system. I recently 

asked our Office of Research and Evaluation to take a look at parolees whose supervision was revoked in fiscal year 2005. These men and women had spent very little 

of their lives outside the justice system. Nearly half had been arrested for the first 

time as juveniles. Nearly 60 percent had six or more prior arrests. Eighty-eight percent had failed at supervision at least once before, with nearly a third failing three 

or more times. And nearly 90 percent had a history of substance abuse, the reoccurrence of which plays a central role in their failures. 

Maya Angelou once wrote of herself, ‘‘You did what you knew how to do, and 

when you knew better, you did better.’’ The challenge of community supervision is 

to provide offenders with the knowledge and tools to do better. Imparting knowledge 

is as essential to CSOSA’s public safety mission as drug testing or home visits, and 

it’s much harder to achieve. We can count the number of drug tests and home visits. 

It’s much more difficult to measure the amount of effort needed to empower one individual to say, ‘‘My future does not have to be the same as my past.’’ 

Our community supervision model places public safety as its number one priority, 

but it also stresses programming and support services that help the offender move 

toward this realization. In particular, our partnership with the faith community 

connects offenders to permanent sources of inspiration and support. During this 

past year, our Faith Community Partnership continued to move forward with both 

video mentoring and post-release services. 

Our fiscal year 2007 budget supports both prongs of CSOSA’s approach to successful supervision: accountability and opportunity. We know that we need to monitor 

the individuals we supervise closely enough to enforce the rules. We also know that 

for those rules to be anything other than a temporary interruption of criminality, 

we must provide the information and the opportunities for meaningful change. Our 

budget puts in place key strategies to address both challenges. 

First, our proposed budget would fund the implementation of a program that we 

have planned for five years, and that we believe will greatly expand our ability to 

supervise and assist the highest risk offenders and defendants: chronic substance 

abusers. As you know, we have been renovating Karrick Hall to house our Reentry 

and Sanctions Center. This initiative will enable us to expand our successful Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC) program. The program model combines intensive assessment with substance abuse treatment readiness programming to improve 

the likelihood of successful supervision. The clients sent there will leave with a prescriptive plan to guide future treatment, increasing the prospect of success, as well 

as the personal insight and motivation needed to stay drug and crime free. 
30 

In fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2006, Congress funded the staff positions for 

five of the six units that will comprise the completed Reentry and Sanctions Center. 

This year, the Community Supervision Program requests an adjustment to base of 

$3,428,000. This will fund operation of all six units, which will provide programming 

to 1,200 individuals annually. 

We have long anticipated opening the Reentry and Sanctions Center as a national 

model for best practices in the areas of assessment, treatment readiness, and intermediate sanctions. The fully operational facility will enable us to expand the AOC’s 

services to special populations, including female offenders and individuals with dual 

mental health and substance abuse diagnoses, who could not be served within the 

existing AOC. The AOC program has already made a difference to the 1,500 individuals who have completed the program. Over the next five years, full operation of 

the Reentry and Sanctions Center will quadruple that number. 

On any given day, the Pretrial Services Agency supervises approximately 6,000 

defendants. Over 3,000 of these defendants are classified as needing extensive supervision—that is, regular drug testing, face-to-face contact, and referral to treatment or other support services. These cases constitute 55 percent of all General Supervision caseloads with release conditions. Currently, 26 Pretrial Supervision Officers are assigned to monitor these cases, with a resulting caseload of 124 defendants 

per officer. This is too high to provide the level of contact that the courts expect 

and the defendant’s risk necessitates. 

With the current high caseload ratios, PSA is not able to provide the supervision 

expected by the Court or required by PSA’s internal policies and procedures. In fiscal year 2005, only 56 percent of defendants were in compliance with their release 

conditions at the end of the pretrial period. Currently, PSOs often cannot respond 

quickly to violations of release conditions, despite the statutory requirement that 

every violation be reported to the prosecutor and the Court. This is particularly 

troubling with high-risk felonies pending indictment. In these cases, the first court 

date after the preliminary hearing is often many months after the defendant has 

been released to PSA. During that time, because PSOs are managing their caseloads 

on the basis of court dates rather than violations of release conditions, warrant 

checks and criminal records checks are not done regularly to see if defendants have 

been arrested again in a neighboring jurisdiction while on release. PSA requests 12 positions and $1.7 million to provide additional Pretrial Supervision Officers for extensive supervision cases. This request will lower caseloads to 

100 per officer, and while still high in relation to neighboring jurisdictions, 100:1 

is a more manageable level that will allow for closer monitoring and quicker responses to violations. PSA also requests three positions and $768,000 to implement Global Positioning 

System-based electronic monitoring for high-risk defendants. This will augment 

PSA’s electronic monitoring capability to include defendants who do not have a 

‘‘land line’’ phone or whose movements must be monitored more closely than traditional equipment allows. 

GPS-based monitoring has proven to be a successful tool for CSOSA’s Community 

Supervision Program, particularly for high-risk sex offenders and domestic violence 

cases. Currently, approximately 100 offenders are on this type of monitoring, which 

is used both routinely and as a sanction for noncompliant behavior. Since the program began in fiscal year 2004, approximately 300 offenders have been placed on 

GPS monitoring. We would like to expand the use of this technology to the pretrial 

population. 

In closing, Chairman Brownback, I want to thank you for your efforts last year 

to provide funding for more transitional housing. I am pleased to report that we recently signed a contract with East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership (ERCPCP) to refer offenders who have completed substance abuse treatment 

to its new transitional housing facility. This facility was developed, in part, with the 

funding you provided ERCPCP in the fiscal year 2005 bill. Our community needs 

more resources and collaborations of this kind in order to address the critical need 

for safe, stable housing for offenders returning from prison or treatment. 

During the year ahead, I will be working closely with other criminal justice system stakeholders to link the use of available transitional housing resources to vocational training and career development opportunities. I am confident that once our 

clients can see and believe that they hold in their hands the promise of a better 

future, they will take the path that leads to it. 

Finally, I want to respond to last year’s inquiry about our recidivism rate. We recently concluded a study of offenders who entered supervision in fiscal year 2003. 

Among these offenders, the two-year rearrest rate was 65 percent. However, many 

of these rearrests were for traffic offenses or public order charges, or were the result 

of warrants we issued because the offender had violated his or her release condi-
31 

tions. If we look at the types of crime that constitute the most significant threat 

to public safety, the story is somewhat different. For violent crime, the rearrest rate 

is 19 percent. For drug-related crime, it is 35 percent. While the offender is under 

CSOSA supervision, the rearrest rates are significantly lower—14 percent for violent crime and 22 percent for drug-related crime. 

CSOSA’s strategic plan emphasizes reducing recidivism for violent and drug-related crime. While our research shows that community supervision is effective in 

achieving this, the benefit does not necessarily extend beyond the supervision period. In other words, once the offender is ‘‘off paper’’—once there is no more close 

supervision—he or she is more likely to get rearrested. In our study, 35 percent of 

the offenders who entered supervision in 2003 were rearrested shortly after entering 

‘‘off paper’’ status. 

Perhaps the greatest challenge we face during each offender’s supervision is to 

provide some reason for him or her to continue following society’s rules after supervision ends. We must help each offender to know better how to succeed, so he or 

she can do better long after we’re out of the picture. This involves both monitoring 

current behavior and providing tools to shape future behavior. Mr. Chairman, and 

members of the subcommittee, in bringing this budget request before you, we ask 

for your continued support of both aspects of our work. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REVEREND DONALD ISAAC

Good afternoon Senator Brownback and the members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. 

My name is Reverend Donald Isaac and I am the executive director of the East 

of the River Clergy Police Community Partnership, a faith-based organization that 

serves the needs of adjudicated youth and previously incarcerated adults. I also 

serve as the chairman of the CSOSA Faith Advisory Council. 

I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of the innovative efforts undertaken by CSOSA in stemming the tide of recidivism among the re-entry community 

in Washington, DC. 

First I want to take this opportunity to personally thank you for your sincere commitment to serving the needs of re-entrants by ensuring funding of programs that 

are so critical to the population that my organization serves and in particular for 

recognizing the importance of housing in setting the foundation for a positive reintegration back into the community of those previously incarcerated. Ex-offenders 

risk relapsing into a life of homelessness, drugs and crime unless additional transitional housing and supportive services becomes available in Washington, DC. 

Your efforts last year in securing funding for ERCPCP have helped us to begin 

operations of a 15 bed transitional housing facility and jumpstarted the development 

of a 14 unit apartment building for ex-offenders. These facilities will house re-entrants referred by CSOSA for 90 days of transitional living, 90 days of independent 

living, and 90 days of after-care services while the re-entrants are in permanent 

housing. 

This is a significant first step in helping us serve the critical need for housing. 

However, there is more work to be done, which is why we have returned to you this 

year for your support. We have created a strategy to strengthen our existing efforts 

and expand our programs to develop transitional housing for ex-offenders city-wide. 

Your assistance is indispensable in making our re-entry housing strategy a success—and will ultimately help the re-entrant population become stable, self-sufficient members of the community. 

As you know, CSOSA has been in partnership with the faith community for about 

5 years now. We have jointly set up programs which serve the holistic needs of those 

seeking to transition back into their home community. 

Under CSOSA’s faith-based re-entry initiative, faith institutions have served as 

the community complement which ensures that the re-entrants get connected to social service providers, drug rehabilitation services, counseling, employment training 

and job placement. 

We began the program by providing mentors from the faith institution of the reentrants’ choice, then moved to providing job readiness services under ‘‘Ready 

4Work’’ and now are launching a city-wide housing initiative under a housing task 

force which was established last year by the faith-based re-entry initiative. Together 

with CSOSA, faith institutions want to fulfill a commitment to put a real dent in 

the re-entry housing problem. As chairperson of the Faith Advisory Council I stand 

ready to serve as a resource to you and the committee in understanding the needs 

of the re-entrant community. ERCPCP can organize meetings, schedule tours and 

visits to program sites and serve as the fiscal agent for other faith-based partners. 
32 

In fact, I’d like to take this opportunity now to extend an invitation to you Mr. 

Chairman and members of the committee to visit our programs to see first hand 

the work that we are accomplishing in the re-entrant community. 

The CSOSA partnership with the faith community has proven to be a sound one 

and one that is continuing to grow in its impact. As such, we urge you to provide 

the strong financial backing that this partnership needs to continue to make a significant impact in reducing recidivism and transforming the lives of those who want 

to be contributing citizens. 

Again, thank you for your time and attention. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Reverend Isaac. 

Mr. ISAAC. Yes, I am Reverend Donald Isaac and I am the chairperson of the CSOSA/Faith Advisory Committee. I certainly want 

to thank both you and Senator Landrieu for the support that you 

expressed last year and to report that we were able to really organize and bring on line about 30 beds of housing, transitional housing, through the support that was shown last year. The need for 

housing is obvious. We work in mentoring. We have done the 

Ready4Work program, but we have found that housing is the major 

underpinning of a successful reentry program. 

So we are here today to offer our expertise and our availability 

as a resource to you and other members of the subcommittee, to 

organize meetings and visits within our community, or to even 

serve as a fiscal agent to be able to empower and bring other members of the faith community to the table who want to be engaged 

in this work. 

Thank you. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. I was over last night at the 

Gospel Rescue Mission and was talking with some of the people 

there. They were wrestling with the housing issue and how important that was for reentry in this critical time. 

Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you all so much, and I am sorry our 

meeting is going to be cut short, but we have scheduled seven votes 

starting in just a few minutes. 

But I wanted to ask a question. I see that the recidivism rate is 

higher nationally than in the District and I think you need to be 

complimented for getting that number down. But what specific 

steps are funded in this budget to further reduce that recidivism 

rate? I know, Reverend, you just spoke about the real need for 

housing and a partnership with churches and the benefits of 

mentorship as we are moving people back in and trying to get them 

in a very positive track, productive positive track, to keep them out 

of jail or from going back. 

So could you name one or two things that are in this budget that 

perhaps the chairman and I could focus on that really you are seeing some real good results from? I do not know, Mr. Quander, if 

you want to take this. 

Mr. QUANDER. I will start. One of the main initiatives is the Reentry and Sanctions Center, which is located on the campus of the 

hospital, D.C. General Hospital. That facility is brand new. Members of this subcommittee have been very supportive. We have 

opened that facility. That facility will allow us to provide assessment, treatment readiness, motivational services, for a core group 

of offenders who will be returning from periods of incarceration. It 

is a core group. These individuals have had on average nine prior 
33 

arrests, six prior convictions, a documented history of substance 

abuse. They have been violated for either probation violations or 

parole violations. They represent the typical individual who is recycling through the system. 

It is our desire to get these individuals into this program where 

we can concentrate on the services that they need, get them ready 

to be followed up by in-patient drug treatment, and then to be followed through aftercare, and a specialty unit that will help them 

and to supervise them. That is one of the initiatives. 

The other initiative of the Pretrial Services Agency is the caseload for their extensive supervision program. The current caseload 

is approximately 124 to 1. This budget will allow, if approved, to 

reduce that caseload. We are asking for additional positions there 

and additional money for global positioning system technology to 

help the pretrial population. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I see it will reduce it from 124 to 100. 

But is it still higher than Maryland and Virginia? What are the jurisdictions around us? 

Mr. QUANDER. It is difficult to actually put a one to one because 

in Northern Virginia, if you are looking at the Federal numbers, it 

just is not a direct correspondence. It is still going to be high. In 

I believe Northern Virginia in the Federal system, it is probably 

about 80—sorry, about 60 to 1. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Sixty to one, and we are 100 in the District. 

Mr. QUANDER. If we can get down to 100 to 1. We want to take 

steps that will get us there. We know we will not be able to get 

everything. But if we can get it down to 100 to 1, that gives us 

something more to work with. We can provide the service that we 

need to provide to ensure public safety. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think this 

is a very important program and if we can get that caseload as low 

as possible so that these professionals can do their job, we can keep 

people when they get out of prison from going back and keep the 

community safe and try to get people on a more productive life 

track, which would be important. 

So I know our time is short. The chairman may have a question. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. Thanks, Senator Landrieu. I 

think this is a really important issue, too, if we could do a lot more 

in working on getting that recidivism rate down. We have got a big 

bill on the Second Chance Act to try to do this more nationally, and 

if we could model some of the successful ways to do this in the District of Columbia. I would love to do it, want to do it. 

This year is going to be a tight budget year. The numbers we are 

working on, that is the votes we are going to right now. So I do 

not know how much we will have for any new initiatives. It is probably going to be mostly maintenance of current efforts to move 

those and try to keep them on track. We will look at things on recidivism, and I am particularly interested in the housing aspect, 

where we can try to get people in situations where they can most 

likely thrive, because I know it is just a really tough circumstance 

for a lot of people. When they come back in and are reentering the 

system, they have got to get someplace they can land on their feet 

and work on through. 
34 

Judge Washington and Judge King, thank you very much for 

your parts in this process and the capital campaign efforts that you 

are doing. We will see if we can maintain that. Again, as I say, it 

is a tight budget year. I do not know how much we are going to 

be able to do in that category, but we will see. We will see what 

we can do with the overall budget areas, and we appreciate your 

work in it as well. 

I apologize for this being short. Perhaps you like it that way. You 

will not be drilled as much. We have got these seven stacked votes 

that we are already about a minute or two from closing the first 

vote. I do appreciate your effort, do appreciate your work. This is 

a key, key area that we have got to keep on track and you are 

doing a great job. 

The record will remain open for the requisite number of days. 

Your official statement will be entered in the record. 

Any closing? 

Senator LANDRIEU. No, thank you. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BROWNBACK. A record short hearing. Recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., Tuesday, March 14, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(35) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Brownback, Allard, and Landrieu. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Senator BROWNBACK. We’ll call the hearing of the cannonball express to order. I was saying I would give this dive about a 6.5. 

Now, the tilt is the only reason I got a little off the score on this 

one. But, Mayor, that’s just about as good as it gets. You know, I 

wouldn’t have taken my shirt off; I would have been embarrassed. 

But you’ve got pretty good form. You’re looking pretty good. 

Dr. Gandhi, maybe next year you can join him, Dr. Janey, and 

we’ll do a triple. 

Dr. GANDHI. I cannot match the Mayor. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well, few of us could. Thank you all very 

much for being here. We’re doing the extraordinary, and we’re 

going to start on time. We have a series of votes starting at 11, and 

so time is short. I’m going to put my full statement into the record 

and ask that it be presented that way. I do want to welcome the 

Mayor on his eighth and final budget that he is putting forward. 

I do want to congratulate you, Mayor. I’ve very much enjoyed working with you. It’s been a good relationship, it’s been a congenial relationship, and it’s been a successful one. And I also look forward 

to working with you more, as you round out your time in this position, on some of the welfare reform topics that we’ve talked about. 

Good progress is being made on supporting and encouraging family 

formation. 

The District’s had good news, been creating new jobs. Unemployment in the District, we’ve had some problems on increasing of unemployment. I think there’s been a lot of things that have been 

working right in the District. 

I do want to talk about the schools some today with Dr. Janey, 

because that continues to be an area all of us are watching and 

concerned about. I want to hear what progress we are making in 
36 

that particular field as we move forward, particularly on test 

scores. I’d like to hear about that and about the allocation of space 

for charter schools. I know my colleague, Senator Landrieu, is particularly interested in that. We just want to talk about what’s the 

plan and how we’re moving forward with this altogether. 

With that, I’ll put the rest of my statement in the record and 

turn to my colleague, Senator Landrieu. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today we will hear testimony regarding the District of Columbia’s fiscal year 2007 local budget request. D.C. Mayor 

Anthony Williams, Council Chairman Linda Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer 

Natwar Gandhi will present the city’s budget and will discuss the District’s requests 

for Federal resources. In addition, D.C. School Superintendent Clifford Janey will 

discuss the D.C. Public Schools’ local budget request and his plans for using the $13 

million in federal funds that have been requested of this subcommittee. 

This is the eighth and final budget that Mayor Williams is putting forward. I 

would like to congratulate you, Mr. Mayor, for making dramatic improvements in 

the District’s financial condition. When the Mayor took the helm in 1999, the District’s bond rating was in ‘‘junk bond status.’’ Now the District is enjoying an ‘‘A’’ 

rating from all three credit rating agencies and is also maintaining a cash reserve 

balance of over $250 million, which is among the largest in the country. The city 

is enjoying an impressive commercial real estate boom and has been creating jobs 

at a rate that is twice the national average. 

But tempering these positive facts is a very troubling reality. Only one-third of 

the jobs that the District is creating are going to city residents. In fact, even as the 

District has been creating new jobs, unemployment in the District has been increasing. One reason for this persistent unemployment problem is the adult illiteracy 

rate in the District. District-wide the rate is 37 percent, but in lower-income wards, 

the illiteracy rates are much higher. The District is also losing population, even as 

the populations of surrounding suburbs continue to grow at rapid rates. 

The adult illiteracy rates and the outflow of residents can be largely attributed 

to the poor public school system. For years District schools have been failing generations of students and now the city is reaping the sad consequences of illiteracy, unemployment, and the flight of residents who just cannot bear to send their children 

to neighborhood schools. I do not believe money is the problem. Funding for the District’s school system has increased 83 percent since fiscal year 1999, even though 

overall enrollment has actually dropped 5 percent during that same time period. 

The per-pupil spending rate is the highest in the nation. Despite huge funding increases and extraordinarily high per-pupil spending, only 32 percent of 4th graders 

are reading at a basic level, compared to 62 percent nationally. And only 36 percent 

of these same students are performing at a basic level in math, compared to 77 percent nationally. Clearly the children in the District are not being prepared to take 

part in the American dream that is occurring right in their own city. 

A few months ago the Department of Education labeled the District’s public 

schools ‘‘high risk’’ because of serious recurring problems with its financial and 

grant management. Clearly, the situation is dire and I would like to hear from city 

leaders about how they plan to reign in school spending and improve student performance. 

Unfortunately, it seems like we have this conversation year after year. I believe 

that when we fail to teach our children to read and write, we condemn them to lives 

of poverty, crime, and hopelessness. We must act swiftly and aggressively to change 

course for the sake of our children’s futures. 

Regarding the federal portion of the D.C. budget, I know that the District has a 

number of programs and capital projects that may merit funding through this subcommittee. Today I would like to hear more about those project requests from our 

panel. Although our resources are always limited, as Chairman of this subcommittee, I look forward to partnering with city leaders to find ways to make life 

better for those who live, work, and visit this Capital City. 

Because of time constraints, we ask witnesses to limited their oral remarks to 3 

minutes. Copies of all written statements will be placed in the Record in their entirety and the hearing Record will remain open for the requisite number of days. 

Senator Landrieu. 
37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will put my 

statement in the record, because our time is short because of these 

stacked votes in just about 45 minutes, and we do want to hear 

from the distinguished panel. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Good morning, thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this final hearing regarding 

the fiscal year 2007 budget in the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. I appreciate our witnesses joining us today to discuss the budget and 

your priorities for this year. We welcome back Mayor Anthony Williams and his 

Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi for the final hearing of their Administration. 

I would also like to welcome the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, Linda Cropp, who has ably led that body and Dr. Clifford Janey, the Superintendent of D.C. Public Schools, who are testifying again before the committee— 

but hopefully not for the last time. 

As the committee and witnesses are aware, the primary purpose of the D.C. subcommittee is to ensure the immediate and long term economic health of the District. 

There are many ways we can do that. I brought to the attention of this committee 

and my colleagues in Congress that we should examine what GAO has identified 

as a structural imbalance between the cost of providing city services and its ability 

to take in revenue. But at the same time, we must focus on other tools to bring 

greater prosperity and long term stability to the District. At a time of limited Federal resources I would like this committee to partner with each of the offices represented here today—the Mayor, Council Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, and 

Superintendent of public schools—to leverage our funding to the best opportunities 

for growth and stability. Cities that have good public schools, safe communities, and 

strong families are cities that have strong economies. If we focus ourselves on providing these things in the District, we will go a long way toward strengthening the 

economic independence the city needs and deserves. 

Our witnesses have dedicated significantly to reforming public education in the 

District. On May 15th the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Janey, released a plan 

outlining the first steps in making the system more efficient and dedicating more 

resources to students in classrooms. The Superintendent’s recommendation for the 

first phase of school consolidations, or rightsizing, recommends closing six public 

school facilities and making space available in seven additional public schools for 

co-location, in all 1 million square feet of un-used space. At least 5 million square 

feel of excess space has been independently identified by the Council of Great City 

Schools, the Brookings Institute, and the 21st Century Schools Fund. This committee has raised concerns, in our annual committee report and in several hearings 

in 2005, that it is a highly inefficient use of public funds to maintain at least five 

million square feet of under-utilized space in DCPS facilities. The Board of Education’s decision to consolidate 3 million square feet of space in 2 years is a major 

recognition that resources can, and should, be used to directly improve student 

achievement rather than maintaining unused facilities. I congratulate Dr. Janey for 

taking the lead and for the Board of Education for working so hard to have a fair 

process that benefits students and families to consolidate the first 1 million square 

feet of space. I am encouraged that the Board has agreed to consolidate an additional two million square feet of space by school year 2007–2008. 

Making better use of the resources you have is significant progress to improving 

public education for all. But the process that each of you here today, and other public officials, continue over the next few months and years will be the true message 

to families in the District whether the education of their children is valued or not. 

I urge you in the strongest possible way to establish a fair and transparent process 

to make any schools closed available first to public charter schools. The D.C. School 

Reform Act requires a right of first refusal to public charter schools for any public 

school property not used by the city. You must adhere to this law. 

The expansion of public charter schools is one of the driving forces making public 

education more accountable to the community. In the District, charter school students now make up 25 percent of the public school population, some 20,000 students. There are 52 charter schools on 64 campuses and the upcoming school year 

welcomes 58 charters on 71 campuses, as 7 new charters and one expansion open. 

When people ask me why I support charter schools, I tell them it is because I 

believe in public education. I firmly believe that if we work to modernize the system 
38 

of delivery for public education, allow greater opportunities for innovation and hold 

schools accountable for results, then we can provide a high quality public education 

for every child in America. One size does not fit all, and if we give our parents 

choices, they will choose what is best for their child. 

Until now, the focus of the charter school movement has been to increase the 

quantity of charter schools. But if we expect this to be more than a movement, we 

must shift our focus from quantity to quality. As the Washington Post wrote last 

year, ‘‘The District’s experiment with charter schools has proved hugely popular 

with parents, but the schools vary widely in quality and have yet to demonstrate 

that they are doing better than the city’s regular public schools in raising student 

achievement.’’ I also look forward to working with you to improve accountability for 

individual schools and programs and hold all recipients of public funds accountable 

to the highest standard. 

This committee is gravely concerned about recent allegations where the use of 

public funds for charter schools has been in question and investigations have ensued. The committee is examining closely the performance of public funds provided 

to finance the purchase or renovation of public charter school facilities. It appears 

that the program has met its objectives—schools have received loans or credit enhancement, buildings have been purchased and renovated, with the ultimate goal 

that children are studying in better facilities. Twenty-two public charter schools 

have received financing from these funds. The primary concern is how, if the press 

is true, were contracting laws circumvented and public funds invested in a questionable company? I hope that the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi can provide some insight. I 

understand there are four investigations ongoing, and I strongly hope that these are 

expedited and come to a conclusion as soon as possible. My priority is that public 

funds are returned to the city as soon as possible. Any wrongdoing must be prosecuted and all the public funds must be returned. Responsible public officials will 

not wait months and years for investigations to wind their way to on conclusion 

while children languish in substandard facilities because there are no funds to improve school buildings. We will not stand for it and I hope that none of the witnesses here today will either. 

Another area which I hope the committee and the witnesses will address today 

relates to a request by Mayor Williams to remove the water and sewer authority 

(WASA) from the financial oversight of the independent Chief Financial Officer of 

D.C. I understand that for many months the CFO and WASA have been in negotiations to resolve differences in the authorizing statutes that require independence for 

both. I would like to work with the District’s elected leaders to develop a reasonable 

resolution to this issue. 

As you know, as Chairman of this subcommittee I lead the effort in Congress to 

maintain the independence of the CFO when the Financial Control Board was retired in 2001. And I have worked with Chairman Brownback and his predecessor, 

Senator DeWine, to continue this provision each year on the D.C. Appropriations 

bill. We do not take lightly the Congressional direction in establishing the Control 

Board to have an independent CFO with oversight of all financial offices in every 

District agency. Unless WASA is not a District agency, we need to find a way forward for appropriate oversight of its finances while maintaining a strong District 

CFO. I hope that the Council will take up this important issue and work with 

Chairman Brownback and me to address this conflict. 

In closing I would like to take a moment to commend each of our witnesses for 

their stead-fast and superior commitment to the District of Columbia. When I became the ranking member, and soon after the chairman, of this subcommittee in 

2001 the federally imposed Control Board was coming to a close. The city had 

turned from junk bonds to credit worthy status on Wall Street and the city services 

that all residents depend upon were on a path to functioning as residents demand. 

This Congress, the city, and really the nation have one man to credit for that path— 

Anthony Williams. As the CFO who turned the city around, and then the Mayor, 

you have set the course for a brighter future for this city. Dr. Gandhi has continued 

the same high standard of financial security and Chairman Cropp has guided the 

Council’s work to secure this path. Dr. Janey has been with us little over a year, 

but I am hopeful that his record will surpass even that of the other city leaders with 

us here today as he works to improve the learning and achievement of the District’s 

children. I congratulate each of you on your work and appreciate your service. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But I would like to follow up specifically on 

our focus of this subcommittee, which I think is warranted, on the 

progress of the improvement of the school system for the District. 

The Nation’s capital is not only a place of residence for the people 
39 

that live here in the capital, but as the Nation’s capital, it’s an opportunity for us to really showcase what’s best about our democracy. And having a strong and vibrant school system—and, Dr. 

Janey, you’ve made some significant steps in your tenure as superintendent, with the Mayor’s support and the Council’s support, but 

we want to focus some of our encouragement to you on the continuation of reducing excess space, on making the system more efficient, and giving more opportunity and choices for students and 

their parents and their families, and answering the call of the business community that sees skill development and education development as a real key to the economic development of this city and 

this region and it’s growth and expansion. 

This excess school issue, Mr. Mayor, the city sent this letter last 

night. As you can tell, it’s quite long. I haven’t had a chance to review it, but will before too long, and have more specific questions 

relative to that. 

I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, one incident that’s not in my 

written testimony, but something that’s been in the paper that’s 

quite concerning, And I know it’s not the job of this subcommittee 

to micro-manage the first responder situation here in the city. But, 

Mr. Mayor, the incident regarding a resident that was robbed and 

beaten and then died subsequent to the poor response time is extremely concerning to me, not just because, again, the residents of 

this city deserve a strong police force and first responders—and 

Chairman Cropp, as well for you—but the thousands and millions 

of visitors and school children that come into this District deserve 

to know that that first-responder system is as strong as it can be. 

I know that you have this under investigation, so I don’t want 

to go into too much detail, but I want you to know that I and many 

members here have expressed concern about making sure that people are held accountable, that systems are changed, and perhaps 

in your testimony you could give a couple of updates about that situation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, panel. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you Senator Landrieu. 

Senator Allard. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make my full statement a part of the record, and I would just second many of the 

comments you made. I would just say to the Mayor that while you 

are departing after your second term, I think you can hold your 

head high. And I think you have done a great job, and we are looking forward to continuing to work on issues that are important to 

the District. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I look forward 

to the testimony of our panel today regarding the District of Columbia’s budget request for the next fiscal year. 

I would also like to reiterate the ‘‘congratulations’’ to Mayor Williams; I think he 

deserves it. While you are preparing to depart after your second term as Mayor of 

the District of Columbia, I hope you leave with your head held high. I have noted 

that from the time I first arrived here in D.C. there has been a remarkable change 

in this city for the better. You certainly deserve your fair share of credit for that 

turn-around. 
40 

That said, I look forward to hearing the panel’s testimony regarding the federal 

payments to the District. It is a very tight budget year for all of our federal expenditures. I know that there are many initiatives in the District that this committee has 

supported in the past, and I hope to hear an update on many of this educational 

activities and capitol improvements which have been appropriated for in prior years. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony, and 

thank them for appearing before us today. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Allard. Mayor Williams, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mayor WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Brownback, for holding 

this hearing. Ranking member Landrieu, thank you as well. Senator Allard, I haven’t had a chance to work with you, but I am 

looking forward to working with you as we move through this 

budget process. And, Mr. Chairman, in light of your time constraints, what I will do is abbreviate my remarks wherever possible, understanding that my full remarks have been entered for 

the record. 

Senator BROWNBACK. All of your presentations will be placed in 

the record as if presented, so I would ask if you could to summarize, because I think all of us would like to get to some questions 

and answers if we could. 

Mayor WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, regarding any budget questions, I also have with me Kevin Clinton who is my Senior Advisor 

for Budget and Finance, as well as Kate Jesberg, who has worked 

very closely with your staff in developing a number of initiatives 

that we’ve been working on in terms of strengthening our families 

in the District of Columbia, so she’s also available to answer questions that you may have today. 

I’m pleased to be joined by Council Chair Cropp, who has been 

a partner in the success that we have achieved in the District; I’ll 

stand alone on all the problems, but she’s been a partner in all the 

good things; and Dr. Gandhi, my friend and colleague now for a 

long, long time, since I’ve been CFO of the District; as well as Dr. 

Janey, with whom I meet with weekly, understanding, as you do, 

Mr. Chairman, the importance and primacy of our schools. 

In our budget for fiscal year 2007, Mr. Chairman, we continue 

our program with new communities, which is an attempt to try to 

decrease the concentration of poverty in our city and create, using 

our own resources, and wherever possible partnering them with 

Federal resources, mixed-income communities in this city that are 

more conducive to healthy lives and neighborhoods in our city for 

all of our citizens. 

Another initiative last year, Great Streets, brought physical improvements and additional business to some 22 miles in the District. Affordable housing, including, but not limited to, the new 

communities project I just talked about, as well as increasingly 

strengthening our housing in our city using the housing production 

trust fund that we have created now over the last 5 or 6 years to 

not only build housing, but to work with tenants and residents to 

preserve affordable housing. Because Washington, DC, like many 

cities in the country, is a city where you have a number of section 

8 contracts and other housing contracts that are expiring, many 

residents are likely to lose their homes if the city doesn’t step in 

and work with them. 
41 

There’s more mileage to be gained in preserving affordable housing through preservation than you’re going to get through production of new housing, due to the scarcity of land and the scarcity of 

housing at an affordable price in terms of cost production. You’ll be 

hearing from Dr. Janey, but I was pleased to have worked with Dr. 

Janey, and Council Chair Cropp and the Council to provide an allocation of $223 million to support rehabilitation and modernization 

of school buildings. 

I’m pleased that the District continues to be a leader in 

healthcare coverage in our city, offering health insurance coverage 

to all residents, up to 200 percent of poverty. And the 2007 budget 

demonstrates our continued commitment to this by expanding 

health coverage for children from 200 to 300 percent of the Federal 

poverty level. The trick now is to see to it—and it’s pretty much 

the case in everything we do—to see to it that this coverage is 

translated to better health outcomes, and there’s been a snag there, 

a much bigger snag than I would like. 

We’ve also asked for funding for critical projects. I mentioned, Mr. Chair, that the President’s budget, I was pleased, contains $30 

million to launch the recommendations of my blue ribbon library 

task force. I assembled major philanthropists, nationwide experts 

in the field. I would urge that the subcommittee support the President’s mark. The $30 million in the President’s budget will help 

fund three neighborhood branch libraries and a new central library, and these four library projects will help us transform the entire library system. In fact, the District is united in transforming 

our library system into a world-class system. 

You should know, Mr. Chairman, in the past year’s budget the Council and I have put $170 million into improving our library system to show our own local support for this effort. I expect that philanthropy will also play a part in this. And I would also note, Mr. 

Chair, as I have with you in private conversation, that this isn’t 

just about building a library building or even building or re-modernizing buildings in the neighborhoods. It’s really about using the 

library system as a way to improve literacy in our city, because, as 

you know, our city struggles in a situation where some 37 to 38 

percent of my constituents are struggling at a low level of reading 

ability. So every tool we can use for education, in this case libraries, that tries to address that problem, we want to do that. 

We asked for $10.5 million for continued support of the emergency planning and security cost fund to reimburse the District for 

the costs incurred in activities associated with Federal activities: 

The inauguration is an example. 

In the area of education, there is substantial investment in three 

areas; a tuition assistance grant program, and a three-sector initiative. The tuition assistance grant program, as you know, is a marquee Federal initiative that continues to be a success. It compensates the District for the lack of a State university system, as 

you know. 

In 2005, our students were enrolled in universities and colleges 

in 45 States across the country, the District, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. This budget includes funding of $40.8 million—excuse me. 

This budget includes funding for this tuition assistance program, 

but I’ve pledged to you, members of the subcommittee, and other 
42 

Members of the Senate, that the District is committed to holding 

these costs down in future years, recognizing that there are number of things that we can do under our own power to do that, but 

also accepting the fact that the cost pressures in this program are 

really either things that are outside of our control, the cost of tuition is rising in colleges across the country, or things that the Senate and the Congress should be proud of, for example the number 

of students who are using the program. The number of students 

who are using the program continues to increase and actually has 

led to one of the signal achievements in our education system that 

I think the Congress can be proud of, and which is to say that 

there’s been a some 35 to 40 percent increase in college matriculation now that can be traced back to this program. So that’s a good 

thing, and Congress should be proud of it. And we would want to 

encourage the Congress, and particularly the Senate, to continue it. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, my strong support for the three sector 

initiative. This budget includes funding of $40.8 million for that 

initiative, funds provided to D.C. Public Schools, the charter 

schools, and scholarships for private tuition throughout the District. It continues to perform as designed by expanding choice for 

District parents and teachers. I’m very, very proud and pleased 

that mothers, parents of lowest income in some of the most struggling situations, have chosen this option to provide a better education for their children. 

On the Anacostia Waterfront, to be brief, Mr. Chairman, we’re 

asking in the President’s budget for $20 million in funding for improvements to the Navy Yard Metro Station. It’s modeled on transit investments the Federal Government has made in the District 

and elsewhere. It will help the Federal Government improve capacity for expanded Federal workforce needs at the U.S. Department 

of Transportation headquarters in the Southeast Federal Center. 

The House has provided for this funding within the Transportation 

appropriations bill, and we would request that the Senate also support this investment. This investment also will have a positive effect on the new baseball stadium, but I want to insist it’s not solely 

for that purpose, because there is a large Federal presence there 

with the Southeast Federal Center and the new U.S. Department 

of Transportation. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up my last budget testimony in 8 years as Mayor and I forget how many it was as CFO, 

I would urge the members to be supportive of the bill now moving 

through the House that would allow a congressional vote—I’m not 

talking about a vote in the Senate, but a vote within the Congress—for the District Representative. It’s supported on a bipartisan basis, and I think it’s the right thing to do to provide democracy in our capital. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to provide 

you this testimony. I stand ready to answer any questions you or 

the subcommittee may have. 

[The statement follows:] 
43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member Landrieu, and other distinguished members of this subcommittee, it is my great pleasure to testify before you today regarding my proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget and Financial Plan: The Citizens’ Budget. 

As the last budget that I am presenting to the Congress as Mayor of the District 

of Columbia, I want to express particular appreciation for the support and commitment that this committee has provided to our efforts to improve the District of Columbia as a place to live, work, and visit. I am preparing my budget in an environment where the economy is strong and the District’s fiscal standing is respected 

across the country. However, as I developed my local budget, I focused first on my 

responsibility as Mayor to fulfill our current commitments to the citizens of the District of Columbia. 

This budget fulfills our commitments by containing the growth of government 

through fiscal discipline. It maintains our pledge to provide tax relief for all District 

residents, and it follows through on the landmark initiatives we launched last year. 

In this budget, I also responded to the priorities that citizens have expressed in 

summits, public hearings, and community meetings. 

A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET

This budget takes the responsible approach with a local fund budget of $5.09 billion, representing a 2.6 percent growth rate over last year’s funding level, in part 

by scaling back $205 million in baseline growth. This belt tightening effort also allows us to invest in a modest amount of new services. I chose to make the most 

significant investments in education and housing because residents told me those 

are their highest priorities. 

Another way that this budget reflects fiscal responsibility is by taking the final 

step towards completing tax reductions associated with the Tax Parity Act of 1999. 

This will save taxpayers $51 million in fiscal year 2007 and $64 million during fiscal 

year 2008 and beyond. This final phase of tax parity implements reductions for individuals at lower income levels as compared to earlier phases of tax parity. For taxpayers with taxable income under $10,000, tax rates fall from 4.5 percent to 4.0 percent. For taxable income from $10,000 to $40,000, tax rates fall from 7.0 percent 

to 6.0 percent. And for taxable income above $40,000, tax rates fall from 8.7 percent 

to 8.5 percent. 

This last phase of tax parity caps a three-year period in which the District has 

provided more than $350 million in tax relief to residents and businesses—mostly 

in the form of property tax and income tax relief. 

FOLLOWING THROUGH ON LANDMARK INITIATIVES

Last year, we launched the ‘‘New Communities’’ initiative. It is designed to decrease the concentration of poverty and crime by creating mixed-income neighborhoods with one-to-one replacement of affordable housing. This District-sponsored redevelopment of the physical and human architecture will transform distressed 

neighborhoods into healthy, mixed-income communities that offer families better 

housing, employment and educational opportunities. 

In the past year we have made progress in our first targeted community, Northwest One. This budget proposes an investment of $4 million in social supports in 

Northwest One, Barry Farms, and Lincoln Heights. These social supports will include launching adult learning partnerships, expanding youth serving programs, 

and implementing intensive self-sufficiency case management support for residents. 

Another initiative we launched last year, Great Streets, aims to transform underinvested corridors into neighborhood centers through physical improvements and 

new business development. The total corridor distance is 22.5 miles and the corridors pass through over 50 neighborhoods. In fiscal year 2007 I will invest $6 million in development assistance, small business development and land use planning 

along selected corridors. In addition, in the fiscal year 2005-fiscal year 2009 spending plans, we allocated $100 million in local and federal funds for transportation, 

streetscape, and transit improvements. 

Through the Way-to-Work initiative, we leverage the economic development activity that has transformed the District by refocusing its impact on specific neighborhoods and targeted communities. We have developed strategies to ensure that employment and business opportunities associated with the District’s booming economy 

are available to all residents in every ward. I propose continued funding of $21.6 

million for the Way-to-Work Initiative in fiscal year 2007, with more than $12 million targeted for the District’s youth. In my plan I propose $7.7 million for summer 

jobs for 10,000 district youth; $3.1 million for year-round youth employment; $1.8 
44 

million for the Youth Leadership Institute and $8.4 million for transitional employment. Should additional funds become available, I propose increasing summer jobs 

funding by $2 million to serve an additional 1,400 youth. 

CITIZEN PRIORITIES

Affordable Housing 

This budget proposes a new housing initiative based on the recommendations of 

my Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force, which conducted a comprehensive, 

year-long review of the housing landscape in the District of Columbia. This initiative is designed to protect and expand affordable housing so that the District is better equipped to address housing challenges including: a lack of affordable housing 

for those working at low to mid-level salaries; a need for housing for our most vulnerable residents, and the need for central coordination of the District’s housing 

agencies. 

Based on the Task Force recommendation, I proposed an increase in the residential deed and recordation tax rates from 1.1 percent to 1.5. This will generate roughly $47 million in fiscal year 2007 and I propose that this revenue be devoted to a 

new dedicated fund for the implementation of the recommendations of the task 

force. 

Education 

I am proposing an historic investment in capital funding for the District of Colum- bia Public Schools, with a total allocation of $223 million to support rehabilitation 

and modernization of school buildings. This includes full funding of $100 million in 

sales taxes as passed by Council and an additional $123 million from other modernization resources. 

The operating budget includes a total of $1.1 billion in local funds for public edu- cation, including $811 million for DCPS and $264 million for public charter schools. 

This fiscal year 2007 budget level includes increases to the Per-Pupil Funding Formula as recommended by the State Education Office. This increases base funding 

for education by $402 million and results in an additional $25.1 million for DCPS 

and $9.5 million for the D.C. Public Charter schools. This funding level also includes 

$4.9 million to hold DCPS harmless from the impact of students transferring from 

the school system to private schools as part of the federal voucher program. 

Health 

The District continues to be the only jurisdiction in the United States offering 

health insurance coverage to all residents up to 200 percent of poverty. The fiscal 

year 2007 budget demonstrates our continued commitment to providing health services to residents by expanding health coverage for children from 200 to 300 percent 

of the federal poverty level and, for the first time, adding dental coverage within 

the Medicaid program for adults. 

This budget augments primary health care services with the goal of creating an 

electronic health record system ($2.2 million) for community health centers, along 

with a bricks and mortar investment in community health centers that serve lowincome populations ($13 million). We have also added $1 million for the operating 

costs of my Medical Homes initiative. We will expand the hospital uncompensated 

care fund by $4.25 million, which will generate $14 million additional dollars for our 

hospitals. 

I am proposing health care improvements for residents in the currently underserved east side of the District. These improvements will ensure proper citywide distribution of emergency, trauma, inpatient, and specialty services, and will be funded 

through Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund bond revenues. 

To address HIV/AIDS, I am calling on a citizen task force to identify improvements to our HIV prevention strategies and HIV/AIDS treatment in the District. 

Libraries 

In this budget, I propose significant new investments into our District library system to elevate the quality of life by providing access to information and literacy 

services, while serving as a community gathering place. 

The District is committing $16.25 million in fiscal year 2007 as part of a $167 

million investment in major construction and renovations to neighborhood branches 

over the next six years. This will meet the needs of community residents, provide 

attractive gathering places for neighbors, and support neighborhood economic development. We also are investing $5.5 million to enhance key library services including 

updated collections and expanded operating hours. 

I am proposing a new, central Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library that will 

attract library patrons and serve as the symbolic, administrative, and technological 
45 

hub of the system. The cost will be covered with the proceeds of the disposition of 

the existing central library, the PILOT payment, and federal funding, including a 

portion of the $30 million that President Bush recently committed to the District 

to support my library initiative. 

Youth 

We are proud that we have developed the first ever Children’s Budget for fiscal 

year 2007. Our challenge now is to reexamine what results we are getting from our 

investments and whether we are investing in the right things. The Youth Development Strategy offers a framework to realign current youth investments with effective, evidence-based programs and services. 

The budget includes seed funding for the Mayor’s Youth Development Strategy is 

to reduce youth violence and improve the quality and effectiveness of youth programs throughout the District. This budget includes $1 million to support interagency violence prevention efforts in addition to the resources for core initiatives already within agency budgets. I am also proposing, in partnership with Major 

League Baseball, an investment of $1 million in a summer youth baseball academy. 

Safety and Justice 

This budget includes an increase of $4 million to provide local support to compensate for the loss of $4 million in federal funding that supported 81 officers. This 

budget includes $500,000 to support a third round of our ‘‘civilianization’’ initiative 

which will result in over 150 sworn officers moving from desk jobs back onto patrol. 

I have provided $800,000 for additional forensics lab services, which is complemented by an additional $5 million investment in the new Consolidated Laboratory Facility. This budget also includes $11 million in rehabilitation and construction of fire stations. 

PRIORITY FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS

In addition to the investments I am making locally, I ask you to continue to partner with me to improve the District of Columbia for our residents, workers and visitors. The committee’s targeted investments in joint initiatives have had a tangible 

impact on quality of life in the District of Columbia over the course of my two terms 

in office. This year, the President’s budget reflects a particularly strong commitment 

to several of the initiatives that I have targeted throughout my term and those that 

I believe will have a rebounding impact on the District of Columbia for decades to 

come. 

Library Initiative 

Over the past few years, I have turned to the D.C. Public Library system as a 

vehicle to address the low literacy rate among the District’s children and adults. In 

many major metropolitan areas around the country, new libraries have revitalized 

many distressed neighborhoods. For this reason, I have reconstituted the Library 

Board of Trustees and established a Blue Ribbon Task Force comprised of local and 

national experts. The Blue Ribbon Task Force recommended that we create a state 

of the art library system to add multi-lingual support, add hundreds of new computers with broadband technology, and add deep reference materials and children 

programs. This will help create a brighter future for D.C. residents. 

The estimated cost of rebuilding the D.C. Library System will be approximately 

$450 million. The $30 million in the President’s budget will help fund three neighborhood branch libraries and the new Central Library. These four library projects 

will help us transform an entire library system and provide the necessary leverage 

to raise money from private sources. 

First, $14 million of the Federal contribution will help fund the initial stages of 

building a state-of-the-art Central Library. A new Central Library will provide the 

technological and administrative capacity to support the 26 neighborhood branches 

throughout the city. Second, $5.3 million will be allocated to rebuild the Washington 

Highlands Library; approximately 30 percent of the population over 25 in this serving area did not graduate from high school. The third project is $5.3 million to upgrade the Petworth Library which serves nearly 32,000 residents. Finally, $5.3 million will expand and renovate the Southeast Library. This branch serves over 25,000 

residents and serves a socio-economically mixed population. Half of the adults over 

25 did not graduate from high school. 

Public Safety 

I am requesting $10.5 million for continued support for the Emergency Planning 

and Security Cost Fund. This fund is available to reimburse the District for costs 

incurred as a result of activities associated with the federal presence such as major 
46 

events and demonstrations. Based on our current projections, this request, while 

lower than in previous years, will be adequate to support the foreseeable need in 

fiscal year 2007. 

Finally, in the area of public safety, I am requesting continued funding of $1.3 

million for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The CJCC provides a forum 

for the District and federal agencies that make up the District’s criminal justice system to plan strategically and resolve problems to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall system. The CJCC has achieved improvements in areas ranging from information sharing to halfway house placement to ex-offender re-entry. 

This year, the CJCC’s focus also includes reducing gun violence, reducing juvenile 

violence, and better connecting social services to those in the criminal justice system 

that need them. The complex nature of the District criminal justice system demands 

a forum such as the CJCC to ensure coordination, collaboration, and improvement. 

Education 

In the area of education, this budget includes substantial public investment in 

education in three areas: the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program and the threesector initiative. I also request partnership with the Congress on a new tuition assistance program in cooperation with the D.C. National Guard. 

The District of Columbia’s Tuition Assistance Program (DCTAG) is a marquee federal initiative that was established by Congress in the 1999 District of Columbia 

College Access Act and has been and continues to be a tremendous success. This 

Program compensates the District for our lack of state university system that the 

entire country enjoys by allowing our high school college-bound students to attend 

out-of-state public universities at in-state tuition rates and providing them grants 

for attending selected private universities. Unfortunately, program costs have continued to grow rapidly due to rising tuition costs nationwide and rising program 

participation. 

TAG currently provides grants up to $10,000 annually for undergraduate District 

students to attend eligible four year public universities and colleges nationwide at 

in state tuition rates. It provides grants up to $2,500 for students to attend a private institution in the D.C. metropolitan area and private historic black colleges and 

universities as well as public 2 year community colleges. In 2005, our students were 

enrolled in universities and colleges in 45 states across the county, the District of 

Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Tuition Assistance Program has had many successes. In June, 2004, the program graduated its first class. The second class graduated June of last year. For 

75 percent of the students surveyed at Woodson High School in the District, TAG 

affected their decision to pursue post-secondary education and 65 percent have said 

that the program has affected their school choice. Also gratifying to me is that 55 

percent of participants are the first members of their immediate family to attend 

college. 

My budget request also includes, for the first time, a request for tuition assistance 

for the D.C. National Guard. This funding will match funding that I am providing 

in my local budget and allow the Guard to improve recruitment. 

This budget also includes funding of $40.8 million for the three sector education 

initiative, with funds provided to D.C. Public Schools, charter schools in the District 

of Columbia, and scholarships for private tuition throughout the District. This initiative continues to perform as designed by expanding choice for District parents 

and teachers and providing support to all our public schools. 

Anacostia Waterfront 

I would also like to discuss the tremendous work being conducted along the Anacostia Waterfront. First, let me thank you for your partnership thus far and ask for 

your continued partnership. 

As you know, the District’s authorization committees are currently considering 

the Federal and District Governments Real Property Act of 2005. This is a landmark initiative between our respective governments to rationalize land usage and 

set in motion projects that are to have a profound impact on public space and quality of life in the District of Columbia. 

The President’s budget includes $20 million in funding for improvement at the 

Navy Yard Metro Station. This investment, which is modeled on other transit investments the federal government has made in the District, will help the federal 

government improve capacity for expanded federal workforce needs at the new U.S. 

Department of Transportation Headquarters and the Southeast Federal Center. The 

House of Representatives supported this initiative by providing funding within funding from the Transportation appropriations and I ask that you support this funding 
47 

proposal, although it is now outside your Committee’s jurisdiction, as it shifts to the 

Senate. 

Improving public access and for the tremendous natural amenities along the Anacostia River is a driving priority of my administration, but my vision for the revitalization of the Anacostia River will not be possible unless we clean up the river by 

fixing our combined sewer system that currently deposits waste into the river 

throughout the year. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority is embarking on a 30- 

year plan to fix this system in order to drastically reduce pollution in our waterways. I ask that you support this critical program in the amount of $7 million. 

DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION’S CAPITAL

Having outlined our budget objectives, it is important to keep in mind a District 

priority whose value is beyond fiscal measure, and that is our democratic rights. 

The District is the capital of the world’s greatest democracy and it is the ultimate 

hypocrisy that its citizens suffer from the exact disenfranchisement this nation was 

founded to end. 

The United States is continuing to promote, sacrifice, and invest to spread democracy worldwide, yet denies full democracy to more than a half a million people at 

its very heart. I urge you to end this injustice and provide the city with full voting 

representation in the Congress. Anything short of full democracy for our residents 

should be a personal outrage for all Americans. 

In recent years, this subcommittee has successfully resisted efforts to add undemocratic social riders to our appropriations bill. No matter what any Senator’s 

opinion may be on the topic at hand, we hope this body will respect the right of 

District residents to decide local matters, just as the residents do in our 50 states. 

We also hope this body will repeal riders that restrict our ability to make decisions 

about spending local funds on needle exchange programs and lobbying. 

While the relationship between the Congress and the citizens of the District of 

Columbia is a unique and sometimes very challenging one, I very much appreciate 

the committee’s willingness to work closely with us and to respect our local sovereignty. 

This concludes my remarks today. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you today and over the past several years. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You might get more support for that congressional vote if you announced your candidacy. 

Mayor WILLIAMS. Oh, no, I think Eleanor—Congresswoman Norton is doing a great job for us. 

Senator BROWNBACK. She has. And if Eleanor is listening, I’m 

not backing the Mayor for this, and I’m not opposed to Eleanor 

Holmes Norton, who is a tenacious advocate for the District. I’ve 

been the recipient of her tenaciousness over many, many a session, 

and she does a great job for the District. 

Chairwoman Cropp. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIR, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. CROPP. Thank you very much, Chairman Brownback and to 

Senators Landrieu and Allard. It’s indeed a pleasure for me to be 

here and testify on behalf of the citizens of the District of Columbia, and, of course, our Council. Thank you for submitting the entire testimony for the record, and I will just highlight a few points. 

This year I asked Council members to apply certain goals in the 

fiscal year budget. Some of the main ones continue our fiscal discipline and look for efforts to revitalize our neighborhoods and looking for affordable housing as a way for us to strengthen the workforce and the middle class in the District of Columbia and to promote continued economic stability and growth in the District of Columbia. 

As we look at certain issues, certainly the Mayor has mentioned 

many of them in which we have joint concerns and interests as op-
48 

portunities for us to improve the District of Columbia. Education 

is probably the major issue, and the major one that needs to be 

strengthened as we continue the progress that we’ve experienced in 

the District of Columbia. Our budget reflects that, with quite a bit 

of budget increase in the area of education, whether it’s in the programming aspect of it, or looking at our school facilities and recognizing that when you have facilities where the Herculean share of 

those buildings are 75 years in age or older, that we needed to 

have an infusion of support to modernize. 

The tuition assistant grant program has been very successful 

since its inception 5 years ago. Almost 5,000 young people have had 

an opportunity for higher education. We ask the subcommittee to 

approve the dollars that are in the budget for that program. 

Another aspect of the city’s education initiative is to improve and 

repair our library systems. This is a high priority for the city. 

Many of our libraries are in need of extensive repair. There’s also 

a need for improvement and upgrades in our services. We look at 

that as being one of the major components of making sure that the 

District continues its good progress that we’ve made over the past 

several years. 

In support of major economic development efforts proposed in the 

2007 budget, we continue to seek support from the Federal Government for development initiatives along the Anacostia Waterfront. It 

will in doing that help to bring life to a body of water and an area 

of the city that needs it, whether or not we’re talking about our 

ward 6, our ward 7, and our ward 8 communities that abut the waterfront. And it would provide tremendous economic growth and development for those neighborhoods and for the city as a whole and 

just revitalize a whole area. So I would ask that the subcommittee 

include the $5 million that is part of the District’s request. 

The Council also strongly supports the proposal for Federal funding of expanding and upgrading the Navy Yard Metro rail system. 

While the expansion of this station is essential to the new development programs, including the stadium that’s going there, Federal 

funding for this expansion is especially justified due to the stadium’s proximity to the 10,000 Federal employees who will be relocated to the new U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters 

there, and it would play a major role. Just as the Federal Government fully funded the expansion of the Mount Vernon Square 

Metro Station at the site of the new convention center, we ask for 

your support in this Navy Yard Station also. 

I would also like to ask for continued Federal payment for the 

consolidated laboratory. This laboratory would allow the District to 

operate its own facility, conducting forensic testing for crime 

scenes. It also would provide a facility for analyzing evidence associated with bioterrorism activities. The District has used the FBI 

laboratory for a number of years. However, when there is a high 

level usage of the laboratory by the Federal authorities, the District’s work is delayed. This has a direct impact on the resolution 

of crimes in the District of Columbia, including the identification 

of the criminals. The city continually works to reduce crime, and 

the ability to complete forensic analysis in a timely manner would 

aid the city in resolving crimes and putting criminals behind bars. 
49 

As the Nation’s capital, the District is the prime target—or a 

prime target for terrorist activities. With the ever-increasing threat 

of these activities, the need for a forensic laboratory in the District 

that is readily available becomes more and more important. Therefore, I would ask this subcommittee to support the District’s request for funding of the laboratory. The District, also as a primary 

target, particularly since we sit as the seat of Government for this 

great country, that we should not have a reduction in our Homeland Security budget. The threat level continues, and as the Nation’s capital, we are a prime target. 

One area where this subcommittee can help us address a health 

issue is to grant us the authority to expend our local funds on needle exchange. Such programs have resulted in reducing HIV transmissions without increasing drug use. In addition, such programs 

have had a positive impact on hepatitis infections. Other State and 

local governments across the country provide funding for needle exchange programs, and therefore have benefitted from the improved 

health statistics. While D.C.’s rate of HIV/AIDS infection is deplorable, we must use every avenue possible to protect our citizens. 

Our rate of infection is increasing, and as the Nation’s capital it 

certainly is not acceptable. The District government would like to 

add these improvements to its health program, but we do need 

your help. I ask the subcommittee not to include any rider preventing the use of local funds for needle exchange programs. 

And as the Mayor stated, it is extremely important that we get 

passage of the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Representation Act. As we attend funerals for many of our neighbors 

and our relatives who are off fighting in a war to protect this country—in some instances, D.C. citizens have had more—the District 

has had more deaths of our citizens than some States, yet we do 

not have a vote to make a determination on whether or not we go 

off and fight that war. I would ask that you support the District 

of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Representation Act so that the 

citizens of the District of Columbia would be franchised as every 

other citizen in this great country. 

In closing, I would ask that you pass this year’s budget request 

in time for the start for the new fiscal year, and that no extraneous 

riders be placed on the bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank you, Chairman Brownback, for this opportunity 

to share the Council’s thoughts on the District budget and other 

issues important to this city. I look forward to working with you 

again on this year’s appropriations legislation, and as always, we’re 

available to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Cropp. 

I appreciate that, and I appreciate your kind demeanor as well. It’s 

always appreciated. 

[The statement follows:] 
50 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Chairman Brownback, Senator Landrieu and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am pleased to speak 

to you today about the District’s appropriations and other operational items. 

BUDGET GOALS AND FISCAL DISCIPLINE

This year I asked the councilmembers to apply the following goals in establishing 

the fiscal year 2007 budget: Fiscal Discipline, Revitalize Our Neighborhoods, Invest 

in Our Youth, Protect our Vulnerable Residents, Commit to Affordable Housing, 

Oversee Executive Performance of Service Delivery, Promote Continued Economic 

Stability and Growth, and Expand Home Rule and Democracy. 

I would like to mention that the District Government, through the efforts of the 

Council and the Executive Branch, has continued its commitment to containing the 

growth of government through fiscal discipline. The Council has utilized various 

tools to achieve this discipline such as rainy day funds, economic triggers, to PayAs-You-Go Capital Financing, financial safeguards, and the application of insurance 

and investment policies. These tools have yielded significant financial returns for 

the District including a growth in revenues, which are expected to yield a $52.7 million surplus at the end of fiscal year 2006. 

Through the efforts of the Council and the support of the Mayor, the District Government continues its commitment to its citizens to reduce taxes by implementing 

the final phase of the Tax Parity Act of 1999. Personal income tax will be reduced 

in fiscal year 2007 bringing a savings of $51 million to citizens. In addition, further 

reductions in property taxes will be implemented in the next fiscal year bringing 

residents an additional savings of $$51.9 million. 

BUDGET PROCESS AND HIGHLIGHTS

The total budget as approved by the Council is $9.018 billion. Local dollars represent 56 percent or $5.079 billion of the total budget. The federal portion of the 

District budget totals $2.047 billion or 22.7 percent of the total budget. The budget 

process included 314 hours of public hearings. Citizens from across the city participated in these hearings as well as by contacting the Council via other communications to express their positions on the funding of programs. 

Funding for Human Service programs was increased by $94 million and $50 million in additional funds were provided to implement recommendations from the 

Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force. Funds were also provided to hire an 

additional 100 police officers in our neighborhoods and $81 million for road repair, 

school rehabilitation, recreation center improvements and other capital stock upgrades. In addition, the Council continued its commitment to our employees by allocating funds now for pay raises in fiscal year 2008 and setting aside additional 

funds for employee health and retirement benefits. This budget represents a reinvestment in the city and its future. 

EDUCATION

The Council is committed to continuing to support improvements to the educational system in the District through its approval of the city’s budget and other 

legislative proposals. The budget amount for public schools and public chartered 

schools for next fiscal year is $1.2 billion. This represents nearly 17 percent of the 

proposed budget. Overall funding for public education for fiscal year 2007 was increased by $104 million. 

In addition, I introduced legislation, which is currently law that established a 

school modernization fund that dedicates revenue for the construction and modernization of school buildings. The law mandates the development of a master plan 

that would outline how the funds would be used in conjunction with requirements 

to consider consolidation and co-location of public schools and public charter schools, 

and development of special education and vocational education programs. In March 

the Council gave final approval to the School Modernization Financing Act of 2006. 

This act provides $100 million in dedicated capital budget funds for the public 

school system for fiscal year 2007 with increases in the following four fiscal years. 

The Tuition Assistance Grant Program has been very successful since its inception 5 years ago. It has provided 4,754 young people with an opportunity for higher 

education. As of the 2004/2005 academic year the program carried its first full five 

cohorts. I want to thank the President and the House Appropriations Committee for 
51 

including full funding for next fiscal year in their fiscal year 2007 proposed budgets. 

I ask this Committee to also approve the $35.1 million for the program. 

The Council supports the continuation of the federal payment for school improvement. The payment has been an important source of funds for improvements in curriculum, educational systems and training. The payment is essential to continuing 

the enhancements that both the District and Federal Governments want to see in 

the District schools. 

Another important aspect of the city’s education initiatives is to improve and repair our library system. This is a high priority for the city. Many of our libraries 

are in need of extensive repair. There is also a need for improvements and upgrades 

to our library services including updated collections and expanded operating hours. 

In addition, there are plans for construction of some new libraries, most specifically 

our main library. To help the city address these needs the President included $30 

million in his fiscal year 2007 budget. It is imperative that these funds be provided 

in order for the city to upgrade its library system. I would ask this Committee to 

include the $30 million in funding in its District budget proposal. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Last year the Mayor launched the New Communities and Great Streets initiatives. These initiatives are designed to decrease poverty and crime by creating 

mixed income neighborhoods that include affordable housing, and to create thriving 

neighborhood centers of business development along main corridors in the city. Over 

the last year the city has made progress under both of these initiatives. The Mayor 

has proposed in his fiscal year 2007 budget to continue these initiatives by enhancing the delivery of human and social services to the neighborhoods, and by providing 

business development funds for businesses that want to start or expand their operation. To support these initiatives the Council approved $128.5 million in economic 

development funds, an increase of $19.7 million over fiscal year 2006. 

In support of the Mayor’s economic development efforts the proposed fiscal year 

2007 budget continues to seek support from the Federal Government for development initiatives along the Anacostia Waterfront and at the site of the new baseball 

stadium. The Anacostia Waterfront is one of the city’s major projects for providing 

both business development, which includes the proposed baseball stadium, but also 

the park areas including the pedestrian and bicycle trails. This development also 

provides for the beautification of the city and its waterways. I would like to request 

that this Committee include the $5 million included in the District’s request. 

The Council strongly supports the President’s proposed federal funding for expanding and upgrading the Navy Yard Metrorail Station. While the expansion of 

this station is essential to the development of the new baseball stadium, Federal 

funding for this expansion is especially justified due to the station’s proximity to the 

10,000 Federal employees who will be relocated to the new U.S. Department of 

Transportation headquarters building, on top of the thousands of existing Defense 

Department employees currently employed at the Navy Yard. The expanded station 

will also be needed to service the other major commercial, retail and residential developments that are planned in the area, including the 5.2 million square foot mixed 

use community that is proposed for the Southeast Federal Center site. These are 

key development projects for the city that will provide many economic enhancements. Just as the Federal government fully funded the expansion of the Mount 

Vernon Square Metro station at the site of the new convention center, we ask your 

support for full funding of the expanded Navy Yard Metro Station. 

One of the ways for the District to address its ongoing structural imbalance— 

which as you know was validated by the Congress’ own Government Accountability 

Office—is to initiate development projects that will bring additional revenues to the 

city through an increased number of residents and businesses living, working and 

producing in the city. In his fiscal year 2006 budget the President proposed the 

transfer of certain vacant or underutilized federal land to the District as a way to 

begin to address the structural imbalance. Some of the land is along the Anacostia 

Waterfront, which would help the city build a world class recreational park, enhance 

access to the river and become a tourist attraction. Other parcels would provide additional park space as well as locations for housing and commercial development. 

The transfer of the proposed land would provide economic development opportunities consistent with the city’s plans and assist the Mayor and the Council in moving 

the city forward. S. 1838, ‘‘Federal and District of Columbia Real Property Act of 

2005,’’ is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs. While this legislation is not before this Committee I would 

like to ask for your support of it when it does come up for a vote. The passage of 
52 

this legislation would have a major impact on the city’s structural imbalance and 

financial stability. 

Congress and the President have approved the BRAC recommendation for the 

closing of Walter Reed Army base. The GSA and the Department of State have requested the base for an office park and a new chancery enclave. While the District 

feels these proposed Federal Government uses provide much less economic benefit 

to the District, the Council supports the allocation of some portion of the land to 

the city for retail development that is needed for that area of the city. 

OTHER FEDERAL PAYMENT ITEMS

I would like to ask for the continued federal payment for the consolidated laboratory. This laboratory would allow the District to operate its own facility for conducting forensic testing from crime scenes. It will also provide a facility for analyzing evidence associated with bioterrorism activities. The District has used the 

FBI’s laboratory for a number of years. However, when there is a high level of usage 

of the laboratory by the federal authorities, the District’s work is delayed. This has 

a direct impact on the resolution of crimes in the District, including the identification of the criminal. The city continually works to reduce crime. The ability to complete forensic analysis in a timely manner would aid the city in resolving crimes 

and putting criminals behind bars. 

As the Nation’s Capital, the District is a prime target for terrorist activities. With 

the ever-increasing threat of these activities the need for a forensic laboratory in 

the District that is readily available becomes more and more important. Therefore, 

I would like to ask this Committee to support the District’s request for funding of 

the laboratory. 

Because the District is a prime target for terrorist activities it is important that 

our allocation of Federal homeland security funds not be cut. The cut of $31 million 

in this year’s allocation for urban areas will put the District and the National Capital Region in sever jeopardy in the event of future terrorist attacks. I ask that 

money be restored to both the National Capital Region’s allocation and to the District’s state allocation. 

One area where this Committee can help us address health issues is to grant us 

the authority to expend our local funds on needle exchange. Such programs have 

resulted in reducing HIV transmission without increasing drug use. In addition, 

such programs have had a positive impact on hepatitis infections. Other state and 

local governments across the country provide funding for needle exchange programs 

and have therefore benefited from improved health statistics. The District Government would like to add these improvements to its health program, but we need your 

help. I ask that the Committee not include any rider preventing the use of local 

funds for needle exchange programs. 

VOTING REPRESENTATION

I would like to end my testimony with a final request for support of H.R. 5388, 

‘‘District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006.’’ This bill 

would give the District a seat in the House of Representatives with full voting 

rights. The bill would maintain balance in the House by also giving Utah an additional congressional seat. 

Voting representation in Congress is a right to long denied to the residents of the 

District of Columbia. It continues to be unconscionable to the citizens of the District 

that they are denied the basic right held by every other citizen of the United States, 

that is, the constitutional right to be represented—to have a voice—a vote—in the 

Congress of the United States. While our residents fight for the freedom and right 

of representation for people in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan our citizens 

are denied that same right here in the nation’s capital. As a leader of the free world 

we should set an example for providing all citizens the rights of citizenship. This 

Congress should rectify the denial of this basic right. 

CLOSING

In closing I would like to ask that you pass this year’s budget request in time 

for the start of the new fiscal year and that no extraneous riders be placed on the 

bill. 

I thank you Chairman Brownback for this opportunity to share my thoughts on 

the District’s budget and other issues important to the city. I look forward to working with you again this year on the city’s appropriations legislation. I am available 

for any questions you may have. 
53 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Gandhi, you’re up, and I’m afraid you 

guys are batting at the bottom of the order, and I really hope you 

can just summarize things so we can get to some questions, because with these stacked votes starting at 11, we’ll be able to go 

until probably about 11:15, and then I’m going to shut the hearing 

down. 

STATEMENT OF DR. NATWAR GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Dr. GANDHI. Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to read at all anything. 

I just wanted to draw your attention, sir, to the chart that I have 

brought with me. And it is quite fitting that we are here with this 

chart, this being the Mayor’s last testimony here. This basically 

had happened, this dramatic financial recovery that has happened 

since 1995, is entirely under the Mayor’s watch, since he was a 

Chief Financial Officer appointed in 1995 and after that, the 

Mayor. Obviously, the great credit goes to the Mayor and also to 

the Council headed by Council Chairman Cropp, and the congressionally mandated Control Board. 

The only point that I would like to suggest here is that in the 

mid-1990s we had about $518 million deficit in our fund balance. 

Today, we are enjoying $1.6 billion surplus in our fund balance. 

That’s about a $2.2 billion turnaround. Other cities that have gone 

through such experience, Philadelphia, New York, and other cities, 

none has been able to come back as fast and as well as this city 

has. So it’s a great, great credit to our elected leaders and the Congress that made it all possible. We were rated junk bonds in the 

mid-1990s; today we enjoy an A plus rating from all rating agencies, and with a positive outlook, meaning that it will go up again. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

This is remarkable. And one last factoid here is that we enjoy 

currently about $300 million of cash reserve for the foreseeable future in terms of our financial plan. No other city, State, or jurisdiction has that level of reserves, cash reserves, as a percentage of 

budget. So this is a remarkable recovery on the part of the District. 

And again, credit goes to the Mayor, our Council, the Control 

Board, and the great attention that the Congress has devoted to 

the District, particularly this committee. 

We appreciate your interest, Senator Landrieu, Mr. Chairman, 

thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATWAR M. GANDHI

Good morning, Chairman Brownback and members of the subcommittee. I am 

Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the District of Columbia, and I am 

here to offer brief remarks about the Fiscal Year 2007 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan for the District. 

First, I will summarize the fiscal recovery over the past decade and discuss some 

of the highlights of the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the 5-year plan. I will 

also address our capital spending needs and the continuing structural imbalance— 

that is, the mismatch between capital spending needs and the ability to raise local 

revenues sufficient to fund those needs. Finally, I will address our on-going commitment to remain fiscally balanced in the future. 
54 

FISCAL RECOVERY 1996–2005

The chart that appears as Attachment A to my testimony and that appears here 

before you is a history of the remarkable fiscal comeback achieved by the District 

over the past decade. Our fiscal low point occurred in fiscal year 1996, when the 

General Fund balance hit a negative $518 million. Through the efforts of Mayor 

Williams, the District Council and the Congressionally-mandated Control Board, we 

were able repeatedly to balance the District’s fiscal operations, and the Control 

Board was de-activated in 2001. Between fiscal year 1996 and the end of fiscal year 

2001 there had been a $1.1 billion increase in the fund balance, to a positive $562 

million by the end of fiscal year 2001. The real test for the District was the challenge of sustaining fiscal stability in the post-control period. As you can see, at the 

end of fiscal year 2005, the General Fund balance had risen another $1.0 billion, 

to $1.6 billion total. Of the $2.1 billion increase in General Fund balance between 

fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2005, the amount of gain since the control period 

ended was about equal to the gain during the control period, demonstrating the 

commitment of the District’s leadership to ongoing fiscal restraint. 

The measure of this success is reflected in the District’s bond ratings. All three 

rating agencies—Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and Standard & Poor’s— 

recognize the improved creditworthiness of our bonds by raising the District’s bond 

ratings from ‘‘junk bond’’ status during the control period to ‘‘A’’ category ratings— 

the highest level ever achieved by this jurisdiction. It is notable that compared to 

other major cities that experienced periods of financial stress, including New York, 

Philadelphia, Cleveland and Detroit, this turnaround is the fastest in terms of both 

the time it took to return to investment grade, and the time to achieve their highest 

ratings (helped in part by our strong local economy, which added tax revenues that 

were used to provide essential services to our population). 

A great deal of the increase in fund balance was driven by the growth in local 

revenues, specifically by real estate, income and sales taxes resulting from the 

strong regional economy. Table 1 below shows a comparison of tax revenues, General Fund balance and reserve funds in fiscal year 1996 compared to fiscal year 

2005 that reflects the revenue growth and prudent financial management that contributed to the increased General Fund balance. 

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF KEY FINANCIAL MEASURES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 2005 

Tax Revenues ........................................................................................................................ $2,402,521 $4,052,087 

Operating Surplus/(Deficit) ................................................................................................... ($33,688 ) $369,668 

General Fund Balance .......................................................................................................... ($518,249 ) $1,584,683 

Reserves Available for Operations 1 ..................................................................................... ($332,357 ) $428,900 

Operating Reserves as percent of Expenditures (percent) .................................................. .......................... 8.5 

1 Includes Congressionally-mandated Emergency and Contingency Reserves plus unreserved undesignated General Fund balance. 

REVENUE OUTLOOK

The current economic outlook for the District similar to that projected for the nation as a whole is that of steady growth in employment, wages, and income. Continued high levels of federal spending and contracting benefit the District because so 

many of these dollars are spent here. Retail activity will continue to improve, as 

the number of retail outlets in the District continues to grow and as shoppers increase their spending. 

In fiscal year 2007, District general fund resources are forecasted to be $5.565 billion, an increase of $167 million above the fiscal year 2006 approved budget. These 

amounts include local fund revenue, special purpose fund revenue, as well as proposed revenue enhancements and appropriated fund balance. 

The direction of the market for real property is a key question for the District 

in fiscal year 2006 and on into fiscal year 2007. Rising real estate assessments and 

transactions were major sources of revenue gains in fiscal years 2003 through 2005. 

The fundamentals affecting the District’s real estate markets remain strong; the 

District’s economy is growing, individuals and businesses both continue to demonstrate a desire to locate in the District, and the supply of housing and land for 

commercial development cannot increase very rapidly. Accordingly, the contributions 

of the real estate sector are expected to be significant in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 

year 2007, as well, but the greater strength will be in the real property tax that 

is based on property valuation with a 2-year lag. Deed recordation and transfer 
55 

taxes are expected to drop a bit, in keeping with the moderation in the volume of 

current year transactions in real property. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FISCAL YEAR 2007-FISCAL

YEAR 2010 FINANCIAL PLAN

The fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2010 Financial Plan appears as Attachment B. 

Each of the four years is balanced. Tax revenues are projected to increase an average 5.8 percent per year and total local fund recurring revenues an average 5.4 percent. Total local fund resources are projected to increase an average 4.2 percent per 

year and total local fund expenditures an average 4.0 percent per year. Incorporated 

in the plan is the final phase of ‘‘tax parity’’ that the Mayor and Council initiated 

in 1999 to lower income tax rates and achieve better balance between D.C. and its 

neighbors. The plan also accommodates a major new expenditure starting in fiscal 

year 2008, namely, the required actuarial payment for post employment retirement 

benefits, thereby complying with the GASB requirement. It should be noted that the 

District was among the forefront of municipalities to recognize and provide for this 

liability. It put aside approximately $140 million in 2006, about two years earlier 

than required. 

The District’s fiscal year 2007 proposed budget includes $5.022 billion in localfunds spending supported by $5.020 billion of local revenues, with an operating margin of $1.8 million. (See Attachment C.) 

The Council’s approved total local fund operating expenditures for fiscal year 

2007, not including Paygo capital, Enterprise Funds or transfers to OPEB, is 

$4,927.8 million, an increase of $377.2 million or 8.3 percent over fiscal year 2006 

approved expenditures of $4,550.6 million. 

GROSS FUNDS BUDGET

The proposed fiscal year 2007 gross funds operating budget is $7.608 billion, an 

increase of $255.7 million, or 3.5 percent, over the approved fiscal year 2006 gross 

funds budget of $7.352 billion. The fiscal year 2007 appropriation is primarily due 

to higher funding levels for federal grants ($98.9 million) including Medicaid, and 

in programs supported by user fees, fines, the dedicated portion of deed recordation 

and transfer taxes transferred to its own separate fund (for housing production), 

and other special purpose revenues ($29.5 million). The local and non-local funding 

components of the proposed fiscal year 2007 gross funds budget and the changes 

from fiscal year 2006 are summarized in Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2.—FISCAL YEAR 2007 GROSS FUNDS BUDGET BY FUND TYPE 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fund Type 

Fiscal year— 

Change Percent 

change 2006 2007 

Local ......................................................................................................... $4,949.5 $5,086.2 $136.7 2.8 

Federal ...................................................................................................... $1,939.1 $2,038.0 $98.9 5.1 

Private Grants ........................................................................................... $16.2 $6.8 ($9.4 ) (58.0 ) 

Special Purpose ........................................................................................ $447.1 $476.6 $29.5 6.5 

Total Gross Funds ....................................................................... $7,351.8 $7,607.6 $255.7 3.5 

GENERAL FUND BALANCE USE

It is the function of government to provide badly needed services. With this in 

mind, the fiscal year 2006 budget included provisions for spending a portion of the 

funds that had accumulated over the years as a result of unprecedented growth in 

local revenues. This drawdown of fund balance was largely driven by one-time 

spending on capital needs and programs. As approved, the fiscal year 2006 budget 

uses $467 million of local fund balance, and we currently estimate a net reduction 

by September 30, 2006 of roughly $544 million in the General Fund balance. It 

should be noted that despite this reduction in cumulative fund balance, the District 

will still retain about $350 million in operating reserve every year throughout the 

5 year budget and financial plan. (See Attachment G.) 

The fiscal year 2007 proposed local funds operating budget includes a proposal to 

use another $176 million of fund balance. The use of these monies is for non-recurring expenditures: $46.5 million for school modernization in fiscal year 2007; $88.0 
56 

1Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Tax Rates and 

Tax Burdens in the District of Columbia, A Nationwide Comparison, various years. This annual 

study is the basis for many public uses, such as an annual analysis by Money Magazine, and 

has been cited in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, and many other places. 2GAO–03–666, District of Columbia, Structural Imbalance and Management Issues, May 

2003, page 41. 

million for Paygo capital to fund various capital projects; and $41.9 million for various one-time operating program enhancements. 

CAPITAL SPENDING

The District continues to face a wide variety of infrastructure needs, placing great 

demands on its Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The total proposed expenditures 

in the fiscal year 2007–2012 CIP is $3.193 billion (excluding the Highway Trust 

Fund, Local Streets Fund, and special financings). This six-year plan includes a net 

increase in budget authority of $2.341 billion from all sources. The fiscal year 2007 capital program includes $662.5 million in planned capital expenditures financed by $399.7 million in newly issued G.O. bonds, $188.0 million 

of pay-as-you-go (Paygo) transfers from the general fund balance, and $74.8 million 

of Master Equipment Lease financing. 

Despite this effort to fund the District’s considerable capital needs, I must again 

point out to the Committee that this government continues to struggle to function 

under a structural imbalance. This means that D.C.’s revenue capacity, under national norms, falls far short of the cost of delivering services assuming average efficiency, again as measured by national norms. The reasons lie in high regional costs 

for labor, land, and other resources; in a large population in need; and in accumulated infrastructure deficiencies. D.C.’s fiscal stress is confirmed by the GAO in its 

2003 study of the District’s finances. This study is an extensive analysis comparing 

D.C.’s revenue and expenditure bases to those of state and local jurisdictions all 

across the United States. From every perspective on structural imbalance examined 

by GAO, the District is at or near the top of the most burdened jurisdictions in the 

nation. 

Although the District has made great strides in fiscal management and in providing better services, two difficult consequences of the structural imbalance between the District’s revenue base and its spending requirements remain. These are: 

(1) a high per capita tax burden with some of the highest tax burdens in the region 

and the country; and (2) the highest per capita borrowing. D.C.’s tax burden on 

households ranks in the upper one-third when compared to the largest cities in the 

United States (for total state and local burden of sales, income, property, and automobile taxes) according to a highly-regarded annual study, prepared by my office, 

comparing tax burdens in D.C. to those of the largest city in each state.1

The burden is greater on businesses. The District’s tax rate on net business income is 9.975 percent (compared to 7.0 percent in Maryland, 6.0 percent in Virginia, 

and exceeded by only 2 states, Alaska and Iowa); the gross receipts tax on public 

utilities used by businesses is 11 percent (compared to 2 percent in Maryland and 

1 percent in Virginia); and the real property tax on commercial property is $1.85 

per $100 of value as compared to a range of $0.92 to $1.16 in neighboring suburbs. 

The GAO ranks the District’s tax burden among the very highest in the country: 

‘‘The District’s tax burden (actual revenue collected from local resources relative 

to their own-source revenue capacity) is among the highest of all fiscal 

systems . . . . The District’s actual tax burden exceeded that of the average state 

fiscal system by 33 percent, based on our lower estimate of its own-source revenue 

capacity, and by 18 percent, based on our higher estimate of that capacity.’’ 2

There is no way for the District to tax its way out of structural imbalance-indeed, 

higher taxes simply make the problem worse. 

The District’s very high per capita borrowing reflects the city’s effort to sustain 

infrastructure generally provided by multiple jurisdictions. The District’s per capita 

tax-supported debt burden exceeds $8,000, the highest of any major city in the nation. Clearly, we cannot borrow our way out of the structural imbalance. 

Challenges may arise, however, adding to D.C.’s structural imbalance in coming 

years. First, all state and local revenue systems are stressed by the changing nature 

of the economy, as it evolves more into a service oriented economy. Because state 

and local tax systems were developed around the manufacturing and sale of goods, 

the old ways of gathering tax revenue are increasingly inadequate to the newer 

economy. The revenue challenge is made even greater in the District by the Federal 

prohibitions against taxing incomes earned by non-residents workers and incomes 

earned by certain professional services. Additionally, a recent court finding chal-
57 

3 American Community Survey, 2004. 

4 American Community Survey, 2004 and Economy.com, 2004. 

lenges the District’s capacity to tax any unincorporated business income generated 

in the District except as reported on the individual returns of residents. Already the 

partnership income of residents that is earned elsewhere is exempt from taxation 

here. 

Second, the District has a large urban population that needs help. Census data 

for 2004 estimate the D.C. poverty rate at about 19 percent, the fourth highest in 

the nation when compared to states, after Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico. 

Of D.C.’s 248,563 households, 18 percent have income of less than $15,000.3 Median 

household income is about $46,600—in a metropolitan area with median household 

income of about $70,400.4 Only about a third of D.C.’s households are at or above 

the metropolitan median. Like other cities, D.C. is accountable for greater efforts 

to help the less advantaged in the city’s population. Unlike other cities, however, 

the District does not have a State or suburbs that share in its overwhelming costs. 

The proposed fiscal year 2007 budget works hard to manage the expenditure needs 

and fiscal requirements of the District’s lower income population. 

CONCLUSION

The leadership provided by the Mayor and the Council, along with the hard work 

of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, allowed us to produce this balanced 

budget for fiscal year 2007. As a result, we are certifying that the fiscal year 2007 

budget and financial plan, as proposed, is balanced for fiscal year 2007 and beyond. 

I would like to thank this committee for its diligent and continuous oversight work 

on the District’s finances during this sustained recovery period. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you and the subcommittee during the forthcoming budget 

deliberations. 

ATTACHMENT A
58 

ATTACHMENT B.—FISCAL YEAR 2007–2010 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN: GENERAL FUND 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Adjusted 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Revenues: 

Taxes ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,052,087 4,101,533 4,157,782 4,412,599 4,676,088 4,949,484 5,224,222 General Purpose Non-Tax Revenues ....................................................................................................... 352,427 340,522 315,226 317,277 317,138 325,336 325,095 Dedicated Taxes—Housing Production Trust Fund ................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 50,587 53,255 58,103 64,005 Special Purpose (O-type) Revenues ........................................................................................................ 311,789 264,254 354,667 368,657 364,748 361,830 373,639 Transfer from Lottery .............................................................................................................................. 71,450 73,100 72,000 72,100 72,100 72,100 72,100 

General Fund Revenues ...................................................................................................................... 4,787,753 4,779,409 4,899,675 5,221,220 5,483,329 5,766,853 6,059,061 

Effect of Tax Changes ............................................................................................................................ .................... .................... (908 ) (276 ) (307 ) (346 ) (388 ) Gross Sales Tax Dedicated for School Modernization ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... (100,000 ) (106,000 ) (112,360 ) (119,102 ) 

Adjusted General Fund Revenues ....................................................................................................... 4,787,753 4,779,409 4,898,767 5,120,944 5,377,022 5,654,147 5,939,571 

Bond Proceeds for Issuance Costs ......................................................................................................... 4,935 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes from WASA .................................................................................................... .................... 1,576 1,576 1,551 .................... .................... ....................Transfer from Federal and Private Resources ........................................................................................ .................... 6,502 6,502 6,502 6,646 6,807 6,979 Transfer from HPTF Special Revenue Fund for Debt Service ................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 6,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Transfer from Capital Funds (Bus Shelter Revenue) for Debt Svc ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 2,091 17,526 18,097 18,465 Fund Balance Use ................................................................................................................................... 80,781 591,642 605,662 284,287 65,385 8,399 ....................Transfer to Capital .................................................................................................................................. .................... (30,000 ) .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................Revenue Proposals .................................................................................................................................. .................... 8,729 .................... 113,268 137,307 139,470 145,228 

Total General Fund Resources ............................................................................................................ 4,873,469 5,397,858 5,552,507 5,564,643 5,645,886 5,858,920 6,142,243 

Expenditures (by Appropriation Title): 

Governmental Direction and Support ...................................................................................................... 294,778 340,858 344,033 384,759 378,512 388,375 400,497 Economic Development and Regulation ................................................................................................. 193,456 328,156 347,356 288,974 254,273 256,226 263,870 Public Safety and Justice ....................................................................................................................... 805,471 827,037 838,654 943,295 961,120 990,839 1,023,552 Public Education System ........................................................................................................................ 1,082,177 1,189,302 1,189,051 1,223,971 1,245,784 1,277,734 1,311,343 Human Support Services ......................................................................................................................... 1,258,537 1,307,530 1,357,342 1,423,138 1,475,718 1,545,283 1,621,441 Public Works ............................................................................................................................................ 328,997 366,101 366,100 405,318 412,268 426,723 443,714 
59 

Financing and Other ............................................................................................................................... 421,070 561,276 552,287 586,296 670,135 710,075 758,932 Cash Reserve (Budgeted Contingency) ................................................................................................... .................... 50,000 48,400 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Lease Purchase Costs ............................................................................................................................. 22,058 27,441 27,441 43,955 46,320 49,320 51,320 

Subtotal, Operating Expenditures ....................................................................................................... 4,406,544 4,997,701 5,070,664 5,349,706 5,494,131 5,694,574 5,924,669 

Paygo Capital .......................................................................................................................................... 20,550 207,083 208,523 87,987 .................... .................... ....................Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment Benefits ........................................................................... .................... 138,000 138,000 4,700 81,000 86,200 91,800 General Fund Contribution to Capital Fund Balance ............................................................................. .................... 53,800 53,800 .................... .................... .................... ....................Transfer to HPTF Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 120,418 69,255 75,644 83,424 

Total General Fund Expenditures ....................................................................................................... 4,427,094 5,396,584 5,470,987 5,562,811 5,644,386 5,856,418 6,099,893 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis ............................................................................................................ 446,375 1,274 81,520 1,832 1,500 2,501 42,349 

Beginning General Fund Balance .................................................................................................................... 1,215,015 1,584,683 1,584,683 1,040,541 738,086 654,201 628,304 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis ............................................................................................................ 446,375 1,274 81,520 1,832 1,500 2,501 42,349 Projected GAAP Adjustments (Net) ......................................................................................................... 4,074 (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) Deposits into Reserve Funds (From Fund Balance) ............................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... (34,524 ) .................... ....................Deposits into Reserve Funds (To Cash Reserves) .................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 34,524 .................... ....................Fund Balance Use ................................................................................................................................... (80,781 ) (591,642 ) (605,662 ) (284,287 ) (65,385 ) (8,399 ) ....................

Ending General Fund Balance ............................................................................................................ 1,584,683 974,315 1,040,541 738,086 654,201 628,304 650,653 

Composition of Fund Balance: 

Emergency Cash Reserve Balance (2 percent, formerly 4 percent) ...................................................... 70,532 84,622 70,532 73,001 102,004 103,154 103,452 Contingency Cash Reserve Balance (4 percent, formerly 3 percent) .................................................... 182,905 169,244 182,905 189,307 204,008 206,308 206,904 Fund Balance not in Emergency & Contingency Reserves .................................................................... 1,331,246 720,449 787,104 475,779 348,189 318,842 340,297 

Ending General Fund Balance ............................................................................................................ 1,584,683 974,315 1,040,541 738,086 654,201 628,304 650,653 
60 

ATTACHMENT C.—LOCAL FUNDS COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Ad- justed 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Revenues: 

Taxes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4,052,087 4,101,533 4,157,782 4,412,599 4,676,088 4,949,484 5,224,222 General Purpose Non-Tax Revenues ..................................................................................................................... 352,427 340,522 315,226 317,277 317,138 325,336 325,095 Transfer from Lottery ............................................................................................................................................ 71,450 73,100 72,000 72,100 72,100 72,100 72,100 Local Fund Revenues ............................................................................................................................................ 4,475,964 4,515,155 4,545,008 4,801,976 5,065,326 5,346,920 5,621,417 Effect of Tax Changes .......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. ¥908 ¥276 ¥307 ¥346 ¥388 Gross Sales Tax Dedicated for School Mod .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ¥100,000 ¥106,000 ¥112,360 ¥119,102 Adjusted Local Fund Revenues ............................................................................................................................. 4,475,964 4,515,155 4,544,100 4,701,700 4,959,019 5,234,214 5,501,927 Bond proceeds for Issuance Costs ....................................................................................................................... 4,935 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes from WASA .................................................................................................................. .................. 1,576 1,576 1,551 .................. .................. ..................Transfer from Federal and Private Resource ........................................................................................................ .................. 6,502 6,502 6,502 6,646 6,807 6,979 Transfer from Enterprise Fund (HPTF) for D ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 6,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Transfer from Capital Funds (Bus Shelter R ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 2,091 17,526 18,097 18,465 Fund Balance Use: To Replace Dedicated ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 46,477 65,385 8,399 ..................Fund Balance Use: Transfers to Capital and ....................................................................................................... .................. 390,700 390,700 87,987 .................. .................. ..................Fund Balance Use: One-time Expenditures .......................................................................................................... 67,325 76,230 79,542 41,866 .................. .................. ..................Transfer to Special Purpose Revenues ................................................................................................................. .................. ¥54,395 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Transfer to Capital ................................................................................................................................................ .................. ¥30,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Revenue Proposals—Tax Compliance Initiati ...................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 49,000 70,000 66,000 64,250 Revenue Proposals—Council actions incl. d ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 49,117 51,307 55,928 61,558 Revenue Proposals/One-time Revenue .................................................................................................................. .................. 4,976 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Total Local Fund Resources ............................................................................................................................. 4,548,224 4,950,744 5,062,420 5,022,291 5,211,883 5,421,445 5,685,179 

Expenditures (by Appropriation Title): 

Governmental Direction and Support .................................................................................................................... 272,404 296,632 299,807 330,101 331,262 341,504 352,096 Economic Development and Regulation ............................................................................................................... 84,178 101,629 120,829 128,468 115,521 118,584 121,736 Public Safety and Justice ..................................................................................................................................... 782,797 769,785 781,402 888,003 913,322 943,423 974,589 Public Education System ...................................................................................................................................... 1,074,120 1,177,599 1,177,348 1,203,492 1,228,081 1,260,172 1,293,208 Human Support Services ....................................................................................................................................... 1,229,443 1,273,676 1,323,488 1,369,566 1,429,407 1,499,342 1,574,001 Public Works .......................................................................................................................................................... 317,426 316,374 316,373 351,396 365,654 380,482 395,964 Financing and Other ............................................................................................................................................. 421,070 537,452 528,463 562,791 649,816 689,918 738,117 Cash Reserve (Budgeted Contingency) ................................................................................................................. .................. 50,000 48,400 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 
61 

Lease Purchase Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 22,058 27,441 27,441 43,955 46,320 49,320 51,320 

Subtotal, Operating Expenditures ..................................................................................................................... 4,203,496 4,550,588 4,623,551 4,927,772 5,129,383 5,332,745 5,551,031 

Paygo Capital ........................................................................................................................................................ 20,550 207,083 208,523 87,987 .................. .................. ..................Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment ....................................................................................................... .................. 138,000 138,000 4,700 81,000 86,200 91,800 Local Fund Contribution to Capital Fund Bal ...................................................................................................... .................. 53,800 53,800 .................. .................. .................. ..................

Total Local Fund Expenditures ......................................................................................................................... 4,224,046 4,949,471 5,023,874 5,020,459 5,210,383 5,418,945 5,642,831 Operating Margin, Budget Basis ...................................................................................................................... 324,178 1,273 38,546 1,832 1,500 2,500 42,348 

ATTACHMENT D.—HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND: DEDICATED TAXES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Ad- justed 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Revenues: 

Dedicated Taxes—HPTF ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 50,587 53,255 58,103 64,005 Revenue Policy Proposals ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 15,151 16,000 17,542 19,420 

Total Dedicated Taxes—HPTF .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 65,738 69,255 75,644 83,424 

Expenditures (by Appropriation Title): 

Governmental Direction and Support .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Economic Development and Regulation ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Public Safety and Justice ..................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Public Education System ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Human Support Services ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Public Works .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Financing and Other ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Subtotal, Operating Expenditures ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Transfer to HPTF Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 65,738 69,255 75,644 83,424 
62 

ATTACHMENT D.—HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND: DEDICATED TAXES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Ad- justed 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Total Dedicated Taxes—HPTF Expenditures .................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 65,738 69,255 75,644 83,424 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

ATTACHMENT E.—SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PLAN 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Ad- justed 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Revenues: 

Special Purpose (O-type) Revenues ...................................................................................................................... 311,789 264,254 354,667 368,657 364,748 361,830 373,639 General Fund Revenues ........................................................................................................................................ 311,789 264,254 354,667 368,657 364,748 361,830 373,639 Fund Balance Use ................................................................................................................................................. 13,456 124,712 135,420 109,875 .................. .................. ..................Fund Balance Certified but not used ................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ¥1,918 .................. .................. ..................Transfer from Local Revenues .............................................................................................................................. .................. 54,395 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Revenue Proposals/One-time Revenue .................................................................................................................. .................. 3,753 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Total General Fund Resources .......................................................................................................................... 325,245 447,114 490,087 476,614 364,748 361,829 373,638 

Expenditures (by Appropriation Title): 

Governmental Direction and Support .................................................................................................................... 22,374 44,226 44,226 54,658 47,250 46,871 48,401 Economic Development and Regulation ............................................................................................................... 109,278 226,527 226,527 160,506 138,752 137,642 142,134 Public Safety and Justice ..................................................................................................................................... 22,674 57,252 57,252 55,292 47,798 47,416 48,963 Public Education System ...................................................................................................................................... 8,057 11,703 11,703 20,479 17,703 17,562 18,135 Human Support Services ....................................................................................................................................... 29,094 33,854 33,854 53,572 46,311 45,941 47,440 Public Works .......................................................................................................................................................... 11,571 49,727 49,727 53,922 46,614 46,241 47,750 Financing and Other ............................................................................................................................................. .................. 23,824 23,824 23,505 20,319 20,157 20,815 

Subtotal, Operating Expenditures ..................................................................................................................... 203,048 447,114 447,113 421,934 364,748 361,829 373,638 
63 

Transfer to HPTF Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 54,680 .................. .................. ..................

Total General Fund Expenditures ..................................................................................................................... 203,048 447,114 447,113 476,614 364,748 361,829 373,638 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis .......................................................................................................................... 122,197 .................. 42,974 .................. .................. .................. ..................

ATTACHMENT F.—FEDERAL AND PRIVATE RESOURCES FINANCIAL PLAN 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Ad- justed 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Revenues Actual: 

Federal Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,633,406 1,911,042 1,911,041 2,008,024 2,131,370 2,263,395 2,405,741 Federal Payment/Contribution ............................................................................................................................... 89,166 34,500 62,617 36,400 37,258 38,099 38,960 Private Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,677 16,213 16,213 6,850 7,070 7,292 7,521 Federal & Private Resources ................................................................................................................................. 1,728,249 1,961,755 1,989,871 2,051,274 2,175,698 2,308,786 2,452,222 Fund Balance Use ................................................................................................................................................. 43,420 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Transfer to General Fund ...................................................................................................................................... .................. ¥6,502 ¥6,502 ¥6,502 ¥6,646 ¥6,807 ¥6,979 

Total Federal & Private Resources ................................................................................................................... 1,771,669 1,955,253 1,983,369 2,044,772 2,169,052 2,301,979 2,445,243 

Expenditures (by Appropriation Title): 

Governmental Direction and Support .................................................................................................................... 120,489 171,976 171,976 157,746 161,608 165,408 169,301 Economic Development and Regulation ............................................................................................................... 91,671 118,312 118,312 133,742 137,261 140,745 144,325 Public Safety and Justice ..................................................................................................................................... 9,724 10,577 10,564 7,398 7,629 7,860 8,099 Public Education System ...................................................................................................................................... 200,469 240,194 265,601 226,462 232,468 238,417 244,529 Human Support Services ....................................................................................................................................... 1,300,169 1,405,819 1,407,551 1,500,033 1,610,111 1,728,991 1,857,830 Public Works .......................................................................................................................................................... 13,728 8,375 9,365 19,391 19,975 20,558 21,159 Financing and Other ............................................................................................................................................. 16,697 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Total Federal & Private Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 1,752,947 1,955,253 1,983,369 2,044,772 2,169,052 2,301,979 2,445,243 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis .......................................................................................................................... 18,722 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Beginning Federal & Private Fund Balance ......................................................................................................... 139,607 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 
64 

ATTACHMENT F.—FEDERAL AND PRIVATE RESOURCES FINANCIAL PLAN—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year— 

2005 Actual 2006 Approved 2006 Ad- justed 2007 Proposed 2008 Projected 2009 Projected 2010 Projected 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis .......................................................................................................................... 18,722 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Projected GAAP Adjustments (Net) ....................................................................................................................... 3,038 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Fund Balance Use ................................................................................................................................................. ¥43,420 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................Ending Federal & Private Fund Balance .............................................................................................................. 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 117,947 
65 

ATTACHMENT G

Senator BROWNBACK. So we’re going to be able to cut our Federal 

contribution to the city then, Dr. Gandhi? 

Dr. GANDHI. No, sir. That is part of the testimony that I would 

love to read. We still enjoy—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Maybe we should put you in charge of the 

OMB for the Federal Government? 

Senator LANDRIEU. Now, that’s an idea. If you’re available after 

this term, maybe you could help us out, because we’re going in the 

opposite direction. 

Dr. GANDHI. I am waiting for an offer I cannot refuse. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It’s a great report. That’s good news. 

Dr. Janey. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CLIFFORD B. JANEY, SUPERINTENDENT, D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Dr. JANEY. Yes, sensitive to the time factor, I am not going to 

read excerpts of my testimony, just give you a sense of the summary in terms where we are, and where we are headed. So I’ll put 

this aside. It’s available for the record, of course. 

Chairman Brownback, Senator Landrieu, I am pleased to be here 

to advance our portion of our city’s budget, just over $1 billion. I 

can report to you that we are still driven by three major objectives. 

A relentless pursuit to advance our student achievement. We’ve 

created a new assessment process this past spring and used it for 

the first time. Typically, the States take 3 to 5 years to do so. We 

did this in less than 1 year. We have seen some progress on our 

SATs, and the number of students scoring three, four, or five on 

the advanced placement. And looking at the previous assessment 
66 

we used to compare 2003 to 2004, we advanced the number of 

schools making AYP District-wide from 63 to 72. 

With respect to goal number two which we are driven by, and 

that is to repair, restore, and rehabilitate, in some instances, our 

anemic business systems, in cooperation and collaboration with Dr. 

Gandhi’s office and Suzeane Peck’s office in the area of technology, 

we have completed the automation of all of our procurement system as part of a major program that we advanced in the last 18 

months. It means particularly that schools can order supplies now 

in full cycle in about 8 days, and typically in the past it would have 

taken, just for the complete cycle of ordering, 30 to 45 days. 

We are now moving forward to modernize our human resource 

department and our payroll system. As you know, we have made 

some advancement in reducing the excess space in our buildings. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And, thirdly and finally, we continue to stay focused on connecting schools, families, and communities. We will be opening up 

parent resource centers strategically located throughout the District of Columbia, creating greater access of information and, tying 

to the point that Mayor Williams mentioned, connecting our efforts, 

not only in the area of early childhood, with the city, but also in 

terms of waging what we think is an important war on adult illiteracy. And that gives you some context without actually reading 

my testimony. 

And I sit here along with my colleagues to respond to questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CLIFFORD B. JANEY

Thank you very much, Chairman Brownback, ranking member Landrieu and 

members of the committee. I am Clifford B. Janey, Superintendent of Schools for 

the District of Columbia Public Schools. 

I welcome the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the progress being 

made in the District’s public schools and how that progress will be supported by the 

proposed fiscal year 2007 budget. 

The District of Columbia Public Schools has a diverse student population with 

equally diverse academic needs. Twelve percent of our students come from homes 

that represent more than 135 countries, and where more than 121 languages are 

spoken. 

Our student population ranges from children with special needs, to those who are 

advanced learners who need progressive academic challenges in order to keep them 

motivated to move to higher achievement levels. 

The fiscal year 2007 proposed budget for the District of Columbia public school 

as advanced by the city includes a total operating budget of over $1 billion, comprised of $808.3 million in local funding, $156.1 million federal, $4.7 million private, 

$10 million in revenue generating accounts and $52.2 million in intra-District funding which represents a two percent (2 percent) decrease from the fiscal year 2006 

approved budget. While the proposed funding levels will allow us to continue making progress in creating a sound and stable foundation for academic success in the 

District of Columbia Public Schools, this does not come without tough choices. I will 

discuss later the many efforts that are underway to better align our funding with 

our strategic goals as we continue to look for opportunities to maximize our resources. 

Over the last fiscal year, we have implemented new and more rigorous academic 

standards in reading/language arts and mathematics. Within the next month, we 

will release the results of the new student assessment based on those standards, 

and early results are encouraging. We have also recently adopted standards for 

science and social studies are pending final approval by the board. 

As it now stands, last year: 
67 

—The number of schools meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) in both reading 

and math increased District wide; increasing from 63 schools in school year (SY) 

2003–04 to 72 schools in SY 2004–05. At the elementary level, the number of 

schools meeting these targets increased from 55 to 58 and at the secondary level 

from 8 to 14. 

—Student attendance also increased, rising from 85 to 89 percent district wide. 

—Additionally, English language learners dramatically improved their proficiency 

in both reading and math; rising from 30.8 percent to 50.4 percent in reading; 

and from 50.8 percent to 56.4 percent in math. 

We are also moving in the right direction on national benchmarks. 

—DCPS is one of 11 Districts to participate in the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP) trial urban District assessment (TUDA). 

—As illustrated in the recent report from the council of great city schools, titled 

‘‘Beating the Odds,’’ we have reduced the gap between students performing 

below basic and those scoring at proficiency on the NAEP: the percentage of students scoring below basic decreased by 9 percent. And the percentage of students scoring at proficient levels increased by 3 percent. 

We also continue to make progress in our ability to prepare students for success 

in postsecondary experiences. 

—The number of students taking advanced placement (AP) courses has increased 

from 818 to 832. Moreover, the number of students scoring 3, 4 or 5 on AP 

exams has increased from 531 to 549; with a 17 percent increase among males 

alone. 

—In addition, we have seen a slight increase in student performance on the scholastic achievement test (SAT), with average verbal scores increasing from 412 

to 414 and math scores from 402 to 404. To help students gain experience in 

taking the SAT, we have begun to strongly encourage all eligible 9th graders 

and all 10th and 11th graders to take the PSAT since studies clearly show that 

students who take the PSAT score higher on the SAT. 

Over twenty-one of our schools have recently been identified as high-performing 

schools. These are schools that met AYP in all academic and non-academic indicators and had 70 percent of their students scoring at or above proficient levels. Because of our desire to provide positive reinforcement, and to encourage innovation, 

these schools will receive additional money from our school incentive fund. They will 

set up demonstration sites of instructional best practices for other schools to model. 

A number of other schools have received awards for significant improvement. This 

effort was made possible with the support of this committee’s $13 million investment for school improvement. We look forward to utilizing these funds in fiscal year 

2007 to continue this successful program. 

To support academic progress, in the past year we have been fortifying our business systems. Recently, DCPS became the first school District in the country to 

partner with a municipality in operating a state-of-the-art procurement automated 

support system (PASS). PASS allows us to order supplies, equipment and instructional materials more quickly and more efficiently; as well as, helps leverage our 

buying power as a system. As a next step in improving our business operations, we 

will be tackling our human resources and payroll systems to ensure that they too, 

effectively support the work we have ahead. 

We are ever mindful of the need to have an efficient business system, given the 

fiscal realities we face. And because of those fiscal realities, we welcome effective 

partnerships that can help us reach our goals. 

Our recent partnership with the World Bank, for example, will assist us in our 

ability to recruit and train 100 teachers a year, for the next five years, in order to 

achieve national board certification for all teachers, which, in turn, will fortify the 

quality of teaching in our classrooms. 

I mentioned earlier the partnership with the city of the District of Columbia that 

resulted in our new procurement system. We are hoping for similar partnership opportunities as we improve our human resources, budget and technology infrastructure. 

Using the ‘‘Declaration of Education,’’ which is our strategic plan for change, as 

a foundation, we have developed a ‘‘Master Education Plan’’ that spells out the academic goals we have set for the children of the District of Columbia. These academic 

goals necessarily inform how our facilities will be used and so, we have also developed a ‘‘Master Facilities Plan’’ which articulates our vision of having fully modernized state-of-the-art campuses for all of our children. 

This groundwork creates a clear-thinking approach to our current efforts to strategically plan for effective use of our buildings to support our academic mission. We 

have advanced to the board of education a set of recommendations on how to right 

size our facilities and maximize their use through educational consolidations, oper-
68 

ational efficiency and co-locations with community-based organizations, city agencies 

and public-private partnerships. 

In short, we are making significant progress, both academically and programmatically. 

We have not—and cannot in the future—do this work alone. We have been fortunate to have the support of the mayor and the City Council of Washington, D.C. 

While their financial support has been significant, there still remains critical 

funding gaps in the current fiscal year 2007 proposed budget. We look forward to 

receiving contingency funding for special education related transportation, which 

has left us with a shortfall of approximately $10.3 million and confirmation of the 

availability of a $14.7 million reserve account for non-public tuition payments as indicated by the CFO. I share the sentiment of many of our stakeholders about the 

unusually high costs in these areas. As a result, we have begun implementation of 

an aggressive multi-year plan and I am hopeful that we will be able to reduce these 

costs over time with the appropriate policy and legislative support. The board and 

council have demonstrated a high level of commitment toward supporting some of 

the heavy handed strategies that will be needed to realize these goals. 

There also remains a need for significant additional financial support to fund elements of the master education plan which are critical to building on the success attained thus far. For example, additional funds will allow us to: 

—Expand our use of the DIBELS assessments for early elementary school students. This will increase our opportunity to identify potential special needs in 

children sooner. 

—Expand our Career Technical Education program and develop themed highschools that will better prepare our students for the workforce and will help 

them identify careers that may interest them. 

—Develop more rigorous graduation requirements so that our students, whether 

furthering their education or entering the workforce after graduation, will have 

diplomas that open more doors for them. 

We anticipate your thoughtful consideration of how this committee can support 

the work that we are doing, which is anchored in our commitment to create a worldclass education system that is reflective of this capitol city and that recognizes the 

untapped potential of our youth. 

Specifically, we look for your support in changing the DCPA fiscal year to JulyJune. While we recognize that this will necessitate changes to the appropriations 

calendar and that there may be other obstacles to implementation, we are willing 

to work with the city leadership and this committee to resolve those obstacles. We 

believe it is critical to improved operations to have a fiscal year that is aligned with 

our academic year. 

The ability to adopt multi-year budgeting and to carry forward our financial condition will also be a significant relief. This would help to eliminate the fiscally imprudent ‘‘use it or lose it mentality’’ of many of our schools, and to strengthen our 

capacity to more strategically and programmatically plan. 

And, we anticipate your support of our efforts to obtain CFO which reports directly to the superintendent. Although our current relationship with the CFO is better than it has been in the past, as a system, we cannot manage effectively based 

on a good working relationship as opposed to having a sound organizational structure of our own. As a school system, our mission is clearly different from that of 

other city agencies, and we should not be treated as just another District agency 

in this or other regards. 

I would now like to turn my attention to another major responsibility of the school 

system. As you are aware, DCPS serves as both a local education agency (LEA) and 

as a state education agency (SEA). 

Over the last year, we have begun to critically examine our state functions and 

to more clearly separate them from those of the LEA. For example: 

—We separated our federal grants and local grant personnel into two discrete offices. 

—We recently conducted a time and effort study which would allow us to track 

our other staff based on the time they dedicate to SEA vs. LEA responsibilities. 

—The fiscal year 2007 budget was a first step in more accurately separating our 

state and local budget by organizational units. 

—We have created a technical advisory committee to oversee our efforts in developing the new state assessment and other areas of accountability. 

—We also have created a state advisory committee for federal grants and we are 

active participants in the mayor’s state advisory panel for special education. 

As you are aware, the District of Columbia Public Schools state education agency 

recently received a ‘‘high risk’’ designation by the U.S. Department of Education. 

This designation has provided a vehicle for much needed support and technical as-
69 

sistance from the department as the SEA continues to address some of the longstanding challenges that we have had. 

I am happy to report that my staff and I continue to meet regularly with the staff 

of the department and we are moving in a productive and promising direction. 

I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to talk about where our 

schools are, where they need to be, and how we will get there in order to provide 

the kind of public education the children in our nation’s capital deserve. 

This concludes my testimony. I will answer any questions that you have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. We’ll run the time 

clock at, let’s do it at 4 minutes, so that’ll give us each a little bit 

of quick time. 

Mayor Williams, I want to start on—we’ve got—and this is a 

school issue as well—a problem—it’s a narrow problem, and I think 

you’ve been advised about it—about a number of students earning 

out of the scholarship program. This year we’re projected to have 

144 students lose their scholarships because they earned out, sometimes by just a few dollars. I don’t know if you’ve been made aware 

of this. This is something Senator Landrieu has just recently been 

made aware of. I talked to Senator Feinstein. I would hope that we 

could fix that in the law to allow students that once they get into 

this, they’re allowed to stay into it. It would have a zero impact. 

It wouldn’t increase the budget, and it wouldn’t decrease it either. 

A number of people think this would actually decrease it. And I 

don’t know if you have been made aware of this situation, and if 

you had a particular thought about it. 

Mayor WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of it, and I am supportive of efforts to try to correct it, understanding, as you do, that 

it would have a net zero fiscal impact on the program, and I think 

it’s a great program. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It also helps us to measure whether this 

program works or not, if we can keep people in it. 

Mayor WILLIAMS. Right. I totally agree. I think the whole idea 

behind it, one of the merits of the program, is you’re going to for 

the first time have—you know, a fancy word—longitudinal study 

comparing the students in the three different schools for the first 

time. If you start changing the cohort, then you start polluting the 

results, and then you end up with the same arguments you started 

with, you know, everyone challenging the results. So for that reason, among many good reasons, I think it’s a good thing to do. 

Senator BROWNBACK. We’ve been working with your staff on family formation issues in the District. You had the successful launch 

of the marriage development accounts. We’ve identified a couple of 

areas that need improvement. The D.C. tax code has a marriage 

penalty within it. If you file as an individual, you have a $2,500 

standard deduction; as a couple, it’s $1,250. This is something we 

looked at in the Federal code, and I’m hopeful that’s something you 

can look at. I’m told it would be a $2 million revenue hit to the 

District to do that, but I would urge you to look at it just from the 

standpoint that these are clear economic signals that are sent. 

There’s a second one I understand we’re not going to be able to 

work through now and that’s to use some of the TANF funds to 

provide additional cash supplements to cover those in the first 2 

years of marriage. We’re pushing from the Federal end to get a 

grant to cover any cost of that to the District. I think that would 

really help us in sending a positive signal. 
70 

And then there was also—you were talking about, and I think 

you’re doing this as well—making low-income housing benefits 

higher priorities for married couples. Thank you, and we’ll continue 

to work with you on this. I don’t know if you had a particular comment on those programs. 

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is something that, 

you know, we talked about. And we went back and talked to our 

people in Housing and to Kate Jesberg—who has, I think, done a 

great job with TANF before her time heading up DHS and now is 

head of DHS—and looked at a number of different incentives that 

we could provide in partnership with the Federal Government to 

try to strengthen family formation, recognizing that the District 

has—we have one of the highest concentrations of poverty in the 

United States. And as everyone knows, there is a huge correlation 

between poverty and family situation. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well, thanks for working with me. My next 

question is about schools, but I want to turn to my colleague, Senator Landrieu, just to make sure we give adequate time, because 

I know she’ll drill into that area, so I will join her questioning via 

Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, a question, Dr. Gandhi, or perhaps the Mayor, either one 

that wants to address it. There were some concerning reports, very 

concerning, about $20 million that has been either lost or misplaced or unaccounted for through a contract that was let for investments relative to financing for charter schools. 

This subcommittee has worked very closely with the Mayor and 

with the Council trying to fashion—and with Superintendent 

Janey—trying to fashion some strategic new investments in promoting excellence in education through a limited voucher scholarship program, through a limited charter school initiative, and 

through limited additional funds to traditional public schools, Dr. 

Janey, to give you some flexibility and some opportunities. It’s not 

a lot of money, we understand, relative to the budget, $200 million 

over 5 years compared to your billion dollar budget a year, but still 

$20 million to taxpayers is a lot of money. So where is it, what is 

the investigation showing, are we going to be able to recover any 

of it, and what are your words to this subcommittee about if there’s 

anything we could do to assist you in getting to the bottom of this 

situation? 

Dr. GANDHI. All right. We appreciate your concern about that. 

Since 2005 when the Congress transferred that particular program 

from our so-called Office of Banking and Insurance and Securities 

to the Mayor’s Office and State Education Office, and suggested 

that the funds should be managed by the Chief Financial Officer, 

we immediately took care of the assets that were there, and made 

sure, one, that a proper audit is done of the amount that was spent 

from 2000 to 2005; two, do initial audit on our own. And as we discovered some irregularities and some probable mismanagement, we 

immediately alerted the Inspector General’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office. We wanted to seize the funds that are available so far. So as of now, as I sit here, there are full investigations 

ongoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into 

that. The inspector general is looking into that, the U.S. Attorney’s 
71 

Office, and my own office. So as of now we are managing the funds, 

and we want to be absolutely sure, with the Mayor’s and the Council’s cooperation, that the charter schools that do need money and 

credit enhancement, they will be provided that funding. And from 

now on, we will manage the funds. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I appreciate that, but if there’s a time line for 

the finality of those investigations, we would like to have it, and 

then a final report on either how much money was lost and is not 

retrievable, or how much we can retrieve, because people have to 

have confidence, of course, in the financial systems that underpin 

everything we’re trying to do in education. So, I know it’s again not 

a huge amount of money, but it’s not pocket change either. So, let’s 

get to the bottom of that. 

Dr. Janey, are you having any success—— 

Dr. GANDHI. May I just add, Senator, that July, next month, we 

will have a final report from an external auditor, and the IG is also 

looking into these issues. But by next month we’ll have a much 

clearer idea as to what had happened before the funds came to us. 

Senator LANDRIEU. One final question. The co-location effort that 

you have been spearheading, do you have any concrete successes on 

co-location as this school year starts to open up? 

Dr. JANEY. Yes, we do. I proposed a collaboration and a partnership between Scott Montgomery Elementary School and Kipp Academy, and the Board of Education voted favorably on my recommendation. And that co-location will commence school year 

2006–2007. So we are in the planning process to bring those two 

school communities together. Ultimately, Scott Montgomery will 

have a pre-K through 4, and Kipp, as you know is a grade 5 

through 8. It will be in the same building, a pre-K through 8 experience for families and students in that area. And I’m very pleased 

with that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Because one of, Mr. Chairman, the solutions 

for excess space is to use it more effectively and efficiently, for the 

charter schools that are having to go out to commercial space and 

lease at high rates to come back into the public school buildings 

and to co-locate these facilities, which is a more efficient way to use 

that space. I won’t take any more time, but I do want to just say 

that the Seed school just continues to be the model of hope, not just 

for this city but for the Nation. I can’t tell you how many mayors 

have come from Louisiana to go to the Seed school, the first urban 

residential school for poor, moderate, and low-income children in 

this Nation, that’s having extraordinary results. 

And, Mr. Mayor, you’ve taken a particular interest in that. And 

I want to just commend you, Mr. Mayor, for your fight for these 

kids to have equal opportunities, because their acceptance to 

Princeton or Columbia have not gone unnoticed. And we’re going 

to continue to press the expansion of models like that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That’s good. 

Senator Allard. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate you on your surpluses and your bond rating. By having a higher bond rating, it does mean that you don’t have to have to pay as 

much interest on your bond, which is obviously more money available for your program. 
72 

In looking at some of your testimony, I’ve been impressed with 

the 5-year balanced budget plan, but you did refer to some obstacles in there. One of them was the notable housing market impact. 

I wonder if you would go into a little detail as to what’s happening 

in our housing market that is going to have an impact on your 

budget. 

Dr. GANDHI. That is correct, sir. We see some softening of the 

housing market. However—— 

Senator ALLARD. My property tax bill doesn’t reflect that. 

Dr. GANDHI. Right. Because we have a 5-year plan, we have to 

make projections as to how does it look for 5 years. Our expectation 

is that going forward, the growth in our tax—real property tax revenue would not be as robust as it has been in the past. The past 

few years we had almost 10 to 11 percent a year growth in real 

property taxes. We don’t expect that to happen, or to continue. 

However, we do not expect any downturn in our real property market, so the growth would be somewhat moderated, but we do not 

expect that that would be a big bust over there. 

There are three particular reasons as to why our real property 

market is going to stay strong. One is the Federal Government, 

and the amount of the money that is being spent, we in the region, 

and particularly in the District, are quite the beneficiaries of that. 

The second issue here is that the commuting issue is a nightmare, 

and people want to stay closer to where they work and very likely 

in the city. And third is that the city’s image under Mayor and 

Council Chair Cropp fundamentally has changed over what it used 

to be 10 or 15 years ago. We are a place now to be in. 

So currently we are the hottest real property market in, residentially, in the country; commercially, we are among the hottest in 

the world. People want to come here, invest money here. And great 

credit goes to our elected leaders, particularly the Mayor, for 

achieving that level of prestige for our city. 

Senator ALLARD. Thanks for that analysis. 

Dr. Janey, there’s an article in The Washington Post stating that 

the D.C. School Board has recently halted charter school applications indefinitely until it decides governance issues surrounding 

these schools. And it’s been brought to my attention that this is the 

second moratorium in as many years. We have a great deal of 

money invested in the charter school program and want to continue 

the choice program. Would you like to comment on those issues in 

The Washington Post? And should we be trying to expand the 

choices that parents have rather than restrict new charter school 

openings? 

Dr. JANEY. Yes. As a nonvoting board member, I would like to 

comment. I think the members of the board want to take additional 

time in looking at their governance role with respect to charter 

schools. My own view is there’s probably a mixed sentiment on the 

board. I think there are some members who would like to opt out 

of that governance responsibility, and there are other members 

who would wish to retain it, but find a better way to exercise their 

oversight responsibility for charter schools. 

Quite frankly, there is a problem in the way charter schools are 

managed, from my point of view. You have an executive director, 

and irrespective of the person, the model calls for an executive di-
73 

rector reporting directly to a legislative body. And the way by 

which you can oversee that in terms of nine members of the board 

who have legislative responsibility, not executive responsibility, 

creates some management problems. So they want to take some 

time reflecting on how they do their business, and I will be there 

giving them some constructive guide. 

Senator ALLARD. You do have waiting lines, don’t you, to get into 

those charter schools? 

Dr. JANEY. It’s mixed. Enrollment ranges—with the 17 charter 

schools the board oversees—it ranges from about 40 students to 

just over 1,000. And all of the charter schools do not have waiting 

lists. We have waiting lists in our public schools as well. 

Senator ALLARD. Are they all filled up to, then, to capacity, I 

would assume? 

Dr. JANEY. No. 

Senator ALLARD. They’re not? 

Dr. JANEY. No. 

Senator ALLARD. And in what areas do you have the least enrollment in charter schools? 

Dr. JANEY. I couldn’t tell you offhand, but one of the board’s legitimate interests is to make sure that the charter schools that 

they do authorize create some unique kind of innovative opportunity for learning. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, that’s the whole idea. 

Dr. JANEY. Yes. And some of the applications that have been advanced have not met that test. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes. Thank you, Senator Allard. I want to 

enter two things into the record. One is a series of anecdotal information and then the charts on children earning out of the D.C. 

Scholarship Fund. And, the second one, Dr. Janey, I was just looking at this table of SAT participation scores, which I know you are 

very familiar with. There’s two real striking things about this, to 

me, anyway. The percentage of males taking the SAT is below 40 

percent, and females just above 60 percent. That seems quite 

skewed. Now, maybe that’s not skewed nationwide. I don’t know. 

But that seems to me to beg, well, what are we doing to try to get 

more young men to take the SAT? And then the national average 

is 200 points above the District, and I recognize it’s an urban district, but that seems to be like a substantial difference in the national average and the D.C. average on the SAT scores. And as I 

met with you in the office, I told you we’ve got objective measures 

to look at and goals to hit, and these are things we really have to 

target in on to get people and attract them back into the school system in the District, to say that this is a system that produces a 

good product, that you can come here and learn very well. I think 

it’s a numbers issue. I think we’ve got to hit these numbers better, 

and I know you’re focused on that, but we’re going to keep pressing 

what it is that we have to do to get these numbers better. And I’ll 

enter this in the record as well. 

[The information follows:] 
74 

TABLE 2.—SAT I PARTICIPATION FOR 2004–2005 GRADUATING SENIORS BY GENDER, RACIAL, 

AND ETHNIC GROUPS 

Racial and Ethnic Groups No. of Test-takers 

Percentage of 

Test-takers 

Percent Change 

from Last Year 

Males .......................................................................................................... 591 39.5 ¥5 

Females ...................................................................................................... 905 60.5 ¥2 

Asian .......................................................................................................... 52 3.5 ∂13 

Black .......................................................................................................... 959 64.1 ¥2 

Hispanic ..................................................................................................... 99 6.6 ∂5 

White .......................................................................................................... 91 6.1 ∂34 

American Indian ......................................................................................... 6 .4 ¥25 

Other .......................................................................................................... 30 2.0 ........................

No Response .............................................................................................. 259 17.3 ¥19 

Total .............................................................................................. 1,496 100 ¥3 

MOST RECENT SAT SCORES AND HOW THOSE SCORES COMPARE TO THE PAST 5 YEARS

Table 3 below illustrated the verbal, mathematics and combined SAT results for 

graduating seniors over the last five school years. Table 4 further disaggregates the 

data by gender, racial and ethnic groups. 

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF SAT RESULTS FOR GRADUATING SENIORS FOR 2001–2004 

School Year 

Average Scores 

Verbal Mathematics Combined 

2000–2001 ................................................................................................. 402 396 798 

2001–2002 ................................................................................................. 400 396 796 

2002–2003 ................................................................................................. 404 396 800 

2003–2004 ................................................................................................. 412 402 814 

2004–2005 ................................................................................................. 414 404 818 

National Average 2004–2005 .................................................................... 505 515 1,020 

WASHINGTON SCHOLARSHIP FUND STORIES FROM OUR FAMILIES EARNING OUT

A pregnant mother, ‘‘Danita,’’ is renewing for her daughter and is over income by 

only $160. When her baby is born, the increase in household size will make her eligible again—allowing the daughter to return to the school she started Kindergarten 

in through the OSP—but only after being forced in and out of a new school every 

year. 

A family of four whose father is in U.S. military with an annual income of 

$31,000, took an optional $30,000 ‘‘bonus’’—an early payment out of their retirement 

fund—to tide them over. Now they are over the income threshold of $40,000 for 

their family of 4. 

Senator BROWNBACK. The vote was called at 11:06—yes? 

Senator LANDRIEU. If I could just add one thing. 

Dr. Janey, I’d like to work with you, and I know the chairman 

will too, on this governance issue for charter schools, and also the 

accountability issue for all of our schools, because we are accountable whether we have public charters or traditional charters or 

even a scholarship voucher program. There is an accountability 

that we have to the students participating and their parents that 

we’re providing a quality opportunity for them. And the challenge 

of this is happening all over the country. All districts are struggling 

with this; some are doing a better job than others. But I’d like to 

share some of the new models that I’ve learned about and work 

with you, the Mayor, and the City Council as we develop strong accountability, making sure that whether our children are in traditional public schools or public charter schools, they’re getting a 
75 

quality opportunity for a good, solid education. And I need to work 

with you on that in the next few months. 

Dr. JANEY. I look forward to our continued collaboration on quality. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator BROWNBACK. Sorry the hearing had to be short, but I do 

appreciate it. And as all have said, Mayor Williams, we really do 

thank you all for your public service; it’s been outstanding. 

The hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Thursday, June 22, the hearings 

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 39 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 39 

Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas: 

Opening Statements of ...................................................................................... 1, 35 

Prepared Statements of ..................................................................................... 2, 36 

Buchanan, Avis E., Director, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia ................................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 19 

Cropp, Hon. Linda W., Chair, Council of the District of Columbia ..................... 47 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 50 

Gandhi, Dr. Natwar, Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia .................... 53 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 53 

Herring, Hon. Anita Josey, Presiding Judge, Family Court, District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 1

Isaac, Reverend Donald, Executive Director, East of the River Clergy-Police 

Community Partnership ...................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 31 

Janey, Dr. Clifford B., Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools, District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 66 

King, Hon. Rufus G., III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 16 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 15 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana: Prepared Statements of .................................................................................................................. 2, 37 

Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency, District of Columbia ............................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 29 

Sanchez, Joseph, Administrative Officer, District of Columbia Courts .............. 1 

Washington, Hon. Eric T., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 

and Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 1

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 6 

Wicks, Anne, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts .............................. 1 

Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia .................................... 35 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 43 

(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

Page 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

A Responsible Budget .............................................................................................. 43 

Budget: 

Goals and Fiscal Discipline .............................................................................. 50 

Process and Highlights .................................................................................... 50 

Capital Spending ..................................................................................................... 56 

Citizen Priorities ...................................................................................................... 44 

Democracy for the Nation’s Capital ....................................................................... 47 

Economic Development ........................................................................................... 51 

Education .................................................................................................................. 50 

Fiscal Recovery 1996–2005 ..................................................................................... 54 

Following Through on Landmark Initiatives ........................................................ 43 

General Fund Balance Use ..................................................................................... 55 

Gross Funds Budget ................................................................................................ 55 

Highlights of Fiscal Year 2007 Proposed Budget and Fiscal Year 2007-Fiscal 

Year 2010 Financial Plan .................................................................................... 55 

Other Federal Payment Items ................................................................................ 52 

Priority Federal Funding for Critical Projects ...................................................... 45 

Revenue Outlook ...................................................................................................... 54 

Voting Representation ............................................................................................. 52 

COURTS

Administrative Accomplishments ........................................................................... 28 

Background .............................................................................................................. 20 

Capital Budget Request .......................................................................................... 16 

Complete Budget Request Summary ..................................................................... 13 

Critical Fiscal Year 2007 Priority—Infrastructure ............................................... 8 

Family Court Implementation ................................................................................ 16 

Fiscal Year: 

2005 Accomplishments ..................................................................................... 20 

2007 Request ..................................................................................................... 20 

General Program Accomplishments ....................................................................... 21 

Integrated Justice Information System ................................................................. 17 

Recent Achievements ............................................................................................... 7 

The President’s Recommendation ........................................................................... 7 

Training .................................................................................................................... 27

Æ