U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

62–772 cc WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 106–928

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2001

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4942 and 5633/S. 3041

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, 2001, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

Council of the District of Columbia

Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

Office of the Mayor

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

JON KYL, Arizona

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

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

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman

JON KYL, Arizona

TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio)

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio)

Professional Staff

MARY BETH NETHERCUTT

TERRY SAUVAIN (Minority)

Administrative Support

LIZ BLEVINS (Minority)
(III)

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000

Page

Council of the District of Columbia ........................................................................ 1

Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority ....................... 1

Office of the Mayor .................................................................................................. 1

Nondepartmental witness ....................................................................................... 87

(1)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 11:06 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Hutchison, Kyl, and Durbin.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE

AUTHORITY

STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE RIVLIN, MEMBER

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. I would like to make a short opening statement, and then we have two other Senators who are going to be

late. We are going to start and proceed and then as they come, we

will certainly welcome them to take part in the hearing.

I want to welcome our witnesses today, Mayor Williams, Council

Chairman Cropp, and Dr. Rivlin. Each of you is playing a critical

role in the revitalization of the District of Columbia.

PERCENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS

Today’s hearing, of course, focuses on the District’s 2001 budget. The Federal Government is providing nearly $400 million in direct

spending for the District and in combination with Federal grants,

the U.S. funds 27 percent of the District’s budget.

I think there is good news in the District budget. Clearly, the

City is headed in the right direction financially. For fiscal year

2001, I am told you are planning to hold a surplus of approximately $260 million above the 4 percent requirement of $189 million.
2

RESERVE

The District is also doing the right thing with the reserve fund,

continuing to hold the $150 million in emergency reserve. There

are, I think, some other financial safeguards that should benefit

the City, and I hope that we can discuss those as we go through

this process.

EDUCATION SPENDING

Education spending, under this budget, will improve dramatically for both the public school system and charter schools. Spending will be on a per-pupil basis so that charter schools are not discriminated against.

TAX CUT

And the District is continuing with its tax cut that was passed

last year, reducing property rates and income tax rates, hopefully

making the District more competitive with neighboring jurisdictions. I think these are positive developments.

DEBT POLICY

Having said that, I do see some red flags for the future. I believe

the District is moving in the wrong direction on debt policy. The

City is refinancing its debt, albeit saving on short-term interest

costs, but putting itself in debt for a longer term.

The City already has $3 billion in debt. And it seems to be intent

on expanding that debt, planning nearly $1.6 billion in new debt

in the next 5 years.

In 1999 Moody’s Investors Service, assessing the District of Columbia, said, ‘‘ The District’s annual debt service burden is projected to remain a heavy 11 to 12 percent of local revenues.’’

PER CAPITA DEBT

Cities with low debt that receive high bond ratings have per capita debt of approximately $743 per person. The District’s per capita

debt ratio is almost $6,200 per person. As you can see, the District’s debt ratio is far beyond what it ought to be.

In looking at the Moody’s comments, they say that all of the ratios for the District of Columbia are high when you are looking at

its debt from any standpoint.

So I am going to raise the caution flag and say that I think the

one thing that the District must do to get on a track to receive a

better bond rating is to look at debt principles and a debt policy

that is more restrictive rather than less.

I know there are infrastructure needs, but this kind of increasing

debt, I think, is the wrong direction. And as we all know, we are

going into a higher interest rate market.

RESERVE FUNDS

During the budget debate, there was considerable discussion

about the $150 million reserve fund. I do not believe the fund

needs to be cumulative. I do believe, however, that the District
3

must hold a real reserve each year, and that it must only be spent

for real emergencies.

Further, I think dipping into the reserve should be the funding

source of last resort, and all other surplus funds should be exhausted before tapping the emergency fund.

I will propose that the reserve be placed in a separate interestbearing account so that the public and the market watchers will

know that the reserve is real and tangible, a rainy day account,

and not a bookkeeping entry.

Additionally, if there is a need for unanticipated expenses, which

we did see this year, versus genuine emergencies, then I would be

open to providing the City with greater flexibility.

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Unanticipated needs are those spending items that might arise

after the budget process or something required by Federal legislation, perhaps something due to severe weather or even a court

order.

Any new flexibility must be accompanied by more established criteria for what is emergency spending and what is simply unanticipated. I believe we must have very certain parameters if we are

going to have greater flexibility, which I think we need.

So let me conclude by reiterating that I think the City’s overall

financial picture is good. I believe that working together, we have

been able to make some great progress. And I think we can craft

a budget that will even go further to give you needed flexibility but

solid financial parameters, so that you will continue to build toward a better bond rating and lower borrowing costs and, of course,

a healthier city.

I want to thank all of you for being here and for all you are doing

and for the great working relationship that I feel that we have.

Before we begin with your testimony, I just want to remind you

that your entire statement will be made part of the record, so that

if you can limit your opening statement to 5 minutes or so, we will

put your entire statement on the record.

And then I will also say that without objection, the record will

remain open until 5 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2000 for the submission of any additional testimony or responses to questions that

members may raise as they come.

As I mentioned, Senator Durbin will be here later, and Senator

Kyl, as well, will be here later.

So with that, I would like to recognize Mayor Williams and welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

Mayor WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of

the Committee for having us here today to talk about the District

of Columbia’s fiscal year 2001 budget.

I have submitted my testimony for the record. As I go through

it, I will try to give you the highlights to allow the maximum

amount of time for my colleagues to submit their testimony and for

questions and answers.
4

This budget builds upon the strong financial recovery we have

achieved over recent years. We are going to begin the 2001 budget

having met the three financial goals set by Congress.

FOUR CONSECUTIVE BUDGETS

First, we will have balanced four consecutive budgets, those for

fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000; second, we will have

gained full access to credit markets; and third, we will have established financial reserves totaling over $400 million.

Now that we have stabilized our finances, I believe the District

government has and must necessarily triple its efforts to enhance

service delivery for residents and businesses to create the climate

for investment that will expand our economy in the long run.

Although we still have much work to do in managing difficult

areas such as procurement and street repairs, tree maintenance

and infrastructure improvements, we are making tremendous

strides every day, and will continue to demonstrate a strong record

of steady improvements.

Most important among the improvements supported by the 2001

budget are those that support children. As you know, Senator, our

budget flows from something we are calling Neighborhood Action,

where we have brought in the faith leadership, business leadership, non-profit leadership and citizens of our city.

Some 3,000 of them gathered in the convention center to talk

about a vision for our city. And chief among their goals was supporting children and families and building safe and prosperous

neighborhoods.

NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION

And very importantly, our citizens proceeded with Neighborhood

Action with the understanding that government itself cannot

achieve all these goals, but must act as a reliable partner with the

faith community, with our non-profits and, very importantly, with

our businesses.

That is why I am proud that the Council has joined with me in

a budget that is based on these priorities, including full funding for

our schools, because as I said in my State of the District address

at Ballou High School, this budget is an education budget.

I believe if we want our city to attract residents, if we want our

city to attract businesses that have employees that have children

that need a school, we are going to have to improve our schools.

So we are committing full funding for the public schools, an increase of $52 million for next year.

SCHOOL FUNDING

This is the first time in over 20 years that a mayor proposed a

budget with a needed level of funding for our schools. And we have

balanced the approach of full funding with accountability. We are

going to be working with the Council to see that our schools have,

not only strength and accountability in terms of a referendum that

we are pushing to give more direction and control in our school

government’s process, but also to give our schools independence
5

and autonomy in their procurement, in their finance, in their personnel, and we hope as well in their budget year.

With this investment, we hope to provide incentive pay for teachers who go the extra mile to provide funding for something we are

calling ‘‘Lead Principals,’’ an effort to go out and find 30 of the very

best principals in the country to work in our school system.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

As well, and very, very importantly, the budget expands options

for public school students and parents. To accommodate increasing

enrollment in charter schools, we committed $77 million next year

to continue the reform effort. Currently, charter school enrollments

are increasing year to year, but the budgets are based on last

year’s enrollment.

And I am hoping over the next year to work with members of

Congress, Kevin Chavous, the Chair of our Council Committee on

Education, the Chair of our Council Community Leaders, to correct

this situation, to ensure that all of our schools are funded on a reliable, adequate basis, which I think will save a lot of us time and

trouble, and allow us to really get at the appropriate level of oversight and program evaluation.

YOUTH VIOLENCE

This budget also includes a major continued initiative as it relates to youth. We are going to be announcing shortly a major

youth violence initiative focused on east of the river, where we

have high incidents of youth violence.

I have always believed that a key to this is not only a relationship between the local and the Federal Government, a relationship

between our government and the private sector, but very importantly on a competitive basis, in partnership with the sectors that

I described, an investment in out-of-school, after-school programs

for youth. And so we are continuing in the effort, investing in this

budget $10 million for after-school programs.

TUITION ASSISTANCE

I want to spend a minute and talk about tuition assistance because this is something in which we have been heavily involved

with the Congress and with our business leadership.

I am proud that our business leadership for the first time on a

regional basis really committed itself to our children in this tuition

assistance program and joined with the Congress to make this happen.

We all know that to compete in this global economy, it is imperative for our kids to continue their education beyond the 12th grade.

The success of Bill Gates is truly one in a billion. The rest of us

need the opportunity to obtain a college degree.

To that end, I thank all the partners who have made this possible. Now, as you may know, the residents of every State in the

union have a variety of public institutions to choose from.

Thanks to this tuition assistance grant program in our city, the

residents of the District will now have the same choices as residents of other States.
6

We face many challenges in getting the tuition assistance grant

program up and running. We must design and build an administrative process that utilizes the latest technology and must do it even

as we administer the program.

This is a costly and painstaking undertaking. It is also important

to understand that administrative outlays in the first few years of

the program are slightly higher than they should be. That is why

I have taken the step of investing District money into the program

over and above the monies received from the Federal Government

for administration.

We want to study and match the best practices of other State

scholarship programs.

An even more difficult challenge lies in letting our population

know they have many low-cost, low-tuition choices for educating

our children. Unfortunately, our young people have had too few

choices for too many years.

Too many of our African-American, Latino and Asian youth have

been deprived and have felt alienated rather than assisted and

praised. And it has taken a massive public relations effort to let

our young people know about this innovative program and convince

them that they now do have a choice. They do have an alternative.

We have also stepped in with District resources to pay for this

increased outreach. We are pleased at the way our young people

have responded. Last week, we received over 300 applications.

We are finding that 95 percent of those who apply are eligible.

The current rate of applications gives us great confidence that we

will oversubscribe our predicted number of applications.

PELL GRANT PROGRAM

Only 15 percent of the target population applied for the Pell

Grant Program in its first year. In the second year, just 35 percent

of the potential applicants submitted an application.

We are well on our way to doubling that second year figure in

our first year. We are confident that participation in the program

will increase in each coming year.

A large proportion of our graduating high school seniors as well

as students attending eligible institutions will receive the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant. Unfortunately, a large group of students,

who otherwise would be eligible, have been left out. These are District residents that would be seniors in college this fall.

A cutoff date of January 1, 1998, written into the legislation, results in most seniors being ineligible for the program. I am requesting that Congress reconsider this cutoff.

By moving it back to January 1, 1997, a whole class of students

will become eligible. This will give us the ability to have a full cohort of students in the program in its first year.

And I am confident that we have the capacity to administer a

full program, including our college seniors this year.

SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS

In the area of safe neighborhoods, another top priority of our

city, I will say briefly that in this budget we have committed $4.4

million to hire 175 more police officers. And I am going to continue

to challenge the police, the prosecutors, and the courts to manage
7

our resources efficiently, and get more out of our officers on the

beat where we need them.

GUN BUYBACK PROGRAM

Second, as part of MPD’s budget, we will continue our gun

buyback program, which collected almost 3,000 guns last year.

Third, we will continue our Capitol Communities Initiative to

shut down open air drug markets in our city. We have already seen

the benefits of community policing in these neighborhoods. In some

cases, crime has gone down over 50 percent.

Fourth, we will mount a coordinated effort to root out the conditions that breed and foster crime in our communities with an antigraffiti campaign and renovating more abandoned properties.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

In addition to crime fighting, we are going to insist that we support our dedicated firefighters who risk their lives to protect our

homes and neighborhoods. This budget invests $7.5 million to buy

new pumper trucks, ladder trucks and rescue vehicles.

You can never take all the risk out of being a firefighter, but you

can and should invest in their safety. And that is why this budget

commits $4.3 million to add a fifth firefighter to our fire trucks and

a battalion aide, so that no fire team will go into action without

the full complement and resources they need.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

I go into my testimony in what we are doing in economic development, rehabilitating—for example, committing $21 million over 3

years to demolish more than 1,000 units of vacant and abandoned

housing, committing to home ownership, committing to boarding up

houses that go toward abating nuisances and stabilizing our neighborhoods; and as well, a commitment in this budget, more than $7

million to acquire sites to relocate our District agencies in our

neighborhoods.

RIGHT SIZE GOVERNMENT

I believe as we right size our government, we can also make our

government more accessible to our people, not only, as I will say

in a second, through E-government, but making it more accessible

out in our neighborhoods, which gets me to the point of government

efficiency.

I believe that the long-term salvation, redemption, recovery of

our city is not only in the area of expanding our economy in the

ways we have suggested, but also very, very importantly in bringing our costs of our government to size.

I think that we have an excellent opportunity here, not only because the economy is going as well as it is, but because while the

economy is going well and while we have the advantage of technology, we have the opportunity to take advantage of early

buyouts, to take advantage of a fairly high attrition rate, to on a

methodical, deliberate basis bring our government down to its right

size without the kind of dislocation and displacement that is neces-
8

sitated when you do things in the midst of a crisis. And we are

committed and determined to doing that.

EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS

First, we have invested in the Department of Public Works to

move toward a gold standard, we are calling it, of customer service.

We have committed $19 million for more equipment, including 10

garbage trucks, and 20 snow-ready dump trucks, so we can get the

trash picked up on time regardless of weather.

IMPROVEMENTS AT DMV

Second, we have increased staffing to reduce waiting times at

DMV. I am pleased to say to this Committee and to our public that

over the last month since we have made changes in our staffing

and in our complement at DMV, with the support of the Council,

no one in the inspection station in Southwest has waited over 20

minutes, not one person.

Not one person going to renew their driver’s license, renew their

registration, has waited over 20 minutes over the last month. And

that is definitely progress, as we count it in the District.

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS

Third, we have invested $55 million to improve technology and

create a virtual E-government providing a wide range of online

services. We are going to be announcing our goal to make the District the best E-government in the country in 2 years. I believe the

march toward E-government is another opportunity we have to

right size our government again without extraordinary dislocation

and displacement of our employees.

MANAGEMENT SUPERVISORY SERVICE

Fourth, we are going to be intensifying the implementation of the

management supervisory service, which will establish performance

requirements for key managers throughout our government. It will

bring real accountability to the bureaucracy and make government

more responsive.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Finally, we are going to be working aggressively to improve our

risk management. We still have areas of this government that are

fantastically dysfunctional. Lives are at risk. Rather than waiting

for the newspaper to tell us our marching orders, we need to be

proactive and aggressive and get this done ourselves. We are committed to doing that in cooperation with our CFO, our I.G., and our

program managers.

HEALTH CARE

Finally, I want to talk about health and the commitment in this

budget, $10 million to build and expand community based doctors’

offices accessible to every home in the District.

We believe that we can save money in healthcare by making this

healthcare much more proactive and preventative, clinically based,
9

primary as opposed to intensive in major institutions, in the emergency room.

RIDERS ON APPROPRIATION BILL

As I have stated finally in the area of democracy, the District

will, for the fourth straight year, enjoy a budget surplus. And despite this good news and proof that we can govern our city well,

there is still the specter of riders to our appropriations bill.

This year, I would hope that we can work with the Congress to

allow our citizens to make their own decisions like other officials

around the country do on a local level and use this budget and use

the strategy that informs this budget to make our national Capital

not only a model for children and families, not only a model for

safe and prosperous neighborhoods, but a model to show that democracy can work at the epicenter of the free world.

So I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Kyl and

other members of the Committee for having us here today. And I

would be happy to answer your questions at the end of the testimony.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mayor.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

Chairman Hutchison, Senator Durbin and Members of the Subcommittee, thank

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to share with the Subcommittee the District of Columbia’s fiscal year 2001

budget.

This budget builds upon the strong financial recovery achieved over recent years.

The District will begin fiscal year 2001 having met the three financial goals set out

by Congress. First, we will have balanced four consecutive budgets (those for fiscal

year 1997 through fiscal year 2000), second, we will have gained full access to credit

markets, and third, we will have established financial reserves totaling over $400

million.

Now that we have stabilized our finances, the District government has tripled its

efforts to enhance service delivery for residents and businesses. Although we still

have much work to do in managing difficult areas such as procurement, and street

repairs, and the long lines at the DMV, we are making tremendous strides every

day, and will continue to demonstrate a strong track record of steady improvements.

Most important among the improvements supported by our fiscal year 2001 budget

are those that support our children.

EDUCATION

I am proud that the council approved my budget that was based on citizens’ priorities, including full funding for our schools. As I said in my State of the District

Address, this budget is an ‘‘Education Budget.’’ If we want to attract residents back

to our city and ensure a future for our children, then we can settle for nothing less

than the best education system of any big city in America. We have a long way to

go, but we are making progress.

That’s why I am committing to full funding for the public schools—an increase

of $52 million for next year. This is the first time in over twenty years that a Mayor

proposed a budget with the needed level of funding for our schools. I have balance

the approach of full funding with accountability, which is the only way of ensuring

that the funding reaches the classrooms where it belongs.

With this investment, we will offer incentive pay to teachers who go the extra

mile and provide another three percent pay raise for them, bringing our teachers’

salaries more in line with neighboring jurisdictions because I recognize the vital role

they play in our children’s lives. The budget also includes funds to expand adult

education at UDC, support the Homework Helpers Program and extend library

hours.

Even as we make a big investment in education, we also need to hold the school

system accountable for those funds. That is why I support a smaller, stronger School
10

Board of both elected and appointed members. Our citizens will vote on this proposal on June 27th. This is an opportunity to fix what’s clearly broken.

This budget also expands options for public school students and parents. To ac- commodate increased enrollment in charter schools, we committed $77 million next

year to continue the reform effort. Currently, charter school enrollments are increasing year to year, but budgets are based on last year’s enrollment. That means

there’s a one-year lag between increased enrollment and an increased budget. Over

the next year, I look forward to working with Members of Congress, our City Council and the community to correct this situation to ensure fair competition. Educating

our children is a first step, but we also want them to live in safe communities.

That’s why the next priority I want to discuss is making our neighborhoods safe.

YOUTH INITIATIVES

We also need to continue our commitment to provide quality activities before

school, after school, on the weekends, and in the summers. As part of the Children

Investment Trust, I included $10 million in additional funding to provide programs

during these out of school hours when our children are more likely to fall into trouble. Studies show that after-school programs reduce juvenile crime and raise academic performance, and it’s time to give them the support they deserve and allow

them to grow up and compete in the global economy.

TUITION ASSISTANCE

To compete in this global economy it is imperative for our kids to continue their

education beyond the 12th grade. The success of a Bill Gates is truly one in a billion. The rest of us need the opportunity to gain a college degree.

To that end I want to thank the Congress for passing the District of Columbia

College Access Act and, through it, appropriating money for the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program. This wonderful new program will give many D.C. residents the

opportunity to attend college for the first time.

As you may know, the residents of every state in the union have a variety of lowcost public institutions to choose from. Thanks to the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant

Program, the residents of D.C. will now have the same choices as residents of other

states.

We face many challenges in setting up the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program. We must design and build an administrative process that utilizes the latest

technology. We must do it even as we administer the program. This is a costly undertaking. It is important to understand that administrative outlays in the first few

years of the program will be greater than normal. That is why I have taken the

step of investing District money into the program over and above the monies received from the Federal government for administration. We want to study and

match the best practices of other state scholarship plans.

An even more difficult challenge lies in letting our population know that now they

have many low-cost, low-tuition choices for educating our children. Unfortunately,

our young people have had too few choices for too many years. Too many of our African-American, Latino, and Asian youth have been deprived and alienated rather

than assisted and praised. It has taken a massive public relations effort to let our

young people know about this innovative program and convince them that now they

do have a choice. We have also stepped in with District resources to help pay for

this outreach.

We are pleased at the way our young people have responded. Last week we received over 300 applications. We are finding that 95 percent of those who apply are

eligible. The current rate of applications gives us great confidence that we will oversubscribe our predicted number of applications. Only 15 percent of the target population applied for The Pell Grant Program in its first year. In its second year, just

35 percent of the potential applicants submitted an application. We are well on our

way to doubling that second year figure—in our first year. We are confident that

participation in the program will increase in each coming year.

A large proportion of our graduating high school seniors as well as students attending eligible institutions will receive the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant. Unfortunately, a large group of students, who otherwise would be eligible, have been left

out. These are the District residents that will be seniors in college this Fall. A cutoff date of January 1, 1998, written into the legislation, results in most seniors

being ineligible for the program. I am requesting that the Congress reconsider this

cutoff. By moving it back to January 1, 1997, a whole class of students will become

eligible. This will give us the ability to have a full cohort of students in the program

in its first year. I am confident that we have the capacity to administer a full program, including our college seniors, this year.
11

SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS

We’ve made some progress in the past year at reducing crime in our neighborhoods, but I will be the first one to tell you that we’ve got to do more. We need

a budget that supports our men and women in uniform, and empowers citizens to

reduce crime in their neighborhoods.

For starters, the District committed $4.4 million to hire 175 more police officers

and I’m going to continue to challenge the police, the prosecutors, and the courts

to manage our resources efficiently and get more of our officers on the beat where

we need them. Second, as part of MPD’s budget, we will continue our gun buyback

program, which collected almost 3,000 guns last year. Third, we will continue our

Capital Communities initiative to shut down six open-air drug markets. We’ve already seen the benefits of community policing in those neighborhoods, and I want

to take this strategy citywide. Fourth, we will mount a coordinated effort to root

out the conditions that breed crime in our communities like an anti-graffiti campaign and renovating more abandoned properties.

In addition to crime fighting, I will also insist that we support our dedicated firefighters who risk their lives to protect our homes and neighborhoods. This budget

invests $7.5 million to buy new pumper trucks, ladder trucks, and rescue trucks.

You can never take all the risk out being a firefighter, but you can and should invest in their safety. That’s why this budget commits $4.3 million to add the fifth

firefighter to our fire trucks and a battalion aide, so that no fire team will have to

go into action with one arm tied behind their backs.

NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT

The next priority of this budget is economic development in our neighborhoods.

In this budget, I committed $21 million over three years to demolish more than

1,000 units of vacant and abandoned housing throughout the city to make way for

new homes. This budget also contains funds to hire 24 new housing inspectors to

preserve our housing stock as well as an additional $2 million to support neighborhood cleaning efforts.

Following through on a commitment I made last year, this budget contains more

than $7 million to acquire sites to relocate District agencies to our neighborhoods.

These new facilities will also provide retail space and spur neighborhood economic

development just like the Reeves Center has done for U Street.

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY

I also want to discuss our ongoing effort to improve services for residents. In the

last year, we’ve made real progress, but much more remains to be done.

First, we’ve invested in the Department of Public Works, to deliver that ‘‘goldstandard’’ of customer service. That is why this budget contains $19 million for more

equipment, including 10 garbage trucks and 20 snow-ready dump trucks so we can

get that trash picked up on time.

Second, we have increased staffing to reduce waiting times at DMV. We have

made some improvements at DMV, but we also face increased demand because more

people are moving to the city.

Third, we invested $55 million to improve technology and create a virtual

‘‘e’’government, providing a wide range of on-line government services.

Fourth, we are intensifying the implementation of the Management Supervisory

Service, which will establishes performance requirements for key managers across

the government. MSS brings real accountability to the bureaucracy, and make government more responsive.

Fifth, we are working to improve risk management. We still have areas of this

government that are fantastically dysfunctional. Lives are at risk. Instead of constantly reacting to lawsuits and court orders, I want to proactively and systematically look into this government, find the problem areas, and root out the dysfunction

before the next crisis comes along. In the process, I believe we will save taxpayers

millions of dollars in legal settlement costs.

HEALTH CARE

This budget provides $10 million to build and expand community-based doctor’s

offices conveniently accessible to every home in the District. I also have a deep personal conviction that the government has an obligation to protect vulnerable citizens. To that goal, this budget will provide $1.4 million for 4 new senior wellness

centers, expanded home care services, and job opportunities for seniors.
12

This budget makes important strides in the areas of Lead Poisoning, HIV Tracking, clean water initiatives and full funding the Commission on Mental Health and

Child and Family Services to bring receiverships back under my control.

DEMOCRACY

As I have already stated, the District will, for the fourth straight year, enjoy a

budget surplus. Despite this good news and proof that we can govern our city well,

there is still the specter of anti-democratic riders to the annual D.C. Appropriations

bill. This year, we hope the Congress will allow District leaders to make their own

decisions, just like other officials around the country make for their citizens. Over

90 percent of this budget is District taxpayer money.

This year, I hope that the Congress will follow the President’s lead and choose

not impose these unnecessary riders on the DC Appropriations bill.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify before you today. I will be

glad to answer any questions you might have at this point.

Senator HUTCHISON. First, I never did see her myself, but my

staff tells me that Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is here and if

she is, I would like to recognize her great work for the District.

Thank you for being here.

Senator Kyl, did you have any kind of statement, or did you just

want to participate in questions?

Senator KYL. I just have a couple of questions.

Senator HUTCHISON. All right.

With that then, I will call on Ms. Cropp, our Council Chairman.

STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP

Ms. CROPP. Thank you very much Chairwoman Hutchison, Senator Kyl, members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of

the District of Columbia. I am pleased to be here with my colleagues to testify on the District’s fiscal year 2001 budget.

Also in the chambers this morning is a Council colleague, David

Catania, at-large member to the Council.

Let me fast forward to next year and imagine another oversight

hearing, except we will be celebrating that day for the following

reasons: We would have balanced our budget for four straight

years. We will, again, present to Congress another fiscally sound

budget. The Financial Authority would disappear. And I think Dr.

Rivlin and the members of the Authority will also be happy about

that, because they will not——

Senator HUTCHISON. I think they are celebrating that you will

not be here, Dr. Rivlin. How does that make you feel?

Dr. RIVLIN. I think that is right.

Ms. CROPP. And I think she will——

Dr. RIVLIN. And I am glad.

Ms. CROPP. She will join us in that celebration. And that day

would be a proud occasion for the District of Columbia government,

because this is what we have been striving to accomplish, the

Council, the Mayor and the Financial Authority during the past 3

or 4 years to become solvent financially and to end the control period.

In this context, we are pleased and proud to present a good product for fiscal year 2001, a spending package that is fiscally disciplined, prudent and balanced.

It includes more money for schools, police, health care, neighborhoods and a modest tax credit for some 54,000 low-income families.
13

FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET

In this budget, the Council has set forth several goals for our

city. We have joined with the Mayor in doing this, service improvement, fiscal discipline, strategic financial investments. It not only

takes us closer to removing the Financial Authority and solvency;

this budget continues to invest for the District and its future specifically and strategically in the following priorities: Clean and safe

neighborhoods; tax reforms for working families; quality health

care; economic and job growth; an effective education system with

expanded funding; and improved customer service.

During the past several weeks, the Council has worked diligently

to reach agreement with the Mayor on various issues, funding critical needs, addressing freed-up appropriated funds from the reserve

carryover—and we thank you very much, Madam Chair, for your

help and your support in this particular area—augmenting our revenue, expanding our investing—or investing tobacco funds, to producing a solid financial plan that will meet the needs of our citizens.

In this process, we align the priorities of the Mayor and the

Council to produce a budget that will move the City in the right

direction and make it a much better place to live.

COUNCIL REPORTS ON BUDGET REQUEST

I submit for the record a copy of the Council’s Committee Report

on the Budget Request Act, and I ask that it would be made a part

of the record.

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes.

Ms. CROPP. In addition, if you have not received it, I will be submitting also, a copy of the Council’s legislative agenda that will

show you the direction that the Council is going during this legislative period.

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Council of the District of Columbia report

‘‘Bill 13–640, Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request Act of 2000’’, can be

found in the District of Columbia’s subcommittee files.]

Ms. CROPP. This final budget reflects the Mayor and the Council

coming together. The result is a very good budget.

When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 13, he

had proposed a local budget of $3.1 billion, in addition to going into

the reserve and tapping tobacco fundings amounting to $171 million.

While we concurred with the Mayor that the District does need

a budget that invests in critical services, educates our youth, funds

health programs adequately, and cares for our elderly, our approach to this challenge was decidedly more cautious and even bordered on, as has been said, ‘‘of excessive fiscal restraint.’’

Better yet, we assisted the Mayor, worked together with the

Mayor in tackling these problem areas such as our schools, blighted

neighborhoods, enhanced health services for the elderly, improved

services for the underprivileged children and the mentally retarded

within the core budget. And that was extremely important.

Because we thought that these priorities were so important, our

solution was to fund the priority areas in our core budget. We sim-
14

ply could not trust funding these priorities on a one-time windfall

source or revenues that could be beyond our control.

We wanted to ensure the citizens that we met that, through direct and reliable funding, their needs were met. We wanted to

eliminate the happenstance of underfunding in areas that might

later require budget recuts to these programs.

We resisted the tendency to just add on top of existing budgets.

We found ways to selectively enhance revenue. We did all of these

because as an oversight body, we have a duty not to waste the taxpayers’ dollars.

And prior to taking on these responsibilities, the Council and its

10 standing committees devoted many hours with our citizens and

spent much time and effort in reviewing the agencies’ performances

at the budget and oversight hearings.

At the end of the review process, we had conducted a total of 55

public hearings, where appropriate, incorporated the input from

our citizens and workforce in putting this budget together.

And that is what government is all about, the Executive proposing, the Legislative Branch working out with oversight hearings, and coming together with a good process.

$150 MILLION RESERVE

At this point, Madam Chair, we want to thank you again for

your action regarding the District’s $150 million reserve. Your clarification that the unspent portion of this fund could be carried over

to the next fiscal year has greatly boosted our efforts as we continue to rebuild, strengthen and revitalize this city.

This enables the District to use its reserve like any other government. I have, at the beginning of my testimony, highlighted the

Council’s philosophy and our oversight of this budget—service improvement, fiscal discipline, strategic financial investments.

Not only did we hold fast to these watchwords as we reviewed

the budget, there are additional precautionary steps and insurance

policies built into this list of reserve expenditures.

TIERS OF SPENDING RESERVE

In agreeing with the Mayor, the spending of these funds will

occur sequentially and be guided by several safeguards. The three

tiers of spending: Trigger one includes $32 million for foster care

receivership for the Lashawn receiver. These unspent portions that

were carried over will free up local funds carried over and budgeted

in the 2001 reserve. Only with certification by the CFO can these

funds be spent.

Trigger two has $37 million targeted for programs for our children, elderly, the Latino population, public safety, just to name a

few.

And trigger three contains $6 million to be allocated to the following: The police department, the Citizens Complaint Review

Board, Human Resource Training and Settlement and Judgments.

$37 MILLION MANAGEMENT REFORM SAVINGS

To safeguard further and to ensure trigger—spending triggers

two and three, there are the insurance policies: The Mayor will
15

achieve a $37 million management reform savings by downsizing

the government as proposed in his budget.

OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT SAVINGS

The Mayor will also achieve the $10 million in operational improvement savings by various methods; outsourcing, managed competition, private-public partnerships; and other savings reductions

initially proposed in the Mayor’s budget.

CERTIFICATION BY CFO

The CFO will certify the carryover of the fiscal year 2000 reserve, and the CFO will also certify that the collection of the additional revenues in fiscal year 2001 will be achieved. If, and only if,

these conditions are met can the CFO certify the availability of

funds.

Any balance will be used for ‘‘Paygo’’ capital funds, instead of

borrowing it, and if the CFO certifies that the balance is not required to replace funds expended in the fiscal year 2000 reserve.

This journey is not an overnight miracle by any means. We have

paid off our accumulated deficits. We have crafted five straight balanced budgets, and we will do no less in the years to come.

We have obtained clean audits in the City’s checkbooks since

1997. We continue to receive favorable investment bond ratings.

We made legislative reductions in programs and personnel

throughout the government. We imposed tight controls on spending.

FULL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

We did not neglect our citizens, especially our young people.

Schools, for the first time, have received full funding, which includes $2 million for universal pre-kindergarten. And as many of

us know, if we start out on the early side with our young people,

that will certainly move them in a stronger position in later years.

A cadet program for high school students will be implemented in

the police department.

MORE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC WORKS

We invested more money in public works, nuisance property

abatement programs to make this city a better place to live. And

those are the very basic issues, the quality of life issues that many

of our citizens often talk about.

EXODUS FROM CITY SLOWING

I think you will see a reflection of it in our population, in that

the exodus from the City seems to be slowing down considerably.

Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that

you support and leave intact this budget, which has been mutually

put together by the Council and the Mayor and the Financial Authority, with their approval.

Even though the Financial Authority is still in place—and we

thank them so very much for their service and their commitment—

we, the elected representatives, felt that this budget should have
16

been resolved by us. The Council and the Mayor worked together

to present this budget.

We cannot wait until year 2001 to celebrate the fruits of our

labor, balanced budgets, unqualified audits, better tax collections,

tight control on spending and most of all, the end of the control period. However, we intend to be vigilant in our oversight role as we

continue to strengthen the financial health of the City.

It is the Council’s responsibility, even more so after the control

period, to work with the Mayor, to produce responsible good budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for future

generations.

The Mayor and the Council will continue to have public differences, debates and compromises. That is the nature of government.

More importantly, we, the Mayor and the Council, shall continue

to do what is necessary to have a strong financial structure and to

improve service delivery.

Thank you.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP

Good morning/afternoon, Chairwoman Hutchison and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am pleased to be here with

my colleagues to testify on the District’s fiscal year 2001 budget.

INTRODUCTION

Let me fast forward to next year—imagine another oversight hearing—EXCEPT

we will be celebrating that day for the following reasons. We would have balanced

our budgets four straight years. We will, again, present to Congress another fiscally

sound budget. The Financial Authority would disappear. And that day would be a

proud occasion for the District Government because that is what we have been striving to accomplish during the past three years, i.e., to become solvent financially and

to end the control period. In this context, we are pleased and proud to present a

good product for fiscal year 2001, a spending package that is fiscally disciplined,

prudent, and balanced. It includes more money for schools, police, health care,

neighborhoods, and a modest tax credit for some 54,000 low-income families.

In this budget, the Council has set forth several goals for our city-service improvement, fiscal discipline, and strategic financial investments. It takes us closer to removing the Financial Authority, but it also continues to invest for the District and

its future, specifically and strategically in the following priorities: Clean and safe

neighborhoods; Tax reform for working families; Quality health care; Economic and

job growth; Effective education system with expanded funding; and Improved customer service.

BUDGET AGREEMENT WITH THE MAYOR

During the past several weeks, the Council has worked diligently to reach agreement with the Mayor on various issues, e.g., funding critical needs, addressing

freed-up appropriated funds from the reserve carryover (we thank you for your help

on this issue), augmenting our revenue, expending or investing tobacco funds, to

producing a solid financial plan that will meet the needs of our citizens. In this

process, we aligned the priorities of the Mayor and the Council and produced a

budget that will move the city in the right direction and make it a better place to

live. (I submit a copy of the Council’s committee report on the Budget Request Act

and I would ask that it be made part of the record.)

COUNCIL’S REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET

When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 13, he had proposed a local

budget of $3.1 billion in addition to dipping into the reserve and tobacco funds

amounting to $171 million. While we concurred with the Mayor that the District

does need a budget that invests in critical services, educates our youth, funds health
17

1The first trigger spending consists of $6.3 million for LaShawn Receiver, $13 million for Commission on Mental Health, $12 million for DCPS, and $0.6 million for the Mayor. 2The second trigger spending consists of $10 million for Children Investment Fund, $1.5 million for Department of Parks & Recreation, $1.3 million for Fire & Emergency Medical Services,

$120,000 for Arts & Humanities, $400,000 for the Public Library, $574,000 for Aging, $3.3 million for Housing & Commission Development, $200,000 for Employment Services, $2.5 million

for UDC, $4.1 million for Public Works, $4.2 million for Department of Health, $1.5 million for

Latino Affairs, $2.5 million for Property Management, and $5 million for the Cafeteria Plan.

programs adequately, and cares for our elderly, our approach to this challenge was

decidedly more cautious and, even bordered on ‘‘excessive fiscal restraint’’. Better

yet, we assisted him in tackling those ‘‘problem’’ areas such as our schools, blighted

neighborhoods, enhanced health services for the elderly, improved services for the

underprivileged, children, and the mentally retarded within the core budget. And

let me repeat this . . . within the core budget—and without using the reserve or

the tobacco money—the Council did the hard work, scrubbed the numbers, made

some tough decisions, and fixed many problems. We cut excessive growth in several

administrative areas. We scrutinized the numbers, found savings within the schools

transportation budget, and then fully funded the schools. This is in accordance with

a suggestion by the Special Master for the special education programs when he testified that more savings could be made in the transportation budget. We gave an

estimated $20 million to address the District’s foster care system by leveraging federal Medicaid dollars for which the District is eligible. Additionally, $13 million was

given to the Corrections Department and $3 million to the Mental Health Services,

just to list a few. Had we not done this, these areas would have been underfunded!

Because we felt that these priorities were so important, our solution was to fund

them within the core budget. We simply could not trust funding these priorities by

one-time, windfall sources of revenue beyond our control. We wanted to insure that

citizen needs were met through direct and reliable funding. We wanted to eliminate

the happenstance of underfunding in areas that might later require budget cuts to

these programs. We resisted the tendency to just add on top of the existing budget.

We found ways to selectively enhance revenue. We did all these because as an oversight body, we have a duty to not waste the taxpayer’s dollars. And prior to taking

on these responsibilities of ‘‘fixing’’ the budget, the Council and its ten standing

committees devoted many hours of discussion with our citizens and spent much time

and effort in reviewing the agencies’ performances at the budget and oversight hearings. At the end of the review process, we had conducted a total of 55 public hearings and, where appropriate, incorporated the input from our citizens and workforce

in putting this budget together.

THE FREED-UP APPROPRIATED FUNDS FROM THE RESERVE CARRYOVER

At this point, Madam Chair, we want to thank you again for your benign action

regarding the District’s $150 million reserve. Your clarification that the unspent

portion of this fund could be carried over to the next fiscal year has greatly boosted

our efforts as we continue to rebuild, strengthen, and revitalize the city. This enables the District to use its reserve like any other governments. I have, at the beginning of my testimony, highlighted the Council’s philosophy in our oversight of this

budget, i.e., service improvement, fiscal discipline, and strategic financial investments. Not only did we hold fast to these watchwords as we reviewed the budget,

there are additional precautionary steps and ‘‘insurance policy’’ built into this list

of reserve expenditures. In agreeing with the Mayor, the spending of these funds

will occur sequentially AND be guided by several safeguards (I will elaborate on

how fiscally cautious these safeguards are). The three tiers of spending are:

(i) Trigger 1 includes $32 million for the foster care receiver Lashawn, Commission on Mental Health, DCPS, and the Mayor.1 The unspent portion from the fiscal

year 2000 reserve, when carried over, will free up local funds currently budgeted

in the fiscal year 2001 reserve. Only with certification by the CFO, can then these

funds be spent.

(ii) Trigger 2 has $37 million targeted for programs for our children, elderly, the

Latino population, and public safety, just to name a few.2

(iii) Trigger 3 contains $6 million to be allocated to the Police Department, the

Citizen Complaint Review Board, the Human Resource Training, and Settlement

and Judgements.

To safeguard and further insure the spending Triggers 2 and 3, these are the ‘‘insurance policies’’:

—The Mayor will achieve the $37 million in management reform savings by

downsizing the government as proposed in his budget;
18

—The Mayor will achieve the $10 million in operational improvement savings by

various methods, i.e., outsourcing, managed competition, public-private partnerships, etc., another savings reduction initially proposed in his budget;

—The CFO will certify the carryover of the fiscal year 2000 reserve funds; and

—The CFO will certify that collection of additional revenues in fiscal year 2001

will be achieved.

If, and only if these conditions are met, can the CFO certify the availability of

funds. Any balance will be used for ‘‘Paygo’’ capital funds instead of borrowing, and

if the CFO certifies that the balance is not required to replace funds expended in

the fiscal year 2000 reserve.

These ‘‘insurance policies’’ are imperative because to the extent which the Mayor

cannot achieve the savings, the $37 million will be used to replace the savings and

not on the programs. Previously, this city had fallen into serious financial trouble

by spending one-time infusions of money on ongoing programs and services. Since

1997, thanks in part to the Revitalization Plan that transferred, in fiscal year 1998,

various costly state-like functions from the District to the federal government and

increased the federal Medicaid share from 50 percent to 70 percent, the city has

been on the road to fiscal solvency.

This journey is not an overnight miracle by any means. We paid off our accumulated deficits. We crafted five straight balanced budgets and will do no less in years

to come. We have obtained ‘‘clean’’ audits in the city’s checkbook since 1997. We continued to receive favorable investment bond rating. We made legislated reductions

in programs and personnel throughout the government. We imposed tight controls

on spending. We did not neglect our citizens, especially our young people. Schools,

for the first time, have received full funding, which includes $2 million for universal

pre-kindergarten. A cadet program for high school students will be implemented in

the Police Department. We invested more money in public works and nuisance property abatement programs to make this city a better place to live.

CONCLUSION

Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that you support and

leave intact this budget which has been mutually put together by the Council and

the Mayor. Even though the Financial Authority is still in place and we thank them

for their service and commitment, we, the elected representatives felt that the budget should be resolved by us. We cannot wait until year 2001 to celebrate the ‘‘fruits

of our labor’’, i.e., balanced budgets, unqualified audits, better tax collections, tight

control on spending, and most all, end of the control period. However, we intend to

be vigilant in our oversight role as we continue to strengthen the financial health

of the city. It is the Council’s responsibility—and even more so after the control period—to work with the Mayor to produce responsible good budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for future generations. The Mayor and the

Council will continue to have public differences, debates and compromises; that is

the nature of government. More importantly, we, the Mayor and Council, shall continue to do what is necessary to have a strong financial structure and improve service delivery.

Senator HUTCHISON. And now the Chairman of the control board.

With everyone applauding your exit, I hope that you feel welcome

here for your, hopefully, last meeting.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE RIVLIN

Dr. RIVLIN. I do, Madam Chairman.

Chairman Cropp has already alluded to the situation that we

might be in a year from now when it will, we very much hope, be

clear that the control period is about to end on September 30, 2001.

END OF CONTROL PERIOD

But this 2001 budget already represents a milestone for the Authority. It is likely the last year that we will have to approve the

budget and appear as participants in the budget process, and we

consciously played a lower profile role this year for that reason.
19

This budget is the result, as the Mayor and Chairman Cropp

have pointed out, of direct negotiations between the Council and

the Mayor in which we played largely an advisory role.

So by next year, we hope we will be celebrating the end of the

Control Period because we will have had four consecutive balanced

budgets, the year 2000 being the last one which should be evident

by, we hope, February 1, 2001.

For the next 15 months until we actually fade into the sunset,

the Authority will work very hard to support the Mayor and the

Council in improving the management and the fiscal health of the

District of Columbia, and to minimize the chance that the President will have to reactivate the Authority at any time in the near

future.

SIX ITEMS NEED ACCOMPLISHING

We believe that there has been much progress over the last several years in the District of Columbia, but that there is still serious

work to be done. And I want to mention six priorities that we hope

to be working very closely with the Mayor and the Council on accomplishing over the next 15 months.

First, we believe that the budget process, while the outcome was

good, revealed that both the Mayor and the Council need to

strengthen their budget staffs. The Authority staff helped a good

deal behind the scenes this year with the mechanics of getting the

budget put together.

The Mayor needs a stronger budget staff, and I know that the

new chief financial officer, Natwar Gandhi, is working hard on this.

And the Council does, too. I am not suggesting that they need

a Congressional Budget Office, but they need a stronger staff, a

kind of mini-Council budget office, to strengthen their ability to assess the impact of the Mayor’s plans and to evaluate the proposals

of the Council committees.

Second, we all need to work hard to strengthen the financial

management and information systems of the District especially,

but not exclusively, cash management. The lateness of the 1999

audit revealed serious problems that need to be corrected, and we

will be working with our strong new CFO to accomplish this over

the next 15 months.

SCHOOL SYSTEM REFORM

Third, the school system reform must be pushed ahead. We were

all sorry to lose Ms. Ackerman as superintendent. We need to work

together to keep up the momentum of the reforms that she started.

I met yesterday with the advisory committee that we have appointed to help us choose a new superintendent, and they are

working diligently on this. The good news is that there are several

very good candidates to be considered.

Whoever takes over as interim superintendent will need to take

major steps both to improve the management functions of the

school system—procurement, payroll, buildings, and other management functions, as well as to continue the progress toward accountability for academic results on which the Mayor has put emphasis.
20

SCHOOL PROBLEMS—SPECIAL EDUCATION, TRUANCY, WORKING

RELATIONSHIP WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS

And there are at least three really serious problems facing the

school system. One is improvement of special education. Another is

the reduction of truancy, which is a major problem in the District

of Columbia. And the other, I think, is finding a good working relationship between the District of Columbia public schools and the

charter schools. We need strong public and public charter schools

with a good working relationship with each other.

PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION

Fourth, there is the problem of the Public Benefit Corporation.

The audit revealed clearly what many of us knew, that the PBC

is not solvent and that its financial management has been disastrous.

The Mayor is proposing new members of the PBC board, and we

hope the Council will act on them soon. In the meantime, the Authority is working closely with the Mayor and the Council in a collaborative relationship employing a consultant to help manage the

hospital and reform the financial management immediately.

The new board must work very closely with the City to define the

role of the Public Benefit Corporation, and to make sure that it is

managed efficiently.

UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT

Fifth is the University of the District of Columbia. While tuition

assistance is a wonderful program for our D.C. students, we also

need a strong, well-managed public university right here in the

District of Columbia.

Again, this year’s audit revealed serious problems in the financial management of UDC. We have new board leadership there,

too. We will work closely with them, with the Mayor and with the

Council to define the role of UDC and to strengthen and build its

usefulness to the District of Columbia.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

And finally, we will all be working extremely hard on economic

development. This is a high priority of the Mayor and the Council,

and is the key to the future fiscal health the District of Columbia.

This budget is a very good start in the right direction. We support it fully, and we are glad it is the last one that we will have

to approve.

Thank you.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Dr. Rivlin.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE M. RIVLIN

Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of my colleagues at the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (‘‘Authority’’), I am pleased to present testimony on the fiscal

year 2001 District of Columbia Financial Plan and Budget (‘‘Budget’’). I am delighted to represent the Authority on this panel with Mayor Williams, and Council

Chair Cropp.
21

This budget is the product of a consensus process. The process also reflects the

Authority’s effort to restore increasing levels of responsibility for this government’s operations to local institutions. The fiscal year 2001 submission is the product of direct negotiations between the Mayor and the Council and reflects their shared vision of the future of this government and the community it serves. Confidence in

the elected leadership of the District of Columbia continues to grow. As a result,

the Authority’s role in developing the fiscal year 2001 Budget, although important,

has been principally advisory.

Under Public Law 104–8, this is likely to be the last Budget for the District of

Columbia that this Authority will have to approve and send to Congress. We anticipate that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year 2000, scheduled to be completed and delivered in February 2001, will indicate an operating surplus for the District.

If so, that report will mark the fourth such operating surplus in a row. There have

been no borrowings issued by the Authority, there are no borrowings to repay to

the U.S. Treasury, and the District has regained access to the capital markets on

reasonable terms and conditions. The statutory prerequisites for the Authority to

begin its transition out of the control period are falling into place.

The statute is clear that fiscal year 2001 is a Control Year, and the Authority is

statutorily prohibited from suspending its activities during a Control Year, i.e., until

September 30, 2001. However, our review of the 2002 Budget will be just that—re- view, not approval. The Authority suspends its activities if the statute is met. However, if any of the principal conditions that led to the financial crisis in 1995 recur,

legislative action to re-activate the Authority is not necessary. The President can

do so simply by appointing new members.

When the Authority was created in April of 1995 by an Act of Congress to assist

the District in restoring financial solvency and improving management the District

was: unable to pay its employees or its contractors; running a significant operating

deficit; carrying a large accumulated deficit; and relying on the U.S. Treasury as

the only source of funds. The District’s ordinary services, such as motor vehicle inspections and building permits, were difficult to obtain, and the District could not

sell its bonds at market rates.

Five years later, the District is in much better shape, and the Authority’s statutory role, as well as its relationship with the local elected leadership, has evolved.

Many of the suggestions for management improvements recommended earlier in

the control period are being implemented across many local government agencies.

For example, at the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, businesses

and homeowners are able to obtain and pay for building permits electronically.

Broad financial successes include collecting substantially more in tax revenue than

in previous years and turning projected deficits into surpluses in fiscal year 1997,

fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.

Some of the best news for citizens is that the District’s accounting practices for

business tax receivables are much improved, and there is now a telephone information center to improve public outreach and communications with the Office of Tax

and Revenue. Taxpayers in the District were issued tax refunds within 15 days during the 1999 tax-filing period.

The days of an accumulated fund deficit are behind the District. That deficit

drained reserves, hindered access to capital markets and adversely burdened the

lives of every citizen and visitor to the nation’s capital. As a result of turning its

fiscal house around, the city and its citizens now enjoy an investment grade bond

rating.

Ensuring that the District institutionalizes adequate financial management systems is a prerequisite for future fiscal stability. Although delayed, the District of

Columbia fiscal year 1999 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Audit

showed that the District is in sound financial health. Ending fiscal year 1999 with

a substantial surplus, the District’s General Fund balance grew by $85 million to

over $198 million. The District used an additional $35 million of its surplus to reduce its debt burden.

The delay in completing the financial report is troubling. More important are the

problems that working through this process revealed. These serious problems must

be addressed. The District’s executive branch agencies, especially the Office of the

Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), have much work to do to ensure that the books will

be closed accurately and on time next year. The challenges involve a commitment

to staff training, information system remediation, and strong management leadership.

The OCFO must manage a process that fulfills a commitment to frequent reconciliation of the District’s bank statements and cash—a significant challenge. The

Authority is providing active support to this on-going effort involving the OCFO, the
22

Office of the Mayor, the Council and the leadership of all other major District agencies. The solutions require strong central leadership, but they must be addressed

throughout the decentralized financial management system.

As you may know, the Authority on June 7, 2000 confirmed the nomination of Dr.

Natwar M. Gandhi to fill the position of Chief Financial Officer of the District of

Columbia. The Chief Financial Officer is a critical position that is within, yet independent of, the District Government. Dr. Gandhi is highly qualified to fill this vital

position with 30 years of broad experience, in both the private and public sectors.

He has diverse management experience leading and supervising large organizations and projects in business, academic and government settings. The Authority

looks forward to working with him.

Fiscal discipline is the first step toward a stable city in which both residents and

visitors can be assured of receiving high quality public services. The fiscal year 2001

Budget is another important step along the path the District has traveled since

1995.

The fiscal year 2001 Budget, which also includes out-year projections for fiscal

year 2002 to 2004, shows a modest growth in total revenues and expenditures. The

budget for fiscal year 2001 has revenues of $4.871 billion and expenditures of $4.867

billion, a modest surplus. It also reflects significant tax cuts geared to stimulate the

District’s economy. The plan foresees an accumulated fund balance of $260 to $270 million. In fact,

the fiscal year 2001 Budget will also benefit from the anticipated budget surplus in

the current fiscal year of an estimated $57 million. Mayor Williams and Chairman

Cropp will speak to the budget in more detail, but I would like to highlight certain

areas of the budget that may be of particular interest.

As you know, Section 148 of the General Provisions of the fiscal year 2000 Appro- priations Act requires that the District budget a $150 million reserve at the beginning of each fiscal year. This budget and financial plan provides sufficient budget

authority to ensure that the statutory reserve requirement is fulfilled for fiscal year

2001. Madame Chairman, Section 148 has been the source of some confusion. Your

assistance in clarifying Congressional intent with respect to both the funding for the

reserve and its uses has been welcome. The Appropriations process will provide an

opportunity to explore these alternative concepts of the reserve fund.

The tobacco settlement proceeds are expected to yield significant revenues. Those

payments, however, are not guaranteed future sources of revenue, and therefore

should not be used to support general governmental operations. The District is wisely segregating these proceeds, expected to range up to $61 million over several

years, from its general fund. The District will establish a non-lapsing independent

trust fund to manage these resources. This measure will ensure that the District

does not become too reliant upon an uncertain revenue stream to support vital general government operations and services.

Reforming the District’s tax system in order to provide balance and equity has

been a high priority for local elected leadership. The District began this effort with

the fiscal year 2000 Budget, which included significant tax reductions and restructuring. The fiscal year 2001 Budget continues these efforts with a plan to enact an

earned income tax credit for low income working families valued at approximately

$3.9 million in taxes.

Madame Chairman, as you know, the fiscal year 2000 Budget for the District of

Columbia Public School System was the result of a compromise intended to balance

the funding requirements for children throughout the system, including those attending public charter schools. Actual attendance for both traditional and charter

public schools increased in the current year. The number of charter school students

is projected to increase from approximately 7,000 this year to nearly 12,000 students

for fiscal year 2001.

As you also know, the District has made significant progress in eliminating the

backlog of student assessments needed to determine eligibility for special education

services. Reducing the backlog has resulted in a higher number of placements for

children requiring special education services in the current year. These two factors

alone resulted in a major shortfall in education funding for fiscal year 2000.

Fully funding schools is a critically important commitment for fiscal year 2001.

Mayor Williams and the Council made difficult choices in a mutual effort to ensure

that the budget before the Subcommittee fully funds educational services for all students in fiscal year 2001.

Before concluding, Madame Chairman, it is important to raise the question of the

structural challenges to the District Government. The District has benefited from

the Revitalization Act, as well as the economic expansion. It will also continue to

benefit from the fact that a heavy concentration of services and public sector employment in this region can provide marginal insulation from the worst effects of
23

an economic turndown. However, persistent structural deficiencies will continue to

imperil this community’s fiscal health until they are adequately addressed.

A significant number of District residents, for example, remain eligible and entitled to public assistance, despite the record length of the national economic expansion. Those numbers, along with program costs, will only grow in a turndown.

Another clear concern is the District’s exceptionally narrow tax base. Appropriate

efforts to reduce the tax burden on residents and to compete with regional rivals

for business development opportunities are beginning. These important initiatives

must be balanced, however, against the necessity for generating sufficient revenues

to support public services.

Economic development is one answer, and it is among the District’s highest priorities. Economic development is also a priority for the Congress, as made clear from

its support of the Infrastructure Fund and the National Capital Revitalization Corporation. The Authority believes that a strong, growing economy in the District is

essential, not only to the fiscal health of the city, but to the economic prosperity

of the whole Washington region.

Many of the District’s structural deficiencies are the result of its unique relationship with the national government and with surrounding jurisdictions. As the Authority begins to work with the Congress to enact the fiscal year 2001 Budget, the

transition to local governance also continues.

Before it phases out its activities, the Authority plans to develop and to share

with local elected leaders, the public and the Congress recommendations for structural reform.

As noted earlier, the role of the Authority has evolved, and its membership has

also changed. In closing, it is appropriate that individual contributions by those who

have participated in this process be recognized. There have been many. Among them

is my predecessor, Andrew F. Brimmer, and his colleagues who volunteered their

time and energy when confidence in local governmental institutions was at its lowest ebb. My colleagues on the current Authority Board, Constance B. Newman, Robert P. Watkins, Eugene Kinlow, and Darius Mans, have been unswervingly committed, hard working, and helpful to this community and its elected and appointed

leadership. We greatly regret that reassignment at the World Bank has made it necessary for Dr. Mans to resign from the Authority effective July 1, 2000. He has

made extraordinary contributions to our work and will be greatly missed.

Your personal interest, Madame Chairman, in securing the District’s financial

health has been an important factor in the vastly improved evaluation of the District’s creditworthiness.

In partnership with Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, and the Council, the Authority has worked very hard to fulfill a commitment to ensure a timely return to

local governance. There is plentiful evidence of a sense of renewal, including the rebounding residential real estate market and downtown construction activity. The

best evidence, however, is the heightened attention to educating this city’s children.

The Authority appreciates the cooperation and support provided by the Appropriations Committee since the fiscal year 2000 budget was enacted. Approval of the fiscal year 2001 Budget and Financial Plan will also aid in maintaining financial stability, further improvement in the delivery of public services, and the return of normal governance. We look forward to working with the Congress in the weeks ahead

to secure passage of this budget.

In conclusion, Madame Chair, much progress has been made in Washington. The

fiscal health of the District has improved. Delivery of primary services is also improved. However, there is much work still to be done before the citizens receive

modern, efficient government. The Authority’s work during the next, and I add, our

last year of activity, will be to support the Mayor and the Council in making further

progress in the District. Chief among the issues that must still be addressed is the

effort to expand the District’s economic foundation. Without a broad economic base

on which to build, this city cannot sustain its recovery, and will begin to suffer financial peril. I strongly urge you and your colleagues in the Senate, and the House

of Representatives to assist the City’s elected leadership with the necessary resources and support to continue the revitalization of this great City.

This concludes my testimony, Madame Chairman. I will be happy to respond to

any questions.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES

Senator HUTCHISON. I was very interested in your six points. The

one point I am going to ask you to look at in addition to the points

you have raised is: Particularly, I think, in the next year you could
24

be very helpful on the financial management policies, which you

mentioned is an area that needs attention—— Dr. RIVLIN. Yes.

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. And the debt policy.

Dr. RIVLIN. Debt policy, yes.

Senator HUTCHISON. I see no cloud on the horizon for the District

except the debt situation, and so that is something I would highlight.

Mayor Williams.

DEBT POLICY

Mayor WILLIAMS. I am not sure that we are—and I could get for

you, Senator, the exact figures. I know that as part of last year’s

budget, we restructured a lot of debt to take the top off this huge

debt mountain. And you are right, to reduce some short-term costs,

we have got longer term burden.

TOBACCO FUNDS

But I think there is a clear consensus between the Mayor and

the Council, and I believe the board as well, that we should take

our tobacco funds, the stream of the tobacco payments, securitize

these tobacco payments, and in the first instance use the

securitized funds. In other words, we are paying for this by the

stream of tobacco money, not revenue from District taxpayers— take this chunk of money, to use a technical phrase, and pay down

a huge amount of District debt. And I have not heard anyone talking about it.

I certainly am not contemplating using that increased capacity to

borrow more, but using that reduced debt service to make a balance between investments in our future and programs for our people. So I think that is very good fiscal discipline.

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, the only concern I have about the proposal as I understand it, to securitize the tobacco payments, is that

you are planning to do it 100 percent.

I would be skeptical of securitizing 100 percent. I think some

States and some cities will do maybe 25 percent anticipation of

that revenue stream, but 100 percent, I think could get you out on

a limb.

So I hope, as you are going down the road, you might look at

something less than 100 percent and just be cautious, because a

number of States are already beginning to see a lowering of the estimates on that over the long term, because tobacco smoking is

going down.

Dr. RIVLIN. Excuse me. Is that not a reason for the securitization

though? It is a take-the-money-now, rather than take the chance

that the tobacco companies will continue making profits.

Senator HUTCHISON. Are you talking about taking the money

now, or are you talking about borrowing against the anticipated

revenue?

Dr. RIVLIN. No. I am——

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, the company would take the risk. I mean,

we essentially would get a reduced or present value amount; and

whoever has done the securitization, it is up to them to work with

the tobacco companies and get this stream of payments.
25

Dr. RIVLIN. It is shifting the risk off the District of Columbia.

Ms. CROPP. One of the reasons that New York, for example, only

did about 25 percent was because the amount of tobacco dollars

that they would receive was much greater than what the District

would receive. In fact, it would probably flood the market and

would not have enabled them to get that much money back, because it would just be too much out there at one time.

But in doing this, it would really reduce the risk for the District

of Columbia. If, in fact, we did not then use the tobacco dollars to

pay down the debt, it would then cost us more, because then it

would not be tax-free. And doing it this way, you get some tax benefits from it, from dealing with it this way.

Now, whether or not we pay down the debt, even if we securitize,

is a decision that we would make, but it is more beneficial for us

to make it, because it would cost us less money because of the tax

credits that we would get.

But this reduces the risk for us. When we looked into this issue,

for example, many financial advisers have felt that the

securitization was the best approach to go.

And one of the reasons was that by not securitizing, what we

would in essence be doing is putting all of our dollars into tobacco.

And very few people at this point would take all of their investment money and put every penny of their investment money into

tobacco.

By securitizing it, it gives us an opportunity to put the money

into a more diversified portfolio, whatever we decide that it is going

to be.

And in addition to that, by getting the money up front, we tend

to get the present value of the dollars that would be available to

us; and then taking the present value of it, investing so that, in

future years, it would still be more.

So after looking at it, it really took an awful lot to look at this

issue and try to decide which approach would be better, but I think

that the tobacco companies, as we sit here right now, are trying to

figure out approaches and ways to keep cities and States from getting these dollars.

They do not want to give the dollars out, and whether it is more

off-shore or whatever, they may try to keep us from getting it. And

by us doing the securitization, it seems to me that it is less risk

for us. It is better for us to get in here early than for other people

to come in later.

Senator HUTCHISON. I would like to see more on this to determine the risk factor and what you would be giving up. And I will

ask to perhaps meet with the chief financial officer on that issue

as well.

I am going to call on Senator Kyl. I have a number of questions,

but I plan to stay for those, so why do I not call on you? And then

I will follow up.

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I have

three issues really.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

First of all, Dr. Rivlin, one of the six items you mentioned was

the need for a strong working relationship between the traditional
26

and charter schools; and I noted in the Mayor’s testimony the commitment of the $77 million for charter schools, which I applaud. I

think that is very important for both the traditional and the charter schools.

But to what do you refer when you recommend a more close

working relationship? Why is that important? What are you talking

about?

Dr. RIVLIN. Well, I think, over the last couple of years, a rather

adversarial relationship has developed between the charter schools

and the D.C. public schools.

It has been partly a tone question, but it has been very real and

very worrisome and I think the fault was on both sides, that the

public school system, not surprisingly, saw the charters as a threat.

And the charters believed that the public school system was trying

to keep them from flourishing.

I believe that there is a strong mutual interest in both systems

flourishing, and that there can be, not only a good friendly relationship without taking potshots at each other, but actual cooperation

in the use of some kinds of facilities or special kinds of things that

can be dealt with on a mutual basis.

Senator KYL. Good. I agree with you. And I think that is so important. In Arizona, we have about a third of the charter schools

in the country. We have really led in that. And where there has

been cooperation, it has been mutually beneficial.

For example, one of our largest school districts, public school districts, was losing a lot of students to charter schools. The superintendent began visiting those charter schools to try to figure out

what they were doing right and what he was doing wrong.

And there were some things which he could adapt to the more

traditional schools, which he did, and began publicly advertising for

students to come back to the traditional schools, and many of them

did.

And the competition, though friendly, aided both. I hope that

that kind of relationship and synergy continues to exist. I applaud

the Mayor for making that kind of commitment.

BRIANNA BLACKMOND

Mayor, I think everyone in this room and the City was outraged

and just disappointed and distressed at the death of young Brianna

Blackmond. I noted that last year, we appropriated $5 million to

the District for a program for adoptive incentives for foster children. I am pleased to see the Administration included another $5

million in the program for this year.

$5 MILLION FOR ADOPTIONS

You have taken a special interest in this, I understand, not only

in this case but in foster care generally. I wonder if you could tell

the Committee how the $5 million has been spent and how you

would anticipate working that program this year.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I can get you the exact details as a follow up,

Senator, but in general what we are trying to do is reduce the

number of children in foster care in the District by increasing the

number of adoptions, as well as increase the number of children
27

who are cared for within our borders as opposed to outside of the

City, because both numbers are very, very high.

And we have got a situation right now where we have 1,000

youth in foster care who are essentially teenagers, and as they

graduate to youths—a kind of perverse term—from foster care, unless something is done, they will not have a home.

So our first order of business was to leverage these dollars to remove as many barriers as possible to expedite, however possible,

within the government the process of adoption, so that families

knew that this was a priority. They knew that there was going to

be the outreach. They knew that there was going to be the assistance from the government so that they were able to adopt these

children.

ADOPTIONS

I am pleased to report—I do not have the exact figure before me.

But I am pleased to report that because of these efforts, for example, working with the Council’s Office to remove some of the regulatory thicket is just one example that the number of adoptions actually is beginning to go up. And we hope to accelerate that.

[The information follows:]

LETTER FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADOPTION INCENTIVES PLAN

FEBRUARY 24, 2000.

The Honorable ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Mayor,

District of Columbia, Washington, DC.

DEAR MAYOR WILLIAMS: Enclosed for your review and approval is a proposal for

the use of federal adoption incentive funds for the District of Columbia that has

been developed at your request by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent

Homes for Children.

BACKGROUND

As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the Congress authorized

a federal payment for incentives for adoption of children in the District of Columbia.

As outlined in the conference report:

—The Act authorizes a one-time federal payment of $5 million to create incentives

to promote adoption.

—Funds under this authorization must be used by September 30, 2001.

—A program must be established by the Mayor and the District Council and approved by the Appropriations Committees of House and Senate.

—The funds may be used for tax credits to offset costs incurred by individuals

in adopting (requires legislation).

—The funds may be used to provide for health care needs of such children (requires legislation).

At its December meeting, the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes

for Children established a subcommittee composed of Toni Oliver, Judith Meltzer,

Mae Best, Phyllis Langston, Gwen Menefee and Liz Siegel and asked them to propose a plan for use of the federal funds.

The Committee has gathered ideas on adoption needs and resources from others

in the community; reviewed ideas for adoption incentives from other Jurisdictions,

and researched the feasibility and costs of proposals that surfaced. A draft plan was

shared with the full Advisory Committee in early January and comments and suggestions for change were solicited. The Committee reviewed all written and verbal

comments and revised the plan accordingly.

PROVOSAL SUMMARY

As a result of this work, the Committee is proposing that the federal adoption

funds be focused on the overarching goal of providing loving and permanent homes
28

for the District’s children in the District of Columbia. The overall plan for the incentive funds is targeted toward five measurable outcomes:

Outcome # 1.—Increase the number of families in the District of Columbia who are

willing and able to adopt children currently in the District’s foster care system.

Outcome # 2.—Decrease the disruption rate for adoptions of children with special

physical or emotional needs.

Outcome # 3.—Increase the rate of adoption of teens in foster care whose permanency plan is adoption.

Outcome # 4.—Increase the rate of adoption for sibling groups in foster care whose

permanency plan is adoption.

Outcome # 5.—Achieve compliance with the outcomes for permanency for children

specified by the federal government under the Adoption and Safe Families Act

(ASFA).

The proposal which follows includes four interrelated initiatives that together total $5 million to be spent between now and September 30, 2001. The majority of

funds would be contracted out to private organizations to conduct the work. The

four initiatives include: —Creation of a Flexible Fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other

hard to place children. —Establishment of a Scholarship Fund to support transition to independence for

adopted teens.

—Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services Capacity.

—Enhancement of recruitment and support of District foster and adoptive families.

A fuller description of each of the proposed initiatives and estimated costs based

on two years of implementation is presented in the attached proposal.

PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE PLAN

The Committee proposes that overall management of the initiative will be the responsibility of the Deputy Mayor for Children’s Services but that day to day coordination and implementation of the adoption incentive initiatives be assigned to the

Child and Family Services Administration which is the agency responsible under

District law for the work associated with providing permanent homes for children

who are in the custody of the District of Columbia because of parental abuse or neglect. Several of the initiatives would involve one or more contracts with private organizations to carry cut the work. CFSA would be accountable to the Deputy Mayor

for Children and Families far reporting, evaluation and fiscal accountability an each

initiative. General oversight of the Adoptive Incentive Plan would also be provided

by a standing subcommittee of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent

Homes for Children. Regular reports would be made to the Committee on progress

in meeting measurable objectives. In addition, the plan includes a provision for a

small amount of funds to be set-aside for an external evaluation of the effectiveness

of the proposed adoption incentive initiative. A contract would be let with an independent external evaluator to design and conduct necessary data collection and evaluative studies under the direction of the Mayor’s Committee and/or the Deputy

Mayor for Children’s Services.

NEXT STEPS

Under the terms of the authorizing legislation, the plan for the use of these funds

must be approved by the Mayor and the District Council and then approved by the

Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate. We are hopeful that you

will approve the proposed plan and take the lead in forwarding it to the District

Council for their approval. Members of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee would be

glad to assist your staff in making any necessary presentations on the proposals in

order to secure Council approval.

Once District Council approval is obtained, the Advisory Committee would again

be willing to work with you and your staff in presenting the plans to the Congressional Appropriations Committees in hopes that their quick approval can be obtained.

On behalf of the Mayor’s Committee, we hope that the work necessary to translate

this proposal to reality can occur expeditiously. There are far too many waiting children in the District of Columbia. We stand ready to assist you in any way possible.

Sincerely,

MAE BEST,

PHYLLIS LANGSTON,

GWENDOLYN MENEFEE,
29

JUDITH MELTZER, TONI OLIVER, ELIZABETH SIEGEL,

Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan.

PROPOSAL FOR USE OF THE FEDERAL ADOPTION INCENTIVE FUNDS

BACKGROUND

As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the Congress authorized

a federal payment for incentives for the adoption of children in the District of Columbia. The Act authorizes a one-time federal payment for $5 million to create incentives to promote adoption. As outlined in the conference report, a program for

the use of these funds must be established by the Mayor and the District Council

and approved by the Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate. The

funds under this authorization must be used by Sept. 30, 2001.

In authorizing this fund, the Congress was responding to the large numbers of

children in foster care in the District of Columbia with a permanency goal of adoption. As of December 31, 1999, approximately one-third of the District’s 3,000 children in foster care were not expected to return home and had a permanency goal

of adoption. While many of these children are likely to be adopted by their foster

parents, there are hundreds of children for whom families need to be identified and

supported to pursue adoption. The District of Columbia has demonstrated its commitment to improving the lives of children through adoption and has increased the

numbers of adoption of children in foster care by 191 percent from 1995 to 1999.

A record number of 250 adoptions were finalized in 1999; this is a good start but

much more remains to be accomplished.

In designing a plan for the use of the federal adoption incentive funds, a subcommittee of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children

sought input from many in the community and researched innovative ideas from the

region and around the country. The goal was to design a series of initiatives that

would pilot-test new approaches to address issues that have been barriers to adoption and to focus these funds in a way that will achieve measurable outcomes.

The overarching goal of the attached proposal is to provide loving and permanent

homes for children in the District of Columbia. The Plan is designed to achieve the

following five measurable outcomes:

Outcome # 1.—Increase the number of families in the District of Columbia who are

willing and able to adopt children currently in the District’s foster care system.

Outcome # 2.—Decrease the disruption rate for adoptions of children with special

physical or emotional needs.

Outcome # 3.—Increase the rate of adoption of teens in foster care whose permanency plan is adoption.

Outcome # 4.—Increase the rate of adoption for sibling groups in foster care whose

permanency plan is adoption.

Outcome # 5.—Achieve compliance with the outcomes for permanency for children

specified by the federal government under the Adoption and Safe Families Act

(ASFA).

The proposal includes four interrelated initiatives:

—Creation of a Flexible Fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other

hard to place children.

—Establishment of a Scholarship Fund to support transition to independence for

adopted teens.

—Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services Capacity.

—Enhancement of recruitment and support of District foster and adoptive families.

Each of the proposed initiatives’ and estimated costs based on two years of implementation is presented below.

PROPOSED PLAN

Creation of a Flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other hard

to place children.

Problem addressed.—Many parents who would be willing and are capable of becoming adopted parents are discouraged from doing so because of their inability to

meet certain requirements related to physical space, conditions in their home, or the

need for accommodations or special equipment for children with handicaps or large

sibling groups. Access to a funding source for some of these needs would provide

a significant incentive toward adoption.
30

Proposal.—A flexible fund would be established which could be accessed by families interested in adoption in order to provide needed funding and/or resources for

a range of activities/items necessary to become an adoptive parent. The kinds of

things eligible for reimbursement/payment through this fund would include:

—home renovations to accommodate wheelchairs or other special needs of children;

—assistance in lead paint abatement when the presence of lead paint is an obstacle to approval of the adoptive home;

—assistance in paying the cost of FBI finger-printing necessary for approval as

an adoptive parent;

—equipment to care for disabled children (e.g., beds, durable medical equipment

(and specialized items not covered by other public programs);

—assistance to needy families who have uncovered costs related to mental health

care for children with special needs. Funds would be administered only to families with demonstrated financial need according to a sliding scale;

—purchase of a wheelchair equipped van to enable adoptive parent(s) to accept

children with physical handicaps;

—assistance with home renovations, down payments or purchase of homes to

allow families to adopt large sibling groups. Consideration will be given to purchase of homes for sibling groups of five or more;

—assistance with miscellaneous expenses in accordance with a plan approved by

the agency to promote the ability and willingness of parents to adopt children

with special needs or large sibling groups;

—other approved expenses to promote adoption and avoid disruptions for which

no other funding source exists.

Families would be eligible for funds from this account if they have applied and

are approved to be adoptive parents and have adoptions finalized after January

2000. Funds from the flexible fund account will be authorized only for things not

available without cost in the community and not routinely covered by the existing

adoption subsidy program. Funds will be used primarily for one-time expenditures

for things that are a clear barrier to adoption. The funds would be placed in an interest-bearing account.

Estimated Cost.—$1.7 million ($850,000 per year for 2 years).

Establishment of a Scholarship fund to support transition to independence for adopted teens.

Problem.—One of the major barriers to adoption of school age and teenage children is the lack of resources for adoptive parents to support education and training

of a transition to independence.

Proposal.—A scholarship fund would be established which could be accessed by

adoptive families for post high school education and training for their adopted children upon presentation of documentation of acceptance at a Junior College, university or post-secondary occupational or training school, adoptive families would be eligible to receive a scholarship of up to $8,000 per year for a high school graduate

going to college and up to $3,000 per year for high school graduates entering postsecondary training. This fund could be established by placing an earmarked amount

per child in an interest earning account at the time of the child’s adoption. The

scholarship fund would be administered through a private non-profit organization.

Estimated Cost.—The fund would be established initially with $1.5 million in an

interest bearing account. Cost assumptions are based on granting up to 130 scholarships for two years. Interest generated by the fund and additional fundraising would

occur to stabilize the fund for the future.

Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services Capacity.

Problem.—One barrier to adoption is the fear of prospective adoptive parents that

they will not be supported when and if problems arise. Experience around the country has shown that the development of adequate post-adoption support resources is

a significant incentive to adoption.

Proposal.—Funds would be used to establish a private Adoptive Family Resource

Support Center in the District of Columbia to provide ongoing information, education and support to adoptive families. Some of the activities to be carried out by

the resource center will include: operation of a hotline for questions, information

and referral; development and dissemination of and information and referral directory of services and supports in the metropolitan area; creation and operation of a

resource lending library for adoptive parents and children; conduct of training programs developed in concert with adoptive parents to meet their needs; development

and assistance to adoptive parent support groups, etc., and therapeutic services related to adoption. The Support Center would also have funds to provide scholarships
31

for adoptive children and families to participate in training provided by national or

regional support groups or associations.

The Committee proposes that an RFP be developed outlining the Adoption Resource and Support activities that are desired and that an organization be funded

to develop those activities for the District, either by creating a single resource center

or by developing and coordinating programming that could be made available

through or in cooperation with the neighborhood family support centers proposed in

the Mayor’s Safe Passages initiative.

As an adjunct to the Support Center(s), it is also proposed that a small portion

of the funds be allocated to CFSA to enhance their post-adoption services capacity

and to enable their staff to link families with the Resource Center and other adoptive support opportunities family conferences, training, etc.).

Estimated Cost.—$900,000 million (Resource Center $775,000 for 2 years and $125,000 for CFSA post-adoption support activities for families).

Enhancement of Recruitment and Support of Foster and Adoptive Families

Problem.—The majority of adoptive families begin as foster parents. Expanding

the pool of adoptive families means expanding the recruitment and support of foster

parents as well as doing more community and neighborhood recruitment of adoptive

families. CFSA has been hampered in its efforts to expand its recruitment and support activities by a lack of funds to support the start that is doing recruitment and

to enable CFSA to use foster and adoptive parents as team members in the recruitment process.

Proposal.—Funds would be used to contract with community organizations and

providers to assist in adoptive home recruitment. Part of the incentive plan also involves providing funds to support critical staff enhancements and activities within

the Adoptions Unit of CFSA. Funds would be made available to provide for additional capacity both within CFSA and in other organizations to expand after hour’s recruitment activities and to make it possible for foster and adoptive parents to

serve as co-leaders in training. As part of the enhanced recruitment effort, incentive

funds would be used to pay for: —adoptive parents to serve as co-leaders in pre-service training; —food for parents attending training sessions; —child care for adoptive parents attending training sessions; —inviting furnishings and decorations for the rooms where adoptive parent training is held; —additional supplies for adoptive home recruitment including a video recorder

and cameras, printing of brochures, displays for literature and banners for use

at recruitment events and an equipped mobile van which can be taken to a wide

range of community events to promote becoming foster and adoptive parents; —the preparation of Life Books for all adoptive children; —transportation funds for visitation between prospective adoptive families and

children when interstate adoptions are planned; —expenses associated with participation in adoption exchanges.

Estimated Cost.—$700,000 ($350,000 per year).

MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF ADOPTION INCENTIVE PLAN

Overall management of the Adoption Incentive Plan would rest with the Deputy

Mayor for Children’s Services. Day to day coordination and implementation of the

adoption incentive initiatives will be assigned to the Child and Family Services Administration which is the agency District law for the work associated with providing

permanent homes for children who are in the custody of the District of Columbia

because of parental abuse or neglect. Several of the initiatives would involve one

or more contracts with private organizations to carry out the work. CFSA would be

accountable to the Deputy Mayor for Children and Families for reporting, evaluation

and fiscal accountability on each initiative.

General oversight of the Adoptive Incentive Plan would also be provided by a

standing subcommittee of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for

Children. Regular reports would be made to the Committee on progress in meeting

measurable objectives.

In addition, the plan includes a provision for a small amount of funds ($200,000)

to be set-aside for an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed adoption incentive initiatives. A contract would be let with an independent external evaluator to design and conduct necessary data collection and evaluative studies under

the direction of the Mayor’s Committee and/or the Deputy Mayor for Children’s

Services.

Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the Mayor must prepare and submit a budget that

identifies the amount of the savings of debt service arising from the repayment of
32

indebtedness to the District of Columbia in connection with the sale of the District’s

rights in and to the Settlement Agreement to the District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation.

The requirement for a competitive bid for the selection of the Corporation’s underwriter and bond counsel will have a positive fiscal impact as it will require that the

Corporation’s underwriter and bond counsel are chosen on the basis of lowest evaluated price.

TITLE XXXVIII.—ADOPTION VOUCHER PROGRAM AND FUND

SEC. 3801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Adoption Voucher Fund Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 3802. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.

(a) The long term needs of District of Columbia children who are in foster care

am not being served. Although the Adoption and Safe Families Amendment Act of

2000 shortens the time in which children may remain in foster care, many of these

children require additional assistance in order to be adopted.

(b) The financial costs associated with maintaining the 3,000 foster children are

high. In addition to the monthly payments to foster parents, the Child and Family

Services Agency must supervise and staff each case, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia must pay attorneys and judges to review each case, and the Office

of Corporation Counsel must staff and review each case.

(c) Even more critical are the tragic human costs associated with allowing children to languish in foster care. The most recent study on the fate of foster children

who ‘‘age out’’ of the child welfare system without finding a permanent home found

that 12 to 18 months after they left foster care, just half were employed, one-third

were receiving public assistance, one-fifth of the girls had given birth, and more

than one-quarter of the boys had been incarcerated.

(d) Many of the children in foster care have foster parents desirous of adopting

them but are unable to do so because of the costs associated with adoption.

(e) Providing these foster parents with a one-time financial assistance package in

the form of vouchers would facilitate adoptions. Financial assistance would consist

of vouchers to cover the costs of the necessary homestudies, compilation of information on the foster children’s backgrounds and special needs, and attorneys’ fees.

(f) The Congress has appropriated, in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,

2000 a $5 million payment, to remain available until September 30, 2001, to the

District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the

District’s foster care system.

SEC. 3803. DEFINITIONS.

For the purpose of this title, the term:

(1) ‘‘Attorneys’ fees’’ means the legal costs and expenses which are directly related to the adoption of a foster child or foster children.

(2) ‘‘Foster care’’ means 24 hour substitute care for children placed away from

their parents or guardians for whom the Child and Family Services Agency has

placement care and responsibility.

(3) ‘‘Foster child’’ and ‘‘foster children’’ mean a child, or children, who comes

under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2320 of Title 16 of the District of Columbia Code or whose parents’ rights have been relinquished pursuant to section 6 of An Act to regulate

the placing of children in family homes, and other purposes.

(4) ‘‘Foster parent’’ means an individual with whom a foster child is legally

placed,

(5) ‘‘Homestudy’’ means the ‘‘investigation, report and recommendation’’ required by section 307 of Title 16 of the District of Columbia Code.

(6) ‘‘Related sibling group’’ means a group of siblings with at least one parent

in common, residing together in the home of a foster parent.

SEC. 3804. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM; PURPOSE.

There is established the Adoption Incentive Program (‘‘Program’’). The purpose of

the Program is to provide foster parents with access to a one-time financial assistance package to assist them with the expenses associated with attorneys’ fees and

the homestudy relating to the adoption of a foster child, subject to the availability

of funds in the Adoption Voucher Fund.

SEC. 3805. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADOPTION VOUCHER FUND.

(a) There is established the Adoption Voucher Fund (‘‘Fund’’). The Fund shall be

comprised of $2 million of the $5 million appropriated in the District of Columbia
33

Appropriations Act, 2000, approved November 29, 1999 (Public Law No. 106–113;

113 Stat. 1501), and additional funds in their entirety which Congress may appropriate from time to time for the purpose of providing incentives for foster parents

to adopt District children.

(b) Monies in the Fund shall be used only for the payment of homestudies and

attorneys’ fees, as well as any administrative costs directly associated with the implementation of this title. The Fund shall be the sole source of payments under the

Program.

SEC. 3806. BENEFITS.

(a) A foster parent may receive the following:

(1) A voucher for the payment of $1,500 for a homestudy for each foster child

or related sibling group; and

(2) A voucher for the payment of $5,000 for attorneys’ fees for each foster

child or related sibling group; provided that, the voucher may only be applied

to attorney’s fees charged at an hourly rate of not more than $125 per hour and

related expenses billed at actual cost.

(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to create an entitlement to financial assistance for the adoption of a foster child, or foster children, if no funds remain

available in the Adoption Voucher Fund.

(c) Vouchers issued pursuant to this section shall be in addition to, and may not

limit the amount of money available to a foster parent under section 3 of An act

to provide for the care of dependent children in the District of Columbia and to create a board of childrens’ guardians.

SEC. 3807, ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND THE ADOPTION

VOUCHER FUND.

(a) The Child and Family Services Agency (‘‘CFSA’’) shall administer the Program

and the Fund. CFSA shall:

(1) Within 180 days of the effective date of this legislation identify children

whose permanency plans are adoption, for as long as funds are available from

the Fund;

(2) Obtain a document signed by the foster parents stating their intent to

adopt within 180 days of identifying the children pursuant to paragraph (1) of

this subsection; and

(3) Upon obtaining the signed document required by paragraph (2) of this

subsection, immediately provide a voucher for attorneys’ fees and a voucher for

the homestudy to the foster parent.

(b) Vouchers issued pursuant to this section shall contain a statement describing

the benefits to the adopting foster parents under the program, as well as the terms

and conditions for the use of the vouchers.

(c) Adopting foster parents shall present the vouchers to their attorney and licensed agency hired to perform the homestudy.

(d) An attorney hired by a foster parent shall submit a voucher for attorneys’ fees

with his or her first bill to CFSA, which shall set up an account with a $5,000 balance. Thereafter, the attorney shall submit his or her bills quarterly to CFSA. CFSA

shall pay the attorney within 30 days with funds from the account.

(e) The licensed agency hired to perform the homestudy shall submit its bill and

the voucher for the homestudy to CFSA after the homestudy is complete for payment within 30 days.

SEC. 3808. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

The Adoption Voucher Fund, which is subject to the availability of appropriations,

shall be comprised of $2 million of the $5 million appropriated in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 as a Federal payment available

until September 30, 2001, for incentives to promote the adoption of children in the

District’s foster care system in accordance with legislation enacted by the Council.

The remaining $3 million will fund the proposed Mayor’s Advisory Committee on

Permanent Homes for Children for use of the Federal Adoption Incentives Funds.

Furthermore, the proposed Budget Request Act for Fiscal Year 2001 contains a request for $5,000,000 for the same purpose to be available until September 20, 2002.

TIMELINES FOR ADOPTION INCENTIVE PLAN EXPENDITURES

INITIATIVE # 1: CREATION OF A FLEXIBLE FUND TO SUPPORT ADOPTION OF SIBLING

GROUPS AND OTHER HARD TO PLACE CHILDREN ($1.5 MILLION)

By August 15, 2000

Identify private non-profit organization to operate flexible fund.
34

Develop guidelines for eligible individuals.

Develop parameters for allowable expenditures from fund.

Develop protocols for accessing individual payments for families from flexible

fund.

By September 1, 2000

Grant $1.5 million to designated organization administering flexible fund for expenditure between September 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001.

INITIATIVE # 2: ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHOLARSHIP FUND TO SUPPORT TRANSITION TO

INDEPENDENCE FOR ADOPTED TEENS ($1.6 MILLION)

By September 15, 2000

Identify organization to administer scholarship fund.

Grant $1.6 million to organization administering scholarship fund to be placed in

interest bearing account and subsequently allocated to interest bearing individual

scholarship accounts for identified children.

Establish eligibility guidelines for receipt of scholarship.

By September 30, 2000

Establish interest-bearing account for scholarship funds.

Announce and publicize scholarship fund availability for all prospective adoptive

parents and parents in process and filing for adoption as of January 1, 2000.

By October 1, 2000

Begin establishing individual scholarship accounts for identified children.

INITIATIVE # 3: CREATION OF AN ADOPTION RESOURCE CENTER AND POST-ADOPTION

SERVICES CAPACITY ($1 MILLION)

Adoption Support Center ($775,000)

By August 1, 2000

Develop and issue RFP for District of Columbia Adoption Resource Center (2 year

grant @ $375,00 for Year 1 and $400,000 for Year 2 = $775,000) with proposals due

by September 1, 2000.

Between September 1, 2000 and September 20, 2000

Review proposals and select contractor for Post Adoption Resource Center.

By September 30, 2000

Sign contract with provider for one year with renewable second year. All funds

to be contracted by September 30, 2001.

Post-Adoption Services ($225,000)

By August 1, 2000

CFSA to develop specific budget plan for use of $225,000 to enhance Post-Adoption Services.

By October 1, 2000

Allocate additional funds to CFSA budget for use in accordance with plan developed by CFSA and approved by the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families.

INITIATIVE # 4: ENHANCEMENT OF ADOPTIVE HOME RECRUITMENT AND SUPPORT OF

FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE FAMILIES ($900,000)

By August 1, 2000

CFSA to develop specific budget plan for use of $750,000 in additional funds to

enhance neighborhood based adoptive home recruitment and support. Funds could

be used for additional staff for evening and weekend recruitment; contracted neighborhood based recruiters and trainers to implement Family to Family program; stipends for foster parents to serve as co-leaders in preservices training; child care for

parents involved in training; additional supplies (brochures, videos, a mobile van,

etc.). For recruitment and training; preparation of life books for all adoptive children; contracted home studies; transportation expenses for visitation between children and adoptive parents and expenses associated with participation in adoption

exchanges.

By October 1, 2000

Allocate additional funds to CFSA budget for use in accordance with plan developed by CFSA and approved by the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families.
35

By September 1, 2000

Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families to hire one staff person to provide

full-time staff assistance to Mayor’s Committee on Permanent Homes for Children

and to coordinate and oversee all activities funded through the Adoption Incentive

Plan ($150,000 allocated for salary, benefits and administrative costs).

IDEAS FOR EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL $5 MILLION IN ADOPTION/PERMANENCY

INCENTIVE FUNDS

Initiative # 1.—Provide funds for planning, design and initial implementation of

an innovative supported community providing permanent homes for children in

large sibling groups who are separated from their families because of abuse and neglect. ($2 million)

Building on the experiences of models of children’s villages that have been established in other parts of the country, the District wants to invest in the development

of a similar model for the District which would provide safe, loving and permanent

homes for very large sibling groups who are currently in out of home care because

of abuse and neglect and who have been unable to be reunited with their birth families. For many of these children in large sibling groups, the current system has been

unsuccessful in permanently placing them with relatives or in adoptive homes that

can accommodate all siblings together. Many of these children are isolated from

their sibling with the younger children living in foster families and the older ones

in group homes or other congregate care facilities.

The concept is to seed the construction or renovation of single family homes in

a designated safe community that can reunite these children with their siblings and

place them in the permanent care of relatives (who would be willing and able to

care for them if adequate housing and supports were available) or with trained two

parent families who would commit to raising these sibling groups as part of a permanent family until they are grown and self-sufficient. Caregivers would be well

trained and supported, both financially and with ongoing supervision and services.

Funds available through this initiative would be matched with private Foundation

and other District funds to establish a village of approximately 10 families living

in a close-knit neighborhood of single family homes. Services and supports to the

families and children would be provided within the context of the neighborhood and

community in which the homes are located. Planning for this work would begin by

October 1, 2000 with the expectation that the community could be operational by

December 31, 2001.

Initiative # 2.—Establishment of Scholarship Fund for post-high school education,

vocational or life skills training for all children who will exit the foster care system

with a goal of independent living. ($1 million)

Funds would be used to expand the scholarship program currently being developed as an incentive for all children being adopted through the foster care system

to allow a similar scholarship for each child who leaves the foster care system at

age 18 or 21 with a goal of independent living. The scholarship fund would be administered through a non-profit organization and would provide a grant of between

$3,000–$8,000 per year/per child for additional education or training in order to help

them make a successful transition to adulthood as they leave the foster care system.

Initiative # 3.—Improve the capacity of the legal system to move children toward

permanency through Adoption ($1.5 million)

Additional attorneys are urgently needed within the District’s Office of Corporation Counsel to adequately implement the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act

and to assure that timely and effective legal action is taken to move children toward

permanency through adoption and/or legal guardianship. These funds would enable

the Office of Corporation Counsel to immediately hire ll and ll additional attorneys and ll paralegals who would be devoted exclusively to the child abuse and

neglect caseload.

Initiative # 4.—Expand the capacity of the District’s Safe Shores Children’s Advocacy Center to end the fragmentation in the current response of the Metropolitan

Police Department, the Child and Family Services Administration, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Office of Corporation Counsel to children who have experienced

child abuse and neglect. ($500,000)

These funds would be used to leverage other federal and private contributions to

support the development of an integrated response that would end the current bifurcation of abuse and neglect in the District of Columbia.

Senator KYL. I appreciate that. I think that that is an area

where a performance-based audit should be possible. And because

everyone is committed to the object or to the goal, I think it would
36

be very useful for us to track that and to see how well we have

done as a result of the application of these funds, because it could

call for greater support in the future if, in fact, the efforts work.

DEBT ISSUE

And finally, Ms. Cropp, I think along with everyone else, I have

continued to watch the debt issue that the Chairman has already

talked to you about.

D.C. GENERAL

D.C. General is, of course, the District’s sole general hospital and

is run by the D.C. Health and Hospital Public Benefit Corporation.

GAO is, as you know, investigating whether the District violated

Federal law by making a $2.2-million-a-month loan to PBC.

LOANS TO PBC

My information is that PBC has not returned any of the $65.7

million in District cash that it borrowed in two and a half years.

Can you tell us what the District is doing to get repayment on

those loans made to the PBC?

Ms. CROPP. No, I cannot at this time, but I can submit that information for the record. I am not certain. No, I cannot at this time.

CONSULT FOR OVERSIGHT OF PBC

Senator KYL. I noted that this spring the District recommended

using $60,000 of reserve funds to hire an independent consultant

to assist the Council in its oversight of PBC regarding the provision

of medical services to uninsured District residents. Do you know

anything about that recommendation?

Ms. CROPP. I do. Actually, there is a collaborative that is being

formed with signatories being the Chair of the Council, the Mayor,

the Chair of the Financial Authority and the Chair of the PBC

board. It is an outgrowth of the Health Commission that the Mayor

and the Council had formed to look at healthcare issues in the District of Columbia.

FINANCIAL STATUS OF PBC

One of the things that came out of it was that we were very unclear as to the financial status of the PBC. We had great concern

about the numbers that were there.

Rather than rely totally on the figures that came out of the PBC,

we wanted to get an independent view of the financial structure,

the clinical structure and other areas of concern from the Public

Benefit Corporation.

We were going to get an outside group to look at it, Cambio.

They have done Georgetown Hospital. They also did Greater Southeast Hospital.

Senator KYL. If I could just interrupt. I mean, you do not need

the $60,000 consultant to know that you are not getting money repaid.

Ms. CROPP. Part of the problem was that we could not get figures

that we could embrace totally. And we needed to have an outside

review to get the information.
37

Senator KYL. You know how much you are owed, though. I mean,

you understand how much money you are owed——

Ms. CROPP. Yes.

Senator KYL [continuing]. How much you loaned. What is it

that——

Ms. CROPP. But we still do not know all of the figures—we still

do not know everything that is within the hospital. We do not know

what all of the revenue is that comes into the hospital. We are not

certain of what——

Senator KYL. So if I could just interrupt again, is the purpose for

this, then, to better understand how you can recover the money?

Ms. CROPP. How to recover the money, and also how to make

sure that the hospital is functioning appropriately, financially and

also clinically.

We want to go beyond just that financial aspect. We want to

make sure that the hospital is—perhaps there are some things that

the hospital is doing that they may not have to do in the future.

For example, the hospital does do about 75 percent of the trauma

in the City. The rest of the hospitals cannot absorb that. But perhaps in the area of pediatrics, perhaps other hospitals can absorb

that, and we can look at restructuring some of the things that the

hospital does currently.

So we want to take a broad picture of the healthcare delivery

that the hospital is providing and take into consideration its financial status, its clinical structure and other areas to make sure that

it is really functioning appropriately.

Senator KYL. I think that is a very important thing to do and

would hope that you could share those results with the Committee.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Do you need a little more time,

before——

Senator KYL. Thank you, but no.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Kyl.

I will call on my ranking member, Senator Durbin.

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison. I

apologize for being late. We had a meeting in my office about the

restoration of some air service to a city in Illinois, and you can understand why I felt I had to be there for that.

But I wanted to be here, especially today to first thank the panel

which is assembled, Dr. Rivlin, whom I worked with years ago

when I was a member of the House Budget Committee; and Ms.

Cropp—though we do not know one another personally I find you

on cable TV every night when I get back home so I know that you

are actively involved in the government of the District of Columbia—and especially to Mayor Williams, whom I have known since

he first went to work for the Department of Agriculture.

And I was acquainted with your professional background and

have been extremely impressed by your leadership in the District

of Columbia. You have restored hope and faith on Capitol Hill

among many of us that our Capitol City, our Nation’s Capitol can

be a source of great pride for many years to come. And I salute you

for that. It is a very daunting challenge. And I think you have

risen to it. And I want to continue to help you to do just that.
38

I note here and my staff has told me that your overall budget is in the range of $5.3 billion, but the Federal contribution is in the

range of some $400 million, if I am not mistaken, roughly, the direct part, which gives us at least some perspective in terms of the

tail on the dog that is the subject of this hearing.

My personal philosophy has been that you are a government entitled to rule your jurisdiction, because you were elected to that

post. I believe in that democratic process.

I have resisted efforts throughout my Congressional career when

would-be mayors on Capitol Hill wanted to second-guess the leadership of the District of Columbia.

And many times, I thought that that leadership was just dead

wrong. I still felt they were entitled to make their mistakes. That

is what democracy is all about. And I continue to feel that way.

TAX CUT

I think that we can be helpful and should be helpful to the District of Columbia because of its importance to all of us who call it

a second home, and to the nation.

Having said that, when I step back and take a look at the District of Columbia, there is one thing that continues to trouble me

and I am afraid is getting worse, and that is the situation where

your proposed D.C. tax cut is growing in size.

Am I correct in the information that I have that the D.C. tax cut

this year will amount to some $125 million?

Mayor WILLIAMS. That is roughly correct, Senator.

Senator DURBIN. So if I understand that, it basically means that

about 30 percent of all the money that we are talking about appropriating to you is going to be given away to the residents of the

District of Columbia in a tax cut?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I am not sure of the exact percentage, but I

think the consensus of leadership is that we need a balance between program investment, investment in human services capital,

and some investment in tax reform and parity, that all of them

have to come, you know, in combination, that there is a level and,

with respect to our local home rule, we battled it out and, we came

to the agreement we came to. It may be a pig, but it is our pig.

Senator DURBIN. It is your decision to make.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Right.

Senator DURBIN. And you have, with your City Council, have

made that decision.

I will tell you that it is difficult for me to sit here and to look

at these numbers that are going to grow to over $200 million in the

next couple of years and realize that half the money we are sending to the District of Columbia you will turn around and give away

to the residents.

Now, that might be a great idea—in fact, it is a great political

idea for those who are in public office.

But those of us who have observed the District of Columbia find

it difficult to understand how the City Council can ignore the

shortcomings in your educational system, the shortcomings when it

comes to public safety, the shortcomings when it comes to public

health, and decide that, instead, this money is not necessary. It is

to be given away to residents.
39

I will tell you the people I have spoken to who live in the District

of Columbia, who would much rather have safer streets and better

schools and clean up of a lot of the areas that are blighted in this

District than to receive $50 or $100 in a tax cut.

It is a wonderful political exercise with some who believe that

that is the key, is to keep giving money back to the people.

MEETING BASIC OBLIGATIONS

But if the District is not meeting its most basic obligations in

terms of protecting the people of the District and providing a good

education for their kids, I think it is indefensible.

And as that number grows, as your tax cut grows, I think your

call on the Federal Government for more and more money becomes

less convincing. You obviously do not need it. If you can give it

away, you do not need it.

And this year, 30 percent of what you are asking for in direct

payments from the Federal Government you clearly do not need,

because you are going to turn around and give it back in terms of

tax cuts.

I asked in the course of last year’s appropriation bill for a report

card from the District to see how you are doing. We had the Casey

Foundation evaluation about kids in the District. And I really believe that you, Mayor, are on the right track.

I see what you are doing in terms of setting performance goals

and having people stand up and say, ‘‘I am going to try to put so

many more people in drug rehab. We are going to try to do so much

in health clinics.’’ All of these things make a lot of sense to me.

And I would like to have, if you can, your analysis of the

progress you are making and the obstacles you are running into in

providing those basic services to address the needs of children in

the District of Columbia.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, thank you, Senator. But I think any person would say that they might like to try to bring our city to, you

know, what is—I will put it this way, for our city to realize its full

promise and potential and to successfully work its way through

this recovery, to me it really is a balance between bringing our government to its right size, investing in our equipment, our plan, and

our people. And in sharing that, we have got a robust, prosperous

economy.

Certainly, there are always questions of balance and there are

questions of degree, but I think that there is a role in there. And

I think that American citizens have an interest in seeing that the

businesses and the taxpayers in the City are on some kind of parity

with taxpayers everywhere else because we are our Nation’s Capital, and right now we are really at, for a lot of different reasons,

historically and otherwise, somewhat of a disadvantage.

And so anything we can do to right that balance, I think, is going

in the right track. Again, we may have our differences in degree

or magnitude.

Speaking of children, our emphasis on children flows from our

neighborhood summary, where I say this over and over again and

people groan, but we had 3,000 people at the convention center.

These were all regular citizens. They were not bused in. They were

not my political cronies. They were just regular folks.
40

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR CITY

We had folks from every quadrant of the City, every ward of the

City, old folks, young folks, black folks, white folks; everybody was

there. And these folks sat there. They spent over 7 hours of their

time on a Saturday in developing a vision, strategic plan for the

City.

Their top two priorities—because we used a lot of electronic

gadgetry, their top two priorities were restore, refurbish our neighborhoods, support our children and families. Those were the top

two goals.

So a lot of this budget flow and emphasis on children flows out

of that. And I give you two areas where we want to really put a

special emphasis on children.

Number one is I am going to be calling together a group of citizens and work with the Council and the Authority and ask the

group of citizens—a small number so it is manageable, work with

a consultant, work with staff, work with our inspector general, and

go into our delivery system, if you want to call it that to be kind,

for our children, and tell me what we are doing wrong, where we

need to improve, where we need to fix things, where we need to refurbish, blow up, rehabilitate the process, because right now in

many, many ways, particularly as it relates not just to youth services in general but to juvenile justice, we are not doing the job.

Senator DURBIN. May I ask a specific question?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Yes.

Senator DURBIN. Last year I compared the District of Columbia

to states in terms of performance for children, and some said, ‘‘That

is not fair. Compare the District of Columbia to cities, not to

States, because of the unique governance here.’’

DISTRICT COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES

And so, we took a look at that particular issue, the top 50 cities

in the United States, and compared the District of Columbia’s statistics when it comes to children and poverty. And, Mayor, when

it comes down to the health, in particular health services for children and for pregnant women, the District of Columbia ranked

dead last again.

In a city where the City Council has decided, ‘‘There is too much

money; we are going to give it back,’’ you have a situation where

the District of Columbia ranks 50th out of 50 cities on the percent

of total births to mothers receiving late or no prenatal care.

And you and I both know that is a recipe for disaster. Mothers

without prenatal care are kids who are going to give birth to children with a world of problems, expensive problems, for a lifetime.

This is in a city that has decided ‘‘We are going to give away a tax

cut, 30 percent of the money we get from the federal government,’’

and you rank dead last in the 50 cities.

Would this be a radical idea? Could you go to the D.C. City

Council and perhaps bring that to their attention, and maybe suggest to them that a few more prenatal clinics and a few less dollars

being given away in tax cuts might be in the best interest of residents who come 3,000 strong and tell you that strong families is

one of the top two priorities in their mind?
41

Ms. CROPP. Senator, I would like to also have an opportunity to

make some comments.

Senator DURBIN. Sure, of course.

Ms. CROPP. Let me beg to differ somewhat with your suggestion

that the dollars that the Federal Government is giving to the District of Columbia that the City is using to deal with the tax cut.

We are using local revenue, not Federal dollars, first of all. Although the Federal dollars are a part of the revitalization plan that

came about because of the change in the Federal payment that

would go to the District of Columbia.

The Council—and I would like to share with you our legislative

agenda, and perhaps also there is a need for us to get together and

talk a little off line about some of the things that the Council has

done.

We have worked extremely hard to provide better health care,

and expanded to look at approaches where we could improve

education——

Senator DURBIN. May I ask you a question?

Ms. CROPP [continuing]. For our citizens in the District of Columbia.

BIRTHS

Senator DURBIN. Do you disagree with the conclusions that the

District of Columbia is in the worst shape of the top 50 cities in

America when it comes to births to mothers without prenatal care,

ranks 49th out of 50 in low-birth weight babies, ranks 49th out of

50 in percent of pre-term babies? Do you say this is a crisis?

Ms. CROPP. I may not be able to argue with that, but there are

other things that we have to do. We have to look at the whole picture. And part of looking at the whole picture is looking at approaches and ways to help our economy and revenue to grow in the

future, because the Federal Government is not going to continue to

give us dollars.

TAX RATE

We are going to have to figure out other approaches. Let me just

share this one statistic with you, for example. The District’s lowest

tax rate of 6 percent for our lowest income people, those individuals

who make $0 to $10,000, is higher than the wealthiest people pay

in the State of Virginia, right next door. The people who make

under $10,000 pay more taxes than the wealthiest of people pay in

Virginia.

We, in the District, because of where we are and how we are surrounded by much wealthier States who do not have the problems

of an urban city—when you were saying earlier about not comparing the District to States, why? Because like any other urban

city in this country, we have a population that is older, that is sicker, and that is poorer.

In addition to that, we are further penalized by the fact that we

do not have the wealthier suburban areas to help offset the costs

of the District.

Senator DURBIN. Let me——
42

Ms. CROPP. Sixty-two percent of the people who work for the District of Columbia government—62 percent who work for the government, live outside of the District of Columbia.

So we have to come up with better approaches and different

ways to help our economy grow. Tax parity is one when our surrounding jurisdictions are bringing in—when their taxes are so

much lower. At the same time, we are challenged, and I think we

are meeting that challenge, to meet the needs of our people who

need more.

Senator DURBIN. We disagree, and we are bound to disagree because I have made my point on this last year. And I did not realize

the Chairman had not asked questions. And I want to just wrap

this up.

PRENATAL CARE

But let me give you this analogy: If you know that the failure

of the District of Columbia to have appropriate prenatal care for

mothers results in the birth of low-birth weight children who are

bound to have additional medical expenses and problems for a lifetime—and we can certainly document everything I have just said

to be true in the District of Columbia—and you insist, instead, on

focusing on giving tax cuts with money instead of building prenatal

centers for these mothers for their health care, the only analogy I

can think of is someone who has just bought new draperies for

their home, and enjoys it very much, did not have enough money

to fix the roof, and the water is coming in.

Those children will cost you, the District, the taxpayers, and

America, a fortune because we did not make the investment in

their lives early enough.

And the District of Columbia, for all the progress it has made,

still has in many areas, deficiencies which require some enlightened thinking.

And I think the City Council is just off base when it takes 30

percent of the Federal funds and gives it away, saying, ‘‘We cannot

think of a thing we can do in the District of Columbia with $125

million except to give it back.’’

Well, anybody who is a family of a victim of a drive-by shooting

can think of something that could have been done in terms of police

protection.

People who are worried about the test scores of kids coming out

of D.C. schools can think of something.

And the mothers of these children who are holding these babies

who have a lifetime of problems ahead of them, can think of something.

Ms. CROPP. And the Council has, and I think our budget reflects

that we have.

Senator DURBIN. Well, unfortunately, the progress is too slow as

far as I am concerned.

Ms. CROPP. Well, I will agree with that. We have found a point

of agreement. It is much slower than what I think it ought to be.

Senator DURBIN. I would ask the Chairman, Senator Hutchison,

for unanimous consent that the remaining questions I have be submitted for the record.

Senator HUTCHISON. Without objection.
43

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Senator HUTCHISON. I have several questions, but I just want to

make one other point. I think Chairman Cropp was very good in

representing the Council views and looking at the place where you

sit, and the competition around the District of Columbia for residence.

TAX REVENUES GOING UP

I have looked at the projections with the tax cuts that were put

in place last year. The projections are that the revenue will go up

because you are encouraging people to stay in the District and

move back into the District. And so, in fact, the tax revenues are

going up, not down.

I think they have responded quite correctly to looking at where

they sit and doing the best that they can to make this city a place

that people want to live.

I do not disagree with your points on the things that have not

been done. I think we should all work for improving prenatal

health care, but I do not think it is the tax cut that is keeping us

from doing that.

I think you are bringing people in. So we have, you know, two

ways of looking at this. But in that instance, I think they are on

the right track, and let us just work together to try to improve the

situation that you mentioned.

MARIJUANA POSSESSION LAW

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Earlier in the year, the

Council considered strengthening the City’s marijuana possession

laws. The U.S. Attorney has expressed concern that the District’s

lax laws on the point are fostering new criminal gangs in the District that have been selling this drug.

I want to ask you if the City is still considering strengthening

its marijuana possession laws, or how are you addressing the issue

that has been addressed by the U.S. Attorney?

Ms. CROPP. If I may get that information back to you, Senator— we are looking at all of our laws and trying to strengthen them.

I do not want to put something on the record that is not totally accurate. If I can get that information as to what we are doing specifically with the marijuana laws, I would get it back to you.

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Is it something that is being considered by the Council ongoing, the strengthening of those laws?

Ms. CROPP. Yes, it is, and the Council will—I have just been informed that we will take action on it before recess. So, before July,

you will get information on that.

[The information follows:]

REPORT ON DISTRICT’S MARIJUANA POSSESSION LAWS

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of Bill 13–240 is to deter marijuana trafficking and the violence surrounding marijuana trafficking by amending the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to include marijuana as a Schedule III controlled

substance. This bill will make the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana a five-year felony, except that the first conviction for

the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute 1⁄2 pound or

less of marijuana will remain a misdemeanor if the person has not previously been
44

convicted of manufacturing, distributing or possession with intent to distribute a

controlled substance or an attempt to do so.

In addition, this change will permit pretrial detention under D.C. Code § 23–1322

of persons charged with the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to

distribute marijuana because these offenses will fall within the definition of ‘‘dangerous crime’’ under D.C. Code § 23–1331; the bill will subject persons convicted of

the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana

while armed to increased penalties under D.C. Code § 22–3202 because these offenses will fall within the definition of ‘‘dangerous crime’’ under D.C. Code § 22–

3201; and it will subject persons to enhanced penalties upon conviction of such offenses as distribution of marijuana to a minor under D.C. Code § 33–546 and distribution or possession with intent to distribute marijuana within a drug free zone,

that is, within 1,000 feet of educational institutions, day care centers, recreational

facilities and libraries under D.C. Code § 33–547.1.

It also brings the District of Columbia into conformity with laws in all fifty states

which make distribution of at least some, if not all, quantities of marijuana a felony.

As a result, the bill will reduce the probability that people from other jurisdictions

will enter the District of Columbia to sell marijuana.

Chronology of actions taken by the Council of the District of Columbia

May 4, 1999—Bill 13–240, the ‘‘Distribution of Marijuana Amendment Act of

1999,’’ was introduced by Councilmembers Brazil and Jarvis and was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary.

January 13, 2000—The Judiciary Committee held a roundtable on Bill 13–240.

(Testimonies from public witnesses available on request).

May 10, 2000—The Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on Bill 13–240.

(Testimonies from public witnesses available on request).

May 25, 2000—The Judiciary Committee held a mark-up and discussion of Bill

13–240. Committee print of Bill 13–240 attached.

A BILL 13–240

IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

To amend the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to

include marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance in order to make the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana a five-year

felony, except for the first conviction for the manufacture, distribution or possession

with intent to distribute 1⁄2 pound or less of marijuana which will remain a misdemeanor if the person has not previously been convicted of the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance or an attempt to do so; and to amend section 1(g) of An Act To control the possession, sale,

transfer, and use of pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia

by amending the definition of dangerous crime to include offenses punishable by imprisonment for less than one year.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That

this act may be cited as the ‘‘Distribution of Marijuana Amendment Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. The District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981, (D.C. Law 4–29; D.C. Code § 33–501 et seq.), is amended as

follows:

(a) Section 208(a) (D.C. Code § 33–518(a)) is amended as follows:

(1) Paragraph (4)(H) is amended by striking the word ‘‘and’’ at the end.

(2) Paragraph (5)(BB) is amended by striking the period and inserting the

phrase ‘‘; and’’ in its place.

(3) A new paragraph (6) is added to read as follows:

‘‘(6) Cannabis.’’.

(b) Section 212(2) (D.C. Code § 33–522(2)) is repealed.

(c) Section 231(a)(2)(B) (D.C. Code § 33–541(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking

the phrase ‘‘both’’, and inserting the phrase ‘‘both; except that upon conviction

of manufacturing, distributing or possessing with intent to distribute 1⁄2 pound

or less of marijuana, a person who has not previously been convicted of manufacturing, distributing or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance or attempting to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance may be imprisoned for not more than 180 days

or fined not more than $5,000 or both.’’ in its place.

SEC. 3. Section 1(g) of An Act To control the possession, sale, transfer, and use

of pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia, to provide penalties, to prescribe rules of evidence, and for other purposes, approved July 8, 1932
45

(47 Stat. 650; D.C. Code § 22–3201(g)), is amended by striking the phrase ‘‘, if the

offense is punishable by imprisonment for less than 1 year’’.

SEC. 4. Fiscal impact statement.

The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the

final impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia

Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Code § 1–233(c)(3)).

SEC. 5. Effective date.

This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto

by the Mayor, action by the Council of the District of Columbia to override the veto),

approval by the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority as

provided in § 203(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 116); D.C. Code

§ 47.392.3(a)), a 60-day period of Congressional review as provided in section

602(c)(2) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973

(87 Stat. 813; D.C. Code § 1–233(c)(2)), and publication in the District of Columbia

Register.

COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. In the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, we included $5 million for the Mayor, in consultation

with the Council, to provide offsets against local taxes for commercial revitalization programs in enterprise zones and low and moderate income areas of the District.

The purpose of this was to try to get property renovated, cleaned

up, and perhaps bring new investment in that would create a safer

environment. Could you give me a progress report on whether you

have been able to use any of this incentive for the purpose that I

have stated?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I can get you in writing, Senator, the detailed

follow up as I did—I know, based on our conversation we had earlier this year, as a matter of fact, when I visited the International

Convention of Shopping Centers with a member of the Council.

Now for the second year in a row, there is a growing and strong

interest now in investing in our city.

As I suggested to you earlier, we have talked to major retailers

who we are actively negotiating with to come to our city, provide

jobs for our residents, shopping opportunities for our citizens.

And part of our incentive package is exactly this $5 million. I can

get you detailed information on that. So it is working, and it is part

of our arsenal that we are using to negotiate with these investors.

We hope to, as a matter of fact, have some major announcements—

I would like them to be last week, but very soon.

Senator HUTCHISON. Have you continued into the next budget

year an added amount for this purpose, or have you continued to

build on the $5 million?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I know that we have continued a robust effort

to include incentives for investments and incentives for employing

our residents, you know, industrial revenue bond financing, the

whole package, again, of tools in these enterprise zones that we

want to use for investors because I think you were exactly right on

the money. It is a real incentive we can offer.

Senator HUTCHISON. I would like a report just to see that.

[The information follows:]
46

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

OVERVIEW OF POLICY AND PROGRAM GOALS

A primary goal of the Mayor’s economic development strategy is to stimulate increased commerce, capital investment and employment growth within District of Columbia neighborhoods by reducing the total tax burden borne by our domestic enterprises. To help implement this policy, the Mayor established the DC Commercial Revitalization Program (CRP), which offers temporary tax relief to developers, manufacturers, building owners, tenants and other taxpayers (Taxpayers) that acquire,

construct, rehabilitate, lease, and operate commercial facilities situated within designated areas of the District.

Eligible Taxpayers may qualify for forgiveness of transfer taxes, the abatement

of real property and sales tax liability, and the award of employment tax credits in

connection with the development of retail facilities in priority development areas,

including the DC Enterprise Zone and other designated low and moderate income

neighborhoods characterized by a dearth of retail goods and services and related employment opportunities. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), business guilds, alliances and other collaboratives that sponsor commercial development in under

served communities by contributing supplemental tax payments or special assessments also may be eligible for CRP assistance.

PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION

Section 168(a) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2000 authorizes

the transfer from the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Authority) to the District of Columbia the sum of

$5,000,000 to help neutralize the fiscal impact of tax concessions allocated to stimulate increased business activity in selected neighborhoods. CRP funds are derived

from interest earnings on investments held by the Authority on behalf of the District government. CRP is administered by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMED). Program funds are used in conjunction

with other economic development tools employed by DMED to leverage public and

private dollars invested in priority development areas. Available District and federal

resources include Community Development Block Grants, Economic Development

Administration grants, Brownfields loans, grants and credits, enterprise zone tax incentives, private activity bonds and tax increment bonds. It is anticipated that CRP

funds also will be used in conjunction with credit and financial support provided

from funds held in the Revenue Bond Program Fee Account authorized under DC

Code Section 47–340 et seq.

PRIORITIES

Projects situated at or in close proximity to sites that will house the District’s

‘‘Government Centers’’ offices receive priority consideration for CRP assistance.

These planned Centers are located within the DC Enterprise Zone and other low

and moderate income neighborhoods traditionally under served by commercial developers and retailers. By providing inducements for retail businesses to co-locate

with these government service operations, the District intends to capitalize on the

momentum already generated by recently completed Metro Rail Stations at these

retail and transportation hubs. Priority retail services include, by way of illustration

only:

—Self-service retail establishments (independently owned or part of a corporation

that operates a chain of retail establishments under the same trade name) that

meet the requirements of the DC Supermarket Tax Exemption Act of 2000;

—Restaurants that provide on-site table service and eating facilities; movie theaters and playhouses;

—Manufacturing facilities; wholesale and discount clothing and dry goods stores;

—Boutiques, bookstores, coffee shops and other stores featuring specialty items;

—Communications software development facilities and other technology research

and development incubators, tourism and entertainment facilities.

DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING PLAN

Each CRP Project plans shall include description of the Taxpayer(s) to whom the

benefit is to be awarded; the nature and amount of assistance to be provided; and

the public purpose benefits that will result from the project. The plan also shall describe zoning, environmental, historic preservation and site control issues, if any,

proposed land uses, site development and construction plans, and project renderings

(see Exhibit A).
47

1 Commitment dates subject to completion of land assembly, negotiation of final business

terms, and approval by the DC Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

and Congress of ‘‘Supermarket Tax Exemption Act of 2000’’ DC Act 13–365, which was adopted

by the Council of the District of Columbia on June 12, 2000.

Each eligible project must meet three or more of the following public purpose objectives:

1. Increase the availability of consumer goods, services or business activities that

have not generally been available to residents within the proposed project area;

2. Enhance the value and appearance of commercial facilities;

3. Expand the District’s real property or sales tax base;

4. Increase the employment of residents within the project’s service area; and

5. Expand economic opportunities for District-certified businesses.

For projects involving the acquisition of an existing facility, the Taxpayer must

incur within a 24 month period substantial rehabilitation expenditures of not less

than 15 percent of the dollar value of the CRP award.

PROJECT FEASIBILITY

A prospective CRP-assisted project must meet reasonable standards of commercial

viability as determined by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the District’s financial advisors. This determination generally will be based on the results of a 10 year pro forma income and

expense schedule and feasibility study conducted by recognized experts which shall

include a description of nature and terms of equity, loans, grants, contracts and federal credits to be committed to the project. With respect to proposed projects not

eligible for tax relief under any existing District law, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer will conduct a fiscal impact analysis to determine the amount of tax relief (and available CRP funds), if any, that reasonably should be allocated to support

the proposed project.

PENDING COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION PROJECTS

(PROJECTED COMMITMENT DATES 1)

Proposed sites and projects currently under review include:

Columbia Heights Grocery and Retail Development (1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2001)

Forgiveness of transfer taxes and abatement of real property taxes in connection

with acquiring, constructing, redeveloping and operating a full-service supermarket,

abutting retail stores and entertainment facility.

Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the reconstruction of building facades and the

provision of supplemental municipal services within the project area.

Georgia Avenue Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (3rd Quarter Fiscal Year

2001)

Forgiveness of transfer taxes and abatement of real property tax liability incurred

in connection with the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation and redevelopment of

50,000 square foot or larger commercial facility owned and operated by national retailer within the designated Neighborhood Strategy Area.

Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the reconstruction of building facades and the

provision of supplemental municipal services within the project area.

Brentwood/Rhode Island Avenue Shopping Center (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2001)

Real property tax abatement in connection with development of commercial parking facility to accommodate new shopping center.

Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the reconstruction of building facades and the

provision of supplemental municipal services within the project area.

Camp Sims Grocery and Retail Development (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2001)

Forgiveness of transfer taxes and abatement of real property tax liability in connection with the acquisition, construction, redevelopment and operation of a full

service supermarket, multi-screen movie theater, and retail stores.

Waiver of real property tax liability in connection with supplemental taxes or special assessments incurred to support the reconstruction of building facades and the

provision of supplemental municipal services within the project area.
48

EXHIBIT A

COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

PROJECT SUBMISSION AND REVIEW CHECKLIST

Requests for CRP benefits shall not receive final approval unless the project meets

all applicable regulatory requirements and the benefited taxpayers completes, executes and delivers to the District certain agreements and certificates regarding its

planned contracting, employment and human rights practices. Taxpayers must contact the appropriate agency representatives. Documents that must be submitted as

part of the assistance request are listed below.

—List of Principals and Officers

—Name, Address of Registered Agent

—Most Recent Annual Report

—3 Yrs Federal/State Tax Returns

—Certificate of Good Standing

—Description of Pending Litigation

—Site Plans, Location Maps, Project Renderings

—Feasibility-Fiscal Impact Study

—Funding Sources and Uses

—List of District-owned Properties

—Tax Certification Affidavit

—Non-Discrimination Certificate

—Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement

—Assurance of Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance

—First Source Employment Agreement

—MOU Certification Affidavit
49
50
51

Mayor WILLIAMS. Right.

Senator HUTCHISON. That was seed money.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Right.

RESERVE FUNDS

Senator HUTCHISON. And if you are now taking it on to a new

level, I think that is very good.

Dr. Rivlin, in last year’s appropriations bill, we had language

governing the reserve fund and the conditions on the use of the reserve fund. It stated that the funds would only be spent according

to criteria established by the chief financial officer and approved by
52

the Mayor, the Council, and the Control Board. Have those financial criteria for spending from the reserve fund been established?

Dr. RIVLIN. Yes, they were established, and they were, in fact,

stated I believe in last year’s Budget Support Act. But I think in

attempting to implement those criteria, we ran into the difference

in conception that the District had of the uses of the reserve fund

and that you had as a more restrictive definition, so that not all

of the uses which fell within our set of criteria were—did you think

were entirely appropriate. So if you remember, we went back and

forth on that.

Senator HUTCHISON. We did, and I think we came to the right

conclusion, and I think we worked it out in the right way.

EXPENDITURES OF RESERVE FUND

But my question was if there are a set of financial policies for

the expenditures of the reserve fund that have been put forward

by the chief financial officer and approved by the Mayor, the Council, and the Control Board, not the criteria that were in the law,

but a set of procedures on financial policy.

Dr. RIVLIN. Well, we had a set of criteria which we agreed on,

but we were operating, at that time, on a different conception of

the reserve fund. We thought it had to be appropriated every year

and, therefore, that we had to have a new $150 million every year.

And, therefore, it seemed reasonable to us that over the year, as

the year progressed, we had not had dire emergencies on which to

spend this, that it could be spent for other useful purposes which

did not obligate the District to continuing expenditures. That did

seem appropriate, consistent with our reading of the law that the

funds could not carry over but had to be reappropriated the next

year.

And as you know, we have had discussions this year with you

about a different conception of the reserve fund, where the funds

would carry over; and that changes the game essentially. It means

that much stricter criteria are appropriate for a true rainy day

fund that carries over from one year to the next.

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, let me just say that I think we have

gotten through this year by communicating and talking about what

our views were. I would hope that we can work together on some

language in this year’s bill that would be more clear on the use of

the emergency fund.

INTEREST BEARING FUND

I do think it needs to be a real fund, interest bearing, set aside,

and then provide more flexibility in a contingency fund because I

think that was a point you made, Dr. Rivlin, that there are certain

expenditures that come up, but there is no authorization for spending the money on the contingency that is necessary. So I want to

provide clear parameters on the reserve fund, make it a real fund

that everyone can see.

CONTINGENCY EXPENDITURES

And then, more flexibility in the surplus area so that there can

be contingency expenditures because I think it is important that
53

you have flexibility because you do have unanticipated matters. I

also think it is important that you have the ability to spend surplus first, contingency second, and reserve as a last resort.

I think if we can work together to clarify these, I think it will

give you the flexibility you need to respond to the things that arise

that were not anticipated, and also give the comfort level that

there is a good, solid emergency fund that is not touched except in

a very extreme circumstance.

And so I think we will be looking to work with you as we go

down the road; and also, I think, have in place financial policies

because as we look to the control board going out, I think it is important that we have financial policies that everyone agrees are the

right ones as we make that transition, so that there is something

we can look at and measure each year against. And that is the financial policies that would be put in place.

I really have a goal for making the District one of the best-run

cities in America. I think the rating can go up significantly, and I

think we are on the right track to do that.

CONTROL BOARD

I just want to make sure that we have policies in place as the

control board goes out, that the Mayor, and the Council, with the

advice of the control board and the chief financial officer, agree to;

and that you agree that these are the right policies for the City.

Then there will be a measurement so that you will know if you are

getting off the mark. And there will be a way for you to, I think,

go forward to your own management needs without the control

board in place.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

So, we will be working on those things together, I hope, in the

next few months. I appreciate where we are. I think if we are going

to the goal line, we are on the 10-yard line right now. I just want

to put it over and have everything in very solid shape as we look

next year for two people sitting at this table instead of three.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the District for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JON KYL

REPAYMENT ON LOANS

Question. With respect to District of Columbia funds that have been advanced or ‘‘loaned’’ to the Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), what provisions have been made to recover these funds from the PBC.

Answer. I must report that there is virtually no likelihood these funds will be recovered. Past practice was to advance the PBC cash against the anticipated receipt

of accounts receivable for services rendered. However, these accounts receivable

were never collected in the amounts necessary to cover cash amounts advanced by

the District. For fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 a total of $41.3 million in cash

advanced to PBC will be written off as uncollectable in the District’s fiscal year 2000

Comprehensive Audited Financial Report (CAFR). We expect to write off approximately $67.3 million in fiscal year 2000 cash advances which will also be reported

in the fiscal year 2000 CAFR.

I have ended the practice of making such cash advances and have notified the

Mayor, the City Council and the PBC Board that all funds provided by the District

to the PBC must come through the appropriations process. We are also taking other
54

steps to improve the financial management of the PBC including the consolidation

and management of all bank accounts.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Question. What percentage of the District’s Fiscal Year 2001 budget is devoted to

new spending programs? Please provide the Subcommittee with a written analysis

of these new programs and the corresponding costs.

Answer. Approximately 6 percent of the fiscal year 2001 budget is devoted to

spending programs.

Appropriation title New programs

Governmental Direction and Support .................................................. $28,496,866

Economic Development and Regulation ............................................... 25,146,178

Public Safety and Justice ...................................................................... 20,578,746

Public Education .................................................................................... 170,618,697

Human Support Services ...................................................................... 30,870,050

Public Works .......................................................................................... 10,876,049

Total ......................................................................................... 286,586,586

Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a written analysis of these new

programs and the corresponding costs.

Answer. The information pertains to the operating budget and does not include

new capital projects.

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (DX0):

Advisory Neighborhood Commission support ............................... $50,000

Establishment of the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ............................................................................................. 75,000

Total ......................................................................................... 125,000

Office of the Mayor (AA0): The agency is targeted to receive funds

pending certification. The Chief Financial Officer will make these

funds available upon certification for the District of Columbia ..... 621,000

Citywide Call Center (CW0): This creates an independent entity to

manage citizen and customer inquires of the District government. This will allow the District to address the majority of residents’ needs through one main number and telephone contact. If

citizen’s concerns are not addressed at first call, then staff can

assure the transfer of calls to the correct agency. In fiscal year

2001, the Citywide Call Center is funded by other District agencies through the intra-District funding process ............................... 1,958,785

Office of the City Administrator (AE0):

Funding for the Operational Improvements Division (OID),

Risk Management, and Neighborhood Services ....................... 2,772,143
55

Increases in federal grant programs and grant management

support ......................................................................................... 7,628,821

Total ......................................................................................... 10,400,964

Office of Personnel (BE0): An increase for the Employee Assistance

Program contract ................................................................................ 368,000

Human Resources Development (HD0): The agency has been targeted to receive $1,042,000, and 9 FTEs to improve the professional and technological skills of D.C. Government employees by

offering Customer Service Training, Advanced Computer Training and other development course work through the Skills Development Institute. The Chief Financial Officer will make these

funds available upon certification for the District of Columbia ..... 1,042,000

Office of the Chief Technology Officer (TO0):

The transfer of the SHARE services from the Office of the

Chief Financial Officer ............................................................... 3,612,162

This will facilitate centralization of technology support, enhance performance, service delivery, and management

throughout the District. OCTO will: (1) implement a Districtwide e Government system, a process whereby District agencies can take advantage of the tremendous opportunities

which e-commerce makes possible; (2) implement a full internet program providing information access to the public via

the Internet; (3) coordinate District wide web-based activities; and (4) define and implement technologies for revenue

enhancement, productivity improvement, and cost reduction ......................................................................................... 4,426,000

Total ......................................................................................... 7,680,162

Office of Property Management (AM0): The agency has been targeted to receive an additional $2,500,000, and 7 FIFEs from

funds pending certification. These additional funds are for costs

to support the Omnibus Real Property Asset Management to

allow OPM to perform routine maintenance and other legally required tasks on surplus District owned properties before their

disposal. This will also fund the marketing of the available properties to facilitate their sale. The Chief Financial Officer will

make these funds available upon certification for the District of

Columbia ............................................................................................. 2,500,000

Office of the Inspector General (AD0):

Expansion of a Medicaid Fraud Unit. The Mayor has authorized the OIG to submit an application for a federal grant

that would provide seventy-five percent of the operating cost

for this initiative. Such an application has been completed

and submitted. The goals of the Medicaid Fraud Unit will be

to prosecute Medicaid fraud, recover monies lost due to false

claims, and investigate patient abuse. This request represents the required twenty-five percent local matching

amount ......................................................................................... 1,371,955

Support of 21 FTEs needed to enhance the agency’s audit, inspection, and investigative functions. This request will give

the OIG a new level of audit, investigative, and inspections

and evaluations coverage throughout the District government. This additional coverage will meet demands that have

been placed on the OIG by District leadership. District managers are now faced with risk/management challenges relating to the Mayor’s strategic initiatives such as making government work, economic development, and building healthy

neighborhoods. In addition, Congress has passed legislation

requiring the OIG to audit the District of Columbia Highway

Trust Fund. This responsibility was previously with the General Accounting Office ................................................................ 1,349,000
56

An increase in other services and charges for costs associated

with the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) .... 1,190,000

Total ......................................................................................... 3,800,955

Grand Total Governmental Direction and Support .............. 28,496,866

Business Services and Economic Development (EB0):

11 planners and eight revitalization and zoning planners: The

Neighborhood Action initiative will develop annual strategic

plans for each neighborhood cluster that will guide the development of a citywide strategic plan and the allocation of

public resources. The revitalization planners will manage

complex revitalization studies in many areas throughout the

District to promote development and investment in underserved and underutilized neighborhoods and areas. Zoning

planners will work on zoning cases to strengthen land use

management and provide analysis to support decisions made

by the Zoning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment ............................................................................................. 548,000

Supports the following initiatives: (1) providing technical assistance in the operation of the District’s contract compliance

system; (2) enforcement of the ‘‘Equal Opportunity for Local,

Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Act of 1998’’;

(3) enforcement of the ‘‘Blanket Order Blitz Increased Opportunity for Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Emergency Amendment Act of 1999’’; (4) supporting

the Penn-Branch Mall Business Resource Center; and (5)

promoting and marketing the agency’s initiatives ................... 203,200

D.C. Marketing Center. This initiative expands funding for the

D.C. Marketing Center and supports the agency’s internal

marketing efforts. Internally, the agency plans to produce

and mail marketing materials, develop internet-based strategies for marketing the District and responding rapidly to inquiries and a media campaign to advertise the opportunities

for business development in the District .................................. 560,000

Heritage Tourism to foster heritage tourism in the District and

links it with the economic development of the District and

its neighborhoods. Heritage tourism is travel directed toward

experiencing the arts, heritage, and special character of a

place ............................................................................................. 150,000

Transfer of the Historic Preservation Review Board from the

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, including

nine FTEs .................................................................................... 768,081

Transfer of the Industrial Revenue Bond program from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, which includes seven

FTEs. The Industrial Revenue Bond Program supports the

implementation of the EZ bond initiative, the public school

infrastructure development act, the maintenance of a clearinghouse on local and federal tax incentive, and several

other initiatives ........................................................................... 1,096,426

Total ......................................................................................... 3,325,707

Office of Zoning (BJ0):

Funding of the introductory phase of a zoning database system

to provide agency information and access to zoning documents ........................................................................................... 145,000
57

Funding for the development, distribution and maintenance of

Phase II of the electronic zoning maps that will result in the

agency processing 20 percent more applications; establishing

a web site for zoning information; conducting community

outreach seminars ....................................................................... 225,000

Total ......................................................................................... 370,000

Department of Housing and Community Development (DB0): The

agency has been targeted to receive five FTEs and program support from funds pending certification, for the Land Disposition

and Asset Management Unit, the Homestead Housing Preservation Program, and the Main Street Program. The Chief Financial

Officer will make these funds available upon certification for the

District of Columbia ........................................................................... 3,296,000

Department of Employment Services (CF0):

Increases and new federal grants from the US Department of

Labor for:

(a) Metro Tech Project: Partnership with VA, MD, and

D.C. to help relieve the identified distress of high tech

labor shortage in the D.C. metropolitan area. The consortium will develop joint policies, collaborative mechanisms, and common objectives to address the needs of

displaced workers.

(b) Youth Opportunity Initiative Grant: A system that established high standards for student achievements and

prepares all youth for advanced education, training, and

high quality careers. Six focus groups comprised of employers, youth, educators, service providers, and other

community members will review issues of self-sufficiency, supportive services, and personal development.

(c) Adult Training (Title II) and Youth Training (Title III):

The grants support programs that prepare youth and

adults facing serious barriers to employment for participation in the labor force by providing job training and

other services that will result in increased employment

and earnings, increase educational and occupational

skills, and decreased welfare dependency.

(d) Dislocated Workers Program (EDWA), the Adult Training Programs (Title 11), Youth Training (Title IIB & IIC,

Dislocated Workers Program (EDWA), new Metro Tech

Project, and new Youth Opportunity Initiative Grant ..... 15,920,000

The agency is targeted to receive additional funding for the

First Source Hiring program. The Chief Financial Officer

will make these funds available upon certification for the

District of Columbia .................................................................... 200,000

Total ......................................................................................... 16,120,000

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (CR0): 24 FTEs

were added to the local budget to support the agency’s programs

for Neighborhood Stabilization and Nuisance Abatement Program .................................................................................................... 818,000

Office of Banking and Financial Institutions (BI0):

To accommodate an increase in workload and the hiring of 6

FTEs to support the agency’s initiative to strengthen and enforce the District’s Banking Laws ............................................. 316,471
58

The Local budget of authority funding, including 5 FTEs were

transferred to Other Funds resulting in no Local budget authority for the Office of Banking and Financial Institutions .............................................................................................. 900,000

Total ......................................................................................... 1,216,471

Grand Total Economic Development and Regulation ........... 25,146,178

Metropolitan Police Department (FA0):

The agency will receive funding for the Photo Red Light contract and the implementation of a Cadet Program .................. 2,900,000

The agency will implement a Cadet Program to expand the

pool of local recruits for MPD .................................................... 1,400,000

During fiscal year 2001, the MPD will receive the Universal

Hiring Grant—Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS), a federal grant, which funds 200 additional MPD officers and requires the District to provide a local match ........ 5,000,000

The District will implement an E–911 service fee to partially

offset the cost of providing E–911 service in the District ........ 3,900,000

Total ......................................................................................... 13,200,000

Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FB0):

During fiscal year 2001, the agency will reinstate Fire Battalion Chief Aides (33 FTEs) ...................................................... 1,163,000

Additionally, the agency will add a fifth person (88 FTEs) on

ladder truck companies .............................................................. 3,200,000

The agency is funded for additional debt service costs associated with the large number of replacement fire apparatus

procured and delivered in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year

2001. The agency has been targeted to receive an additional

$1,293,000 from funds pending certification for these obligations. These additional funds are for the Administrative Division. The Chief Financial Officer will make these funds

available upon certification for the District of Columbia ........ 1,293,000

Total ......................................................................................... 5,656,000

District of Columbia National Guard (FK0): Beginning in fiscal

year 2001, the agency budget reflects an increase from the transfer of 13 FTEs and corresponding funding from the Department

of Defense to federal funds within the District’s budget for Facility Operations Maintenance Assistance (FOMA) positions ............ 506,275

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (FX0): Beginning in fiscal

year 2001, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is reflected

as an independent agency. This agency was formerly part of the

Department of Health. There are no programmatic changes, only

an organizational location change .................................................... 1,216,471

Grand Total Public Safety and Justice ..................................... 20,578,746

District of Columbia Public Schools (GA0):

The proposed federal grant budget increases over the fiscal

year 2000 approved budget for:

(a) Class Size Reduction ......................................................... 5,623,076

(b) Impact Aid .......................................................................... 397,529

(c) 21st Century Community Learning Centers ................... 1,788,094

(d) Refugee Children School Impact ...................................... 249,849

(e) Advanced Placement Fee Payment Program ................... 181,275

(f) Teachers and Personnel Grants ........................................ 238,022

(g) Emotionally Disturbed ...................................................... 835,476

(h) Development and Implementation grants ....................... 142,889

(i) Training for All Teachers grants ....................................... 157,867

(j) Other grants and unspecified grants ................................ 5,662,870
59

(k) Increase in projected Medicaid reimbursements for

transportation of special education students ..................... ..........................

Uniform Per Pupil funding formula increase ............................... 27,872,449

Award from Bell Atlantic to wire schools for internet services .............................................................................................. 1,389,531

Food services transfer federal grant from the U.S. Department

of Agriculture .............................................................................. 31,014,553

The agency is targeted to receive additional funds for Special

Education non-public tuition payments. The Chief Financial

Officer will make these funds available upon certification for

the District of Columbia ............................................................. 12,079,000

Total ......................................................................................... 87,632,480

State Education Office (GD0): Fiscal year 2001 is the first year of

operation of the State Education Office (SEO). Its operating

budget accommodates start-up costs and one-time expenditures.

A plan, which will be developed in fiscal year 2001 by the State

Education Officer, will guide the transfer of those state functions

and other duties designated from transfer to the SEO ................... 1,679,000

Public Charter Schools (GC0): The increase consists of accommodation of the fiscal year 2000 audited enrollment numbers and forecasted enrollment for the expansion of existing public charter

schools (PCS) and projected enrollment for newly established

PCS. The two chartering authorities have granted provisional approval for eight (8) new charters in fiscal year 2001 (school year

2000–2001) .......................................................................................... 77,115,217

University of the District of Columbia (GF0):

Expansion of The Saturday Academy, a pre-college program

designed to increase the number of minority students enrolling in college in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology disciplines ........................................................................ 442,000

A programmatic increase for the Excel-Adult Education Program is a collaboration between the Excel Automotive Training Program and the University’s School of Engineering, to

provide a mechanism for the upward transition of Excel participants into accredited college level course work and degree

programs ...................................................................................... 1,069,000

A programmatic increase targeted towards: funds for additional faculty, equipment, and educational resource materials for the Teacher Education and Speech and Language

Pathology programs; and a feasibility study on the establishment of a University satellite facility in the East of the River

section of the District of Columbia ............................................ 1,129,000

Total ......................................................................................... 2,640,000

District of Columbia Public Library (CE0):

Minor repairs for 8 of the 26 library branches; meet costs associated with the Homework Helpers program; and expansion

of the Reach Out And Read (ROAR) program .......................... 555,496

Purchase more books for branch libraries. The proposed fiscal

year 2001 budget would expand the ROAR program, which

currently provides literacy-building services to young children in family childcare homes, to include additional

childcare facilities, schools, homeless shelters, and other social services providers ................................................................. 476,504
60

The agency is targeted to receive additional from funds pending certification for the Humanities Council at the Libraries

and to purchase more books for branch libraries. The Chief

Financial Officer will make these funds available upon certification for the District of Columbia ....................................... 400,000

Total ......................................................................................... 1,432,000

Commission on the Arts and Humanities (BX0): The agency is targeted to receive additional funds pending certification for the

Arts in Education Program for Youth. The Chief Financial Officer will make these funds available upon certification for the District of Columbia ................................................................................ 120,000

Grand Total Public Education System ...................................... 170,618,697

Department of Health (HC0):

The agency is targeted to receive the funding for additional

health inspectors and Storm Water Permit compliance from

funds pending certification. The Chief Financial Officer will

make these funds available upon certification for the District

of Columbia:

(a) Additional Health inspectors in Environmental Health

Administration to conduct environmental, food, health,

and safety inspections ......................................................... 1,000,000

(b) Storm Water Permit. This allows the agency to comply

with federal law and enforce the storm water permit certified on January 6, 2000. Non-compliance with this activity would be in violation of the Clean Water Act. Violation of this act, according to the agency will result in

fines of up to $50,000 a day ................................................ 1,000,000

Acceleration of the program to determine the Total Daily Maximum Load (TDML) for various pollutants within the District’s rivers. Two field biologists, two laboratory chemists,

and equipment necessary to perform this function will be

hired. DOH will complete this analysis for D.C. water bodies

by fiscal year 2005 rather than fiscal year 2011 based on the

current schedule .......................................................................... 900,000

Total ......................................................................................... 2,900,000

Department of Parks and Recreation (HA0):

To expand the hours of operation, provide more programs to a

diverse population, and enhance and improve the maintenance of parks and facilities ...................................................... 2,335,050

The agency is targeted to receive 23 FTEs from funds pending

certification, to expand the hours of operation at its recreation facilities. The Chief Financial Officer will make these

funds available upon certification for the District of Columbia ................................................................................................. 1,511,000

Total ......................................................................................... 3,846,050

D.C. Office on Agina (BY0):

Increase to provide Stipends for Senior Citizens Employment

Program. This program will provide senior citizens a stipend

to serve in part-time positions throughout the District. It is

also assumes that the seniors would be placed in the Offices

of the Mayor, City Administrator, Superior Court, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, and any other

office where their talent, skills, and interests are used in a

meaningful way ........................................................................... 100,000

Home Care Services for Senior Citizens to help senior citizens

stay in their homes with assistance from homemakers, visiting nurses, and aides, to include support for 60 residents

with Alzheimer’s disease who continue to live alone ............... 350,000
61

Comprehensive Wellness program for Senior Citizens to prevent chronic debilitating diseases that affect the aging population. It is anticipated that 500 seniors will benefit from

this program further. The program will require 10 FTEs in

the areas of wellness, nutrition, counseling, physical fitness

and other major wellness programs .......................................... 300,000

The agency is targeted to receive funds pending certification to

fund the Caregiver Support Institute to link seniors with information and education. The Chief Financial Officer will

make these funds available upon certification for the District

of Columbia ................................................................................. 574,000

Total ......................................................................................... 1,224,000

Public Benefit Corporation Subsidy (JC0): The proposed budget includes an increase to fund the D.C. Public Schools Health Program to be derived from <$874,000> in savings from efficiencies

in operations. This program provides nursing services at selected

D.C. Public School sites for students in need of medical services ..................................................................................................... 1,100,000

Office of Human Rights (HM0): To hire additional human rights investigators. In fiscal year 2001, significant improvements will be

made in the Mediation Program to further reduce pending litigation caseload providing more speedy relief to victims of illegal

discrimination. The agency will continue its partnership with the

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) to further enhance the operation of the office. Additionally, the agency will enter into a new partnership with the

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) to better address and combat illegal housing discrimination ...................................................................................................... 300,000

Office on Latino Affairs (BZ0):

For the Latino Community Education Program .......................... 1,000,000
62

For the Latin America Youth Center ............................................ 500,000

The Chief Financial Officer will make these funds available

upon certification for the District of Columbia ......................... 1,500,000

Brownfield Remediation (BR0): A federal payment is earmarked for

the assessment and remediation of Poplar Point in Southeast

Washington, D.C. The District of Columbia Brownfields Program

(D.C.BFP) will administer Brownfield Remediation within the

Department of Health (DOH). D.C.BFP activities include collecting environmental, tax, and title information on potential

sites to develop a marketable database of Brownfield sites ........... 10,000,000

Children and Youth Investment Fund (JY0): The entire amount

will be transferred to the Children and Youth Investment Trust

Corporation, which will then disburse funds to community-based

organizations that provide services to children, youth, and their

families. The budget does not include any funds for personal

services or administrative overhead, and it includes no FTEs.

The Chief Financial Officer will make these funds available upon

certification for the District of Columbia ......................................... 10,000,000

Grand Total Human Support Services ...................................... 30,870,050

Department of Public Works (KA0):

Neighborhood Cleaning Program. This program will allow the

Department of Public Works to increase street and alley

cleaning and to provide new equipment. Much of the equipment at the Department is at the end of its useful life, which

results in constant repairs and consequent scheduling problems. The agency states that through this program (1) Alternative Side of the Street sweeping schedules will be met on

a routine basis and (2) Alley cleaning would become more

frequent and predictable. The agency predicts that although

the total cost of the District’s street and alley cleaning program would rise, unit costs would decrease dramatically due

to increased efficiencies and productivity. The agency also

states that with more frequent and comprehensive service

provided, alleys would be cleaned three times more often ...... 1,409,049

Anti-graffiti Program. This program will provide the District

with a viable graffiti program. Graffiti has become an increasingly visible problem. Not only is graffiti unsightly, but

it reduces property values, discourages economic development and often is a precursor to crime and further neighborhood decline ................................................................................. 600,000

Solid Waste Transfer Site Selection Advisory Panel. This is

will allow the panel to complete its work in the selection of

a new trash transfer site that will be environmentally safe

for the surrounding community ................................................. 100,000

Tree Trimming. This program will enhance the city’s capacity

to maintain its trees. This funding will allow for the trimming of 5,000 additional trees ................................................... 1,000,000
63

The agency is targeted to receive funds pending certification

for the Neighborhood Cleaning program. The purpose of this

program will provide for significant additional improvements

in neighborhood cleanliness. The Chief Financial Officer will

make these funds available upon certification for the District

of Columbia ................................................................................. 1,500,000

Total ......................................................................................... 4,609,049

Department of Motor Vehicles (KV0):

The local budget to supports the agency initiative to reduce

wait time for adjudication and registration and to expand access to services at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

In fiscal year 2001, DMV is proposing a realignment to improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations within the

agency and improve service to District residents ..................... 1,176,000

The agency is targeted to receive funds pending certification to

further reduce wait time at the two inspection stations. The

Chief Financial Officer will make these funds available upon

certification for the District of Columbia .................................. 1,000,000

Total ......................................................................................... 2,176,000

D.C. Taxicab Commission (TC0): The agency is targeted to receive

funds pending certification for establishing a revolving fund to

provide loans to taxicab drivers for security installation. The

Chief Financial Officer will make these funds available upon certification for the District of Columbia .............................................. 1,550,000

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Author (KE0):

An increase to fund the opening of the Green Line in Southeast D.C. along with restoration of several bus lines within

the District .................................................................................. 1,441,000

An increase for the implementation of Metrorail’s late night

closing at 2 a.m. on the weekends ............................................. 1,100,000

Total ......................................................................................... 2,541,000

Grand Total Public Works ...................................................... 10,876,049.

Question. How many uniformed police officers does the District of Columbia employ?

Answer. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has a fiscal year 2001 authorized strength of 3,800 officers. On June 8, 2000, the MPD’s on-board strength

is 3,590 police officers.

Question. Of this number, how many are assigned to patrolling the District’s

streets and neighborhoods?

Answer. Of that number there are 2,481 officers involved in District Operations

as well as 669 involved in citywide anti-crime measures. In addition there are 190

police recruits in the Academy (attached is the complete staffing level assignment).

Question. Has the District taken steps to establish a business improvement district in the area of the proposed new Metro station at the intersections of New York

and Florida Avenues, Northeast?

Answer. Businesses in the area of the proposed new Metro station intend to create

a Business Improvement District (BID) by the completion of the project in 2004.

When businesses submit a BID proposal, the District will promulgate legislation to

establish the BID.

Question. Please explain to the Subcommittee the source of private funds that will

constitute a one-third financial Contribution towards the total anticipated costs of

this project.

Answer. The District is awaiting receipt of its consultant’s economic impact study

before negotiating the final terms (including the amount and structure) of the private contribution to the project. The District expects to complete these negotiations

by Friday, June 30, 2000.

Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a detailed total project cost

breakdown for the proposed New York Avenue Metro station.

Answer. The total for the proposed New York Avenue Metro station is

$84,000,000. The cost breakdown is as follows:
64

Preliminary Engineering ................................................................................. $3,000,000

Real Estate ....................................................................................................... 4,000,000

Utilities ............................................................................................................. 1,250,000

Systemwide ...................................................................................................... 19,000,000

Fare Collection Equipment ............................................................................. 2,750,000

Design/Construction ........................................................................................ 37,000,000

WMATA Proj. Management ............................................................................ 7,500,000

Subtotal ................................................................................................. 74,500,000

Insurance (8 percent) ...................................................................................... 4,800,000

Contingency (7 percent) .................................................................................. 4,700,000

Total Expenditures ............................................................................... 84,000,000

Question. The Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia,

Public Law 106–113, contained $5,000,000 in Federal funding for the District to develop a program for adoption incentives for foster children. Please provide a complete accounting on the use of these funds. Please provide a detailed project description for the adoption incentives program developed by the District with the funds

Congress appropriated.

Answer. The Mayor submitted a plan (attached) to the City Council that targeted

four areas of adoption incentives. The Mayor’s plan would:

(1) Create a flexible fund to support adoptions of siblings and other hard to place

children that would include home renovations to accommodate wheelchair access

and other special needs

(2) Create an adoption resource center and post-adoption services to provide ongoing support and education for new foster parents.

(3) Provide funds to enhance the current Children and Family Services Administration recruitment efforts.

(4) Establish a scholarship fund to support transition to independence for adopted

teens for high school as well as post-secondary education. The Council has chosen to split the money and spend $3 million on provisions in

the Mayor’s plan and $2 million on a voucher program to pay lawyers and conduct

home studies.

Question. The District’s fiscal year 2000 approved budget included $7,000,000 in

management reform productivity savings, and the fiscal year 2001 budget includes

a projected $37,000,000 in productivity savings for fiscal year 2001. Please provide

a complete accounting, including project and program descriptions, and the associated savings of each for the $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 savings. Answer. We have already saved approximately $1.0 million as a result of an audit

of unused telephone lines and unnecessary service options this year. We project

achieving additional productivity savings by recouping Medicaid reimbursements

that the D.C. Public Schools Special Education division has historically failed to

pursue and through better management of disability claims throughout District government agencies. Further savings will come from cell phone account management,

energy savings and one-time revenue from vehicles identified for disposition in the

District-wide Fleet Management initiative launched in June 2000.

Question. The District’s s fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act included an appro- priation of $18,000,000 in Control Board interest funds for the District to use for

managed competition. Please provide the Subcommittee with a detailed accounting

of how these funds have been spent. Answer. The appropriation totaling $18,000,000 has not been expended to date.

The funds will cover retirement incentive payments to those District employees who

elect to retire under this retirement incentive program by July 14, 2000.

Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a detailed breakdown of any and

all severance payments, by position, paid to District employees pursuant to Section

157 of the Fiscal Year 2000 D.C. Appropriations Act.

Answer. The breakdown of severance payments paid to District employees pursuant to Section 157 will be available after July 14, 2000. The breakdown will be provided to the Subcommittee soon thereafter.

Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the managed competition plan agreed to by the Mayor and District Council pursuant to Section 157.

Answer. The managed competition plan is currently being negotiated with collective bargaining unit representatives. This plan will be submitted to the Subcommittee upon its execution.

Question. The District’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2001 itemizes $10,000,000

in operational improvement savings. Please provide the Subcommittee with a list of

any and all programs you have identified for operational improvement savings,

along with the amounts of operational improvement savings anticipated for each.
65

Please provide a complete projected accounting of the $37,000,000 anticipated management reform productivity savings for fiscal year 2001.

Answer. The Williams Administration is committed to making the District government more efficient. To that end, we have taken steps to ensure that savings targets

projected for fiscal year 2001 are both realized and recurring. The Office of the City

Administrator is developing a plan to track and secure the $47 million in productivity savings projected for fiscal year 2001 so savings will begin to be captured at

the outset of the fiscal year. The largest source of these savings will be a workforce

reduction of up to 1,000 employees through the elimination of long-standing funded

vacancies and attrition through regular and early retirement during fiscal year

2000. While there will be expenses associated with achieving these workforce reductions during fiscal year 2000, the projected fiscal year 2001 savings are up to $37

million. Additional areas targeted for savings include better management of disability claims; additional Medicaid reimbursements the District has historically

failed to pursue; eliminating unused telephone lines and extra service options on active lines; and cellphone account management.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, June 6, 2000.

Hon. LINDA CROPP,

Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN CROPP: I request that Title XXXVIII of the Fiscal Year 2001

Budget Support Act of 2000 (Bill 13–679) be amended to reflect the recommendations made by the Mayor’s Advisory Council on Permanent Homes for Children.

Congress, through the Appropriations Act of 2000, authorized a federal payment for

incentives for the adoption of children in the District of Columbia. The Act provides

for a one-time payment of $5 million to support this objective. The recommendations, which I support were made by the Mayor’s Advisory Council on Permanent

Homes for Children in consultation with numerous adoption advocacy groups

throughout the District. The amendment being moved by Council Member Allen this

morning at the Legislative Meeting reflects these recommendations. A copy of the

recommendations is enclosed.

Sincerely,

ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,

Mayor.

FEBRUARY 24, 2000.

Hon. ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Mayor of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.

DEAR MAYOR WILLIAMS: Enclosed for your review and approval is a proposal for

the use of federal adoption incentive funds for the District of Columbia that has

been developed at your request by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent

Homes for Children.

BACKGROUND

As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the Congress authorized

a federal payment for incentives for adoption of children in the District of Columbia.

As outlined in the conference report: —The Act authorizes a one-time federal payment of $5 million to create incentives

to promote adoption. —Funds under this authorization must be used by September 30, 2001. —A program must be established by the Mayor and the District Council and approved by the Appropriations Committees of House and Senate. —The funds may be used for tax credits to offset costs incurred by individuals

in adopting (requires legislation). —The funds may be used to provide for health care needs of such children (requires legislation).

At its December meeting, the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes

for Children established a subcommittee composed of Toni Oliver, Judith Meltzer,

Mae Best, Phyllis Langston, Gwen Menefee and Liz Siegel and asked them to propose a plan for use of the federal funds.

The Committee has gathered ideas on adoption needs and resources from others

in the community; reviewed ideas for adoption incentives from other jurisdictions,

and researched the feasibility and costs of proposals that surfaced. A draft plan was

shared with the full Advisory Committee in early January and comments and sug-
66

gestions for change were solicited. The Committee reviewed all written and verbal

comments and revised the plan accordingly.

PROPOSAL SUMMARY

As a result of this work, the Committee is proposing that the federal adoption

funds be focused on the overarching goal of providing loving and permanent homes

for the District’s children in the District of Columbia. The overall plan for the incentive funds is targeted toward five measurable outcomes:

Outcome 1.—Increase the number of families in the District of Columbia who are

willing and able to adopt children currently in the District’s foster care system.

Outcome 2.—Decrease the disruption rate for adoptions of children with special

physical or emotional needs.

Outcome 3.—Increase the rate of adoption of teens in foster care whose permanency plan is adoption.

Outcome 4.—Increase the rate of adoption for sibling groups in foster care whose

permanency plan is adoption.

Outcome 5.—Achieve compliance with the outcomes for permanency for children

specified by the federal government under the Adoption and Safe Families Act

(ASFA).

The proposal which follows includes four interrelated initiatives that together

total $5 million to be spent between now and September 30, 2001. The majority of

funds would be contracted out to private organizations to conduct the work. The

four initiatives include:

1. Creation of a Flexible Fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other

hard to place children.

2. Establishment of a Scholarship Fund to support transition to independence for

adopted teens.

3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services Capacity.

4. Enhancement of recruitment and support of District foster and adoptive

familities.

A fuller description of each of the proposed initiatives and estimated costs based

on two years of implementation is presented in the attached proposal.

PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE PLAN

The Committee proposes that overall management of the initiative will be the responsibility of the Deputy Mayor for Children’s Services but that day to day coordination and implementation of the adoption incentive initiatives be assigned to the

Child and Family Services Administration which is the agency responsible under

District law for the work associated with providing permanent homes for children

who are in the custody of the District of Columbia because of parental abuse or neglect. Several of the initiatives would involve one or more contracts with private organizations to carry out the work. CFSA would be accountable to the Deputy Mayor

for Children and Families for reporting, evaluation and fiscal accountability on each

initiative. General oversight of the Adoptive Incentive Plan would also be provided

by a standing subcommittee of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent

Homes for Children. Regular reports would be made to the Committee on progress

in meeting measurable objectives. In addition, the plan includes a provision for a

small amount of funds to be set-aside for an external evaluation of the effectiveness

of the proposed adoption incentive initiatives. A contract would be let with an independent external evaluator to design and conduct necessary data collection and evaluative studies under the direction of the Mayor’s Committee and/or the Deputy

Mayor for Children’s Services.

NEXT STEPS

Under the terms of the authorizing legislation, the plan for the use of these funds

must be approved by the Mayor and the District Council and then approved by the

Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate. We are hopeful that you

will approve the proposed plan and take the lead in forwarding it to the District

Council for their approval. Members of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee would be

glad to assist your staff in making any necessary presentations on the proposals in

order to secure Council approval.

Once District Council approval is obtained, the Advisory Committee would again

be willing to work with you and your staff in presenting the plans to the Congressional Appropriations Committees in hopes that their quick approval can be obtained.
67

On behalf of the Mayor’s Committee, we hope that the work necessary to translate

this proposal to reality can occur expeditiously. There are far too many waiting children in the District of Columbia. We stand ready to assist you in any way possible.

Sincerely,

MAE BEST, PHYLLIS LANGSTON, GWENDOLYN MENEFEEE, JUDITH MELTZER, TONI OLIVER, ELIZABETH SIEGEL,

Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan.

PROPOSAL TO THE MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PERMANENT HOMES FOR

CHILDREN ON A PLAN FOR USE OF THE FEDERAL ADOPTION INCENTIVES FUNDS

BACKGROUND

As part of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the Congress authorized

a federal payment for incentives for adoption of children in the District of Columbia.

As outlined in the conference report: —The Act authorizes a federal payment for $5 million to create incentives to promote adoption. —Funds under this authorization must be used by September 30, 2001. —A program must be established by the Mayor and the District Council and approved by the Appropriations Committees of House and Senate. —The funds may be used for tax credits to offset costs incurred by individuals

in adopting (requires legislation). —The funds may be used to provide for health care needs of such children (requires legislation).

At its December meeting, the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes

for Children established a subcommittee composed of Toni Oliver, Judith Meltzer,

Mae Best, Phyllis Langston, Gwen Menefee and Liz Siegel and asked them to propose a plan for use of the federal funds.

The Committee has met three times in the last month to brainstorm ideas, review

ideas for adoption incentives from other jurisdictions and gather information on

adoption needs and resources from others in the community.

After considerable work and refinement, the Committee is proposing that the pro- gram for use of the funds include four initiatives that together total $5 million to

be spent between now and September 30, 2001. The four initiatives include:

1. Creation of a Flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other

hard to place children.

2. Establishment of a Scholarship fund to support transition to independence for

adopted teens.

3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services Capacity

4. Enhancement of CFSA Recruitment and Support of District Foster and Adoptive Families

Each of the proposed initiatives and estimated costs based on two years of implementation is presented below.

PROPOSED PLAN

1. Creation of a Flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other hard

to place children

Problem addressed.—Many parents who would be willing and are capable of becoming adopted parents are discouraged from doing so because of their inability to

meet certain requirements related to physical space, conditions in their home, or the

need for accommodations or special equipment for children with handicaps or large

sibling groups. Access to a funding source for some of these needs would provide

a significant incentive toward adoption.

Proposal.—A flexible fund would be established which could be accessed by families interested in adoption in order to provide needed funding and/or resources for

a range of activities/items necessary to become an adoptive parent. The kinds of

things eligible for reimbursement/payment through this fund would include:

—home renovations to accommodate wheelchairs or other special needs of children;

—assistance in lead paint abatement when the presence of lead paint is an obstacle to approval of the adoptive home;
68

—assistance in paying the cost of FBI fingerprinting necessary for approval as an

adoptive parent;

—equipment to care for disabled children (e.g., beds, durable medical, equipment

(and specialized items not covered by other public programs);

—assistance to needy families who have uncovered costs related to mental health

care for children with special needs. Funds would be administered only to families with demonstrated financial need according to a sliding scale;

—purchase of a wheelchair equipped van to enable adoptive parent(s) to accept

children with physical handicaps;

—assistance with home renovations, down payments or purchase of homes to

allow families to adopt large sibling groups. Consideration will be given to purchase of homes for sibling groups of five or more;

—assistance with miscellaneous expenses in accordance with a plan approved by

the agency to promote the ability and willingness of parents to adopt children

with special needs or large sibling groups;

—other approved expenses to promote adoption for which no other funding source

exists.

Estimated Cost.—$1.5 million ($750,000 per year for 2 years).

2. Establishment of a Scholarship fund to support transition to independence for

adopted teens

Problem.—One of the major barriers to adoption of school age and teenage children is the lack of resources for adoptive parents to support education and training

of children as a transition to independence.

Proposal.—A scholarship fund would be established which could be accessed by

adoptive families for post high school education and training for their adopted children. Upon presentation of documentation of acceptance at a Junior College, university or postsecondary occupational or training school, adoptive families would be eligible to receive a scholarship of up to $8,000 per year for a high school graduate

going to college and up to $3,000 per year for high school graduates entering postsecondary training. This fund could be established by placing an earmarked amount

per child in an interest earning account at the time of the child’s adoption. The

scholarship fund would be administered through a private non-profit organization.

Estimated Cost.—The fund would be established initially with $1.6 million in an

interest bearing account. Cost assumptions are based on granting up to 130 scholarships per year for two years. Interest generated by the fund and additional fund

raising would occur to stabilize the fund for the future.

3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center(s) and Post-Adoption Services Capacity

Problem.—One barrier to adoption is the fear of prospective adoptive parents that

they will not be supported when and if problems arise. Experience around the country has shown that the development of adequate post-adoption support resources is

a significant incentive to adoption.

Proposal.—Funds would be used to establish a private Adoptive Family Resource

Support Center in the District of Columbia to provide ongoing information, education and support to adoptive families. Some of the activities to be carried out by

the resource center will include: operation of a hot line for questions, information

and referral; development and dissemination of and information and referral directory of services and supports in the metropolitan area; creation and operation of a

resource lending library for adoptive parents and children; conduct of training programs developed in concert with adoptive parents to meet their needs; development

and assistance to adoptive parent support groups, etc., and therapeutic services related to adoption. The Support Center would also have funds to provide scholarships

for adoptive children and families to participate in training provided by national or

regional support groups or associations.

The Committee proposes that an RFP be developed outlining the Adoption Resource and Support activities that are desired and that an organization be funded

to develop those activities for the District, either by creating a single resource center

or by developing and coordinating programming that could be made available

through neighborhood family support centers proposed in the Mayor’s Safe Passages

initiative.

As an adjunct to the Support Center(s), it is also proposed that a small portion

of the funds be allocated to CFSA to enhance their post-adoption services capacity

and to enable their staff to link families with the Resource Center and other adoptive support opportunities (e.g., family conferences, training, etc.).

Estimated Cost.—$1 million (Resource Center $775,000 for 2 years and $225,000

for CFSA post-adoption support activities for families).
69

4. Enhancement of CFSA Recruitment and Support of Foster and Adoptive Families

Problem.—The majority of adoptive families begin as foster parents. Expanding

the pool of adoptive families means expanding the recruitment and support of foster

parents as well as doing more community and neighborhood recruitment of adoptive

families. CFSA has been hampered in its efforts to expand its recruitment and support activities by a lack of funds to support the staff who are doing recruitment and

to enable CFSA to use foster and adoptive parents as team members in the recruitment process.

Proposal.—Part of the incentive plan involves providing funds to support critical

staff enhancements and activities within the Adoptions Unit of CFSA. Funds would

be made available to provide for additional CFSA capacity to expand after hour’s

recruitment activities and to make it possible for foster and adoptive parents to

serve as co-leaders in training. As part of the enhanced recruitment effort, incentive

funds would be used to pay for:

—adoptive parents to serve as co-leaders in pre-service training;

—food for parents attending training sessions;

—child care for adoptive parents attending training sessions;

—inviting furnishings and decorations for the rooms where adoptive parent training is held;

—additional supplies for adoptive home recruitment including a video recorder

and cameras, printing of brochures, displays for literature and banners for use

at recruitment events and an equipped mobile van which can be taken to a wide

range of community events to promote becoming foster and adoptive parents;

—the preparation of Life Books for all adoptive children;

—transportation funds for visitation between prospective adoptive families and

children when interstate adoptions are planned;

—expenses associated with participation in adoption exchanges.

Estimated Cost.—$900,000 ($450,000 per year).

MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF ADOPTION INCENTIVE PLAN

The sub-committee proposes that oversight responsibility for the Adoption Incentives Plan be placed in the Mayor’s Office and that the Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children play an ongoing role in accountability, assessing the effectiveness of the proposed initiatives once implemented. The Mayor’s Office would

assign responsibility for day-to-day implementation of the programs to appropriate

District agencies, most likely CFSA, with requirements for reporting, evaluation and

fiscal accountability.

Efforts would begin simultaneously to seek private and other funding to sustain

successful initiatives beyond the two years of this federal funding opportunity.

NEXT STEPS AND PROPOSED TIME FRAMES

Presentation of Draft to Committee—January 6, 2000

Comments back to Committee—January 14, 2000

Revised Proposal to Mayor—January 21, 2000

Final Plan to Mayor’s Committee on Permanent Homes for Children—February

3, 2000

Mayor Transmits Plan to District Council for approval—February 14, 2000

Mayor and Council jointly transmit approved District Plan to Congress for approval—February 28, 2000

Implementation Begins—April 1, 2000

AMENDMENT TO THE BILL 13–679, THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT OF 2000

Sec. 1. Change the name of title XXXVIII to the ‘‘Approval of Adoption Incentives

Plan of 2000.’’

Sec. 2. Delete sections 3801 through 3808.

Sec. 3. Insert the following:

Sec. 3801. This title may be cited as the ‘‘Approval of Adoption Incentives Plan

of 2000.’’

Sec. 3802. The Council hereby approves the Proposal to the Mayor’s Advisory

Committee on Permanent Homes for Children on a Plan for Use of the Federal

Adoption Incentives Funds.

Sec. 3803. The Proposal includes four initiatives:

1. Creation of a flexible fund to support adoptions of sibling groups and other

hard to place children.
70

2. Establishment of a scholarship fund to support transition to independence

for adopted teens.

3. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center and post-adoption services capacity.

4. Enhancement of CFSA recruitment and support of District foster and adoptive families.

AMENDMENT 2

IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DATE: June 6, 2000

Amendment offered by Councilmember Sandra C. Allen

To: Bill No 13–679

Version:

Introduced .......................................................................................................

Committee Print .............................................................................................

First Reading ..................................................................................................

Amended First Reading .................................................................................

Engrossed ........................................................................................................ X

Enrolled ...........................................................................................................

Unidentified ....................................................................................................

Title XXXVIII Page 132

Line 17—Add Section 3803.1 This section may be cited as the ‘‘Approval of Adoption Incentives Plan of 2000.’’ Add section 3803.1 ‘‘The Council hereby approves the proposal of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children plan for use of $3 million of

the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2000 to fund the Adoption Incentives

Plan of 2000. At least half of this $3 million shall be used to establish an Adoption

Assistance Fund to provide needed funding for a range of items including, but not

limited to, assistance with home renovations, down payments or purchase of homes

to allow parents to adopt large sibling groups or special needs children, assistance

in lead paint abatement when the presence of lead paint is an obstacle to approval

of the adoptive home, and assistance to needy families who have uncovered costs

related to mental health care for children with special needs. The remainder of

these funds shall be used to fund the following three initiatives:

1. Establishment of a scholarship fund to support transition to independence for

adopted teens.

2. Creation of an Adoption Resource Center and post-adoption services capacity.

3. Enhancement of CFSA recruitment and support of District foster and adoptive

families.

Rationale: This amendment will allow $3 million of the $5 million appropriated

to the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2000 to fund the proposal of the

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Permanent Homes for Children to use the Federal Adoption Incentives Funds. $2 million will also be available to fund the ‘‘Adoption

Voucher Fund Act of 2000.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. I would appreciate hearing your reaction to the Casey Foundation findings and how your ‘‘Safe Passages’’ agenda and proposed spending plan for children,

youth, and families and health would help to address the specific needs reflected

in the report findings.

Answer. From the beginning of the Williams administration, children have been

a top priority. Mayor Williams’ Safe Passages Initiative represents the administration’s primary vehicle for tackling the negative outcomes that impact the quality of

life, safety, health, and wellbeing of children in the District. Safe Passages has five

main goals:

1. All children are ready to learn.

2. All children are succeeding in school.

3. All youth are developed into productive adults.

4. All children and their families are healthy.

5. Youth and youth violence is reduced, particularly in school settings.

In the past year, we have experienced significant declines in the areas of infant

mortality and teen birth rates, the latter of which has earned the District a federal

bonus of $20 million for its efforts at lowering births to teens. Still, much remains

to be done to tackle many of the seemingly intractable issues that beset children

and youth in the District.
71

The Williams administrative has implemented strategic initiatives to support each

of the Safe Passages goals. To support Goal 1, more than 30 percent of our TANF

funding is devoted to providing age-appropriate child development opportunities for

infants, toddlers and school children. For Goal 2, the administration provided full

funding to DCPS schools in order to improve educational opportunities for District

schoolchildren. Goal 3, targets the positive development of our young people, and

the administration has launched its largest Summer Youth Employment program to

date, and expanded career internships and year-round job opportunities for eligible

students. Goal 4 seeks to ensure that all children and their families are healthy,

and the administration has worked aggressively to expand health coverage for children and expectant mothers. Goal 5, targeting youth on youth violence, has led to

the development of a Juvenile Justice Commission to advise the Mayor on policy options and best practices for continuing to decrease the rate of juvenile crime, while

exploring the most effective options for ensuring accountability with a focus on prevention and rehabilitation.

Additionally, the Mayor developed the Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, a public-private non-profit organization, designed to provide financial support for community-based programs providing out-of-school time programs for children and youth in the District. First year funding for the Trust Corporation totaled

$12 million.

Question. What has been accomplished in the last year to improve the quality

managers in District agencies, especially those serving children?

Answer. The administration has implemented a government-wide performance

management system to set standards and monitor performance among agency managers. All agency directors, senior agency staff, and Executive Office of the Mayor

Excepted Service personnel are required to develop and adhere to individual performance plans that govern performance and evaluation. Furthermore, the Management Support Services (MSS) program has been implemented that transfers former

non-union career service managers into the MSS system thus making them ‘at will’ employees. The MSS program provides for salary enhancements to former career

service managers in exchange for their agreement to enter into performance contracts with clearly defined goals and evaluation standards. These efforts impact all

government agencies, including managers in the human service agencies.

Question. Child and family services (including foster care) and mental health are

in receivership and beyond your direct control. Are you prepared to take on the

management challenges of these agencies?

Answer. The operations of both the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) and

the Commission on Mental Health Services (CMHS) are in federal court imposed receivership. The District of Columbia will be prepared to assume control over the operations of both agencies during the transition process back to our government. Pursuant to court order, the first agency to transition back to our control is the Commission on Mental Health Services. We are currently working collaboratively with

the Transitional Receiver, and other key stakeholders, on comprehensive transition

planning. A manager who will work closely with all impacted agencies and members

of my executive staff is coordinating the planning and implementation. The transition planning includes a cross-agency analysis and is based on an incremental approach to the transition process. It is our expectation that this transition process

will form the template for a transition model that can be replicated, at least in part,

at the time CFSA transitions back to government control.

Question. How would you propose to improve management in District schools?

Answer. As you know, in the District a disproportionate level of funding goes to

transportation and placement of special needs students in private programs and

transportation. The city has made some strides in recent years, but we still face a

budget that is far out of line with reasonable costs and a program that leaves many

parents and students ill-served. We must do much better. A solid, thoughtful approach to this requires people on the Board who can grapple with these tough questions and look to other jurisdictions for best practices. The Board of Education must

develop precise goals and performance standards for special education reform, and

then hold the Superintendent accountable for achieving them. Clearly, one of the

profound problems is that the administrative apparatus—contracting, procurement,

personnel, and financial management—to guide the program is broken. I expect the

Board will provide sufficient oversight of these support systems, as well as proceed

with immediate programmatic improvements that will ensure that students are

well-served. Over the long term, we must continue ensuring that special needs students are placed in appropriate environments while transitioning as many students

as is feasible to programs administered by DCPS and DC charter schools.

Question. Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, and Dr. Rivlin, what is the status

of the proposal to provide authority to the Mayor to appoint school board members?
72

Answer. The referendum was held in late June and approved by the voters.

Question. How can we align authority and responsibility for District schools?

Right now it is hard to say who is responsible. Is it the Control Board? Is it the

School Board? The Council? The Mayor? Who takes credit or blame for progress or

the lack of progress? Now that Mrs. Ackerman is departing it is even more clear

that we need some continuity of responsibility. How are we going to get it?

Answer. One of the perpetual challenges for the school system has been a diffuse

accountability structure. I am confident that the new Board of Education proposal

will ameliorate the situation. Ultimate responsibility for the school system remains

with the Board of Education, which will be transformed into a policymaking body

removed from the micromanagement that created havoc in the school governance

structure. The Council still had budgetary and oversight responsibilities. The executive branch must also be a key partner, offering assistance and encouragement to

the Board and Superintendent. Indeed, a number of executive agencies provide critical support to the school system. I have instructed my whole cabinet to do whatever

they can to meet the needs of the school leadership.

Question. On April 8, the Washington Post reported that student enrollment has

declined from about 79,000 students in 1996 to 71,000 this year. During that period,

the school budget has increased from $600 million to $717 million. Next year, enrollment is projected to drop to about 658,000 while school spending under the budget

requested by D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams will increase by $100 million. Can

you explain this decline in enrollment/increase in spending phenomenon?

Answer. For several years schools were underfunded. The budget adopted for fiscal year 2001 provides no more funds than schools would receive under the ‘‘per

pupil funding formula.’’ In previous years the Mayor and Council had underfunded

schools, forcing DCPS leadership to divert funds from priority areas such as academic programs to costs associated with legal mandates for other programs, including special education. I believe that the current funding level is in-line with other

urban jurisdictions, and I will be working with the Board of Education and Superintendent to ensure that these funds result in meaningful improvements for our

children.

Question. Mayor Williams, if D.C. schools aren’t equipped to deliver the special

education services to the students needing them, when will they be? What will it

take? Is the reported $30,000 per student tuition the District of Columbia currently

spends to educate D.C. special education students in private or out of State educational settings accurate? What’s being done to reduce the costs of educating these

students outside the DCPS system? Answer. On average, I believe that this estimate of $30,000 is correct. The cost

per student for special education varies considerably depending on the child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), so sometimes this number is much more and sometimes much less.

DCPS has outlined a multi-part strategy to address this concern. First, they are

developing new programs, including a city-wide inclusion program at Hardy and

Taft Schools and new early childhood programs at 20 other schools. Second, they

have indicated that they are better monitoring non-public schools and enforcing residency verification to get non-eligible students off of the rolls. Finally, they are aggressively seeking means to reduce transportation costs.

As I suggested, these are proposed strategies and I will be looking for the Board

of Education to track how these approaches are working. I also know that our new

Superintendent is committed to needed reform and will be unveiling more aggressive strategies for reducing these costs, this fall. His office proposed, just this week,

a plan to offer parents the option of transporting their children in exchange for a

stipend, at less than what it costs the District per student. This may only be an

option for certain parents, and its viability needs to be evaluated further, but it will

at least serve as a stopgap until more sophisticated measures are developed shortly.

I will be looking to our Superintendent for leadership on this issue in the near and

the long term.

Question. Last year, Mayor Williams and Chairman Cropp, you both mentioned

the criminal justice coordinating committee. What do you each feel are the major

accomplishments of this committee over the last year?

Answer. I would list the major accomplishments as follows:

Development of CJCC team scorecards with goals and milestones in an effort to

increase accountability.

Creation of a process baselining program that defines activities and identifies the

drivers that contribute to police officer overtime in court. From these information

sources initiatives were developed to reduce the identified tasks which most contribute to excessive officer time in court. The following represent several core initiatives: 1. Metropolitan Police Department/Office of Corporation Counsel Papering Re-
73

form Project; 2. Diversion Analysis; 3. Court Scheduling/Case Processing Reforms;

4. Data Analysis of Officer Involvement in Trial Proceedings.

Creation of the Drug Team in early Spring, 2000 whose main priority is offering

drug treatment and drug testing to all persons within the justice system who are

in need. Key components include: 1. Pilot program currently in three PSAs; 2. Developed baseline of eight populations targeted (i.e. parolees, probationers, and pretrial defendants); 3. Development and supply of non-sanctions based treatment slots;

4. Implementation of performance measures for each population; 5. Began actual

drug testing in pilot area; 6. Secured and funded outside research organization to

evaluate efficacy.

Creation of the Geo-Mapping Project as a concerted effort to support the PSA program in identifying hot-spots, parolee and probationer residencies, poverty statistics,

and other relevant public safety and community initiatives. Highlights include: 1.

Supplied the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) with resources to expand and

enhance existing GIS capabilities; 2. Catalogued all geocoded data elements and

sources; 3. Developed plan for centralizing all relevant geocoded data within (MPD);

4. Procured and supplied to MPD a master index of geocoded data; 5. Produced

specs and supplied data for geomaps to support the Drug Team initiative; 6. Implemented automated data transfers from other agencies of geocoded database; 7. Established structure, missions & goals for Information Technology Activities Committee.

Creation of the Pre-Trial Services Sub-Committee in response to inadequate supervision of detainees in halfway houses and work release programs. Program goals

focus on improving the management of pre-trial offenders and minimizing risk to

the community while protecting defendants’ rights. Areas of concentration include:

Halfway Houses:

1. Secured no cost technical assistance and contractor support through the National Institute for Corrections;

2. Implemented immediate improvements in the response to abscondances;

3. Decreased time period to secure arrest warrants for ‘‘Walk-aways’’ from 7 days

to less than 24 hours;

4. Conducted an operational audit using American Correctional Association standards;

5. Reassessed halfway houses to determine continuity and effectiveness of operational reforms;

6. Development of the District-wide Escape Monitoring System.

Pre-Trial Risk Assessment Instruments:

1. Developed tools for measuring risk to the community;

2. Developed tools for measuring risk of flight for each pretrial defendant;

3. Collected risk assessment instruments from other jurisdictions;

4. Convened focus group to develop new assessment tool;

5. Target for full implementation of the Pre-Trial Risk Assessment Tool, January

2001.

Alternative Sanctions:

1. Completed preliminary research on alternative sanctions through best practices

in other jurisdictions;

2. Formed focus group to investigate and present recommendations.

Fingerprinting & positive identification

1. Identified fingerprinting as a critical issue in the reform effort;

2. Researched thirteen other jurisdictions to identify best practices;

3. Outlined needed reforms;

4. Developed adult baseline of DC fingerprinting practices;

5. Developed comparative model for fingerprinting;

6. Recommended that adult fingerprinting be expanded to eight additional

charges;

7. Analyzed juveniles separately;

8. Concluded that major characteristics of DC’s juvenile finger printing and information management are in the line with other jurisdictions.

Development and implementation of information technology activities focusing on

the ability to access and share information about offenders and their cases. The following projects and initiatives represent a first time success within the justice community in overcoming the technology integration problems that have persisted within the District for decades.

1. Established governance structure, documented a mission and goals for ITAC

and working groups;
74

2. Secured federal funding for integration project;

3. Hired information technical liaison officer;

4. Reviewed & approved web-enabled model for DC integrated justice information

system;

5. Established CJCC/ITAC internet site;

6. Identified and completed five fast track projects;

‘‘JUSTIS System’’ Program

Secured contractor support and developed and defined infrastructure vision for

the Justice Integration System (JUSTIS). JUSTIS is an Internet-based

‘‘middleware’’ solution that allows local and federal justice agencies to share data

without having to modify their existing legacy systems. Activities include(d):

1. Developed JUSTIS Access standards & procedures;

2. Secured technical oversight for the system;

3. Development of privacy and security standards;

4. Analyzed current practices over forty-five states RE: Tracking Numbers and implemented best practices;

5. Criminal History Record Information System in development.

Assisted in the development of the Youth Violence Initiative to reduce youth violence throughout the city while identifying and attacking the drivers that predispose

our youth to failure and dangerous circumstances. This is a relatively new initiative

still in development. The CJCC has been asked to play primarily a support function

within this initiative. Activities include:

1. Supported the Youth Violence Intervention Team;

2. Numerous data collection activities and projects as directed including the collection of raw data on all violent crimes in DC;

3. Support for the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Juvenile Justice by providing staff resources for best practices information, and current process baselining.

Question. Mayor Williams, in your March 6, 2000 ‘‘State of the District’’ address,

you stated that a major reason more officers are not patrolling the streets is: ‘‘Because every day, more than 500 police officers are stuck down at the courthouse,

waiting for hours—even days at a time—to testify in a hearing that may or may

not be held.’’ Is this an issue the criminal justice coordinating committee has addressed? With what outcome?

Answer. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council’s ongoing (CJCC) ‘‘Caseflow

Management’’ project has as one of its primary goals to address persistent problems

with police overtime and police time off the streets. This project has involved both

data analysis designed to understand the factors driving the problem and uncover

areas for targeted solutions and the development of concrete recommendations to reduce police overtime and time in court.

Analyses conducted included the following:

—Study of officer time spent in court. Analysis revealed that 90 percent of officer

time is related to four proceedings: (1) trial (48.6 percent); (2) papering (14.9

percent); (3) grand jury (13.0 percent); and (4) witness conferences (12.3 percent); and

—Study of current diversion programs that can reduce caseloads; and

—Study of court statistics on time between milestone events (final results to be

completed in September 2000).

System Improvements:

—Developed new process flow for papering citation cases without requiring an officer to appear for a papering interview;

—Secured buy-in for a pilot program in MPD’s Central Regional Operation Center

for a more efficient papering process; and

—Currently assessing three technology options for automated paperwork exchanges.

Other potential arenas for improvement include:

—Developed proposal for pilot community court in Ward 7 or 8;

—Completed best practices study of differentiated case management (DCM) systems across the country.

Question. Mr. Mayor, several articles ran in the press last year criticizing the

docket and scheduling management of the District Courts. The Congress provides

funding for the District Courts. Do you have any recommendations for the Congress

to urge on the courts?

Answer. We will soon be in a position to make sound, data-guided recommendations regarding case scheduling in District of Columbia Superior Court. Superior

Courts has been cooperative in working with the CJCC in providing access to data

that will help improve the court’s case management system. Recently, reports began

to be produced providing both historical and current data on case management. We
75

now have monthly reports that include: Caseloads by court calendar; Statistics on

the time between every major case processing event; Average ‘‘age’’ of pending caseloads; and Rates of continuances, dismissals, and other dispositions.

These reports will serve as invaluable management tools; careful analysis will enable us to identify process bottlenecks and areas for improvement.

Question. In your budget, you state that the District spends $8.9 million on overtime costs to pay Metropolitan Police (MPD) Officers to testify in court. You argue

that the U.S. Attorney’s Office requires officers to be present from 10:00 a.m. each

day and to stay throughout the day until they testify. You state that MPD estimates

that overtime would be cut in half if they were allowed to wear beepers and respond

when alerted. Is this an issue the criminal justice coordinating committee has addressed? Is there something Congress could do to foster greater efficiency and cost

effectiveness in MPD court testimony?

Answer. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) proposed the use of beepers as

an innovative solution to the problem of police time in court. Since that idea was

proposed MPD looked into the issue and found limitations to the solution. First,

even if an off-duty officer were allowed to wear a beeper and therefore not be

present at court until he or she was needed to testify, that individual would be entitled to receive overtime pay for the entire time he or she was on-call. Second, for

officers who are on call, having to respond to beeper calls would present significant

operational problems and potentially conflict with their enforcement duties. As stated in prior answers, MPD and the Administration are looking at other opportunities

to reduce officer time in court.

Question. When Chief Ramsey came to Washington two years ago, he found that

over 75 percent of the telephones in the D.C. Police Department were rotary? What

progress in facilities and equipment have you made over the last year and what

does the District fiscal year 2001 budget provide? Training has been a problem in

the police department. I understand that recently only 200 of the 3,800 police were

trained in sobriety testing. Has that improved? What does the proposed District

budget provide for these training programs?

Answer. When Chief Ramsey arrived in Washington, DC in 1998, he determined

that over 75 percent of the MPDC telephones were rotary-style. Presently, 100 percent of MPDC’s telephones are touch-tone.

The Impaired Driver Support Unit of the Forensic Sciences Division conducts field

sobriety testing procedures. This testing has been offered in two stages: the initial

Standard Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training, which was conducted in Calendar

Years 1999 and 2000 for 74 members; and the second stage, the Breath Test for Alcohol Training (BTAT), which includes the use of the Intoxilizer breath-testing

equipment, that was conducted for 68 members during CY 1999 and 2000. Since

1995, a total of 605 members have been trained, including 317 members for SFST

and 288 members for BTAT training. These figures are further delineated as follows

(as of August 9, 2000):

Calendar Year Number of

Classes

SFST

Trainees

BTAT

Trainees

Total

Trainees

1995 .............................................................................. 1 28 28 56

1996 .............................................................................. 8 104 105 209

1997 .............................................................................. 3 26 25 51

1998 .............................................................................. 4 85 62 147

1999 .............................................................................. 3 50 52 102

2000 .............................................................................. 1 24 16 40

Question. Last year you reported that the criminal justice coordinating committee

was targeting six drug markets in the city, starting last summer. Last year, Congress added $1 million in federal funds earmarked for this project. What are the

results of this special, targeted effort?

Answer. Metropolitan Police Department, not the Criminal Justice Coordinating

Committee (CJCC), targeted six drug markets in the city as part of its Capitol Communities program. The results of this effort are summarized below:

—In Districts Five and Seven, significant advances were made. A partnership between MPD and the community resulted in the transfer of an abandoned building used for drug activity to the community. The building was rehabilitated and

transformed into a community center. This success story was presented at a national forum at the Policing for Prevention (PFP) Conference in San Diego.

—In Districts One, Three, Four, and Six, the major strategy has been focused law

enforcement. This strategy has resulted in many arrests, trash clean ups, towed
76

abandoned cars, and boarded up abandoned houses. Initially the Capital Community areas included a two or three block area. Because of the success of focused law enforcement, the drug problems have been displaced or scattered.

This displacement required an expansion of focused law enforcement and the

Capital Community areas and surrounding blocks. The success of the Capital

Community initiatives resulted in many residents lobbying for their communities to be next to receive exposure to the Partnerships for Problem Solving

(PPS) process.

Question. Based on reports we have received, it appears that since July 1999, the

number of slots available is up 21 percent. The number of people screened is up 48

percent since July 1999. The number of people on the waiting list down 15 percent

since October 1999. There was also a 16 percent increase in the discharges of

healthy patients. Those on waiting lists now only include methadone patients. What

is the current waiting time for city-assisted indigent drug treatment in the District?

How large is the backlog? What does your proposed budget do to attack this problem?

Answer. The Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA) has increased slots from 3,055 as of July 1999 to a current census capacity of 3,154 (as

of 8/21/00). However, by the close of fiscal year 2000, it is anticipated that APRA

will increase capacity by an additional 956 (over the current 3,154 slots), thus increasing the total treatment capacity to 4,110 slots. This represents a cumulative

increase of 1,055 slots between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. This will constitute a 25.67 percent increase in slots between the two years.

6,825 patients were screened by APRA in fiscal year 1999 (as of July 1999). Between August 1999 and August 2000, the numbers of screens have increased by

8,337 additional patients. Therefore, 1,512 more patients have been screened in fiscal year 2000 as of July 2000 than were screened in fiscal year 1999 as of July 1999.

This represents an 18.14 percent increase in screenings since July 1999.

There were 481 patients on the waiting list in October 1999. There are 255 patients on the waiting list as of August 21, 2000. This represents a 46.9 percent decrease in the level of the waiting list that is only for methadone treatment. There

are no other waiting lists.

‘‘Healthy patients’’ is not a criterion in the discharge data collected by APRA. The

most comparable variable in the data collected is ‘‘completed treatment’’ and ‘‘transfer’’. There were 2,729 patients discharged in these categories in fiscal year 1999

and APRA projects that 3,111 will be discharged in these categories in fiscal year

2000 (based on current trends). The increase in ‘‘completed treatment’’ and ‘‘transfer’’ discharge categories in fiscal year 2000 over fiscal year 1999 is anticipated to

be 382 (12.28 percent) patients.

It is correct that those on the waiting list now include methadone patients. There

is a 6-month waiting time for comprehensive methadone treatment slots. There is

no waiting time for other modalities. There are 255 persons waiting for methadone

treatment. It is anticipated that this waiting list will be eliminated with the opening

of a 410-slot methadone program scheduled for the end of August 2000.

Question. Please outline and explain your goals and accomplishments for District

drug treatment and prevention programs.

Answer.

TREATMENT

Service type

Fiscal year—

1999 Accomplishments

2000 Projected accomplishments

General Treatment Goals:

Intake Screenings .............................................................................................. 8,189 9,736

Inpatient Treatment .......................................................................................... 538 582

Medical Detoxification ....................................................................................... 2,370 3,204

Outpatient/Methadone ....................................................................................... 1,417 1,910

Outpatient/Non-Methadone ............................................................................... 2,734 3,365

Accomplishments for fiscal year 1999:

Opened the 100-slot Umoja abstinence program.
77

Implemented the Interim methadone maintenance program to expand methadone

treatment capacity by 150 slots.

Increased the medical detoxification unit capacity by 15 beds.

Increased outpatient abstinence slots at the Adams Morgan Abstinence Center

(AMAC) by 100 slots.

Increased the New Risings Day Treatment program for women by 12 slots.

Increased outpatient abstinence capacity at the Shaw Abstinence Program (SAP)

by 60 slots.

Awarded a contract for 160 slots of outpatient treatment for Latinos to the Andromeda Transcultural Center.

Increased slots for outpatient capacity for Latinos through sub-grants with La

Clinica Del Pueblo (25 slots), Latin American Youth Center (50 slots) and WhitmanWalker Clinic/Office of Latino Services (30 slots).

Awarded a contract to RAP, Inc. for eighty-seven 120-day residential beds.

Increased capacity in the Supervised Living Program for women and their children by 6 slots.

Awarded a contract to Deep Run, Inc. for 24 youth residential beds.

Developed and implemented, through an MOU with the DC Jail, a 120-slot

prerelease treatment readiness and discharge planning program.

Accomplishments for fiscal year 2000:

In the process of transferring residential treatment services to a community-based

system.

Enhanced and expanded medical detoxification services.

Improved the Central Intake Division to reduce waiting time for assessment and

referral, improve the intake process.

In the process of expanding community-based, residential treatment services

through public/private partnerships.

Implement a uniform contracts and grants monitoring system agency-wide; and

Other Drug (ATOD) first use.

Expanded methadone treatment by 410 slots.

Expanded dually diagnosed treatment by 150 slots.

Implemented provisional application and review process for certifying all ATOD

treatment providers.

In the process of implementing a Hepatitis A, B and C prevalence study of the

APRA patient population.

A comprehensive implementable Drug Strategy for the District of Columbia is

under development, the goal of which is to reduce the number of addicted persons

by 25,000, and the annual addiction related cost to the city by $300,000,000.00 by

2005.

PREVENTION

Accomplishments for fiscal year 1999:

APRA provided Outreach services to 128,251 District residents (73,060 Adults,

55,191 youth and 26,389 Latinos) and distributed 513,000 pieces of literature.

Completed and Distributed a Social Indicators of Substance Abuse in the District

of Columbia.

Awarded nine mini-grants to community-based, faith-based or grass roots organizations to provide summer cultural and educational prevention programs to more

than 200 high-risk District of Columbia youth.

Funded four one-year Science-based Prevention Demonstration projects, which

will reach 100 youth.

Receipt of the State Incentive Grant (SIG) from the Center from Substance Abuse

Prevention (CSAP). The city will receive $6 million over a three-year period, 85 percent of which will be awarded to community-based organizations to implement

science-based prevention efforts.

Established a primary prevention program for 50 Latino youth.

Provided Science-based prevention to the State Incentive Grant (SIG) Advisory

Board; CBOs and general Public; Prevention and Treatment providers, and SIG

Subgrant Applicants.

Provided training to 102 DCPS Nurse on how to use curriculum (Learning to Live

Drug Free—U.S. Department of Education). This is a curriculum model for prevention on general substance abuse prevention education, and will ensure substance

abuse prevention education in all DCPS.

Operated four alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) abuse prevention centers

in key wards of the city (Wards 1, 2, 7 and 8).
78

Provided Outreach Activities to include: (a) Support of the SafeNight Program; (b)

Participation in health fairs around the city; and (c) Participation in the BET Teen

Summit.

Established a Mentoring and Tutoring program for District youth in Ward 8.

Established an APRA Youth Advisory Council.

Expanded Prevention programs in D.C. Public and Charter Schools.

Expanded the in-school program from 30 to 40 schools to include 10 Public Charter Schools.

Conducted an alternative program for truants from DCPS.

Established Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs in 14 DCPS.

Established a Senior Citizens Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative.

Conducted a Ministerial Institute.

Conducted the 5th Annual Prevention Awareness Day.

Conducted First Annual Youth Festival.

PSAs were published in the Washington Post, City Paper, Latino News. PSAs

aired on various AM Radio stations in both English and Spanish.

Established and supported collaboration with several community-based and private nonprofit agencies and organizations.

Accomplishments for fiscal year 2000

Conduct tobacco compliance checks of 3300 District vendors.

Conduct Household Survey on Substance Abuse.

Institute an ATOD Prevention Public Awareness Campaign.

Establish a District of Columbia Substance Abuse Prevention Epidemiology Work

Group.

Establish an Evaluation Grant for prevention programs.

Establish a Community Volunteers Program.

Develop a Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS Prevention Curriculum with AHA and

DCPS for DCPS teachers, students and parents.

Establish a Faith-based ATOD Initiative.

Conduct Alcohol Awareness Campaign in DCPS and DC Charter School.

Conduct a Tobacco Prevention and Education Campaign in DCPS.

Develop a media campaign to educate vendors on D.C. Law 8–262 which prohibits

the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Award twenty science-based prevention program grants (SIG).

Award a Demonstration ATOD Youth Prevention Grant for mentally challenged.

Award a Demonstration ATOD Youth Prevention Grant for Asian/Pacific Islanders.

Award five $50,000 mini-grants on ATOD prevention.

Conduct the Second Annual Youth Festival.

Conduct a Citywide Drug Summit.

Establish prevention programs in collaboration with the MPD.

Conduct a citywide Drug Summit on Prevention Best Practices.

Provide scholarships for youth to attend COG Prevention Program.

Contract out prevention centers located in Wards 1, 2, 7, and 8.

Establish a prevention center for Latino youth.

Safe Passages Initiatives.

Implement an alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (ATOD) community-based prevention strategy aimed at reducing ATOD uses among District of Columbia youth by

establishing four prevention centers.

In collaboration with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and

other community partners will reduce the number of retailers who sell tobacco products to minors in the District of Columbia to 20 percent by September 30, 2000.

Implement an ATOD Prevention program in 40 D.C. Public and Charter Schools

to reach youth.

DC Consortium on School Health/Education and Community Awareness Initiative.

Provide 2 trainings and professional development sessions for school staff and

families to enhance the ability to identify and intervene for children at risk for behavioral health issues.

Strengthening Families Initiative.

Building and Sustaining Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative.

Question. Last year, Chairman Cropp, you and the Mayor mentioned nuisance

properties as a major problem area for drug control efforts. What progress has been

made over the last year? How many nuisance properties have you identified? How

many have been demolished, sealed off, or otherwise cleaned up? How many have

been condemned or foreclosed so they can be put to better public use or sold for a

higher economic use?
79

Answer. Significant progress has been made over the last year in addressing nuisance properties: As of August 17, 2000 196 properties have been condemned. 1,250

have been cleaned and barricaded, a significant increase over the previous year, 174

units have been demolished and an additional 200 units are in the pipeline to be

demolished before December 2000. In addition, $248,000 in liens have been collected

and have imposed fines of over $953,000.

Question. Could you furnish a list of publicly- and privately-held nuisance properties and indicate any action taken?

Answer. As you are aware, nuisance is the result of an activity or combination

of activities. The abatement of the nuisance activity involves one or more agencies

and often a combination of agencies e.g. Police and Public Works, DCRA and Fire

Department, etc. We are in the process of installing a computerized database that

will provide the capability to catalogue and cross-reference the nuisance properties.

This effort is happening as we speak with some agencies having completed and populated databases and other agencies are still in the process of getting the system

installed. The whole system is expected to be operational within six months.

Question. Last year, Mr. Mayor, you reported last year that the city received bids

from a number of firms to convert 300 units of abandoned housing because the real

estate market is strong. One year later, on how may of those 300 units has construction been started or completed? How long does this process take? Are there ways

you can speed up making these units available for homeownership?

Answer. Through the Department of Housing and Community Development

Homestead program, 47 units have been completed, 127 units are under construction, 161 units have been transferred with construction expected to begin within 45

days, and 167 additional units will be sold by Sept. 30, 2000.

Question. Mayor Williams, the consensus budget provides $21.3 million to convert

over 1,000 units. You originally had $22.0 million. Why was the $700 thousand cut?

Where did it go?

Answer. The modest reduction in funding was the result of budget negotiations

in which additional funds were allocated to specific projects and there was a small

overall decrease in total capital expenditures done in the name of fiscal conservatism.

Question. What progress has been made on straightening out the mess with management of halfway houses? For correctional halfway houses and group homes for

the mentally retarded, what progress have you made in the last year to get rid of

under performing contractors? How many contractors have been decertified? How

have you assured that their replacements are going to meet performance standards?

Answer.

DHS/MRDDA

The Department of Human Services/Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration (MRDDA) has not initiated any actions to terminate any

contracts within the last year. MRDDA has been more aggressively monitoring providers of services and has recently developed a plan of correction involving five

group homes being operated by one provider. Also, MRDDA has conducted several

competency-based trainings for providers of services to improve the delivery of the

service and is continuing to schedule ongoing training.

The District of Columbia has also passed the Procurement Practices Human Care

Agreement Amendment Act of 2000. This law amends the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 and allows for the District to obtain assurances during a pre-qualification process that the vendor is qualified to deliver the service and

is a responsible bidder for the particular service.

Child and Family Services Agency

In the Child and Family Services Agency, the agency currently utilizes only 2 providers for housing MR/DD children. The providers are Ward and Ward Mental

Health Services, operated by Dr. Ruth Ward, and Community Multi-Systems, operated by Constance Reese. Ward and Ward houses 12 children in 3 home-like settings with 4 children each.

These children are not ambulatory. There is another facility to hour 4 ambulatory

school-age children. Additionally, they have apartments for 2 old MR/DD teens up

to age 21, and 1 MR/DD teen mother.

CMS has four facilities, three of which house four adolescents each. One of the

four homes serves six females. Their program monitor, Ms. Carolyn Gregory, monitors these programs at least monthly. Each facility is visited monthly and unscheduled spot checks are frequent. If there are particularly unusual incidents occurring

or community complaints, Ms. Gregory goes out more often. Unscheduled fire drills

are conducted monthly to ensure the safety of the residents. Physical plant defi-
80

ciencies are promptly documented and the facilities are given deadlines to complete

repairs. These providers have the lowest incidence of physical plant deficiencies,

among all of the agency’s providers.

Both CMS and Ward and Ward have excellent reputations for running clean facilities. Staff conducts bed checks on the non-ambulatory children to ensure that

they are dry, that the beds are dry, and that there are no signs of diaper rash or

bed sores. Staff also checks medications to ensure that they are being administered

correctly and that the records are accurate and match physician orders. Record reviews are also done to ensure that any special needs the children have are met.

CFSA’s primary concern is with the insufficient number of MR/DD homes to meet

the growing need, especially for higher functioning clients who still function at levels too low to comfortably fit into a traditional group home with children of normal

intelligence.

Youth Services Administration

YSA’s Contract Monitoring /Quality Assurance Unit.—YSA’s Contract Monitoring/

Quality Assurance Unit is responsible for monitoring all contractual and YSA operated group/shelter home facilities, which currently numbers sixteen. This Unit’s

staff was recently expanded from two to four, in February 2000.

Inspection Practices.—YSA’s Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance Unit conducts announced quarterly inspections of all YSA contracted group/shelter homes.

These quarterly inspections began in 1997. Each announced quarterly inspections

entails a health and safety review, and a review of each group/shelter home’s program components.

Health and Safety each quarter.—YSA monitoring each group/shelter home facility

to ensure it meets all fire, health and safety requirements, per the American Public

Health Association Standards, Building Occupancy Codes, District of Columbia

Manual of Regulations, National Fire Prevention Association codes, OSHS Standards, and ACA Standards.

In addition to announced inspections, at least one unannounced inspection is conducted for each group/shelter home each quarter. Unannounced inspection may be

limited in focus to as one area of operation, or up to and including all program components, and/or facility area (fire, health, and safety). Unannounced inspections may

occur at any hour.

Inspection Findings.—Facilities that fail to meet all Health and Safety and Program Component requirements are classified as Greenline, Yellowlines or Redline.

The YSA Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance Unit provides the respective facility with a written notification of its deficiencies and the resulting classification. The

facility is required to submit a Corrective Action Plan within a specified timeframe.

Greenline requires immediate attention, and continued monitoring every thirty

days. A Corrective Action Plan is required in writing within 72 hours of classification notice.

Yellowline requires monitoring very 90 days. A Corrective Action Plan is required

in within 14 days of classification notice.

Redline requires monitoring very 90 days. A Corrective Action Plan is required

in writing within 30 days of classification notice.

Failure to comply with the policies and provision outlined for each classification

may, upon review, result in an elevation of that status. Failure to comply with the

Greenline status policies and provision may result in the termination of the contract.

Re-Inspections.—A re-inspection is scheduled at the completion of an announced

quarterly inspection, and upon receipt of a Corrective Action Plan, or for a facility

that has received classification. A re-inspection is generally unannounced, but may

be a schedule event. The focus of the re-inspection is correction of deficient areas.

Once the deficient areas are corrected the facility continues to be monitored on a

monthly basic until quarterly inspection.

Meetings.—YSA’s Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance Unit conducts monthly

meeting with the Group/Shelter Home Administrators. Relevant issues are discussed, including unusual incidents, changes in YSA policies and procedures, upcoming inspections and training and technical assistance.

YSA’s Administrator and Deputy Administrator meet on a quarterly basis with

the owners of the group/shelter homes. Relevant issues, such as changes in YSA

policies and procedures, are discussed.

Training and Technical Assistance.—YSA’s Contract Monitoring/Quality Assurance Unit provides training and technical assistance to call contracted group/shelter

home staff. Multiple are scheduled to allow all group/shelter home staff to attend

while ensuring adequate coverage at each facility. Training covers a variety of
81

issues, including health and safety issues, YSA policies, and adolescent development

and parenting issues.

Problem Facilities Closed.—On April 16, 1999 Lamont Shelter, by the Bureau of

Rehabilitation, was due to structural deficiencies. After receiving a ‘‘Notice to Cure

Performance Deficiencies . . .’’ the Bureau of Rehabilitation corrected the stated deficiencies. YSA and the office of the Fire Marshall conducted new inspection and

YSA agreed to release the Bureau of Rehabilitation from the Notice of Cure on May

26, 1999. The facility was reopened.

Question. Do you believe this plan (budget document submitted to Congress) addresses the concerns raised by GAO and will enable you to comply with the law (two

levels of performance, titles of officials)?

Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Proposed Operating Budget and Financial Plan represents an important advance in implementing a performance management system

that will hold agency directors accountable, drive lasting change in District agencies

and provide the level of service and quality of life that District residents demand

and deserve. Each budget chapter of agencies that are under the authority of the

Mayor includes performance goals and measures drawn from agency directors’ performance contracts. Senior managers accountable for achieving each objective are

identified by title as required by the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994

(Public Law 103–373).

However, the performance goals do not include two levels of performance. As

noted in our response to the GAO report, the District advocates eliminating the requirement for two levels of performance for each goal or objective. I outlined the

District’s position on this issue in a June 26 letter to Senators Voinovich, Durbin

and Hutchison and Representatives Istook, Davis, Moran and Holmes-Norton and

my staff have prepared a proposed amendment to effect this change.

In directing agencies to set performance measures, I emphasized establishing ambitious yet attainable targets. If the existing agency performance targets are labeled

superior performance, we invite agencies to pull back from their ambitious targets

and to only seek to achieve acceptable performance levels; performance less than the

commitments the agencies and I have made to the District’s residents.

Furthermore, the requirement is inconsistent with performance reporting requirements for Federal agencies established under the Results Act. Finally, in researching the origins of the provision, U.S. Senate staff discovered that the requirement

is an artifact of a proposed personnel law that required two levels of performance

for senior managers in District government. The personnel proposals were never enacted but the requirement remained for agency level reporting. For all of these reasons, I advocate eliminating the requirement for two levels of performance.

Question. Is the current statutory deadline problematic? How would a legislative

change to reconcile the submission date requirement help facilitate your intent to

treat the annual budget as the plan required under Public Law 103–373?

Answer. Any plan of performance commitments is only meaningful when linked

to the budget process. While performance management and budgeting have not been

linked in the past, the Williams Administration began to link them with the preparation of the fiscal year 2000 budget in January 1999. Modifying the submission

timeframes will help strengthen this linkage in future budget and performance plan

submissions.

The congressional performance plan submission date of March 1 only precedes the

March 15 deadline for submission of the Mayor’s budget to the Council of the District of Columbia by two weeks. We would like to request that an initial District

performance plan be due to Congress concurrent with the budget submission to

Council and a final District performance plan be due to Congress with the submission of the District’s Proposed Operating Budget and Financial Plan no later than

June 15. This is consistent with the requirement for Federal agencies to submit an

initial performance plan with their budget request and a revised performance plan

subsequent to the transmittal of the President’s budget to Congress.

Question. Are you satisfied with this report as a first effort? Will this report form

an adequate basis for comparison in future years? Are you fully committed to this

process? Have you been working with the General Accounting Office to improve this

report in future years? Does this match your concepts of performance management?

Answer. The District’s first annual performance report is a significant step forward in establishing the District’s performance management system, but we have

substantial work remaining. GAO’s assessment was limited to the extent to which

the District of Columbia 1999 Yearend Management Report addressed objectives established by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (‘‘the Authority’’). Many of the areas of ‘‘non-compliance’’ GAO

noted were driven by what the Authority’s fiscal year 1999 performance plan contained and lacked: objectives not adopted by the Williams’ administration, single
82

levels of performance targets, no reference to District government activities subject

to court orders.

The District of Columbia 1999 Year-end Management Report addresses the performance objectives set by the Williams Administration in its first year and agencies’ success in meeting those objectives. In setting the objectives for the District,

I asked agency directors with developing both short-term action agendas and longterm strategic plans. While many directors drew on initiatives within their agency’s section of the Authority’s Plan, they were free to develop wholly new strategic plans

and most did. Moreover, our emphasis was on identifying and reporting against

fewer, more meaningful performance measures that truly reflected our strategic direction, rather than dozens and dozens of performance measures established in a

prior administration, many of which did little to gauge how well our government

was performing.

Future year-end reports will present results by the Williams administration

against plans and objectives established by the Williams administration, allowing

for long-term comparisons of results to indicate progress on our initiatives. In addition, we have incorporated several of the GAO’s recommendations in the fiscal year

2001 Performance Plan and the working outline for the fiscal year 2000 Performance Report due to Congress in March 2001. As noted above, the fiscal year 2001

Operating Budget and Financial Plan already incorporates the titles of the senior

managers accountable for individual objectives in agency strategic plans, and future

year-end reports will continue to include that information. GAO also worked with

attorneys in the District’s Office of the Corporation Counsel to identify 12 major

civil actions concerning the activities of the District government during fiscal year

1999 that fulfill the requirement to report on the status of civil actions. The District

will report on the status of those lawsuits and court orders in the fiscal year 2000

Performance Report and future year-end reports. Finally, we will enhance our reporting format by displaying both historical performance data and targets for those

objectives that continue over several years. The presentation of major objectives, the

identification of the senior managers accountable for achieving those objectives and

the display of performance data over time are all in line with my approach to performance management. —Define the goals and inform the public what they are; —Give agency leadership the resources and support needed to meet the goals; —Establish a system to hold them accountable at the end of the day.

Question. Last year, you mentioned your weekly meeting with your agencies—you

called it your ‘‘supply line meeting’’. What are some examples of the ‘‘barriers’’ you

mentioned that your ‘‘supply line meeting’’ participants have identified and removed

over the last year?

Answer. Among the supply line issues that agency directors and senior managers

have identified as the highest priorities to address are personnel reforms and the

District’s entire acquisition process. We have made great progress in implementing

long-standing personnel reforms including the performance management systems for

agency directors, the launch of the Management Supervisory Service and the institution of a performance management program for managers, supervisors and excepted service personnel. During fiscal year 2001, we will begin to expand the use

of the performance management program beyond senior and middle management

and will include its implementation with unionized personnel among the issues to

be discussed in ongoing collective bargaining negotiations.

Procurement is still a major problem, but we are making advances. We have

begun to implement a purchase card to handle micro-purchases in the District government, and we expect virtually all of the major District agencies to be using the

purchase cards by October 1, 2000. This should take much of the small purchase

volume out of the system and allow procurement staff to focus on larger acquisitions. Moreover, the District recently engaged a procurement expert from the Internal Revenue Service to review the entire acquisition process, and his report offered

both short-term solutions that we can use to jump start the process and long-term

strategies. We recognize that serious problems remain in procurement, but we are

committed to acting sooner, rather than later.

Question. You also mentioned giving incentives to managers. What progress have

you made in this area over the last year?

Answer. As we focus on holding managers accountable for their performance, our

strategy is to recognize and reward excellent performance, while taking appropriate

action in other instances where managers are not able to do their jobs. Incentives

for agency directors will be tied to their performance against the commitments outlined in their agency strategic plan and their performance contract with the Mayor.

My deputy mayors and I have completed mid-year evaluations of each agency director with a performance contract to assess how each director is meeting his or her
83

performance objectives. Directors were to identify new priorities that have arisen

during the year and to establish action plans to ensure that initiatives that are offtrack are completed by year-end. At year-end, we will evaluate directors on how well

they met their objectives and will reward exceptional performance and will address

poor performance accordingly.

The Management Supervisory Service (MSS), authorized by Council in 1998, also

provides performance incentives to senior and middle managers. Letters inviting approximately 1,100 non-unionized managers and supervisors to become members of

this new at-will, merit-based senior service went out the second week in August.

The Office of Personnel will have official figures on MSS enrollment available by

September, but preliminary data indicates nearly 90 percent of managers and supervisors invited to enroll in MSS have done so.

Question. You touted the supply line meeting as the forum in which you could assure that the District would not lose available federal grant monies. Has the supply

line meeting improved the Districts grantsmanship over the last year?

Answer. The Office of Grants Management and Development and the Office of

Budget and Planning have developed a reporting system for agencies to track each

Federal Grant award, the appropriated amount in the current fiscal year, expenditures and obligations to-date, and any potential lapses during the current year.

Agency reports through July 2000 have just been received and OBP and OGMD

staff are analyzing the data. Agencies with potential lapses are to provide revised

spending plans through the end of the fiscal year illustrating what portion of available funds they will and will not be able to spend.

Question. Your budget includes $13 million for a ‘‘Management Supervisory Service’’. How is this $13 million going to be used? Will it be used for bonuses under

a pay for performance or gainsharing program? Answer. The $13 million budgeted to implement the Management Supervisor

Service will not be used for bonus pay or as part of a gainsharing program.

The MSS program is designed to create a new cadre of managers that ultimately increases accountability in the government workforce. The $13 million will be used

to offer salary increases to approximately 1,100 supervisory and management employees. In exchange for accepting the salary increase of approximately 10 percent,

managers and supervisors who join the MSS program will forfeit their civil service

protections and serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

Question. Please give an update on your Partnerships for Problem Solving (PPS)

Initiative pilot program which you expanded from 6 to 14 of the 83 Police Service

Areas (PSAs) in the city. What are some of the specific problems targeted by some

of these pilot PSAs and some of the accomplishments over the last year? What is

your assessment of the PPS Initiative?

Answer. Partnerships for Problem Solving (PPS) is MPD’s initiative to train police, community volunteers and other agency representatives citywide to advance

neighborhood partnerships that address local crime and disorder problems. The program employs a five-step problem-solving model, which ensures that democratic and

inclusive strategies and tactics are planned and carried out by participating partners.

—Currently 34 PSAs, including Capital Community PSAs (described in 7A) are

engaged in the PPS process.

—An estimated 1,825 community volunteers and other agency representatives

have received PPS training on various topics.

In PSA 110 accomplishments include the following: law enforcement partners canvassed neighborhoods door-to-door to ascertain public housing residents’ needs;

neighborhood watch signs have been erected; security patrols are more frequent and

visible; community clean-ups have taken place; and a panel of high-ranking public

officials convened to address legislation that will impact drug activity in the area.

In PSA 301 accomplishments include the following: establishment of a strong

partnership among the community, police, and City Councilman Jim Graham; Drug

Free Zone signs were erected; new trash containers were placed in the area; and

pedestrian crosswalks were newly painted.

In PSA 206 accomplishments include the following: increased inspection of bars

to ensure compliance with all D.C. codes; additional rodent abatement measures;

improved parking enforcement; and development of a consortium of D.C. universities that are working on the issue of underage drinking and its impact on students.

Question. Policing for Prevention is a related community policing initiative we

have heard about from the MPD, including a program to enter a partnership with

the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to improve case management

of people in the community on probation and to prevent recidivism. What is your

assessment of Policing for Prevention?
84

Answer. The Administration is excited and optimistic about the potential of Policing for Prevention Program, which includes MPD partnerships with Court Services

and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) designed to reduce crime among repeat

offenders, thereby increasing public safety. A total of 12 PSA teams have received

training during the pilot period; an additional 18 PSAs will enter partnerships this

fall. Key elements of the partnerships include the following:

—Law enforcement is enhanced by information sharing at regular meetings and

joint police/parole officer visits to high-risk offenders;

—Needed resources, such as drug testing, including employment services and life

skills training, are targeted and directed to high-risk offenders; and

—Neighborhood partnerships and problem-solving efforts are bolstered by collaborative outreach efforts to residents, other city agencies, or community stakeholders to develop networks to solve crime and disorder problem’s.

Question. Some health care advocates said they were disappointed the council and

mayor did not boost spending on health programs for low-income residents. Mayor

Williams, Chairman Cropp, what is your reaction to this concern?

Answer. Expanding and enhancing the city’s network of community-based health

care providers. These ‘‘medical homes’’ will emphasize primary care services but will

also include access to the diagnostic, specialty care and inpatient services our residents need to return to good health, should they become ill. These facilities will

serve both insured and uninsured individuals in environments that are welcoming

to individuals of varied cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

Extending Medicaid coverage to adults without dependent children with incomes

up to 50 percent of the federal poverty level. This is part of a phased plan which

will ultimately extend Medicaid to District residents up to 200 percent of poverty.

Extending health insurance coverage for uninsured immigrant children who do

not qualify for Medicaid and providing free or discounted prescriptions to individuals without drug coverage benefits who can not afford to purchase necessary medicines.

Providing senior wellness services to aid older adults, especially low income individuals, to lead healthy and independent lives.

Most importantly, nearly a third of the funds under the Mayor’s plan would support tobacco control and health promotion efforts. The programs envisioned under

these efforts will focus on youth, the poor and ethnic communities who comprise a

large portion of the city’s tobacco users.

These efforts, together with other health initiatives being implemented in the District, form the basis of the Mayor’s health care reform plans and will result in major

improvements in the health status of our residents.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT

ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the criteria established

by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by the Mayor, District Council and Control Board pursuant to Section 148 of Public Law 106–113, the District of Columbia

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

Answer. The Chief Financial Officer adhered to the criteria established in Section

148, paragraphs (B) and (C), of Public Law 106–113, and established no additional

criteria pursuant to this Section of the Act. In July 1999, before Public Law 106–

113 was enacted, the District Council, the Mayor, and the Financial Authority approved the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Support Act (D.C. Act 13–111) which contained

criteria for using the Reserve Fund. On September 29, 1999, the Chief Financial Officer (‘‘CFO’’) distributed a memorandum (attached) to all agency chief financial officers that listed the Budget Support Act criteria. Again referring to those criteria,

on January 24, 2000, the CFO distributed instructions to agency directors and agency CFOs along with a template for requesting reserve funds. (attached). On February 14, 2000, the CFO reported to the Mayor on those requests (attached).

Question. In response to recent reports that the District has failed to claim

$40,000,000 to $80,000,000 in Medicaid reimbursements over the past four years,

please answer the following questions:

Answer. If the District were collecting the Medicaid reimbursements to which it

is entitled, how much would that reduce the District taxpayers’ responsibility for

special education costs?

What is the District doing to remedy this serious mismanagement problem?
85

Answer. Reported estimates that, $80 million in additional Medicaid reimbursements is potentially available to the District of Columbia Public Schools (‘‘DCPS’’)

for medically necessary special education costs are based upon overly optimistic assumptions. In fiscal year 1999, DCPS collected $4.6 million in Medicaid reimbursements for medical services provided to special education students. The fiscal year

2001 budget for the public schools assumes additional Medicaid reimbursements of

$12 million. The highest gross estimate of the health services that are potentially

reimbursable by the District Medicaid Program ranges up to $40 million.

This upper limit estimate is based upon unverified assumptions. The amount assumes that 65 percent of the special education private tuition and related transportation costs are covered services under the Medicaid Program. These and similar estimates assume that eligible collateral therapies are provided three days a week

with the result that transportation costs are recoverable for 60 percent of the time.

These estimates also reflect optimistic assumptions with respect to student attendance,

A District interagency task force (District Medical Assistance Administration

(Medicaid), DCPS and the City Administrator) is working to improve the DCPS capacity to obtain appropriate reimbursement from the Medicaid program for covered

services with the aim of achieving the fiscal year 2001 budget goals. The objective

is to maximize the Medicaid reimbursement given current rates and current information.

A longer-term objective to maximize Medicaid reimbursements requires the periodic cost analysis required to revise payment rates that must be approved by the

federal Department of Health and Human Services (‘‘DHHS’’). Future claims will be

based on those rates. Under appropriate circumstances, claims already submitted

based on obsolete rates will be recycled via the standard cost settlement process.

At present transportation costs are reported at the route level. The need to maximize student level reporting will ensure that all claims submitted to Medicaid are

valid. Similarly, non-public treatment providers must provide/maintain adequate

claims or claims history information in order to substantiate a reimbursable claim

submitted to the Medicaid Program,

The current rate for transporting special education students is $13 per trip, but

the actual cost is approximately $50–$60 per trip. Setting rates for residential and

nonresidential treatment for the students is especially complex because vendors provide a wide range of services. The services and costs must be classified so that the

average rates for a class of services adequately compensate providers for services

rendered as set by federal guidelines.

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator HUTCHISON. Did you have anything further?

With that then, unless you had any further comments, the meeting will be recessed.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Thank you, Senator.

Ms. CROPP. Thank you very much.

Dr. RIVLIN. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., Tuesday, June 13, the hearing was

concluded, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to

the call of the Chair.]

(87)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS

[CLERK’S NOTE.—At the direction of the subcommittee chairman,

the following statement received by the subcommittee is made part

of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2001 District of Columbia

Appropriations Act.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL STRAUSS

Chairman Hutchison, Senator Kyl, and Senator Durbin: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. I am Paul Strauss, Shadow Senator for

the District of Columbia, and I would like to set out my reasons for fully supporting

the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget submitted jointly by Mayor Williams, the District of Columbia Council, and the Financial Control Board.

Before I begin, though, I would like to describe briefly for the record exactly what

a ‘‘Shadow Senator’’ is. The position of Shadow United States Senator is not unique

to the District of Columbia. From the earliest days of our existence as a country,

areas desiring statehood elected Shadow Senators—12 in all—prior to their admission as States. All but one of the twelve were eventually seated as full Senators

when statehood was achieved. My role as the District’s elected U.S. Senator is to

be an advocate on issues of importance to the citizens of the District of Columbia

that are before the Senate. It is in that role that I provide testimony in support of

the District’s proposed budget.

Let me point out some aspects of this budget that are of special interest to my

constituents. First, the proposed budget includes funding initiatives to begin implementing the City-Wide Strategic Plan for unity of purpose and democracy. That

Plan includes strong pursuit of voting rights for citizens of the District, to ensure

that our needs are represented and served as well as those of all other Americans.

The Plan incorporates citizens’ desires about neighborhood action planning. It provides improved access to public information about government programs and services. Finally, the Plan will improve the capacity of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to represent citizen interests.

This proposed budget also includes investment in government management tools

and technology that will enhance oversight ability and bring more badly-needed accountability to many programs. For example, there is a proposed increase in funding

for the Office of Inspector General, which will allow substantially expanded audit

and evaluation activities. And there is proposed new investment in the City Administrator’s office to enhance the Office’s ability to direct and coordinate agency activities.

In addition, the proposed budget includes increased funding for key human services programs, such as mental retardation and developmental disabilities services,

addiction prevention and recovery services, and HIV/AIDS programs.

There are significant proposed increases in program budgets that address crime

victims’ rights, law enforcement needs, violence against women. Local funding will

be used to establish new risk management programs.

Higher education also sees an increase in this proposed budget, with funding for

the University of the District of Columbia to expand speech-language pathology and

teacher education programs, adult education, and the Saturday Academy. The last
88

program cited is designed to increase the number of minority students enrolling in

college in science, math, engineering, and other technical fields.

Good public libraries are a key resource for well-educated citizens. They are essential in communities where people are gaining knowledge and skills for new jobs

but where citizens do not have the resources to invest in books, computers and other

materials individually. This proposed budget expands funding for District libraries,

so that computer literacy programs can continue and traditional literacy programs

can be expanded. The libraries will also stay open during more accessible periods.

There are many other examples I can cite of proposed budget increases that will

benefit District citizens. But there is another more important point to be made, too.

The budget before you is the product of cooperation between the Mayor’s office,

the City Council, and the Financial Control Board. It is another step forward in the

District’s progress toward a budget set and administered solely by government officials elected by District citizens. This budget has been agreed upon by every organization participating in this process. It is a product of difficult decisions and equitable compromises—a budget that balances economic development, progress toward

tax parity with other jurisdictions, and providing much-needed social services. With

this in mind, I urge the Congress not to make any significant changes or impose

any controversial riders to this proposed budget. It is the budget proposed by the

city, for the city. As it is, this budget provides the city with adequate funds for education, health care, public works, and all the fundamentals of urban life that are

so essential to my constituents. With that in mind, I hope that this committee approves this budget as it stands, with the intention of doing everything in its power

to shepherd this bill through the Congress intact.
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Page

Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 12

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, questions submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 70

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas:

Opening statement of ....................................................................................... 1

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 54, 84

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona, question submitted by ..................... 53

Rivlin, Dr. Alice, Member, Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, District of Columbia .................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 18

Strauss, Paul ............................................................................................................ 87

Subcommittee on the Adoption Incentives Plan, letter from ............................... 27

Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, Office of the Mayor, District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 3

(iii)

SUBJECT INDEX

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Page

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 53

Births ........................................................................................................................ 41

Budget:

Agreement with the Mayor .............................................................................. 16

Fiscal year 2001 ................................................................................................ 13

Council’s review of ..................................................................................... 16

Request, Council reports on ............................................................................. 13

CFO, certification by ............................................................................................... 15

D.C. general ............................................................................................................. 36

Debt:

Issue ................................................................................................................... 36

Per capita .......................................................................................................... 2

Policy ................................................................................................................. 2

District compared to other cities ............................................................................ 40

Education spending ................................................................................................. 2

Exodus from city slowing ........................................................................................ 15

Federal funds, percent of ........................................................................................ 1

Loans, repayment on ............................................................................................... 53

Management reform savings, $37 million ............................................................. 14

Marijuana possession law ....................................................................................... 43

Operational improvement savings .......................................................................... 15

PBC:

Consult for oversight of .................................................................................... 36

Financial status of ............................................................................................ 36

Loans to ............................................................................................................. 36

Prenatal care ............................................................................................................ 42

Public works, more funding for .............................................................................. 15

Reserve ..................................................................................................................... 2

Carryover, the freed-up appropriated funds from the ................................... 17

Funds ................................................................................................................. 2

$150 million ...................................................................................................... 14

Tiers of spending .............................................................................................. 14

Schools, full funding for .......................................................................................... 15

Tax:

Cut ..................................................................................................................... 2

Rate .................................................................................................................... 41

Revenues going up ............................................................................................ 43

Unanticipated needs ................................................................................................ 3

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Accomplishing, six items need ................................................................................ 19

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 84

Adoptions .................................................................................................................. 27

Charter schools ........................................................................................................ 25

Contingency expenditures ....................................................................................... 52

Control:

Board ................................................................................................................. 53

Period, end of .................................................................................................... 18

Economic development ............................................................................................ 20
Page

iv

Financial management policies .............................................................................. 23

Interest bearing fund ............................................................................................... 52

Public Benefit Corporation ...................................................................................... 20

Reserve fund ............................................................................................................ 51

Expenditures of ................................................................................................. 52

School problems—special education, truancy, working relationship with charter schools ............................................................................................................. 20

School system reform .............................................................................................. 19

Tobacco funds ........................................................................................................... 24

University of the District ........................................................................................ 20

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 54

Adoptions, $5 million for ......................................................................................... 26

Appropriation bill, riders on ................................................................................... 9

Basic obligations, meeting ...................................................................................... 39

Brianna Blackmond ................................................................................................. 26

Budgets, four consecutive ........................................................................................ 4

Charter schools ........................................................................................................ 5

City, strategic plan for ............................................................................................ 40

Commercial revitalization program ........................................................................ 45

Debt policy ................................................................................................................ 24

Democracy ................................................................................................................ 12

DMV, improvements at ........................................................................................... 8

Economic development ............................................................................................ 7

Education .................................................................................................................. 9

Fire department ....................................................................................................... 7

Government:

Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 11

Right size ........................................................................................................... 7

Gun buyback program ............................................................................................. 7

Health care ................................................................................................................ 8, 11

Management supervisory service ........................................................................... 8

Neighborhood:

Action ................................................................................................................. 4

Development ..................................................................................................... 11

Pell Grant Program ................................................................................................. 6

Public works, equipment for ................................................................................... 8

Risk management .................................................................................................... 8

Safe neighborhoods.................................................................................................... 6, 11

School funding .......................................................................................................... 4

Tax cut ...................................................................................................................... 38

Technology improvements ....................................................................................... 8

Tuition assistance...................................................................................................... 5, 10

Youth:

Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 10

Violence ............................................................................................................. 5

Æ