U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

70–715 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–402

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2002

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2944/S. 1543

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, 2002, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

Child and Family Services Receivership

District of Columbia

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 1

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

TERRY SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio, Chairman

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio)

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio)

Professional Staff

MARY BETH NETHERCUTT (Majority)

CHARLES KIEFFER (Minority)

KATE ELTRICH (Minority)

1 Committee and subcommittee memberships—January 25, 2001 to June 6, 2001.

NOTE.—From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the majority, thanks to the

deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice

President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June

6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, changing control of the

evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once again on June 6, 2001.
(III)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 2

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

JACK REED, Rhode Island

TED STEVENS, Alaska

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

TERRY SAUVAIN, Staff Director

CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Minority Deputy Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

JACK REED, Rhode Island

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio)

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

TED STEVENS, Alaska, (ex officio)

Professional Staff

CHARLES KIEFFER (Majority)

KATE ELTRICH (Majority)

2 Committee and subcommittee memberships—July 10, 2001.

NOTE.—From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the majority, thanks to the

deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice

President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June

6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, changing control of the

evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once again on June 6, 2001.

(V)

CONTENTS

Page

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2001

Child and Family Services Receivership ............................................................... 1

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2001

District of Columbia: D.C. Superior Court ............................................................ 77

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001

District of Columbia: Courts ................................................................................... 129

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001

District of Columbia ................................................................................................ 173

(1)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:37 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES RECEIVERSHIP

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Our hearing will come to order. This is the first

for me as chairman, and the first for Senator Landrieu as the

Ranking Member of this subcommittee, so we are delighted to be

here.

Let me remind all of our witnesses that the full text of your

statements will, in fact, be made part of the record. We ask you to

limit your initial comments to 5 minutes apiece, but your whole

testimony will be submitted for the record, and let me just thank

each one of you. It is a rarity we had your testimony early. It is

not a rarity for you, but it is a rarity in Congress to get everyone’s

testimony before the hearing starts, and we appreciate it very, very

much.

Without objection, the record will remain open until 5 p.m. on

Wednesday, March 21, for the submission of any additional testimony or responses to questions members have for your witnesses.

D.C. CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

We are here today because the District of Columbia child welfare

system is at a crossroads. It is at a crossroads. It is at a crossroads

both in terms of responsibility and accountability. We are here

today to begin to determine if this system, a system which, for over

a decade has been wrought with dysfunction, chaos, tragedy, is finally committed to turning itself around.

We are here to examine what strides, if any, the District has

made in correcting its laundry list of deficiencies, and finally, we

are here today to analyze from a budgetary point of view what the

District’s needs are in terms of resources, and how those investments can play a part in helping the District create a child welfare

system that puts the safety and health of children first, above all

else.
2

The simple fact is that every child in foster care, whether it is

a child here in the District of Columbia, or in Cincinnati, or in New

Orleans, or anywhere in America deserves to live in a safe, stable,

loving, and permanent home, with loving and caring adults. All

children deserve no less.

Unfortunately, many, too many of our children in this country

are not getting what they deserve. Tonight, more than half a million children in this country will go to bed in homes that are not

their own homes. Many of these children are at risk.

I first learned this sad fact back in the early 1970’s, when I was

an assistant county prosecuting attorney in Green County, Ohio.

One of our duties was to represent Green County Children’s Services in cases where children were going to be removed from their

parents’ custody. I witnessed then that too many of these cases

drag on endlessly, leaving children trapped in temporary foster

care placements which often entail multiple moves from foster

home to foster home to foster home for years and years.

AT-RISK CHILDREN

At-risk children here in the District of Columbia are no exception. In fact, it would appear that these children may be at even

more risk because of the systemic dysfunction in the District’s child

welfare bureaucracy. Let me explain. Over 10 years ago, the District’s child welfare system was considered among the worst in the

Nation. In 1989, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class

action lawsuit against the city, LaShawn A. v. Barry, arguing that

the District was failing to protect neglected and abused children.

In 1991, the case went to trial, where the court ultimately found

that the District was liable. Following this decision, the parties involved in the case developed a remedial action plan. The court used

this plan as the basis for its modified final order, which required

the District by law to correct the vast deficiencies in its child welfare system.

RECEIVERSHIP

By 1995, however, little had changed, prompting U.S. District

Judge Thomas Hogan to install a receiver to oversee the system

and appoint the Center for the Study of Social Policy to monitor

the District’s performance. Today, the receivership is still in place,

though the city is preparing to regain control.

In order to get that control back, the District must meet the

terms of the consent order, which was entered by the court this

past October. The question now is this: Is the District ready and

able to take control back?

GAO REPORT

A recent GAO report provides us with the most current snapshot

of the system, which, from all appearances, remains below national

averages, and far from meeting the goals outlined in the consent

order. Just listen to a few examples, and they do, regrettably, paint

a very disturbing picture.

In 1991, the average stay for children in the District’s foster care

system was 4.8 years. According to the GAO report, the average
3

stay for children is 3.7 years. This certainly represents progress. It

also represents an average foster care stay in the District that is

twice as long as the national average.

Over 10 years ago, the District continuously failed to initiate investigations into reports of neglect or abuse within 24 hours and

complete these investigations within 2 weeks. Now, the GAO found

that for the recent time period, October 1999 to July of the year

2000, still 37 percent, over one-third of investigations were still not

initiated within 24 hours, while 52 percent, over one-half of investigations were not completed within 30 days.

Ten years ago, the District consistently failed to ensure that children in its custody received timely judicial administrative reviews

regarding the continued necessity and appropriateness of placement. According to the GAO report, the District made some

progress between 1998 and July 1999 in reducing the number of

cases with no review at all. However, the GAO also found the city

made no progress in reducing the number of cases with untimely

reviews. Moreover, of the cases with untimely reviews in July 1999,

about half—yes, about 50 percent—had not been reviewed in more

than 1 year.

Ten years ago, the District’s automated information system was

wholly inadequate for keeping track of the number and location of

children in the District’s custody and their needs. Today, the District has a new, automated information system, FACES. However,

according to the GAO, that system, now a year old, cannot produce

all the reports required by the modified final order. The GAO also

found that staff do not fully use the system. While District officials

estimated that, as of September 2000, about half of all case plans

had been entered into FACES, a superior court judge has indicated

that this estimate may well overstate the accurate rate of data

entry.

Ten years ago, the cases handled by social workers consistently

exceeded reasonable professional standards, preventing the District

from carrying out its responsibilities under both Federal and District law. District social workers today in 6 of 10 child welfare programs are carrying actual case loads that exceed the limit put in

place by the court’s modified final order. Let me repeat that. District social workers today in 6 of 10 child welfare programs are carrying actual case loads that exceed the limits put in place by the

court’s final order.

For example, the GAO reports that social workers in the District’s traditional foster care programs have been carrying case

loads that range from 13 to 55, as high as 55. That compares with

the modified final order that sets a limit at 16.

Now, though some may argue that the District’s child welfare

system is at least in better shape than it was 10 years ago, I am

not convinced necessarily that it is anywhere close to where it

should be. A couple of very disturbing recent events involving the

District’s handling of child protective matters have fueled everyone’s concern. First, there is the tragic, well-known case involving

2-year-old Brianna Blackman.
4

ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT

In Brianna’s case, she had been placed in foster care for 4

months due to her mother’s consistent neglect and reports of abuse.

However, a D.C. Superior Court judge ordered Brianna and her sister back to their mother on December 23, 1999, despite the fact

that Brianna’s mother, who is mentally retarded, did not want

Brianna and her sister back. Rather, she only wanted her older

children returned, because with her limited capacity she found

them easier to care for.

Two weeks after being united with her mother, Brianna died of

severe head injuries. She had been bludgeoned with a belt. As stated in the law that I sponsored, and that went into effect in November 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which incidentally

was in effect for at least 2 years before Brianna’s death, according

to that law, when determining reasonable efforts to preserve and

reunify children with their families, the law now states the health

and safety of the child shall be the paramount concern. The health

and safety of the child shall be the paramount concern. That is the

language in the law that went into effect in November of 1997.

In Brianna’s case, from the facts we know, it does not appear

that this tiny little girl’s security, this tiny little girl’s life was a

high priority for the District, nor even a priority at all.

In passing the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which has helped

increase adoptions, by the way, nation-wide by 30 percent, it was

my hope that children like Brianna would be protected, but as

Brianna’s case tragically demonstrates, the District still has a long

way to go before that goal is reached. As the facts of this case continue to come out, it appears that virtually ever agency in the District that interacted with this family made a mistake.

The guardian ad litem assigned to protect Brianna did not visit

her or the home where she was living. The social worker assigned

to Brianna did not file her report with the judge in time, and had

this been done, the judge would have known that the social worker

did not recommend sending Brianna back to her mother.

The social worker also did not closely inspect the home where

Brianna would be living, or find out that Brianna’s mother was illegally living in subsidized housing. Had this been done, it would

have been clear that Brianna’s mother had no legal residence,

which would have prevented the children from being returned to

her mother.

Furthermore, the Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities Administration failed to provide Brianna’s mother with the

housing and assistance she needed.

Next, the judge made the decision to send Brianna back to her

mother without holding a hearing.

The Health Department lost track of Brianna and her mother,

routinely closing the case, rather than providing assistance.

And finally, the neighborhood health clinic failed to follow up on

a call that Brianna might be in trouble, and waited a full day before notifying authorities.

All of these errors, all of these unbelievable lapses in judgment

indicate a total collapse of the system, a complete, unquestionable,

inexcusable breakdown.
5

REPORTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE

In a more recent incident, the Washington Post reported just last

week that at least 150 filed reports of child sexual abuse from the

years 1999 and 2000 fell through the cracks, going uninvestigated

by police until they were alerted to a box containing a stack of

these reports.

Apparently, the reports went through the District’s Child and

Family Service Agency, but it does remain unclear whether they

were ever transmitted directly to the city’s seven district police stations. According to the Washington Post, law enforcement sources

believe that since the police became aware of these missing reports

last year, some of the original victims have been molested again.

Stories like this should make us all sick. We, as a society, must

not tolerate this kind of incompetence, utter incompetence. We cannot allow blatantly irresponsible acts like this to continue.

Now, I recognize that the District child welfare system did not

collapse overnight, and we are well aware that it will not be fixed

overnight, either, but our oversight responsibility, as members of

this subcommittee, is to determine if the District has adequate resources available to meet its needs so that the city can repair itself

and can comply with the court-ordered consent agreement. We

have, I believe, an obligation to ensure that budgetary resources

are sufficient, and are being used effectively and appropriately to

get the job done.

We have an obligation, further, to review the District’s proposed

budget with close congressional scrutiny to ensure that any dollars

that flow into this system are used for the proper protection of the

children involved, so yes, a part of this hearing is about money. It

is about resources. The system was broken. The court stepped in

and said, in essence, fix it.

Now, we are here to determine if the District has fixed it, and

if the city has not, we want to know why not. Is it because of a

lack of resources? Is it because of the ineffective use of resources?

Are there sufficient funds available for the city’s component parts

to function together effectively? What are the District’s goals for

the future? Can those goals be met from a budgetary perspective?

Can additional resources help prevent another Brianna from dying?

Can additional resources prevent cases of sexual molestation from

falling through the cracks, from going uninvestigated for periods of

well over a year?

REFORMING THE SYSTEM

We are anxious to hear our witnesses and hear the answers to

these questions. However, this hearing must go beyond questions

of resources. The fact is that resources are no substitute for the

kind of responsible management required to make the systemic reforms necessary for the District’s child welfare system to function

effectively. In my view, the reform of the system should be the District’s number 1 priority. Let me repeat that. Considering budget,

in considering responsibility, in considering public policy, there

should be nothing more important than the protection of the children whom this District has in its power, has under its control, and

has an obligation to protect.
6

As the new chairman of this subcommittee, I want to make it

vividly clear that protecting at-risk children in the District is also

my number 1 priority, and I intend for the next 2 years at least

to focus on the children of this District, and I intend to focus particularly on those children that are most at risk, and many of those

children who are most at risk are the children who are part of our

social system and our child protection system.

This should come as no surprise for anyone. For years, especially

since coming to the U.S. Senate, I have devoted my attention to institutional reform in the foster care and child welfare systems

across our Nation. The adoption of the Safe Families Act essentially was about making the necessary reforms to move children

from foster care to permanency, and more importantly to make the

health and welfare of these children paramount. I believe it is necessary to see how these reforms are impacting the District’s child

welfare system specifically, and to examine how the goals of this

important law will work to the benefit of all children in our Nation’s capital.

Let me at this point turn to the Ranking Member of this committee, Senator Landrieu, someone whom I have worked with, and

worked with on the Safe Families Act that I have been referencing,

someone who has really been a leader in the protection of children

and a leader in the issue of foster care and adoption. Senator

Landrieu.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, all,

to our first hearing today, and I want to begin by commending the

chairman for his extraordinary work and focus in this area during

the time that he has been in the Senate, and I have had the privilege to join him on many bills, particularly the Adoption and Safe

Families Act as an original cosponsor, and so his leadership has

just been an extraordinary help to us.

He is the father of eight children. He comes at this issue from

a lot of real personal experience, and so I want to commend him.

I have a lengthy statement for the record, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman. He and I think very

much along the same lines in this regard, so it is not necessary for

me to repeat all of the statistics and history, which he did in an

excellent and wonderful way.

I would just like to note, however, having worked in this area of

child welfare for many, many years, that many of the issues that

the District is facing today are not necessarily unique to the District, that communities and States around the Nation are really

struggling with this problem. We are well aware of that. In my own

State of Louisiana, we are also faced with overburdened case workers, backlogs in reports, too many children in care for too long, a

disappointing, in my opinion, lack of focus on permanency and

adoption, minimizing options for families, and I could go on and on.

So we must keep our focus in this hearing through our budget

process on the budget of D.C., and I also want to join the chairman

in saying that this will be my number one priority, as a new member of the Appropriations Committee, to keep my focus on helping
7

the District, that it is not necessarily only unique to the District

of Columbia.

I also want to bring out, and I am so pleased that the chairman

will not let us forget the tragedy surrounding Brianna Blackman’s

death. I also note that just a few months ago, not too far from here,

in the State of Virginia, Caitlin Frasier suffered the same horrible

fate, and I could give hundreds of examples.

So let us just remember that this really is a national crisis. It

really is going to require a national focus and national solutions.

We will continue, as we have done in the past several years, to

sponsor bills and amendments and new approaches in giving new

tools to local officials as we work through these difficulties, but it

is important for us to stay focused, to know that we have made

some incremental progress here, but there is a lot to do.

I will only say this, that while it is a complicated problem, in this

Senator’s opinion there are solutions. There are clearly solutions

that work. There have been turn-arounds, success stories all over

this Nation. We know what works. There are some wonderful best

practices out there, and it is my hope that as I listen and learn

more about what you all have been through in the last couple of

years, that I can help to get those tools into your hands to help

shape a solution so that the thousands of children that the chairman has pointed our attention to can receive help quickly.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Their needs are urgent, their needs are real, and I for one am

not going to be one of the people that says it is just too much, we

just cannot do it, there are no solutions. I know there are, and I

am looking forward to working with you to find them.

Thank you so much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Good Morning. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the witnesses for

giving of their time to come and share with us the progress they have made and

the remaining challenges they still face in the child welfare system in the District

of Columbia. I sincerely believe that there is no greater accomplishment one can

achieve in this world than making a difference in the life of a child. Yet, I also understand that this type of work is uniquely demanding, with little thanks and even

less glory. So, I thank you.

It has been said that there is no such thing as a simple solution to a complex

problem. For a number of reasons, I think that that maxim applies to the topic of

this hearing today. To think that one hearing, one bill, one reform, one court order

or one person can single handedly solve the problems facing the child welfare system in DC would be a mistake. The solution to this very complex problem lies in

system wide reform, led by the Mayor and those he sees fit to appoint. This process

will require continued support and financial investment by the federal government.

And above all else, it will require that the district be willing to do what, quite truthfully, is hard for many governments to do—to put their children’s needs first instead

of last.

It has also been said that an undefined problem has an infinite number of solutions. For me, exploration is the best use of this hearing, and perhaps future hearings on this issue. To encourage the district to explore their challenges, assist them

in developing real short term and long term solutions and most importantly, determine what the federal government, through its appropriation power, can do to supplement and support those reforms. In my view, this is not a situation in which it

would be prudent for us to give ‘‘unfunded mandates.’’ Rather, we should use our

unique relationship and responsibilities to the district to help them to help themselves.
8

Child Welfare experts from across the country have been a part of drafting their

plans for reform. Others have reviewed this plan and agree that it is based on the

best practices of other successful reform efforts. What the District needs now is the

freedom to implement this plan and the tools necessary to make it work.

As a child welfare advocate, I think it is important to note that many of the child

welfare issues faced by the district are not unique to this city. In my own state of

Louisiana, they are also faced with overburdened caseworkers, back logs in the

courts, and too many children in care for too long. While we must keep our focus

on the tragic death of the little girl from DC foster care, Brianna Blackmond, we

must also remind ourselves that two months ago a little girl from Virginia, Katelyn

Frazier, suffered the same horrible fate. The foster care crisis is a national crisis.

Reforms made in DC can and should be coordinated with nationwide reform for children in care.

This is not to say that there are not issues here that are unique to DC. There

are and that is why it is so important to allow the Mayor and the newly created

agency to have the flexibility necessary to address the challenges. DC suffers from

a more desperate lack of qualified caseworkers. The national shortage in these types

of professionals is hardest felt here. In addition, their inability to recruit foster parents far exceeds the national scope of this problem. Finally, the demographics of

their children pose unique challenges that need to be addressed.

I look forward to hearing from the officials present about their renewed vision for

the future of the child welfare system in DC.

Senator DEWINE. We will now turn to our first panel. Deputy

Mayor Carolyn Graham is currently the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, and Families, formerly serving as the Senior Policy

Advisor to the Mayor for Children and Youth. She has had an extensive career in the field of human services and nonprofits, at one

time serving as the Director of the Human Services Department of

Broward County, Florida. She has a master’s of education degree

from Antioch College, and a master of public administration, City

University of New York, and a master of divinity from New York

Theological Seminary.

Sondra Jackson currently is the interim receiver for the Department of Child and Family Services, and we welcome her as well.

Judith Meltzer is the senior associate at the Center for the Study

of Social Policy. The Center for the Study of Social Policy is a nonprofit policy research and technical assistance organization located

in the District of Columbia. From 1992 to 1995, and from January

1997 to the present, the Center for the Study of Social Policy has

served as the court-appointed monitor of the District’s child welfare

system under LaShawn A. v. Barry.

Eric Thompson, our fourth panel member, is currently with Children’s Rights, Incorporated, formerly of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Children’s Rights Project, who brought the class action lawsuit of LaShawn A. v. Barry.

Welcome, all of you. We thank you very much for coming. I think

what we will do is start from my right, which would be your left,

with Ms. Graham, and we will just work our way right down the

list. As I indicated to the panel members, Congressman DeLay is

on his way, and when he gets here we will put him on because of

his schedule, and we will interrupt the testimony at that point. If

you could limit your comments to about 5 minutes, then we will go

from there, and in fact I see Mr. DeLay at this point. Congressman,

thank you for joining us. We are going to put you right on, and the

timing could not have been better. You have not been subjected to

my lengthy opening statement——

Senator LANDRIEU. Which was excellent, though long.

Senator DEWINE. But I will send you a copy of it.
9

Mr. DELAY. Thank you, sir.

Senator DEWINE. Let me introduce Hon. Tom DeLay, who in addition to his leadership in the House of Representatives in general

has been a real leader in this whole area of adoption and foster

care, and anything that has to do with children, you can bet Congressman DeLay is going to be involved in it.

He brings a personal interest to this as well as a public policy

interest. He is someone who has acted on that personal interest,

and someone who has taken his leadership position in the House

of Representatives and used that as a bully pulpit for children.

Congressman, thank you very much for joining us, and the floor is

yours.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TOM DeLAY, MAJORITY WHIP, U.S.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Senator, and Mr. Chairman, and Senator

Landrieu. I greatly appreciate your holding this hearing. It is a

very important issue that you are looking at today, and I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, but what you failed to say is,

I am very direct, and I am going to be direct this morning.

What has been going on in Washington, DC, although a lot of

people are working right now and doing a great job, including the

mayor, this is an issue that is a travesty. We need to focus on the

best interests of the children, so I am glad to be here with you this

morning, and I am glad that we share a commitment to demand

accountability from the system that protects children in the District of Columbia.

Both the foster care system and the city’s court system have to

change before the District’s children will begin receiving the protection that they so urgently need. Resolving the problems plaguing

the District’s foster care system will require a very thorough and

probing analysis, and frankly some very hard decisions.

We begin with an unavoidable consensus: the current system is

flawed, and that system is flawed because some abused children

are still languishing in foster care for almost 4 years. Other children lose their lives because people in the District’s systems did

not do their jobs.

ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT

Many of us were concerned by the plight of children trapped in

the District’s child welfare system long before public attention focused on its shortcomings. In 1997, we passed in Congress the

Adoption and Safe Families Act. Senator DeWine, thanks to you,

with your hard work in passing this legislation, our goal was to

make the child’s health and safety the paramount concern, while

deciding where to place abused children.

We hoped that this legislation would finally begin a transformation to a system that places the best interest of the children

within that system first. That is certainly not happening today, because the current system still does not work. I think that is intolerable, and we should not accept it.

We now know that the benefits of the foster care reform legislation have not been realized in Washington, DC, because the District simply did not move aggressively enough to embrace the re-
10

quired changes. That will only happen if the District takes the concrete steps needed to create an effective system. These include but

are not limited to putting children’s interests first, making timely

judicial decisions, shortening the time in foster care, and establishing a safe, permanent placement as priority.

REFORMING THE SYSTEM

Unfortunately, it took the death of yet another innocent child to

expose the lamentable state of the District’s foster care system to

the public eye. It will only be through the sustained attention of

men and women in the District that the system will be reformed,

and only reform will ensure that children will not be further

harmed by the system tasked with protecting them.

Those of us calling for accountability have taken some criticism

of late. Opponents of reform claim that the catalyst of our attention

has been the headlines surrounding Brianna Blackman’s death.

Well, I, for one, am still upset by the filings that killed Brianna,

but her tragic death only exacerbated concerns we already had

with shortcomings in many foster care systems around this country.

The truth is that we are trying to prevent the additional deaths

that will inevitably flow from a system that is recklessly incompetent and unaccountable. We have also got to make certain that

the District does not continue allowing children to linger endlessly

in foster care. We need to speed their transition to permanent

placement.

We are here today to get a status report on the steps the District

is taking to meet these unmet needs, and I am glad that Mayor

Williams shares our frustration, and has done an incredible job in

standing up to some incredible opposition. I also think he shares

our determination to mandate the changes that will protect children in Washington, DC.

We can only hope that the people empowered to protect children

will put aside parochial concerns and make the children’s best interests their sole overriding criterion. When that happens, I think

the District will finally be on the right track, and I want to work

closely with those of you in the Senate to move the District’s foster

care system from receivership to a successful program that can be

a model for reform, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing.

Senator DEWINE. Congressman, thank you very much. We really

appreciate your testimony. We will let you go back to the other

side, and we just appreciate your commitment. We know that this

is the first of probably several hearings that we are going to hold,

and we look forward to working with you to help the District resolve these issues.

Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. We appreciate it very much.

Ms. Graham, thank you.

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN N. GRAHAM, DEPUTY MAYOR, OFFICE OF

THE MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ms. GRAHAM. Good morning, Senator DeWine, and Senator

Landrieu. I am Carolyn Graham, Deputy Mayor for Children,
11

Youth, and Families in the District of Columbia, and on behalf of

Mayor Anthony A. Williams I welcome the opportunity to testify at

this oversight hearing today, and wish to commend each of you for

the work that you have done on the Adoption and Safe Families

Act.

RECEIVERSHIPS

As you know, the quality of our child welfare system in the District of Columbia has been a longstanding concern for the city. In

September of last year, I testified before the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, that it was time for the Child Welfare Agency

to return to the control of the Mayor. I told the committee that although some improvements had been made during the receivership

in terms of infrastructure within CFSA, substantial improvements

have not been seen in terms of case practice and better permanency outcomes for children.

I also testified at that time that receiverships are not intended

as permanent solutions, and further, that this administration has

clearly demonstrated a commitment to improving the child welfare

system in the city. I am thus pleased to report to you today that,

following that hearing, a consent order was approved by the U.S.

District Court on October 23, 2000, in the LaShawn case.

In this order, the Federal court approved the parties’ agreement

to terminate the receivership and return the agency to the control

of the District of Columbia upon the satisfaction of four specific

conditions. The first is the enactment of legislation to unify the

child welfare system, and to establish the CFSA as a Cabinet-level

agency. The second is the promulgation of regulations for foster

and group homes, the third is the selection of a Director, and the

fourth is the Director’s selection of a senior management team for

the agency. We are well on our way to satisfying each of these conditions.

The legislation to unify the agency and to establish it as a Cabinet-level was developed and is now in Congress, going through its

30-day approval process. We would expect that, by the end of this

month, that process will have been completed. The regulations for

foster homes and group homes will be published in the District

Register within the next 30 days. A search firm has nearly completed its work in the identification of a director for the agency. We

expect to select this individual by next month, and anticipate that

the senior management team will be in place in May 2001.

Based on our progress to date, we expect the receivership to terminate, and the Child Welfare Agency to return to the control of

the Mayor before the end of the current calendar year. We also are

aggressively moving to implement the emergency child welfare reform plan that was submitted to the House of Representatives following the September 2000 hearing.

MAYOR’S REFORM PLAN

This reform plan was developed by the Mayor, and has six major

areas of foci. One is the unification of the child welfare system, development of an integrated approach to the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect, the development of a neighbor-
12

hood-based service delivery system, augmentation and reconfiguration of the legal staffing in the Office of Corporation Counsel in

order to more expeditiously process abuse and neglect and adoption

cases, the collaboration with the D.C. Superior Court, and the

Council for Court Excellence, to address the backlog of adoption

and foster care cases, and to explore family court models.

CFSA’S INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Finally, the integration of CFSA’s information management system into the District’s newly developed safe passages information

system. Here again, I am pleased to report that significant progress

has been achieved. Regarding the systems’ unification, we are

working with the American Humane Association to train staff and

to move that program component of abuse that the Court currently

have into the Child Welfare Agency. With respect to the interstate

compact for the placement of children, we are also moving that into

the Child Welfare Agency. The agency will assume responsibility

for this function as of April 1.

Child abuse investigations. On March 7, we took major strides

towards improving our system for investigating and prosecuting

child abuse cases. An MOU was signed by all of the agencies responsible for the investigation, and prosecution of child abuse. This

agreement will ensure that children are interviewed only once during a child abuse investigation.

The neighborhood based service delivery system, we are exploring ways to expand that network now. Chapin Hall, a premier child

welfare research and technical assistance organization, conducted

an initial assessment of the current private service provider’s capacity, and a follow-up assessment is currently being planned.

With respect to legal resources, we are substantially increasing the

legal resources for the child welfare agency. The Office of Corporation Counsel is now beginning the process of hiring more than 30

new legal and paralegal staff to process abuse and neglect complaints, as well as termination of parental rights petitions and

adoptions.

With respect to the family court, as you perhaps know, the Superior Court is currently undertaking an internal assessment to determine the best strategy to pursue for establishing such a court.

It should be noted that resources still appear to be a significant

issue for the court. The Mayor has met on several occasions to discuss his support of the court’s adoption of a family court model.

While not being prescriptive, Mayor Williams has stressed the need

for such a court, and his willingness to support the court’s adequate resourcing in order to bring a family court to the District of

Columbia.

FACES

With respect to the information system, work has begun to integrate CFSA’s information system, FACES, into the District’s Safe

Passages information system. Safe Passages will ultimately combine information from all of the agencies in the city that serve children, including child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, the

Department of Health, early intervention, and the public school

system.
13

This system will allow us to look across agencies and identify the

services the children are receiving, as well as determine spending

on a per-child basis. Safe Passages will also facilitate interagency

communication and a coordinated case management approach to

addressing the needs of our children in the city.

The child welfare system is, indeed, a top priority for this administration. Among other things, this is reflected in this administration’s fiscal year 2002 budget submission. The Mayor has requested

$188 million in funding for the Child Welfare Agency. This constitutes full funding of the consent order. It represents 11.8 percent

over the fiscal year 2001 approved budget. In dollars, this translates into approximately $20 million new dollars over fiscal year

2001’s approved budget.

Senator DEWINE. Ms. Graham, could we ask you to wrap up,

please?

Ms. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator DEWINE. We would appreciate it.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Ms. GRAHAM. In closing, the administration looks forward to regaining responsibility for the full functions of this agency on a dayto-day basis. We are committed to working with all stakeholders to

better protect our children from abuse and neglect, and to quickly

find permanent homes for those children who cannot live safely

with their parents.

I thank you for this opportunity.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN N. GRAHAM

Good morning Senator DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the Committee.

I am Carolyn N. Graham, Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families in the

District of Columbia. On behalf of Mayor Anthony A. Williams, I welcome the opportunity to testify at this oversight hearing today.

As you know, the quality of our Child Welfare System has been a longstanding

concern for the City. The City has been under a Federal court order since 1991 and

the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) has been in some form of receivership

since 1994.

In September of last year, I testified before the House of Representatives (Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia) that it

was time for the Child Welfare Agency to return to the control of mayor. I told the

Committee that, although some improvements have been made during the receivership in terms of infrastructure within CFSA, substantial improvements have not yet

been seen in terms of case practice and better permanency outcomes for children.

I also testified at that time that receiverships are not intended as permanent solutions and, further, that this administration has clearly demonstrated a commitment

to improving the Child Welfare System in this city.

I am thus pleased to report to you today that, following that hearing, a consent

order was approved by the United States District Court on October, 23, 2000 in the

Lashawn case. In this order, the Federal court approved the parties’ agreement to

the terminate the receivership and return the agency to the control of the District

Government upon the satisfaction of four specific conditions:

—First, the enactment of legislation to unify the Child Welfare System and establish CFSA as a Cabinet-Level Agency with independent personnel, procurement

and licensing authority, consistent with District of Columbia Law;

—Second, the promulgation of regulations for Foster and Group Homes;

—Third, the selection of a CFSA Director; and

—Fourth, the selection, by the new Director, of a Senior Management Team for

CFSA.

We are well on our way to satisfaction of each of these conditions:
14

—The legislation to unify the Child Welfare System and establish CFSA as a Cabinet Level Agency was developed by the Mayor and approved by the District

Council. It was forwarded to Congress for the 30-day Congressional review period and should be enacted on March 30, 2001.

—Regulations for Foster Homes and Group Homes have been drafted (with extensive stakeholder input) and will be published in thE DC register within the next

30 days.

—A Search firm has been engaged through George Washington University’s Center for excellence in Municipal Government to help us with conducting a national search for a CFSA Director. This work is being supported by a generous

grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The first round of candidate interviews for the position of Child Welfare Agency Director has been completed. We

expect to select a Director by next month and anticipate that the senior management team will be in place during May 2001.

Based on our progress to date, we expect the receivership to terminate and the

Child Welfare Agency to return to the control of the Mayor before the middle of the

current calendar year.

We are also aggressively moving forward to implement the emergency Child WeLfare Reform Plan that was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives following

the September 2000 hearing. This reform plan was developed by the Mayor and has

six major areas of focus:

—Unification of the Child Welfare System, the functions of which are currently

split among CFSA, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Social Services

Division of the District of Columbia Superior Court;

—Development of an integrated approach to the investigation and prosecution of

child abuse and neglect;

—Development of a neighborhood-based service delivery system through expanded

partnerships with community service providers;

—Augmentation and reconfiguration of legal staffing in order to more expeditiously process abuse and neglect and adoption cases and in order to provide

more direct legal support to CFSA Social Workers;

—Collaboration with the D.C. Superior Court and the Council for Court Excellence to address the backlog of adoption and foster care cases and to explore

family court models; and

—Integration of CFSA’S information management system into the District’s newly

developing safe passages information system.

Here again, I am pleased to report significant progress.

—System Unification.—As I noted above, the Legislation to unify the Child Welfare System was passed by the Council and is under Congressional review. In

addition, we have contracted with the American Humane Association—a nationally renowned expert in Child Welfare System Reform—to assist with ending

bifurcation and to manage the process of transferring Court Social Services

(CSS) staff and cases to the Child and Family Services Agency. Indeed, planning for the transfer is underway. We negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Superior Court that establishes the conditions that

must be met in order to transfer CSS’ staff to CFSA. We are currently negotiating terms for the transfer of the CSS employees with the personnel director

at the Superior Court. The American Humane Society is working with Representatives from CFSA and CSS to develop the programmatic aspects of the

transfer, which we hope to accomplish by October 1, 2001.

—ICPC.—The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children—known as

ICPC—is also being transferred to CFSA pursuant to the October 23, 2000 consent order and the new enabling legislation. this function is required when children from the District are placed in other states. previously, the function was

handled by the District’s Department of Human Services. CFSA staff are currently being trained by the American Public Human Services Association

(APHSA) to assume this function. The agency will assume the responsibility on

April 1, 2001.

—Child Abuse Investigation.—On March 7, 2001, we took major strides toward

improving our system for investigating and prosecuting child abuse. An MOU

was signed by all of the agencies responsible for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse. this agreement will ensure that children are interviewed

only once during a child abuse investigation and that this interview will be conducted in a place that is friendly to children by someone who is an expert in

working with children. Previously, children had to endure multiple interviews

with multiple agencies, further traumatizing them. This agreement was signed

by the Mayor, the United States Attorney, the Superior Court, the Child and

Family Services Agency, the Office of Corporation Counsel, the Safe Shores
15

Children’s Advocacy Center, Children’s National Medical Center, the Commission on Mental Health Services, and the D.C. Public Schools. The MOU establishes a clear process that will facilitate appropriate communication and collaboration amongst these agencies. —Neighborhood-Based Services.—We are continuing to partner with communitybased organizations, which are working in our neighborhoods with families. We

are exploring expanding our partnerships with private service providers. Chapin

Hall—a premiere Child Welfare Research and Technical Assistance Organization—conducted an initial assessment of current private service provider capacity and a follow-up assessment is now being planned. Once this work is complete, we will be able to determine the degree to which we might increase our

use of these agencies. —Legal Resources.—We are substantially increasing legal resources for the Child

Welfare Agency. The Office of Corporation Counsel is now beginning the process

of hiring more than 30 new legal and paralegal staff to process abuse and neglect complaints as well as termination of parental rights petitions and adoptions. The Mayor’s fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Corporation

Counsel includes approximately $1.9 million in additional funding in order to

maintain these new positions. —Family Court.—As you perhaps know, the Superior Court is currently undertaking an internal assessment to determine the best strategy to pursue. It

should be noted that resources still appear to be a significant issue for the

court. The Mayor has met on several occasions to discuss his support of the

court’s adoption of a family court model. While not being prescriptive, Mayor

Williams has stressed the need for such a court and his willingness to support

the court’s adequate resourcing in order to bring a Family Court to scale in the

District. —Information System.—Work has begun to integrate CFSA’s information system—‘‘FACES’’—into the District’s safe passages information system. Safe passages will ultimately combine information from all of the agencies in the city

that serve children, including Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Mental Health,

Department of Health, Early Intervention and the Public School System. This

system will allow us to look across agencies and identify the services children

are receiving as well as determine spending on a per child basis. Safe passages

will facilitate interagency communication and a coordinated case management

approach to addressing the needs of children.

Child Welfare is a top priority for this administration. Among other things, this

is reflected in this administration’s fiscal year 2002 budget submission. The Mayor

has requested $188 million in funding for the Child Welfare Agency. This constitutes full funding.

We are taking every opportunity to ensure that there is a seamless transition of

CfSA back to the Mayor’s control through the development of linkages between the

Child Welfare System and our Health and Human Service Agencies.

—The CFSA receiver participates in twice-monthy meetings with the Directors of

all our Human Service Agencies. This provides an opportunity to identify and

resolve cross-agency issues.

—CFSA participates in several interagency work groups coordinated by the Mayor’s Office, including one focusing on developing community-based services for

children with mental health needs. This group is focusing on bringing foster

children who are in out-of-state mental health facilities home to the District by

developing the needed services here in the city. This work is being supported

by the Casey Family Program.

—A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between CFSA and the Department of Health’s Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA).

Under this MOU, APRA will be developing and implementing detoxification and

Substance Abuse Treatment Services and Programs for children and families in

the Child Welfare System.

In addition to initiatives directly related to the Child Welfare System, this administration is also taking a very proactive and preventive approach to improving child

well-being as evidenced by the following:

—Establishmnent of Neighborhood based Parent Development Centers;

—Implementation of home visits to families with newborns and young children;

and

—Significant expansion of after school programs for children and youth.

Indeed, the Child Welfare Agency returns to the city at an exciting time as we

embark upon a major initiative to rebuild our Human Services Network in the District. We are now developing a plan to establish a system of ‘‘Neighborhood Places’’

throughout the City. These neighborhood places will be centers in neighborhoods
16

where public services for children and families will be available and integrated

across agency lines. In other words, there will be one place in a neighborhood where

you can go to get child care, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, TANF, and employment

information and services. Ultimately, Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Health and

Mental Health Services will be aliged with these neighborhood places. These centers

will also be closely linked to existing private and faith-based networks, ensuring

that families benefit from the range of community partners who are already working

in these neighborhoods. The vision is of a seamless system of Human Services that

families can access in the neighborhoods where they live. A primary focus of these

centers will be on supporting families so that child abuse and neglect does not occur

in the first place.

In closing, this administration looks forward to regaining responsibility for the

full functions and the day-to-day operations of the Child Welfare Agency. We are

committed to working with all stakeholders to better protect children from abuse

and neglect and to quickly find permanent homes for those children who cannot live

safely with their parents. The City’s children deserve no less than this. I thank you

for the opportunity to testify before the distinguished members of this committee

and am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Ms. Jackson.

STATEMENT OF SONDRA JACKSON, ACTING CHIEF, CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ms. JACKSON. Good morning, Senator DeWine and Senator

Landrieu. My name is Sondra Jackson, and I am the court-appointed interim general receiver for the Child & Family Services

Agency. I was appointed in December 2000. However, I have

worked with the agency in an effort to bring the agency into compliance with the modified final order for 31⁄2 years now. I thank you

for this opportunity to provide testimony on the status of the Child

and Family Services Agency, particularly as the agency begins the

transition back into the District of Columbia.

I would like to begin my testimony by highlighting some of the

accomplishments CFSA has made that I believe make transitioning

possible at this time.

CHALLENGES

The District of Columbia has been confronted with many challenges over the past 3 years. There have also been some successes.

We have exceeded our performance goals in areas of the child welfare system such as increasing the number of adoptions by about

49 percent, increasing the number of foster homes by about 16 percent, and improving Federal reimbursement by 22 percent from

last year.

We have also developed D.C. Kids, our health care program,

which is designed to provide comprehensive health services for children. In other words, we are doing mental health screenings, physical health screenings, comprehensive exams, and now over 80 percent of all of these children have been put into a health care tracking system.

We also want to expand our family preservation and support

services by the use of community based partners, and I think it is

going to be important that we continue that effort in the District

of Columbia.

The fastest-growing population in child welfare today is relative

care. We have over 2,545 children in the city in our system placed

with relatives. The agency will need to continue to develop sup-
17

ports for relatives. So far, we have a 4(e) demonstration project

that works with the community to try to enhance the services for

relatives.

We also have a kinship-guardianship program, subsidized guardianship program, which starts within a month. The automated system that you referenced, Faces, is undergoing modifications this

year, and enhancements. We are excited to work with the Mayor’s

office on integrating our system into the city’s child information

system.

The agency continues to work to achieve greater interagency cooperation with other agencies in the city. The Superior Court is important, the Corporation Council, the Metropolitan Police Department are all important agencies in terms of coming into compliance

with the Adoptions and Safe Families Act.

In addition, the agency must form a better relationship with

other District agencies that offer specialized services for children,

such as D.C. Public Schools, the Mental Health Commission, and

the Addictions Prevention Recovery Administration. We are funding several initiatives with these agencies to develop specific services for children in the child welfare population.

Appropriate staffing levels continue to be a major concern for

CFSA, and we have put in incentive packages which have recently

been approved by the Mayor and the city council. CFSA also continues to recruit individuals with bachelor level degrees in social

work to augment the service delivery. As you know, all of our social

workers are master’s level people.

A major challenge, though, has been in retaining workers, and

there are several problems with that. The one that I think we are

going to try to find a solution to is to get adequate legal representation for our social workers in the court to help prepare workers as

they go into their hearings. The agency is transferring $1 million

to the Corporation Counsel to make this happen.

CFSA wants to improve and recruit foster parents. We have several projects with foundations to help us accomplish this.

Senator DEWINE. Ms. Jackson, if you could just wrap up please,

we would appreciate it.

Ms. JACKSON. Okay. Finally, CFSA is working with the city and

plaintiffs in transitioning the agency back. We have had satisfactory relations as we attempt to do this.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, I want the committee to know that we are very

concerned about our children, that we continue to work closely to

provide better services, and I thank the committee for hearing me.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SONDRA JACKSON

Good morning Chairman Dewine and members of the Subcommittee. My name is

Sondra Jackson and I am the court-appointed Interim General Receiver for the

Child and Family Services Agency. I have served in the capacity of Interim General

Receiver since December 2000. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony

on the status of the Child and Family Services Agency, particularly as the Agency

begins the transition back into the District of Columbia government.

The Child and Family Services Agency operates under the mandates of the Modified Final Order (MFO) issued by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan in

January 1994. For the past three (3) years, I have been a part of the Agency’s ef-
18

forts to bring this Agency into compliance with the requirements of the Modified

Final Order. Although there are areas that still need improvement, I believe that

we have made significant progress.

I would like to begin my testimony today by highlighting some of the accomplishments CFSA has made under the current Receivership that make transitioning back

into the District of Columbia government possible at this time, and conclude by providing the Subcommittee with an update on CFSA’s role in the transition.

CFSA ACCOMPLISHMENTS

While the Child Welfare system in the District of Columbia has been confronted

with many challenges this past year, there has also been significant improvement

and progress over the last three years. I am pleased to report briefly on a number

of accomplishments for fiscal year 2000, and the status of the Agency’s performance

goals and targets contained in our fiscal year 2001 budget document.

Fiscal year 2000 Performance Goals and Targets

CFSA targeted a 32 percent increase in the availability of neighborhood based

services to children and families through the Healthy Families collaboratives. A 33

percent increase was achieved; from 987 to 1,316 families.

CFSA targeted a 100 percent rate of safely protecting children within their families. A rate of 97 percent was achieved; 7,435 out of 7,641.

CFSA targeted a 40 percent increase in the number of finalized adoptions. A 37

percent increase was achieved; from 250 to 343.

CFSA targeted a 15 percent reduction in the length of time between the decision

to pursue adoption and finalized adoption. A 44 percent reduction was achieved;

from 2.36 to 1.32 years.

CFSA targeted a 33.6 percent increase in federal reimbursement under titles IV–

E, XVI (SSI), and XIX (Medicaid). A 22.6 percent increase was achieved; from $45.6

to $55.8 million.

CFSA targeted a 10 percent increase in the number of licensed foster care homes.

A 16 percent increase was achieved; from 437 to 507.

DC KIDS

The DC KIDS Health Care Program was implemented in fiscal year 2000. This

health system was developed to ensure that children entering the care and supervision of the Agency receive a full health screening and follow-up health care. Approximately 80 percent of all foster care children were enrolled in DC Kids. We are

currently in the process of reviewing the existing contract, which expires September

30, 2001, and re-negotiating a new contract to ensure that this system of services

continues to meet the needs of the children we serve. In addition, we are also in

discussions with Children’s Hospital to provide a full range of health care services

for all children, including those currently served by Court Social Services, and to

expand services specifically for child victims of sexual abuse.

Community-Based Services

Expanding family preservation and supportive services in the community is critical to achieving compliance with the Adoptions and Safe Families Act, regardless

of whether a child resides in the home, with a relative, with an adoptive parent,

or in foster care. Using neighborhood supports and the professional help of social

workers from the Agency, we have been able to augment the strengths of the families in their own communities. It is not good practice to remove children from everything they know and love if a nurturing, safe, and supportive home can be found

where they live.

Kinship Care

In fiscal year 2000, CFSA provided services to 986 families with 2,545 children

living with kin in their communities. The number of children in kinship care, who

might otherwise have been removed from their community, increased 22 percent

from fiscal year 1999. ‘‘Connecting Families’’ is a five year Title IV–E Child Welfare

Demonstration Program which was launched in fiscal year 2000. This project will

assist CFSA in documenting the effectiveness of a service delivery system that relies

on community-based partners to provide concrete support and services to kinship

families.

In addition, CFSA is in the process of launching a kinship guardianship subsidy

program for relative caregivers. The regulations needed to implement this program

are being reviewed by the Office of Corporation Counsel and are expected to be published in the D.C. Register by April 2001.
19

Policy Manual

The Agency has developed and updated policies for all major components of child

welfare service delivery, including Intake and Investigations, Foster Care Services,

Placement, Kinship and Family Services, and Monitoring Homes. These policies

have been converted to an online format for easy staff use and regular updates.

FACES/Child Welfare Information System

The Agency’s automated system, FACES, was succesfully implemented in fiscal

year 2000. Its functionality includes the critical components to support service delivery, tracking and financial management. To date, interfaces between FACES and

the District’s SOAR and ACEDS systems have been completed. Interface requirements for the DC KIDS program and the Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement remain under development. Modifications and enhancements to the

FACES system will continue during fiscal year 2001. In addition, CFSA has actively

participated in the Mayor’s Safe Passages Child Information System project with

the expectation that FACES information will be integrated into the District-wide

system.

Training and Staff Development

In 1999 the Agency contracted with Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) to

deliver comprehensive training. During fiscal year 2000, the CFSA/VCU Training

Project held 50 training courses, conducted 110 days of training, and trained 887

CFSA staff.

FISCAL YEAR 2001 HIGHLIGHTS

Inter-Agency Initiatives

The Agency continues to work to achieve greater inter-agency cooperation between

CFSA and the D.C. Superior Court, Corporation Counsel, and the Metropolitan Police Department in fulfilling the mandates of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act.

In addition, CFSA has initiated memoranda of understanding and issued requests

for proposals to improve the Agency’s ability to ensure mental health and substance

services to the children and families currently served by the child welfare system.

In this regard, CFSA has worked very closely with the Commission on Mental

Health Services and the Addiction Prevention Recovery Administration to expedite

this process. As a result of those discussions the Agency has also made funding

available to ensure that our clients receive specialized treatment and services

through programs administered by those agencies.

Staffing/Recruitment and Retention

Appropriate staffing levels continue to be a major concern. CFSA submitted a recruitment and retention compensation incentive package to the Mayor that included

a hiring bonus and an additional income allowance designed primarily as a retention incentive. The Mayor and the D.C. Council have approved this incentive package on an emergency basis.

CFSA has implemented other compensation incentive programs. An employee referral program and a program to reimburse new hires for relocation expenses are

designed to enhance recruitment and to recognize employee contributions in the hiring of social workers. The Agency’s recruitment plan envisions the hiring of an additional 50 new social workers who will be graduating this Spring from social work

programs. In addition, CFSA continues to recruit and hire individuals with bachelor-level degrees in social work to augment the caseload responsibilities of existing

workers. It is anticipated that prior to the end of this fiscal year new tangible programs proposed by our retention committee will positively impact our recruitment

and retention needs.

Legal Representation

A major challenge the Agency has experienced in retaining qualified social workers has been the absence of adequate legal preparation and representation in court

hearings. To address this particular area of concern, and to improve the Agency’s

working relationship with the D.C. Superior Court in achieving compliance with the

Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Agency is transferring $1 million to the Office

of the Corporation Counsel for the hiring of additional attorneys and paralegal staff

to be co-located within CFSA.

Foster Home Recruitment Incentives

CFSA’s campaign to approve and recruit foster and adoptive parents has faced a

number of challenges. However, in an effort to create additional homes in the District of Columbia, the Agency has commenced the My Community My Children Ini-
20

tiative in collaboration with the Annie E. Casey Foundation. This initiative will involve community partners in recruiting new homes and resources in the District of

Columbia. In addition, the Modified Final Order requires CFSA to pay a board rate

equal to the full cost of raising a child in the urban southeast. The Agency recently

increased these rates to comparable levels in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.

It is the Agency’s expectation that these recent increases will also improve the

Agency’s ability to recruit more foster homes in the District of Columbia.

UPDATE ON CFSA’S ROLE IN THE TRANSITION

As you may be aware, under the terms of a Federal Court Order entered on October 23, 2000, there are four (4) requirements that must be fulfilled before the

LaShawn Receivership will terminate. The first requirement includes passage of legislation creating a separate department with independent personnel and procurement authority, licensing responsibility for child welfare related facilities, and consolidation of the abuse and neglect case responsibility in the new department. Second, the District must promulgate licensing regulations for both group and foster

homes, and maintain Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) responsibility for children currently in the care of CFSA. Third, the District must hire

a Director of the new department. Finally, the Director must assemble a management team for the new Department. CFSA has been working very closely with the

Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families to satisfy these transition requirements so that the Receivership will end this Spring.

Transition Legislation

Legislation establishing the Department of Child and Family Services and otherwise meeting the requirements of the Order was passed in December 2000, was

signed by the Mayor and forwarded to Congress, and is awaiting the completion of

the congressional review period. This Receivership has always advocated for legislation that would establish a single-State child welfare agency in the District of Columbia with primary responsibility for investigating child neglect and abuse cases.

In fact, prior to the submission of the Mayor’s emergency reform plan, the Agency

requested the American Humane Association (AHA) to study the issue of bifurcation. This report, which was completed in November, 2000, provided the impetus for

the plans now underway for the unification of child abuse and neglect responsibilities. Presently, representatives of the D.C. Superior Court, the Office of the Deputy

Mayor for Children, Youth and Families and CFSA are working with AHA to coordinate this effort.

Licensing Regulations for Foster Homes and Group Homes

CFSA drafted the initial foster home licensing regulations and is working very

closely with the District to develop regulations for the licensure of group homes.

Over the last several months, working groups have been meeting to develop the regulations, and both sets of proposed regulations are in final draft form.

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Transfer

The October 23rd Order and enabling legislation also require the transfer of responsibilities related to the Interstate Compact for Placement of Children (ICPC)

from the Department of Human Services to the new Department of Child and Family Services. I have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families to effect this transfer. The American

Public Human Services Association (APHSA) has agreed to train staff and to notify

all other states of the transfer of responsibilities. Under the terms of the MOU, the

Receivership will absorb all costs related to the transfer during this fiscal year. This

transfer is expected to take place April 2001.

Selection of CFSA Director and New Management Team

With respect to the search for a new Director, a national search is underway. The

process for selection includes input from a committee comprised of the Deputy

Mayor for Children, Youth and Families, the District’s Director of Personnel, Plaintiff’s Counsel, the Court Monitor, the Director of the District’s Youth Services Administration, and the Chair of the D.C. Council’s Human Services Committee. I also

serve on this committee. The Director of the District’s Office of Personnel is coordinating the search.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the Child Welfare System in the District of

Columbia has been confronted with many challenges this past year, there has also

been significant improvement and progress. Ensuring the safety and well being of
21

the children in our care continues to be the responsibility we take most seriously.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee

on the District of Columbia. I would also like to thank the Congressional staffers

who visited our offices this month to observe first hand the positive things the Agency is doing to support children and families in the District of Columbia. I ask for

your continued support in our efforts to achieve compliance with the requirements

of the Modified Final Order and the return of the Agency to the District of Columbia

government. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator DEWINE. We thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH MELTZER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY

Senator DEWINE. Ms. Meltzer, thank you for joining us.

Ms. MELTZER. Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank you for

inviting me, and I especially want to thank both of you for your

opening statements, and the importance that you have given to this

issue in those statements.

I am Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy,

and the center, as you mentioned previously, serves as the independent monitor of the District’s system under the LaShawn decree.

LASHAWN DECREE

As monitor, I am responsible for independently and objectively

assessing the progress of the Government and the receivership in

implementing the decree. We do this in as collaborative a way as

possible, working with the receiver, with District government officials, with outside advocacy groups, and with the plaintiffs. We review administrative and case load data provided by the agency on

a monthly basis, we perform independent case record reviews, we

do case studies, and we perform special studies as needed. We have

recently commissioned an independent audit of the agency’s financial activity for fiscal year 2000, and we expect to have that audit

completed by June 15.

We are near completion of an in-depth review of children in

group care facilities, which involved us doing on-site visits at these

facilities, as well as focus groups with the children and youth who

attended the facilities. We have also just initiated an in-depth review of the quality of care provided under the DC Kids health care

initiative.

CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

It is important for you to know that the child welfare system has,

in fact, improved since 1992, when I first began as monitor, and

some of the clear improvements have been in the development of

capacity to support families in neighborhoods through the Healthy

Families, Thriving Communities Collaboratives, the creation of a

staff training capacity, which never existed before, multiyear increases in numbers of adoptions, and significant increases in the

agency’s ability to draw down Federal funds under title 4(a) and

title 19 of the Social Security Act.

Saying this, however, is not meant to imply that the system is

anywhere near where it should be in terms of compliance, and it

has been extremely frustrating for me as monitor, for the leadership of the agency, and for the public at large to understand why
22

it has been 10 years and the agency is still so far from where it

needs to be.

Early on in Mayor Wiliams’ tenure he made it clear that he was

committed to reassuming responsibility, and effectuating a transition. A first test of his commitment was his deliverance on the fiscal year 2000 budget, which he did deliver on in the budget for fiscal year 2000 for the agency at $184 million, representing about a

$30 million increase from the prior years.

That was the first time that that agency ever had enough money

to adequately carry out its mandates, and we actually do not even

know at this point whether it is significant, but at this point they

now have enough money that they have properly budgeted to put

in place some of the resources for children and families that have

been so sorely absent.

The fiscal year 2001 budget is going to enable the development

of substance abuse resources, mental health service resources, increase in foster parents’ rate, and additional specialized placement

resources. Those are just absolutely essential.

TRANSITION ORDER

Having delivered on the fiscal 2001 budget process, we entered

into negotiations of this October 23, 2000 transition order, which

everybody has mentioned. The order lays out prerequisite requirements for ending receiverships and for monitoring progress during

a transitional period. It also provides some clear commitments to

address some of the structural issues which have really impeded

progress over these last 2 years, and that is why the inclusion in

that order of the requirements for bringing abuse and neglect together and for dealing with the Superior Court and for providing

lawyers and corporation counsel is so significant.

I want to underscore, though, that the receivership has not yet

ended, although we are engaged with the District in meeting with

the prerequisite requirements in an expeditious way. Attached to

my written testimony is a report that I just filed with the court on

where we are with all those transition requirements.

PREREQUISITE FOR TRANSITION

It is my best estimate that if things proceed as they are now, the

prerequisites for a transition will be accomplished in June or July

of this year. At that point, the receivership will end, and a probationary period will begin. During the probationary period, the agency will be expected to meet certain performance benchmarks related to remedial order requirements, and these are really childrenrelated requirements. They are things like timely completion of investigations, placement of children in licensed foster homes, placement of children with siblings, reduction of children experiencing

multiple placements.

We have set benchmarks for improvement over a 6-month period.

These progress benchmarks were set deliberately low, or I would

say conservatively, because we are not trying to set the bar so high

that the agency has to go back into receivership, but we are trying

to make sure that progress continues.
23

LASHAWN ORDER

It is important also to emphasize, though, that at the end of the

receivership, when the probationary period ends, the LaShawn

order is still in effect, and the LaShawn order remains in effect

until it is complied with. Under current circumstances we will continue to monitor the District’s progress in complying with the agency’s order.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I wanted to briefly indicate what some of the challenges are that

I think exist going forward, but I know I am out of time, so I will

do whatever you want.

Senator DEWINE. We will do that in questions, and when we get

a chance in the questions just jump in at some point. We will make

sure that gets covered, because we want to hear that.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH MELTZER

Good morning. I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify this

morning and for your interest in improving the child welfare system in the District

of Columbia. I am Judith Meltzer, Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of

Social Policy. The Center has been appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas

Hogan as the independent monitor of the District’s child welfare system under the

LaShawn A. v. Williams lawsuit. We have served in that capacity from 1992–1995,

and from 1997 to the present, with a brief hiatus when the system was first placed

in Receivership.

As Monitor, I am responsible for independently and objectively assessing the

progress of the District of Columbia government and the Receivership in implementing the LaShawn decree. The decree establishes the framework and requirements for a child welfare system that operates in compliance with District and federal law and that adequately protects children and supports and preserves families.

I carry out the monitoring function in as collaborative a way as possible, working

closely with the Receiver, District government officials, outside advocacy groups and

the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. We review administrative and case flow data provided

by the Agency on a monthly basis, do independent case record reviews and case

studies and perform special studies as needed. For example, we have commissioned

an independent audit of the Agency’s financial activity which is underway, and expected to be complete by no later than June 15, 2001. We are near completion of

an in depth review of children in group care facilities, which included on-site reviews to half of the facilities under contract to care for children as well as focus

groups with the children and youth residing in the facilities. We have also just initiated an in depth review of the quality and adequacy of health care services provided

to children in the foster care system under the DC KIDS initiative.

It is important for you to know that the child welfare system has in fact improved

since 1992, when I first began as Monitor. Some clear improvements have been the

development of the capacity to support families in the neighborhoods through the

eight Healthy Families, Thriving Communities Collaboratives; the creation of a staff

training capacity through Virginia Commonwealth University and local schools of

social work; a multi-year increase in the numbers of children adopted; and significant increases in the Agency’s ability to properly draw down available federal revenue to support its work. Saying this, however, is not meant to imply that the system is anywhere near where it should be in terms of compliance with the LaShawn

Remedial Order. There are many problems that have proven intractable to reform

efforts and there are some things that have gotten better for awhile, only to move

backward over time. The pace of progress and the ability to fix problems permanently has been extremely frustrating for me as Monitor, and is equally frustrating

for leadership and staff within the Agency and for the public at large.

Early on in Mayor Williams’s tenure, he made it clear that he was committed to

re-assuming responsibility for child welfare functions in the District and that he

was prepared to provide the leadership required to effectuate a transition from Receivership. A first test of his Administration’s commitment was the funding of the

fiscal year 2001 budget for the Receivership. Despite the rhetoric over the years
24

which has implied that the Receivership has been free to establish its own budget

and operate independently, the Receivership has always had to go through the regular budget and appropriations process of the District and until this year, was never

adequately funded. The fiscal year 2001 budget included an infusion of approximately $30 million which should enable the Agency to fund many previously unavailable resources such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services for

children and families, as well as foster parent rate increases and additional specialized placement services.

Having delivered on the Mayor’s budget promise for fiscal year 2001, we recently

completed negotiations with the District and the plaintiffs which resulted in Judge

Hogan’s October 23 Transition Order. This Order lays out a series of prerequisite

requirements for ending the Receivership and for monitoring progress during a transitional period. It provides clear, lasting commitments to address some of the structural issues that have inhibited compliance over these many years, and builds in

long-term protections on such things as the budget and staffing for the Agency. I

want to underscore that the Receivership has not yet ended but that we are engaged

with the District in meeting the prerequisite requirements in an expeditious way.

Attached to my testimony is a written report to Judge Hogan dated March 13, 2001

which assesses the current status of efforts to meet the transition requirements.

It is my best estimate that if things proceed as they are now, the prerequisites

for transition will be accomplished in June or July, 2001. At that point, the Receivership will end and a probationary period will begin. During the probationary period, the Agency will be expected to meet certain performance benchmarks related

to Remedial Order requirements. These are, for example, benchmarks regarding

timely completion of investigations, placement of children in licensed foster homes

that do not exceed licensed capacities, placement of children with siblings, reduction

of children experiencing multiple placements, etc. Progress will be measured according to agreed-upon levels of improvement over a six-month period. As Monitor, we

will establish the baseline performance at the point of transition and measure again

at six months. The improvement targets were set extremely conservatively because

the Court did not want to set the bar unrealistically high, thereby insuring District

failure. The intent of the probationary benchmarks is to assure that progress will

steadily continue after the Agency is removed from Receivership. It is important to

emphasize that the end of the Receivership and the end of the probationary period

does not mean the end of the LaShawn Order. The underlying Court Order and its

requirements will remain in effect until substantial compliance is achieved. As Monitor, I will be working with the new Administrator to develop a revised implementation plan to achieve compliance with the LaShawn Order. Until compliance is demonstrated, there will be ongoing Court oversight of this agency’s functioning.

I want to briefly indicate what some of the most important systematic and programmatic challenges for this agency in the next year.

The first and most important is to develop a stable workforce. Over the year 2000,

the Agency hired 132 social workers but lost 128 workers, thus leaving them in

much the same place, characterized by severe understaffing, high caseloads, worker

burnout and inadequate service provision. The current staffing situation with a vacancy of almost 50 social workers is a crisis requiring immediate attention. I have

asked the Agency to develop an emergency plan for utilizing BSW as well as MSW

social workers and to reenergize their recruitment activities, utilizing hiring bonuses, incentive payments, payments to current workers to identify and recruit new

staff, relocation allowances and reciprocity on licensure.

A second challenge is to improve the functioning and accountability of the front

door of the system—that is the intake and investigation process—for both child neglect and child abuse cases. This will involve implementing joint investigations with

the police, the transfer of Court Social Services staff currently serving families with

substantiated child abuse, and working in greater partnership with the Healthy

Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative and their community partners.

A third challenge is to comply with ASFA requirements on permanency. This will

require vast improvement in assessment and case planning, developing a functional

working relationship with the Office of Corporation Counsel, insuring that Corporation Counsel has the budget authority to hire a sufficient number of attorneys and

that they outstation them to work closely with CFSA workers, and making structural improvements at the DC Superior Court.

A fourth challenge is to greatly accelerate the identification, study and support

of foster and adoptive parent resources in the District of Columbia. This will require

partnerships with communities, faith organizations, private agencies, the media as

well as enhanced internal capacity to study and approve potential families.

The fifth challenge is a leadership challenge. The new Administrator must have

the ability to create a common vision for child welfare services in the District and
25

to heal the fractures and finger-pointing among stakeholders that have made this

job even harder than it should be. The Administrator must be experienced, talented,

tough and bold and will need to be able to operate the Agency with a fair amount

of independence. At the same time, the Administrator will need the clear support

and backing from the Mayor, as unpopular decisions that rock the status quo must

be made and sustained. The Administrator must demonstrate a commitment to outcomes and a willingness to work in new ways with communities and neighborhoods

which break down the isolation of the child welfare agency. If children are to be protected, CFSA must make the community at large a real partner in their work on

behalf of vulnerable children and families.

Thank you and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF OCTOBER 23, 2000 CONSENT ORDER

GOVERNING TRANSITION OF THE LASHAWN RECEIVERSHIP

This is the second report prepared by the Monitor on the progress made to fulfill

the conditions of the October 23, 2000 Consent Order governing the termination of

the LaShawn Receivership.

Under the terms of the October 23, 2000 Consent Order, there are several actions

that need to occur prior to the termination of the LaShawn Receivership. The District government is moving forward to accomplish the pre-termination requirements

of the Consent Order. Current progress in each of these areas is described below:

1. Enactment of legislation to end the bifurcation of abuse and neglect and to establish the Child and Family Services Agency as a cabinet-level agency with independent personnel authority, independent procurement authority, and authority to

license foster and group homes. The legislation also is to provide for the transfer

of responsibility and authority for child abuse cases currently vested in the Director

of the Superior Court Social Services to CFSA.

Status: Legislation was passed by the District Council on December 19, 2000 and

was subsequently signed by the Mayor and approved by the Control Board. It was

forwarded to the U.S. Congress on February 7, 2001 for required Congressional review and approval. If no objections are raised, it will become law after 30 legislative

days which should be March 30, 2001. The bill established the child welfare agency

as an independent cabinet level agency with responsibility for personnel functions

and independent procurement authority consistent with District law. It also places

responsibility for the licensing of foster homes and groups homes as well as for the

Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) approval process within

the child welfare agency. Finally, the bill requires joint investigation of abuse cases

by CFSA and the Metropolitan Police Department and the transfer of Court Social

Services’ responsibility to CFSA for serving families in which there is child abuse.

Planning is underway for the transfer of Court Social Services staff, functions and

responsibilities so that child abuse and neglect functions in the District can finally

be merged. The American Humane Association is facilitating the planning activities

and is coordinating the work of the many involved agencies including the Mayor’s

Office, the Office of Corporation Counsel, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Child and Family Services

Agency. There is much work that must be accomplished for this transition to be

smoothly completed by October 1, 2001 (which is the planning target for the complete transfer of responsibility). In order for this to happen, interim milestone and

performance benchmarks must be met and staff must be hired and trained. Despite

some initial reluctance, all parties are now working together to make this happen.

In the short term, Court Social Services is experiencing some attrition of existing

staff. This is creating caseload pressures at Court Social Services which parallel the

caseload pressures at CFSA. Discussion has begun about expediting the hiring of

additional workers at CFSA who can be detailed to Court Social Services in this interim period. This will accelerate cross-training and ensure that the critically important abuse caseloads are not underserved.

2. Development and Promulgation of Licensing Standards for Foster and Group

Homes

The October 23, 2000 Order requires that foster and group home licensing standards be developed and promulgated prior to the termination of the Receivership.

Status: Neither of these two conditions is accomplished yet but substantial

progress has been made.

The proposed foster home regulations were sent this last week to the Office of

Corporation Counsel for final legal review. They should be published for comment

in the District Register within two weeks. The comment period is 30 days after

which the regulations can be finalized. If all goes as planned, the regulations can

be completed by mid-May.
26

Draft group home regulations were developed by the Office of the Deputy Mayor

for Children, Youth and Families with outside assistance from Holland and Knight.

Two drafts of the regulations have been sent out for stakeholder comment and a

series of stakeholder focus groups have been conducted. The regulations are currently under final revision after which they will be sent to the Office of Corporation

Counsel for final legal review and publication in the District Register. This process

will take somewhere between three weeks to one month. The comment period will

be another 30 days after which the regulations will be finalized. It is the Monitor’s

hope that all of these steps will be accomplished by June, 2001.

3. Recruitment and Selection of an Agency Director

A Director for CFSA, selected and appointed by the Mayor with concurrence of

Plaintiffs and the Monitor, must be in place prior to termination of the Receivership.

Status: There has been continuing activity to recruit a new administrator for the

Agency. The Director of the District’s Office of Personnel (DCOP) is coordinating

this work with the help of an outside search firm, Bennett and Associates. The

Annie E. Casey Foundation has underwritten this process through a grant to the

George Washington University Center for Excellence in Municipal Government to

provide assistance with the process of recruiting a new Director, as well as for recruiting, developing and training the new leadership team.

The selection process has not gone as quickly as was originally anticipated. At

this time, an initial round of candidates has been identified and interviewed by a

small committee composed of the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and Families,

the District’s Director of Personnel, Plaintiff’s Counsel, the Mayor’s Special Counsel,

the Court Monitor, the Interim Receiver and the Director of the District’s Youth

Services Administration. The search firm has been compiling reference material and

it is hoped that the selection of final candidates will be made shortly. Finalists will

be invited back for a fuller range of interviews with key stakeholders in government

and the community after which a recommendation for selection will be made to the

Mayor. It is the Monitor’s hope that a candidate will be identified and recommended

to the Mayor within a month. Given this timetable, it is unlikely that the new Administrator would be available to begin work much before June, 2001. Sondra Jackson, the Interim Receiver, has indicated her willingness to remain until an Administrator is hired, assuming it is accomplished expeditiously.

4. Recruitment and Selection of a Management Team

Prior to termination of the Receivership, the new Director must have an acceptable management team in place.

Status: Progress on this requirement will need to await the selection of a Director.

As noted above, the Annie E. Casey Foundation grant can be used for help in recruiting a qualified management team and for a strategic planning retreat or other

activities designed to develop the agency’s senior leadership team.

In addition to the four areas discussed above, where action must be completed

prior to termination of the Receivership, the October 23 Consent Order required action to begin in several other areas. These include:

5. All responsibility for the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children

(ICPC), currently carried out by an office within DHS, is to be transferred to CFSA.

Status: The Memorandum of Agreement governing the transition of the ICPC

function to the Child and Family Services Agency was signed on February 6, 2001.

The originally scheduled date for the transfer of this responsibility was March 1,

2001. The transfer date has been postponed pending completion of training of the

new staff at CFSA who have been hired to carry out these functions. That training

is underway with the expectation that the function will be transferred in April,

2001.

6. Employment of BSW and Paraprofessional Staff

The October 23 Consent Order allows CFSA to employ staff with BSW degrees

as well as paraprofessional staff under appropriate circumstances to deliver services

required under the MFO with agreement by Plaintiffs. The Order further stated

that within 30 days, the parties were to negotiate the specific circumstances under

which these staff are to be used.

Status: Upon agreement of the parties, the Monitor was to request and review a

proposal from CFSA for the uses of BSW and paraprofessional staff. An initial proposal was developed by the Receivership and forwarded to the Monitor on November

21, 2000. One of the Monitor’s comments on the initial proposal was that it did not

go far enough, particularly in light of the hiring crisis at CFSA. Currently, there

are close to 50 social worker vacancies at CFSA. The experience over the past few

years has been that every spring and summer, the Agency hires as many MSWs

as they can, primarily new graduates of schools of social work. Over the course of

the year however, the rate of hiring slows and monthly turnover continues. Thus,

by spring of the subsequent year, the Agency finds itself in roughly the same place
27

with respect to hiring goals as the prior year. In fact, during the calendar year 2000,

CFSA hired 132 social workers but lost 128 workers due to resignation or termination.

It has been the Monitor’s belief that the staffing pattern ought to include a combination of MSW and BSW trained social workers as well as a range of paraprofessional support staff. With proper training and supervision as well as clarity in job

function and expectations, staff other than MSWs can properly carry out the case

management and social work functions of the Agency. As a result of recent discussions with the Monitor, the Receivership is in the process of preparing a more ambitious plan for diversification of staff which will rely on both MSW and BSW social

workers. Both the District and Plaintiffs support this approach. It is expected that

a revised plan will be submitted to the Monitor within the next week and forwarded

to the Defendant’s Counsel and to Plaintiffs for their review and approval.

7. Fiscal Year 2002 Budget

The October 23 Consent Order stipulates that the Mayor will take all reasonable

steps within his authority to obtain passage of the CFSA budget using the fiscal

year 2001 budget of $184 million as a baseline, with required adjustments for implementing the new legislation, providing for foster parent rate increases, and providing additional staff necessary to meet MFO caseload standards.

Status: The District’s fiscal year 2002 budget process is just beginning and the

Mayor’s proposed budget is expected to be complete by mid-March. The Mayor’s Office has verbally indicated the CFSA budget will include the $184 million baseline,

as agreed upon in the Consent Order, plus the necessary additions to cover the costs

associated with implementing the new legislation, principally the assumption of responsibility by CFSA for investigation of abuse cases; the costs associated with assuming the licensing function; the transfer of ICPC responsibilities; the costs associated with the transfer of the Court Social Services responsibilities and caseload; and

required increases in foster parent rates. These initiatives will cost approximately

$4 million in fiscal year 2002 (assuming that the Superior Court Social Services

staff are transferred under an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) agreement

and their salary costs do not need to be in the CFSA fiscal year 2002 budget).

In addition to commitments on the CFSA budget, the Office of Corporation Counsel has indicated that the OCC budget will include the funds required to provide

additional staff attorneys and paralegal/support staff to properly carry out child welfare functions. Because of the urgency of this need, the Receiver is transferring

funds from CFSA’s fiscal year 2001 budget to OCC to enable the immediate hiring

of 32 additional positions (25 attorneys and 7 support staff). It is the Monitor’s expectation, based on verbal assurances by OCC staff, that continued funding for

these positions, as well as funds to meet additional hiring commitments contained

in a proposed OCC staffing plan currently being negotiated by the parties (see Point

8 below), are expected to be included and clearly identifiable in the fiscal year 2002

budget request for OCC.

8. Adequate Legal Staff

The October 23 Consent Order requires that CFSA be provided adequate legal

staff to enable the agency to meet its legal obligations under the MFO. The Order

did not detail what constitutes ‘‘adequate staffing,’’ but there was an agreement that

this would be determined based on an independent staffing study which would take

into account the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the

MFO requirements, and relevant professional standards. In addition, the Order requires that OCC attorneys assume an attorney-client relationship with CFSA and

that there be a plan for co-location of staff.

Status: As previously shared with the Court, the staffing study prepared for the

Office of Corporation Counsel met neither the Monitor’s nor the Plaintiffs’ expectations for this requirement. Discussions have been ongoing since December to address this issue. The Office of Corporation Counsel developed a revised proposal in

early March which details their commitments to hire additional staff and to

outstation a considerable portion of those staff with CFSA. Discussions on the acceptability of that plan are continuing. Issues that remain to be resolved are adequacy of staffing commitments for certain functions and lines of authority and accountability between OCC and CFSA. It is the Monitor’s hope that differences in

these areas can be resolved. In the interim, CFSA is transferring funds to OCC to

enable the immediate hiring of 32 new positions (attorneys and support staff) to

meet the immediate legal needs of CFSA staff and clients.

9. Performance Standards

The October 23 Consent Order requires the Monitor to establish the baseline

against which performance standards during the post-termination probationary period will be assessed. The Monitor will conduct the baseline study on performance

using data from the month prior to the termination of the Receivership. At this
28

point, as mentioned previously, it is not possible to precisely determine when that

will occur.

During this interim period, CSSP is continuing its ongoing monitoring activities

with respect to the requirements of the LaShawn Order. These include monthly review of administrative data and preparation of formal progress reports for the Court

and the public; informal monitoring meeting with the Agency Receiver and staff;

completion of work in progress on a review of children in congregate care facilities;

initiation of a targeted study of the DC Kids Health Care Program for Children in

Foster Care; monthly convening of case reviews by an independent Practice Development Case Review Committee; and contracting for an independent fiscal audit of

CFSA for fiscal year 2000. The audit firm of Williams, Adley and Company, LLP

was engaged by the Monitor in early February and is currently doing an independent audit of the Agency for fiscal year 2000. The audit should be completed by

no later than June 15, 2001.

STATEMENT OF ERIC THOMPSON, STAFF ATTORNEY, CHILDREN’S

RIGHTS, INC.

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMPSON. Good morning, Chairman DeWine, Senator

Landrieu. My name is Eric Thompson and, along with Marsha Robinson Lowrey from Children’s Rights, I represent the plaintiff children in the LaShawn class action lawsuit which was intended to

reform child welfare services in the District of Columbia.

On behalf of those abused and neglected children we represent,

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee to

present our perspective on the current status of the District’s child

welfare system. I am also very gratified to hear that the needs of

these children are a priority in this committee.

TRANSITION OUT OF RECEIVERSHIP

Senators, as you know, we are now entering a new phase. We

have negotiated, transitioned out of receivership based on the District satisfying certain conditions, after which administration of the

child welfare system will be returned to the District control. However, it is important to emphasize that although the receivership

will end if the District meets these specified conditions, court oversight over this agency does not end.

In addition, the agreement provides for a 6-month probation period after the receivership ends, and the likelihood is that a receivership will be reimposed if the District fails to meet certain standards.

Throughout the receivership, those aspects of the District government not under the control of a receiver have been enormously resistant to reforms in the agency, and cooperation from other

branches of the District government was nonexistent. Nevertheless,

the agency is now better organized. It has better systems in place

than before it went into receivership. Unfortunately, it is still not

functioning as an agency that can provide appropriate care and

protection for children.

STEPS TO REGAINING ADMINISTRATION OF CHILD WELFARE

The Mayor’s interest in regaining District administration of child

welfare has provided an opportunity and an agreement that we

have heard about this morning to remedy many of the problems

that have long been impediments to the provision of appropriate

services to children. The key provisions to which the District has

recently agreed, and which the Federal court has ordered, are,
29

first, adequate funding. The fiscal year 2001 budget amounting to

$184 million was the first compliance budget ever submitted to

Congress since the court’s remedial order almost a decade ago.

Second, the transition order also establishes the agency as a Cabinet-level agency, reporting directly to the Mayor.

Third, CFSA will have authority over agency-related functions

such as independent personnel procurement authority, and licensing authority for foster homes and group homes.

Fourth, as required by the transition order, legislation has been

passed by the Council of the District of Columbia to consolidate all

abuse and neglect investigations and services under CFSA. This

will finally end bifurcation and bring the District in line with the

rest of the country.

Fifth, the transition order requires the Office of Corporation

Counsel to hire additional attorneys until there is adequate legal

staffing for the agency. This will need to be reflected in a significant increase in the budget for the Office of the Corporation Counsel next year.

LASHAWN ORDER

In conclusion, the District’s child welfare system will continue to

function under the LaShawn remedial order, and the court-ordered

monitor will remain in place to report on whether the system is improving.

We, as plaintiff’s counsel, welcome the desire by the District government to take responsibility for a Government system so critical

to the live’s of the city’s most vulnerable children and their families. We are, however, mindful that the city’s government has not

in the past made good on its promises to children.

We are also well aware that the District government did not take

steps necessary to cooperate with the receivership and help

strengthen this agency until very recently. We hope that the city’s

goal in seeking an end to the receivership has not been limited to

realizing its desire for autonomy, and that when the agency does

revert to city control the District government will exercise the commitment and competence necessary to operate an adequate child

welfare agency and protect abused and neglected children in this

city.

PREPARED STATEMENT

While plaintiff’s counsel will not hesitate, should it become necessary, to bring the District back into court with the possibility of

new Federal court sanctions should city government not make good

on its commitments, we are guardedly optimistic.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC THOMPSON

On behalf of the abused and neglected children we represent, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to present our perspective on the current

status of the District’s child welfare system, and the implementation of the courtordered reform plan that grew out of the lawsuit, LaShawn v. Barry. My name is

Eric Thompson, and along with Marcia Robinson Lowry from Children’s Rights, we

represent the plaintiff children in LaShawn, the class action lawsuit intended to reform child welfare services in the District of Columbia.
30

That case was filed in 1989, was tried in 1991, and resulted in a sweeping court

order mandating necessary changes. When District government failed to comply

with that court order, and demonstrated its inability to do so, we asked the federal

court to find the District in contempt of court and to place the agency in receivership, which it did in 1995. We are now entering a new phase: we have negotiated

a transition out of receivership, based on the District satisfying certain conditions,

after which administration of the child welfare system will be returned to District

control. However, it is important to emphasize that although the receivership will

end if the District meets these specified conditions, court oversight over this agency—and the possibility of future contempt findings—does not. In addition, the agreement provides for a six month probation period after the receivership ends, and the

likelihood that a receivership will be re-imposed if the District fails to meet certain

standards.

Throughout the receivership those aspects of District government not under the

control of the receiver had been enormously resistant to reforms in the agency, including the Metropolitan Police Department and Corporation Counsel, and insofar

as the receiver was dependent on cooperation from other branches of District government, that cooperation was non-existent. Nevertheless, the agency is now better

organized, and has better systems in place than it did when it went into receivership—but it is still not functioning as an agency that can provide appropriate care

and protection for children.

The agreement to move the agency out of receivership remedies many of the problems that have long been impediments to the provision of appropriate services to

children. The key provisions to which the District has agreed, and which the federal

court has ordered, are:

ADEQUATE FUNDING

The child welfare system in the District has never been adequately funded. Even

during the receivership, the agency was dependent on a very convoluted and unrealistic budgeting process that made it impossible to plan ahead, and to fund the many

reforms required under the federal court order. Each year the District’s fiscal office

has sought to impose a baseline budget on the agency far below what the agency

had actually spent the year before, and one that never took into account the many

enhancements that were necessary to comply with the court order. Each year the

receivership has had to wage a pitched battle with the District in order to bring the

budget request for the agency up to a reasonable level even to maintain an inadequate status quo.

As a result of the negotiations over the transition, the baseline budget has been

established as $184 million, the amount estimated as necessary to comply with the

court order, with an agreement that the baseline will be adjusted upward annually

to meet certain specified additional expenses.

STRUCTURE OF THE AGENCY

Prior to the receivership, the agency responsible for child welfare services, the

Child and Family Services Agency (‘‘CFSA’’) was under the authority of the Department of Human Services, and did not report directly to the mayor.

The transition order establishes CFSA as a cabinet-level agency, reporting directly

to the mayor.

AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY-RELATED FUNCTIONS

Many functions on which the child welfare agency is dependent have been under

the control of other District agencies, which have had their own operating problems

and to which child welfare has not necessarily been a priority. This has made it very

difficult to hire personnel expeditiously, enter into contracts, or ensure that foster

homes and other facilities that care for children are licensed promptly. Some of

those functions came under CFSA agency control during the receivership, but would

have reverted to external control, once again making CFSA dependent on other governmental entities with differing priorities.

The transition order gives CFSA independent personnel and procurement authority, including contracting and contract oversight, and licensing authority for foster

and group homes. In addition, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children,

under which many D.C. children are placed in neighboring states, will now operate

under CFSA control.
31

CONSOLIDATING ABUSE AND NEGLECT

The District of Columbia has been the only jurisdiction in the country in which

responsibility for abuse and neglect cases has been handled by separate governmental entities; abuse complaints have been investigated by the Metropolitan Police

Department, and services provided under the auspices of Court Social Services; neglect cases and foster care services have been under the auspices of CFSA. This bifurcation has long been considered a major problem and one that has contributed

to the fragmentation and disorganization of services.

As required by the transition order, legislation has been passed by the Council

of the District of Columbia to consolidate all abuse and neglect investigations and

services under CFSA, and to transfer responsibility for abuse cases to CFSA.

ADEQUATE LEGAL COUNSEL

The child welfare agency has long been hampered in its ability to protect children,

and to facilitate the adoption process, by the lack of adequate legal counsel, by the

lack of coordination with that legal counsel, and by unclear lines of authority with

regard to supervision of the legal staff. The lack of appropriate and vigorous counsel

for CFSA was a contributing factor, among several others, in the Brianna

Blackmond tragedy.

The transition order mandates a reorganization of legal support for CFSA, requires the Office of Corporation Counsel to hire additional attorneys until there is

adequate legal staffing for CFSA, and also requires that many of these attorneys

be physically located in the same offices as the case workers who are their clients.

In addition, the receivership will not end until a strong administrator has been

selected to head the agency, and that administrator has enlisted an experienced and

competent management team. Only after these conditions are satisfied will the receivership terminate. We must emphasize that the receivership will not end unless

these conditions are met and although progress is being made, there are still problems with the provision of adequate legal counsel, about which the parties are still

in negotiation, and a new administrator to run the agency has not yet been identified. When such a person is identified, it is likely that the transition will still take

several months.

Assuming that these conditions are satisfied, and the receivership is terminated,

after the agency moves back into District control, the agency will move into a six

month probationary period, during which it must show improvement on a number

of child-related criteria. The Monitor will be collecting the information necessary to

determine whether these improvements have taken place. Failure to demonstrate

this improvement could lead to the reimposition of the receivership by the federal

court.

Even after the probationary period ends, the District’s child welfare system will

continue to function under a far-reaching federal court order, designed to reform a

child welfare system that has failed to protect this city’s children for far too long.

The court-ordered Monitor remains in place to report on whether the system is improving.

We welcome the desire by District of Columbia government to take responsibility

for a government system so critical to the lives of the city’s most vulnerable children

and their families. We are, however, mindful that this city’s government has not,

in the past, made good on its promises to these children. We are also well aware

that the District government has not, until only very recently, cooperated with the

receivership that has been in charge of this agency and responsible for the city’s

children, and did not take the steps necessary to cooperate with the receivership

and help strengthen this agency.

Since the receivership has not yet been terminated, and may continue for several

more months, the agency—and the city’s children—need the support of this city’s

political leadership now.

We hope that the city’s goal in seeking an end to the receivership has not been

limited to asserting its control and realizing its desire for autonomy, and that when

the agency does revert to city control, District government will exercise the commitment and competence necessary to operate an adequate child welfare agency and

protect the abused and neglected children of this city.

However, the neglected and abused children of this city will not be left on their

own. The child welfare system will continue to function, for the foreseeable future,

under the supervision of the federal court, under the careful oversight of the courtappointed Monitor, and with vigilant counsel for the children who will not hesitate,

should it become necessary, to bring the District back into court, with the possibility

of new federal court sanctions, should city government not make good on its commitments.
32

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. Let me thank our panel.

One of the things that we are trying to accomplish today is to

get a snapshot of where the system is, and how children are being

cared for today, and your opening statements, your comments, and

your written testimony are certainly helpful in that regard.

I want to start my questioning, however, by asking you all some

very specific questions, and I would invite anybody on the panel to

respond who can respond. I think there are certain basic questions

that you have to ask about any child protection system, certain

things you have got to know. If you do not know these things, or

if the system does not know it and the public does not know it,

then we really do not know how well we are doing. It is not that

these statistics tell you the total story. They do not, but I think

they are a good place to start.

Let me first ask what the average length of time children are in

foster care today. Does anybody know that figure, what the mean

is?

Ms. MELTZER. Based on a case record we did about 11⁄2 years

ago, and which from my perspective is probably the most recent accurate data, because I do not trust the data that comes out of the

information system since then, it is about 3.7 years.

Senator DEWINE. It is about 3.7.

Ms. MELTZER. Right.

Senator DEWINE. And it is significant that what you are saying

is, the only statistics that we have are statistics that you have provided, really, as an outside monitoring group. In other words, there

is no one on the panel who can tell me that, internally, the District

of Columbia’s statistics show that the average time spent in foster

care is, blank, am I correct, or is that wrong?

Ms. MELTZER. That is my perception.

Senator DEWINE. That is your perception. Is there anybody else

that can give me the figure?

Ms. JACKSON. You know, these information systems take a while

to get accurate data, but what I have now is 3.5, which is not that

great of an increase, but we are retrieving data from that system

now, and we know that it is not 100 percent accurate——

Senator DEWINE. We have got everybody in the system?

Ms. JACKSON. We have 70 percent of the people in.

Senator DEWINE. Okay, so we have got 70 percent of the

people——

Ms. JACKSON. Well, with good data. All of the children are in the

system.

Senator DEWINE. All of the children are in the system, but only

70—so for 30 percent of the children, the data is not good for them,

is that what you are telling me?

Ms. JACKSON. It is not complete.

Senator DEWINE. It is not complete. Can you break it out beyond

the average, or the mean? In other words, can you tell me how

many children have been in foster care longer than 3 years, how

many have been in longer than 5 years, how many have been in

foster care longer than 8 years, if we wanted to know that?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. The system will give you that. I do not have

that right now.
33

Senator DEWINE. Okay. You do not have that today. Can you

supply that to me?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DEWINE. Can you give me a breakout of, let us say, 2

years, 4 years, anything above 5 years, what percentage, because

those are very relevant statistics. The average is interesting. That

tells you something, but what you really want to see is, where do

these kids really break out, and how many we have got there a

long time.

Let me ask another question. Do you know the average age of

your children in the system today? I am not trying to embarrass

anybody. I am not trying to give everybody a hard time, so if you

all do not know, just tell me and we will move on.

Ms. MELTZER. They have data, but that average does not tell you

much.

Senator DEWINE. It does not tell you much. Let us start with

that, and then you can tell me any other breakouts you have got.

Ms. MELTZER. The system can provide information on the age

distribution of the children in foster care, and they should be able

to provide you that.

Senator DEWINE. Okay, and you think that your system can give

me that figure?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, it can.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. We would like that, and I agree that the

average is interesting, but it is probably not the most important.

What you need to see is the age breakouts, what percentage are

8 years old, what percentage are 10 years old, et cetera.

Understanding that a third, 30 percent of the children do not

have complete files in the system—and by the way, when do you

think that will be finished? When will you be able to say that the

children have completed files in the system that are retrievable?

Ms. JACKSON. 2002.

Senator DEWINE. 2002. When in 2002?

Ms. JACKSON. Early.

Senator DEWINE. Early 2002.

Ms. JACKSON. We have hired a team of people.

Senator DEWINE. Have you got enough money to do that? I

mean, do you, or don’t you?

Ms. JACKSON. We have enough money for this year, until 2002,

yes.

Senator DEWINE. All right. Do you know what the breakout is

in regard to what the plans are, the case goal plan for each child?

In other words, the national statistics from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System—AFCARS—would show

that—just as an example, 42 percent of the children nation-wide

have a goal of reunification, 19 have a goal of adoption, 7 have

long-term foster care, 5 emancipation, 4 percent guardianship, and

19 percent have no goal established, at least those are the figures

that I have nation-wide. Do you have comparable figures?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. I do not have them here, but I can get them

to you.

Senator DEWINE. Do you have any idea what they are?

Ms. MELTZER. I do.

Senator DEWINE. You do.
34

Ms. MELTZER. They provide them to me monthly. About a third

of the children in this system have a goal of adoption. It is not the

same pattern as the national data.

Senator DEWINE. About a third have a goal of adoption.

Ms. MELTZER. About 900 children in this system right now have

a goal of adoption.

Senator DEWINE. Okay, so the total number of children is——

Ms. MELTZER. The total number of children—well, this is an interesting figure. For the last year we have been told it is between

3,100 to 3,300 children. This last month, the data coming off of the

automated system is down to 2,800 children. That is a huge

change. This is the first month that the data has been produced off

the automated system.

Senator DEWINE. So we do not know why that is?

Ms. MELTZER. No. I still think that there are about 3,000 children in care, and the agency is trying to figure out exactly, so

about a third of them have a goal of adoption.

Some significant number of them, a couple of hundred, and I can

give you the exact figure, have a goal of independent living, or

emancipation, and the rest have goals of either return to a parent

or a relative. There are a couple of hundred children in the most

recent month’s data who did not have a permanency goal assigned.

Senator DEWINE. Analyze for me, then, those statistics. What

does that tell you? What does that mean to a lay person, someone

who is listening to this and who is not an expert and does not understand all the terms, what does that mean?

Ms. MELTZER. What it means to me is that there are still too

many children in the system who have been in foster care for too

long. The large number of children with the goal of adoption means

that ASFA is not being implemented adequately. They need to be

moved into permanent——

Senator DEWINE. The law is not being implemented.

Ms. MELTZER. Right, so——

Senator DEWINE. The law that applies to every child in this

country today, basically. I mean, the overall Federal law does. We

have implementing laws at the State level and the District, but

Federal law applies to everything.

Ms. MELTZER. So what it suggests to me are all the problems we

have been talking about in terms of adequate lawyers to move

these cases, number of judges to hear these cases, and making sure

about the 900 children with the goal of adoption. The agency indicates that about half of them are in homes that are willing to adopt

them, so for those children the actions have to be taken to move

those children and to finalize those adoptions. For the other children, there are a whole range of steps that have to be taken, including adoption recruitment.

Senator DEWINE. Now, my time is up, and I have a whole bunch,

as you can imagine, more questions about statistics. I am going to

flip it to you. This is a logical place I think to do it, Mary, but in

regard to adoption, how does it work in the District of Columbia?

I know that in Ohio and in most States we terminate parental

rights, which is a separate proceeding. Once that is done, if the

system is working right, following the Federal guidelines, following

what the State has, we move quickly into making that child avail-
35

able for adoption, and then we hope that that child is ultimately

adopted.

How does it work in the District? What is the process? Is that

a separate process? Do you terminate parental rights first?

Ms. JACKSON. No.

Senator DEWINE. No.

Ms. JACKSON. We have to have an adoptive place before the court

will terminate parental rights in the District.

Senator DEWINE. Where else does that exist in this country? Is

that a common thing?

Ms. MELTZER. No, it is not.

Senator DEWINE. It is not common.

Ms. MELTZER. The remedial order requires that rights be terminated for children with the goal of adoption within a very short period of time after the goal of adoption is established. The District

has never implemented that provision of the order. The court and

other people here can comment on that. The court has been reluctant, and basically what workers are told is that there have been

two problems. The Office of Corporation Counsel has never brought

TPR proceedings routinely for a combination of reasons.

Senator DEWINE. TPR meaning?

Ms. MELTZER. Meaning termination of parental rights.

Senator DEWINE. Sometimes I know, sometimes I do not know.

I just want to make sure.

Ms. MELTZER. It has been a combination of adequate staffing and

a sense that the court will not approve it unless there is an adoptive placement, and that, of course is a chicken and egg problem.

Senator DEWINE. Well, that is right. If you are an adoptive parent, you are sitting there, you have no clue whether this child is

eligible for adoption or not. I mean, what in the world is going on?

Why does the District do it this way? Does anybody else in this

world do it this way?

Ms. GRAHAM. Not to my knowledge, Mr. DeWine.

Senator DEWINE. Well, for heaven’s sake, isn’t it about time the

District caught up with the 21st Century——

Ms. GRAHAM. Yes.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. And got with the program about

protecting kids and getting kids adopted?

Ms. GRAHAM. Absolutely, Mr. DeWine. One of the things that we

found—the Williams administration has been in place 2 years. Last

year, we began to work very aggressively with this agency. So

much had not been done, and actually the Adoption and Safe Families Act in the District was just passed this past February.

Senator DEWINE. Which is again a shocking thought.

Ms. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. We passed that when? November 1997 it became law.

Ms. GRAHAM. Absolutely. It certainly did. That was one of our

first findings. As we did further research into the challenges of the

agencies, we found that there was no communication with the

other Departments. Actually the Office of Corporation Counsel was

so grossly understaffed that there was no way that it could begin

to implement the requirement not only of the order but also of the

Adoption and Safe Families Act.
36

Senator DEWINE. Let me at this point—I want to come back to

this, but this is a good segue to Senator Landrieu, because Senator

Landrieu is probably in Congress one of the most, if not the most

foremost expert on the whole issue of adoption and has really taken

a lead in this whole area, and has tremendous knowledge and great

passion for this, and we apparently have a vote that is going on.

I will turn it over to Senator Landrieu at this point, and we will

then break for the vote. Does anybody know if we have one or two?

We have two votes, so you can relax once we leave. It is probably

going to be 25 minutes until we get back, I would suspect.

Senator LANDRIEU. There are so many questions I have I do not

know where to start, but I would say that at least from what I

have learned this morning, the consent agreement has outlined at

least five important steps that need to take, or five important foundations that should be laid down, the consolidation of the agency,

the selection of a new Director, and I am most heartened to learn

about the specific directive to have a senior management team.

Because even the best, most outstanding Director could be

brought in, and if that Director is not given latitude to have their

own senior management team, in my opinion, when you are trying

to fix a situation like this, which is a serious turn-around situation—I would fall on the side of giving not only the Director and

senior management team even broader latitude to hire and fire, to

reorganize, and to rearrange, and I think that the Senator will

agree with me that, as passionate as we are about trying to help

you fix this, that it would not be in our interest to micromanage

this turn-around, that what we need to do is try and get good data,

good, solid measurements, and then give you all as much flexibility

within what the courts will allow, and this is an additional safeguard, perhaps, to actually get this done sooner than later.

The other point I just want to make is, regardless of whether this

system stays, quote, in receivership, or moves to the mayor’s office,

which I have great confidence and respect and regard for the

Mayor, and frankly think there could be no better mayor suited to

take this on, since he himself is a product of a foster care system

that in his case worked for him and for his family beautifully, so

I most certainly understand his passion to try to get this system

to work for other children that were in his similar circumstance.

But even with his great abilities, unless we help to fashion and

give him the budget and the tools and the flexibility, I am afraid,

Mr. Chairman, we are going to be many, many more years, so my

questions would be to all of you, what are some of the obvious barriers, even let us say this receivership moves to the Mayor, assuming we get an excellent Executive Director, a wonderful management team in place, which I think could be done, what are some

of the sort of barriers that jump out at you that you think will even

prevent us from making great strides quickly, and I will just ask

each of you to identify one that comes to your mind, and perhaps

we can direct our resources and attention there.

Ms. JACKSON. I think one of the huge barriers has to do with the

court system, the fact that there are 59 judges, the fact that we

have to listen to each one, the fact that the Council for Court Excellence put out a report that shows how long it takes to get these

cases through the system. We have a very adversarial relationship
37

with the courts, and it makes it very hard to effect permanent

plans for children.

Senator LANDRIEU. Just in response to that, there are a number

of us, and I think Senator you actually have a bill that I am going

to be joining you in helping to fashion if it is not already introduced, that is going to basically mandate that that court identify

a specific number of judges, whatever we could agree would be a

good number, that would focus and be permanently seated on these

cases, so that the judges themselves become familiar with the

cases, and with the case work team, and with the child advocates

involved, so that there is more of a collaborative team effort to

move some of these cases.

And just let me say for the record that I am very respectful of

what the judges might think about the way the system operates.

We are going to move forward with mandating this court to do this,

and unless they can come up with some extraordinary reason

which I cannot imagine, I think that is one of the immediate steps

that needs to be taken, so in fashioning how many judges and how

it should work, I would appreciate that input.

What, Judith, would you say is in your mind, even with a great

Director and adequate budget, a good management team in place,

which I am certain that the mayor could actually deliver, what do

you think the biggest barrier is?

Ms. MELTZER. I think that recruiting and retaining a stable

workforce has got to be one of the highest priority challenges for

them, because even in this last year they recruited 132 workers,

and then they lost 128 of them.

Senator LANDRIEU. So for the record, we successfully recruited

132 workers, and lost 128.

Ms. MELTZER. So they are back where they started from, basically, and it is a crisis.

Now, let us talk about the three reasons why, and anybody jump

in, what was the number one reason for losing them, what was the

number two, and what was the number three reason, in your opinions?

Ms. JACKSON. In terms of our exit interviews—in fact, we did not

lose 120 of the 130.

Ms. MELTZER. Well, they are not the same people.

Ms. JACKSON. Not the same people, okay. What we get from exit

interviews is poor supervision, number one.

Senator LANDRIEU. Poor supervision, not enough supervision and

support.

Ms. JACKSON. Exactly. Number two, working with the courts,

and the third one is just for a different experience, or a different

professional experience. We hire all master-level licensed MSW’s.

That is what we, according to the modified final order, had to hire.

Now we are looking at hiring bachelor’s level.

Senator LANDRIEU. You were originally required to hire master’s,

but now you have had some relaxation of that?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. And you can take those with

bachelor’s degrees?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes.
38

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me ask this, given that number 1, according to exit interviews, was lack of proper supervision, do we have

anything in our plan that allows us to fire managers that are not

doing—I am not talking about senior management. I am talking

about the supervisory level. Do we have any way to either give additional help and training to those managers that could use it, or

ways that we can ask or require managers to leave that are not

doing their job?

Ms. GRAHAM. The agency has invested in training, but this past

year the city adopted the management supervisory service and that

has allowed us to move mid-management into that core. We are

now able to require performance plans and then, based on performance, terminate immediately, without going through the elaborate

processes that one had to go through previously with the Civil

Service System.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me ask you this, in the last, maybe to be

fair in the last 12 months, how many managers have been terminated for lack of performance?

Ms. GRAHAM. None has been terminated in the agency for lack

of performance. This plan has just really been adopted, and is in

the process of being implemented this fiscal year, so we are all

monitoring our management processes very closely now.

Senator LANDRIEU. And I know I am treading on sort of the sacred cow here, because every State and city has Civil Service rules

and regulations, and they can in many instances become barriers

to reform, with all due respect to the Civil Service and those that

work for the Government, but when you are in a crisis situation,

which I would declare that this is, I think that there are some extraordinary steps that should and could be taken to get the turnaround on, and then maybe you could put the sort of old system

back in place, is what I am moving towards.

I would like to explore that, not today, but to think about, and

I know it is going to take negotiations between unions and agreements and everything, but I just think in a crisis just the old rules

sometimes need to be lifted to get not only new management at the

top, but sort of a new culture, if you would, throughout the organization, and then perhaps, and I think your good—and most all are

well-intentioned, would embrace that sort of new approach, because

in the long run everyone would be benefitted.

Now, let me ask this just for the record. What is the starting salary that we are able—and salary was not mentioned. I am surprised. It was not salary that was mentioned, it was supervision,

courts, and——

Ms. MELTZER. I think it is just hard work and a desire to leave.

Ms. JACKSON. We have comparable salaries. The starting salary

is about $38,000.

Senator LANDRIEU. $38,000, okay. Let me ask this, and I am

going to have to leave in just a second. Could you all describe—

when you say, children and out-of-home care, and in Louisiana we

think of that in a foster care situation, like a substitute family,

where there is a single parent, or two parents, they may have biological children of their own, and they take in one or two or three

children, because ideally you want to reflect that secondary family
39

to be as much like a family as possible, as opposed to congregate

living, or group homes, et cetera.

Can you break down in general terms the 3,000 approximate

children? What percentage do you think, that are not with their biological parents, are in what you would describe, whether they are

with relatives or not—you can include that, because I actually

think relative care and kinship care is a very common sense place

for children who cannot be with their biological, but could you just

sort of outline in broad terms what percentage are in atmospheres

like that, as opposed to group homes where there would be 8 or 10

or 12 children in a group setting?

Ms. MELTZER. Based on the data that——

Senator LANDRIEU. The data that you have just generally.

Ms. MELTZER. It is about 25 percent of children are in congregate

care.

Senator LANDRIEU. And 75 percent are in more traditional foster

homes.

Ms. MELTZER. And it is mostly—most of the children in the congregate settings are teens, although there are some young children

which we are constantly trying to get them to move out of congregate care settings into family care settings, as well as a lot of

the children in congregate care could be cared for with families if

they were available, which leads to what I would say is the other

challenge I would have put—it was hard to choose, which is the recruitment and support of foster families and adoptive families is

another huge challenge for this agency going forward.

Senator LANDRIEU. How many children do you think are in congregate care?

Ms. MELTZER. I have those figures, but it is not——

Senator LANDRIEU. Just send it in.

Ms. MELTZER. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. And there is no barrier to foster care recruitment in the sense, we look for foster care parents in this region.

We are not limited to just within the District. We have no barriers

to trying to recruit foster families regionally?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, we do.

Senator LANDRIEU. Or do you just look in the District? Go ahead.

Ms. GRAHAM. The agency did have a major barrier, the ICPC, the

Interstate Compact Process for the Placement of Children had been

underfunded. There were two individuals staffing that office, responsible for carrying a tremendous case load in support of about

four agencies’ work.

The agency moved swiftly to arrange placements in Maryland.

About 60 percent of our children are in Maryland. Many of them

are, indeed, in family homes, but they still require the same kind

of scrutiny as the other professional foster homes, so one of the

things that we have done is to move that function, beginning April

1, over to the agency for its own placement. That was a major barrier, because it was a tremendous backlog and lack of processing

papers, just a complete lack of cooperation.

One of the issues, Senator Landrieu, for agencies when they go

into receivership—I think the ideals that they are pursuing are

wonderful, but it isolates agencies from other agencies that they

need to have interactive relationships with. When we came into of-
40

fice we found that this agency had been completely isolated. Nothing was moving.

Senator LANDRIEU. The agency to try to identify foster homes is

what you are talking about?

Ms. GRAHAM. That is exactly right. It had no real—it did what

it wanted to do basically for the agency, and there was a tremendous backlog, and the agency, in order to get children placed in

Maryland, just simply moved out, made its own determinations,

and placed children.

We have a great working relationship with the State of Maryland, and they are working with us to bring those files up to date.

The children are in, we believe, safe placements there, and there

is the ongoing monitoring happening now.

This has been a major issue that has plagued the agency.

Senator LANDRIEU. So we are making progress in terms of trying

to recruit foster care families regionally. We are not limited to looking for them within the District.

Ms. GRAHAM. Right.

Senator LANDRIEU. We can find families, if we try to help staff

up that agency. There are many, as you know, hundreds of families

willing to be foster care families, if their applications could be processed in a timely manner.

Ms. GRAHAM. Let me speak to the District, and I am going to

allow my colleague here to say something.

In the District, our housing stock is quite old, and it has lead in

it. The city has not offered subsidies for families to do lead abatement, which can be fairly expensive.

When the agency just recently, I think, or about a month or two

ago released what was an RFP for foster homes, 50 percent of those

homes came back ineligible because of lead. We have got to do a

massive abatement program here in the District in order to make

homes here available. Regionally we can and do recruit, but we

have got a major issue here in the District.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me ask this, and I know it is touchy, but

are you suggesting that if a sister of a biological mother, a biological mother unable to care for her two children, petitioned the D.C.

system to take care of those children temporarily until her sister

could get it together, or maybe take the children permanently, if

that sister has lead paint in the house, those children would not

be allowed to go?

Ms. GRAHAM. That is exactly right.

Senator LANDRIEU. Now, I would like to just for the record explore this situation, because while I think lead paint is a serious

problem, and you do not want to put people in danger, I also think

that children who are traumatized, having to be moved for good

reasons, need to be with relatives whenever possible, particularly

if the relatives are responsible and caring and loving, particularly

if there are other children in that house.

Unless you are prepared to remove every child out of every house

with lead in it—which you may want to do. I do not know if we

can afford to do that—then it does not seem to me that we can—

I mean, there would be a question in my mind as to that, but I do

not want to go into more detail, but I just raise it because we

just—you know, put it this way.
41

I grew up in a house with nine children. My father was once the

Secretary of HUD. Some people came to his office one day and said

that he did not think children should be placed in homes where

they did not have their own individual bedrooms. Well, he laughed

and sent him out of his office, because we grew up with four kids

in a bedroom our whole life, and shared one bathroom, and he said,

you know, how can I put Government rules and regulations in

when that is not even how it happens in my house.

So sometimes in our efforts to do the best, we overlook some of

the simple things. These kids need to try to be first with responsible relatives, and if we cannot find responsible relatives, then we

go and place them in the most family-like setting possible for a

short time until we can determine—so I will revisit this lead paint

issue with you all, and I have just got to go vote, so let us take

a break for maybe 10 minutes.

Senator DeWine may be back before I do, but let us take a

break—and does the staff know how long we are going to go? Until

1:00, probably another round of questions until 1:00, so thank you,

and I know you all could use a break, too.

We will resume the hearing.

Let me just direct the first question to you. You state that the

Child and Family Service Agency is still not functioning as an

agency that can provide appropriate care and protection for children. You go on to state that the consent order moving the agency

out of receivership does remedy many of the problems that impede

the provision of services to children.

In your opinion, what more needs to be done to ensure that children are protected, and adequately cared for? That is an openended question that maybe will give you the opportunity to spell

out for us in more detail than you did in your 5 minutes that we

initially gave you.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I will do is echo

one of the points that was made a bit earlier by the deputy mayor,

which is that the agency became very isolated during the receivership. I think it was clearly difficult to get any cooperation with

other District agencies who had responsibilities for some of the

functions that were related to providing adequate services or protecting children, and I touch upon some of those in my written submission.

But the one that comes most clearly to mind in the context of the

Brianna Blackman case and some of the other cases that have been

cited is the relationship with Corporation Counsel. Unfortunately,

there is one. There has been a severe staffing shortage for representation, particularly to this agency, but also there was a real

lack of any communication, whether it was between social workers

who were going into court without adequate preparation, and then

were not able to be adequately represented on a legal basis on actual abuse and neglect petitions, or petitions to terminate parental

rights.

But also the agency as a whole did not have an ability to get on

a daily basis legal advice that would enable the agency to determine whether a court order that was entered, which the agency

was disputing or did not think was an appropriate order to be entered, could be appealed, for example.
42

There was in all aspects no ability for the agency to appeal any

of these orders, and one of the unfortunate consequences of the

Brianna Blackman case is that the agency received an order from

the court to return this child, and instead of aggressively questioning that order and seeking legal counsel, going back into court

and at least seeking to revisit the issue before the judge, who had

not even held a hearing on it, and then if unsuccessful appealing

the order, nothing of the sort was done because it just was not part

of the process that was in place.

Clearly, as part of the agreement, this consent order, there is a

specific requirement for adequate legal staffing at Corporation

Counsel. I think I highlight the fact that in next year’s budget submission from the District there certainly will have to be a very significant increase in the budget for the Office of Corporation Counsel to be able to meet the ASFA requirements which are not being

met right now.

So that is a process that unfortunately is only now being negotiated with the District, and we have not come on a final number

of additional attorneys, but certainly everybody recognizes and

should have recognized years ago that the Office of Corporation

Counsel is grossly understaffed and cannot adequately represent

this agency. That is a fundamental necessity here, and a roadblock

to getting these children to move forward through the legal process.

Senator DEWINE. Do you feel comfortable that there are the additional funds now set aside to do this, and the process is in place

to get this done?

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, as an interim measure, the receiver has actually made available $1 million out of its budget to fund the immediate hiring of a number of Corporation Counsel attorneys. Now,

it remains to be seen whether the amount that is proposed for fiscal year 2002 is adequate, in fact, to meet all the requirements.

There really has not yet been a full, detailed staffing study of what

the actual need is.

Certainly this is a step in the right direction. Corporation Counsel and the District have acknowledged and committed to providing

additional attorneys. It is an open question as to whether the numbers that are being considered are going to be adequate to the task.

There is an enormous backlog in petitions to terminate the parental rights that need to be filed.

Senator DEWINE. How many people work full time now on this,

as far as lawyers? How many are assigned full-time to deal with

this?

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I defer to my colleagues.

Senator DEWINE. Does anybody know, on the panel?

Ms. JACKSON. They tell us that they are only able to handle 20

percent of our cases.

Senator DEWINE. They are only able to handle 20 percent of your

cases, meaning, what do you rely on them to do?

Ms. JACKSON. Well, to represent us——

Senator DEWINE. In court?

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. And to be in court with us, yes.

Senator DEWINE. So in only 20 percent of the cases do you have

counsel with you in court.

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Corporation Counsel.
43

Senator DEWINE. And what are the plans to hire additional lawyers and how will the District ensure that there is that close working relationship between the counsel and the case worker, whoever

is involved?

For example, in Ohio what they do is, or in some cities, they literally, physically put them in the same building. They are right

there. You just go see them. They are there.

Ms. JACKSON. We have a plan that Mr. Rigsby, who is the head

of the Corporation Counsel, submitted to us, particularly for the $1

million, that we are transferring, so we should be getting attorneys,

paralegals, and additional staff to represent us. Most of them will

be colocated in our building, so that they will be accessible to the

workers to help them prepare for court and to represent them in

court.

Senator DEWINE. What is the goal as far as your representation?

You cited the figure that in only one-fifth of the cases do you have

counsel. How many cases do you need counsel? Do you need them

100 percent, do you need them in 50 percent? I mean, it is one

thing to have a full-fledged trial, when you are presenting evidence.

You clearly need counsel there. It might be something else in another hearing that you might not need counsel. I do not know.

What is the goal here?

Ms. JACKSON. The goal is to have representation really when we

need it. It is my experience that when the agency has its own representation a lot of things are worked out. The lawyers work out

and a lot of cases you do not even have to go to court.

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Ms. JACKSON. So it would really help how we work with the Superior Court. I think it will limit the number of cases. It would

help the time frames that we need, and we do need agency representation.

Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. DeWine, there are 16 attorneys in Corporation

Counsel assigned to the agency that work on these issues.

Senator DEWINE. So you have 16 full-time people?

Ms. GRAHAM. Full-time attorneys working on these issues.

The goal is to hire between 25 and 30. In the 2002 budget the

mayor is requesting $1.9 million to fund that attorney corps for the

agency.

Ms. MELTZER. I am concerned that the $1.9 million may not be

enough. I think it needs some close analysis, because the $1 million

that they are transferring this year is only for half of the year, and

it was supposed to be for the startup group of attorneys with the

understanding that an additional increment would come on next

year, plus the funding for all of the ones that were started with

this money. The first time I had seen the $1.9 million is in your

testimony today. I think that bears some close looking at, because

I do not think it is going to be sufficient to meet the needs.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I think that certainly needs to be looked

at, and you also have the whole issue of how this is implemented,

how you recruit these lawyers. These are things we do not have to

go into today, but we all know from a practical point of view that

is a lot of lawyers to get on very quickly. That is certainly going

to be a challenge.
44

Let me ask about another issue, and that is the issue of guardian

ad litems. How is that worked in the District? How is that working? If we look at the Brianna case, we have got a horror story

there that includes the guardian ad litem failure.

Ms. MELTZER. I am not sure I understand the legal

underpinnings of it, but the guardian ad litems are private counsel

that are paid through an office of the Superior Court called the

Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect, and they recruit people for

this job, and they train them. My experience is that there is wide

variability in the quality and consistency of the services offered by

these lawyers. I know there was an effort early last year where the

court was trying to develop practice standards that they would impose on people that were assigned as guardian ad litems. I believe

that got stalled and has not actually gone forward.

Senator DEWINE. Well, we need to look at that, I think, as well.

The related issue of the case representation, how does that work

in the District? I know in some counties and some States, in some

jurisdictions it works very well. In some they are hardly there at

all. How is it in the District, does anyone know?

Ms. GRAHAM. I would suggest that it is hardly there at all, primarily because of resources. We do have an infrastructure and a

very dedicated team of volunteers, but they have constantly not

had the resources. We recently, or are in the process of transferring

some funding over to them because we support their work. It really

needs to be an integral part of the system.

Senator DEWINE. It seems to me this would be a logical place for

a foundation or some private money to become involved. I mean,

in some jurisdictions you have private resources involved that work

on that to help. Of course, then you obviously have the issue of

finding the people to do it. You have got to find the people who are

willing to spend the time to do that.

Let me get back to some other kind of snapshot questions. Let

me ask about the training of social workers and where we are in

regard to that, and if anyone can give me any statistics in regard

to a snapshot of these people who are out there dealing with these

kids every day. How long have they been with you, how many

years experience they have on the average, what is their educational background. You did talk about that, I believe a master’s,

but what additional training do they get once they start? Do you

want to give me some statistics on that?

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. Our training contract is with the Virginia

Commonwealth University. When we came, there was no training,

or a training program, but we were able to do an RFP and get Virginia to come in using Howard and Catholic to train our staffs, so

they are located in our building, and they provide the training.

Now, they do some 110 days of training a year, with 50 new

courses. Because they are all master social workers with licenses,

they try to make the training appropriate. Most of our social workers are new, our new master’s level. Most of them I would say do

not have a lot of experience, but we do have a core in the agency

of social workers who have experience.

Senator DEWINE. I know Senator Landrieu got into this a little

bit in her questioning as well. In addition to the other questions

I would like for you to respond to, we can either do it orally or in
45

writing, but I would like the profile, if you could give me the profile, particularly of the experience level, how many years experience in this field, actually in the field working, what you average.

Ms. JACKSON. I would like to give you that in writing.

Senator DEWINE. That would be fine. Let me talk for a minute,

or ask questions in regard to the training of foster care parents,

and what you do in that regard.

Ms. JACKSON. We have regular training that goes with new foster

parents, but we also have in-service training. We average about 30

foster parents attending that each month. I think there are probably around 16 courses that are provided.

Senator DEWINE. What is the minimum, or is there a minimum?

I want to be a foster parent. What happens?

Ms. MELTZER. The modified final order requires that the preservice training for foster parents be a minimum of 30 hours of

training. The agency has been using the MAP curriculum, which is

a fairly recognized curriculum for pre-service training for foster

parents.

The order also requires that there be a minimum of 15 hours of

in-service training a year for every foster parent, and that that be

actually tracked and monitored according to the needs of the foster

parent.

Senator DEWINE. Is that taking place?

Ms. MELTZER. What they have recently just begun is offering

some courses, but from the standpoint of complying with the requirement that every foster parent knows that they have to do 15

hours and gets 15 hours, my current assessment is no, it is not

where it needs to be.

Senator DEWINE. Let me ask another kind of snapshot question,

and that has to do with case load. What can you tell me about

that? What is the average case load, or what is the range—both?

Ms. MELTZER. We get case load figures monthly from the agency,

and they are not very helpful because the range is quite large, so

that in one unit, which is Family Services, they are pretty close,

or they have been pretty close to complying.

Senator DEWINE. Family Services would do what?

Ms. MELTZER. Those would be service to children and families

where there has been a substantiated neglect, but the children are

still at home, so in those units case loads have been running anywhere from 12 to 15 cases per worker, which is a family.

Senator DEWINE. Which is acceptable.

Ms. MELTZER. Right, which is acceptable. When you go over on

the foster care side, you have huge variability, so you will have

some workers with case loads that are 15, 16, some workers with

case loads of 50, and some uncovered—well, not technically uncovered, because what happens is, they do not have a social worker

assigned, but a supervisor or somebody else is filling in.

Senator DEWINE. Why would you have such a variation with people who are doing basically the same work, or are they doing the

same work?

Ms. JACKSON. No.

Senator DEWINE. They are not doing the same work. Let us take

foster care, for example.
46

Ms. JACKSON. Foster care is a very difficult service right now,

and so a lot of workers ought not to go to foster care, ought to get

out of there after a period of time, so the degree of difficulty has

a lot to do with the staffing patterns in those services.

They are perceived as more difficult, and the teen services are

even more difficult, so we have a very difficult time keeping our

foster care staffed up. What we have done to address that is to give

foster care cases to Family Services workers, and some of the areas

in the agency where we have lower case loads, we are just giving

them a few foster care cases to help out.

Senator DEWINE. So a case worker might have 12 or 13 cases in

regard to neglect cases, for example, where the child is still in the

home, and they might have three or four foster care——

Ms. JACKSON. That is what we are doing currently, yes.

Senator DEWINE. So it is hard to compare the statistics, because

you are comparing apples and oranges to some extent.

Ms. JACKSON. We know how many children are placed in our

home placement, but we just have had to move them to different

workers when people leave. We hired 19 social workers yesterday.

This is a good time for hiring social workers because the schools

are graduating social workers.

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Ms. JACKSON. So what has happened is, we staffed up this summer, and we will begin to look at that, but I think the ultimate

goal for the new Director would probably be to make more generic

case loads, because you cannot have this imbalance where you feel

punished if you have to work with these children all the time, runaways, and the more difficult child.

Senator DEWINE. In foster care.

Ms. JACKSON. In foster care, and then you feel like, if you are

working with families you feel less stressful, or if you are working

an adoption.

Senator DEWINE. So one of the issues is, you do have quite a variation in a case load.

Ms. JACKSON. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. It is huge, and you said one person could have

50 different families to deal with.

Ms. JACKSON. Children.

Senator DEWINE. Children in that home, right. They are dealing

with 50 kids who are in foster care. Each one is in a home somewhere, so 50 kids.

Ms. MELTZER. My last estimate from the last data that I received, there are 50 vacancies, 50 line social worker vacancies in

the agency.

Senator DEWINE. The last figure that I saw is either last year

or the year before. You got a whole bunch of new people in, you

lost a whole bunch of people. You were basically treading water,

the last figures I saw.

Ms. JACKSON. We have 375 social worker positions, master’s level

social worker positions. We have probably 59 vacancies, but yesterday I hired 19, so that cuts that down, and we will have no problem—what we have got to really work on is how to retain, the retention issues.
47

Senator DEWINE. Well, I am very curious to know about your retention. Can you get me some statistics on that?

Ms. JACKSON. I will.

Senator DEWINE. It would be pretty easy to give you a statistic

that said, the average length of service with the District of the people who you have, the 300-and-some people you have working

today, what is it, what is the range? Those would be statistics that

I assume are not very hard to get. It would tell you something

about your turnover.

Ms. JACKSON. The turnover, yes. We can get a rate for you.

Senator DEWINE. Let us go through this again, then. What is the

goal? How are you going to deal with the turnover? You are always

going to have turnover, and it is a tough business, we understand

that, but what are you going to do to have some consistency?

It is a problem for two reasons, obviously, to state the obvious.

One is experience level, and if you are always dealing with people

who have got less than 2 years of practical experience, you have

got a problem, the system has got a problem.

The other problem is continuity. If you have a tremendous turnover, every family, every child is being jerked around from one case

worker to another case worker—to state the obvious, these are

problems. What is the plan to deal with this turnover issue?

Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. DeWine, we recently just a week or so ago introduced legislation for retention incentive and signing bonuses for

new workers coming on board, so those are preliminary steps that

have been taken. We are asking the candidates who we are interviewing for the directorship questions having to do with the retention strategies, proven, known about, and those that they themselves have, in fact, implemented, so that is an area of great focus.

I believe that with the right legal support that we have got to

put in place to support these workers when they go into court, and

the other kinds of supports, moving the transformation or reformation in the courts that will allow these cases to move quickly

through the system, those are the kinds of things that will ensure

that we are able to augment and retain a good workforce in the

system.

Right now, these workers are pretty exposed when they go into

court, and often go in unrepresented, and not certain of who the

lawyers are there to represent, whether they are representing the

LaShawn case that many of them feel they are still arguing, or

whether they are representing the agency itself, and so these are

young workers, many of them, coming out of graduate school, and

feel very exposed in that environment. We have got to support

them.

Senator DEWINE. It just seems to me that in this whole area,

that continuity and consistency is certainly something that is very,

very important, and I think not only important to get more lawyers, but you have to make sure that those lawyers have time to

talk to the case worker more than 2 minutes before they walk into

court.

It is a perennial problem that anybody who has practiced law

has had, or anybody who has been a case worker has had. There

is never enough time, but if you are going to have that assurance

that you are talking about, it is clear that there has to be enough
48

time, which is a function of numbers, and there is some continuity

in the relationship between that case worker and that individual

lawyer.

I would say, frankly, it is also important that there be continuity

in the type of case that the judge deals with, which is the reason

that I believe we have to have a family court system, and that the

District absolutely has to move to this, and has to move to it I

think very, very quickly. I think one thing is related to the other,

and that shifting around and handing cases off and handing kids

off throughout the system has to be absolutely minimized, certainly

as much as possible.

You have cited some statistics about the increase in adoptions.

I want to make sure I understood what your testimony was

about—which is where we left off before I went to vote—having to

do with the fact the District only goes through an adoption and at

the same time they simultaneously apparently are filing the motion

to terminate parental rights, and you do not do it that way.

Tell me what the plans are to change that. Are there plans to

change that? When are we going to see that changed, do we know?

Ms. MELTZER. I do not know the answer to that.

Senator DEWINE. I have got to ask somebody else? Okay, we will,

because I just do not see how you ever do what you need to do. I

know your adoption figures are up, but I do not know how you ever

do what you need to do unless you do what everybody else does,

which is make a decision when you are going to terminate the parental rights. You terminate the parental rights, and then the child

is eligible for adoption, and then you can move aggressively.

Ms. MELTZER. These additional lawyers that the Office of Corporation Counsel is hiring, some number of them are supposed to

be in a TPR unit. Conceptually they are now making the commitment that they will file, that they will do this work, but one of the

issues that we have been negotiating is whether that number is

sufficient to deal with both the backlog of cases as well as new children being newly identified, so that is why that is still an outstanding issue in terms of the adequacy of the staffing.

Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. DeWine, let me say that the Office of Corporation Counsel is currently under the close supervision of the City

Administrator, Mr. John Koskinen, who has looked at the

Appleseed report that was done assessing that particular function

in Government. Indeed, the report does identify a number of issues

that the office must deal with, and this whole issue of the termination of parental rights in a timely manner will be focused on.

I will indeed talk to Mr. Koskinen as soon as I get back about

this and the committee’s interest in this, and the need to do this

as a part of just best practice in this area.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DEWINE. Well, because of the lateness of the hour, I am

going to stop at this point. I will submit some written questions for

you all, and who should those be submitted to?

Ms. GRAHAM. I will take them.

Senator DEWINE. We will submit them to you, and we appreciate

it very much.
49

I believe that the child protection system in the District of Columbia should be a model for the Nation, and I think that is what

our goal should be. Clearly, it is not a model for the Nation. Clearly, it has huge problems. Clearly, there is some progress being

made, but the progress that is being made, at least for this impatient person, is not fast enough. I suspect there is no one in this

room who thinks it is fast enough. We want to make sure that we

do what we can do from this committee’s point of view and the subcommittee’s point of view to be of assistance.

If that assistance is sometimes prodding and using the bully pulpit of the Senate to talk about these issues, I am not adverse to

doing that, and I will do that. If it is a question of trying to highlight where the resources need to be put, we will do that as well,

but I intend to continue to spend a lot of time on this, my own time

and my staff’s time.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the witnesses for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO CAROLYN N. GRAHAM

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. You testified that the District has drafted and is hoping to publish regulations for foster and group homes. In its study released this year, the Government

Accounting Office found that despite orders, regulations and recommendations to

the contrary, that there are still a significant number of children, particularly children under 6, are in group or un-licensed homes. Can you identify for me if and

how these regulations address these concerns?

Answer. The District has drafted regulations governing the licensing and monitoring of foster and group homes. These regulations will be published for the formal

30-day public comment period within the next month.

The foster home regulations provide detailed requirements that foster homes and

foster parents must meet in order to be licensed. Below is a selected list of issues

covered in these regulations:

—foster parent qualifications, characteristics and background (age, health, maturity, etc.);

—criminal records and child protection register checks;

—foster parent responsibilities (provide supervision, be sensitive to the child, participate in case planning, participate in training, etc.);

—agency responsibility to foster parents (provide adequate information to foster

parent about child, include foster parent in case planning, etc.);

—foster home capacity (limits on number of children in foster homes);

—general physical environment of foster homes (fire, safety, health, etc. requirements);

—health care, education and transportation of foster children;

—foster parent training; and

—approval and re-evaluation of foster homes.

Similarly, the group home regulations provide detailed requirements that group

home providers must meet in order to be licensed. Below is a selected list of issues

covered in these regulations:

—required staff qualifications (educational background);

—criminal records and child protection register checks for staff;

—personnel policies;

—general physical environment of group home (fire, safety, health, etc.);

—health, education, transportation, mental health and other services for children

in group homes; and

—initial licensure and re-evaluation of group homes.

These regulations will provide an important framework for ensuring the quality

of foster and group home placements for children as the City moves forward to reform and improve the child welfare system. However, these regulations will not, in

and of themselves, address the problems of children placed in unlicensed facilities

and children under the age of six placed in group care. These problems occur due

to a variety of factors including delays in processing ICPC (Interstate Compact on
50

the Placement of Children) agreements, delays in lead paint inspections and lack

of adequate numbers of placements for children.

There are a significant number of older homes in the District that have lead paint

and are thus not appropriate for younger children. CFSA is working to expedite lead

paint inspections by contracting directly for these services. Ideally, we would like

to establish a fund in order to provide families with small grants (approximately

$3,000–$5,000) for lead paint abatement.

CFSA is also spearheading a process to recruit more foster homes through the My

Community, My Children initiative that is funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. As an adopted child himself, foster and adoptive parent recruitment has been

an area of focus for the Mayor; thus, he created the Bring Our Children Home Campaign, which is a public education effort about the need for foster and adoptive parents. The recruitment of more foster and adoptive homes will continue to be a priority for the Mayor. This Administration will work closely with community and

faith-based organizations to increase the number of placement resources for children

in foster care.

Question. One provision of the Emergency Plan is to transfer the responsibilities

under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to the CFSA. When you say that staff is

currently being trained to handle this new responsibility, which staff are you referring to? How does this transfer comport with your current struggles with staffing

shortages and overburdened case loads?

Answer. To clarify, the transfer of responsibilities for ICPC is from the District

of Columbia’s Department of Human Services (DHS) to the Child and Family Services Agency, NOT from the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Currently, CFSA staff—three staff and a supervisor—are being trained to handle the

ICPC function. CFSA will assume this function on April 1, 2001.

It should be noted that the ICPC function does not require licensed social workers. The staffing shortages discussed at the hearing are most prominent in the agency’s foster care unit—the unit that manages the cases of children in foster care. To

address staffing shortages, the Mayor and the City Council have approved a plan

to provide hiring incentives and relocation allowances for staff recruited from outside the District. Current agency staff that recruit and refer new staff will also receive bonuses. In addition, a plan has been developed to utilize BSWs in certain social work functions previously performed only by MSWs. It is expected that the

Monitor and the plaintiffs will approve this plan. The hiring of BSWs to serve some

social work functions will reduce the staffing shortages.

Question. I want to commend you for your work on what you call a system of

‘‘neighborhood places’’. Many experts believe that the key to providing more effective

services to children and families lies in the ability to integrate these services across

agency lines. Can you identify for me specific steps that have been taken to move

in this direction?

Answer. The Mayor has issued a paper on the Neighborhood Places concept,

which is included in his 2001–2002 Policy Agenda. This document lays out a vision

for an integrated human services system with a single point of entry—rather than

having to access six different agencies to get needed services. Work to implement

this concept is proceeding on a few fronts. We are currently working with a private

contractor to conduct an assessment of all our social services programs and develop

a prototype to align these services. This work will ultimately lead to the creation

of a centralized intake system—one place where a resident can get information and

apply for benefits and services in all health and social services programs. The notion

is that these centralized intake systems will be located at Neighborhood Places.

We are also developing the Safe Passages Information System which will combine

data from all the agencies in the District that serve children—child welfare, juvenile

justice, mental health, schools, health, etc. This system will provide a comprehensive picture of all services provided to children and youth and will support and promote coordinated case management across agencies. We will need certain federal

agency exemptions, e.g., HCFA, Department of Education, etc., in order to link these

databases at the local level. I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and

your staff further about this piece because it is so critical to tracking the health and

safety of our children and facilitating early intervention. This information system

will support our work as we increase the types of services provided in neighborhoods.
51

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO SONDRA JACKSON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Question. Please provide a breakdown by age of where children in the DC foster

care system are currently placed. (In other words, where are children less than one

year of age, for example, placed?)

Answer. See the attached report ‘‘Children Currently in Foster Care by Age and

Placement Type’’ (APPA 14051–1) that shows 2,723 children who are currently

placed as of April 18, 2001.

CHILDREN CURRENTLY IN FOSTER CARE BY AGE AND PLACEMENT TYPE AS OF APRIL 18, 2001

Placement Type

Age In Years

Total

0–2 3–4 5–7 8–12 13–15 16–17 18∂

Adolescent & Pre-Natal .............................. 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Correctional Facility/Non-Paid .................... 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Hospital ....................................................... 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 6

Independent Living Group Home ................ 0 0 0 0 0 4 100 104

Kinship Foster Care .................................... 9 33 79 191 84 43 38 477

Kinship Unlicensed (Non-Paid) ................... 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 9

Medically Fragile & Mental Retardation .... 1 0 6 20 14 4 9 54

Non-Relative Unlicensed (Non-Paid) .......... 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

Pre-Finalized Adoptive Family .................... 8 4 8 3 2 2 0 27

Proctor Foster Care ..................................... 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5

Psychiatric Hospital .................................... 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Refugee Minor Foster Family ...................... 0 0 0 4 2 3 5 14

Residential Treatment Facility .................... 0 0 3 10 36 37 28 114

Specialized Infant Care .............................. 31 26 31 19 7 0 0 114

Teen Mothers Group Home ......................... 2 0 2 0 2 3 24 33

Therapeutic Foster Family .......................... 0 6 35 160 86 63 53 403

Traditional Foster Family ............................ 98 145 274 411 130 53 77 1188

Traditional Group Home .............................. 3 4 5 18 50 50 38 168

Total .............................................. 153 221 446 843 415 268 377 2,723

Question. What are the case goals for children in the DC foster care system?

(What percentages of these children between the age of 12 and 18, for example have

a goal of independent living?)

Answer. See attached report ‘‘Children Currently in Foster Care by Age and Permanency Goal’’ (APPA 14051–2): Although the following permanency goals (Family

Stabilization, Legal Custody, Relative Placement and Independence) are currently

allowed to be selected in the system, steps are underway to close them out and map

them to other goals that closely comply with permanency goals as described by the

Adoption and Foster Care Data Analysis System (AFCARS) regulations. Of the

2,723 children identified, 495 are recorded in the system without permanency goals.

The Agency has prepared a listing of these children to be distributed to management for staff to update the records. As previously stated, the records counted with

‘‘No Goal’’ are being identified so staff can update the records appropriately.
52

Permanency goal

Age in years

0–2 3–4 5–7 8–12 13–15 16–17 18∂

Number

of

Percentage Number of Percent- age Number of Percent- age Number of Percent- age Number of Percent- age Number of Percent- age Number of Percent- age

Adoption ................................................................................................ 12 .44 85 3.12 218 8.01 420 15.42 131 4.81 31 1.14 7 .26Emancipation ........................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2 .07Family Stabilization .............................................................................. 1 .04 5 .18 13 .48 17 .62 14 .51 4 .15 4 .15Guardianship ........................................................................................ ............ ............ 1 .04 4 .15 11 .40 10 .37 1 .04 4 .15Independence ........................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 5 .18 68 2.50 276 10.14Legal Custody ....................................................................................... ............ ............ 4 .15 7 .26 16 .59 6 .22 4 .15 2 .07Long Term Foster Care ......................................................................... 1 .04 ............ ............ 4 .15 34 1.25 83 3.05 105 3.86 40 1.47Relative Placement ............................................................................... 4 .15 4 .15 14 .51 41 1.51 26 .95 3 .11 5 .18Reunification ......................................................................................... 30 1.10 60 2.20 96 3.53 181 6.65 83 3.05 21 .77 10 .37No Goal ................................................................................................. 105 3.86 62 2.28 90 3.31 123 4.52 57 2.09 31 1.14 27 .99

Total ........................................................................................ 153 5.62 221 8.12 446 16.38 843 30,96 415 15.24 268 9.84 377 13.85
53

CHILDREN IN THE SYSTEM

Question. How many children currently in Foster care have been in the system

longer than 3 years; longer than 5 years, and longer than 8 years?

Answer. See attached report, ‘‘Children Currently In Foster Care by Age and

Number of Years Receiving Services (APPA 14051–3). The total number of children

in the system longer than 3 years is 1,581 while the number of children in care

longer than 5 years is 998 and the number of children in care longer than 8 years

is 513. This information is detailed in the attached report and includes the number

of children in care less than 3 years. In addition, three (3) individuals were excluded

from this count (2,720) due to incorrect birth dates recorded in the system. Their

calculated ages were less than the number of years receiving services.

CHILDREN CURRENTLY IN FOSTER CARE BY AGE AND NUMBER OF YEARS RECEIVING SERVICES

AS OF APRIL 18, 2001

Years Receiving Services

Age In Years Total

0–2 3–4 5–7 8–12 13–15 16–17 18∂

0–0.9 years ................................................. 83 40 67 108 48 27 16 389

1–1.9 years ................................................. 55 55 77 126 53 30 27 423

2–2.9 years ................................................. 9 63 72 108 38 20 17 327

3–4.9 years ................................................. 0 61 147 172 92 47 64 583

5–7.9 years ................................................. 0 0 79 203 67 48 88 485

8∂ years ................................................... 0 0 0 128 121 90 174 513

Total .............................................. 147 219 442 845 419 262 386 2,720

Question. What is the average number of different homes a child is placed while

in the foster care system? (Please provide a comparison by age: In other words, are

school age children placed in more or less foster homes than pre-school age children)

Answer. See attached report ‘‘Number of Placements and Average Number of

Placements by Age from October 01, 1999 to April 17, 2001’’ (APPA 14051–4) that

shows the number of placements and the number of children (by age) who had continuous placements during the report period. This total includes an unduplicated

count of children who exited care during this period. The total placements for each

age group divided by the total number of children in the specified age grouping was

calculated to provide the average number of placements for each age group.

NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS BY AGE FROM OCTOBER

01,1999 TO APRIL 18, 2001

Number of Continuous Placements

Age In Years

Total

0–2 3–4 5–7 8–12 13–15 16–17 18∂

1 .................................................................. 176 236 442 793 319 191 238 2,395

2 .................................................................. 30 67 146 206 109 68 127 753

3 .................................................................. 3 20 50 65 27 21 34 220

4 .................................................................. 2 3 11 27 17 4 17 81

5 .................................................................. 0 1 6 18 9 1 2 37

6∂ ............................................................. 1 1 3 17 4 5 1 32

Total .............................................. 212 328 658 1,126 485 290 419 3,518

Average Number of Placements ................. 1.22 1.38 1.49 1.53 1.56 1.53 1.63 ............

Question. What is the average duration of time that children are in foster homes?

(Please provide a comparison by age: in other words do younger children typically

live with the same foster family for a longer or shorter duration of time than teenagers?) Please provide data on the age distribution of children currently in foster

care.

Answer. See attached report ‘‘Length and Average Duration of Time in Foster

Homes by Age’’ (APPA 14051–5) that details the years a child resides in a foster

home by age. Foster Homes are defined as Therapeutic Foster Family, Traditional

Foster Family Kinship Foster Family (Paid), and Proctor Foster Care.
54

LENGTH AND AVERAGE DURATION OF TIME IN FOSTER HOMES 1 BY AGE AS OF APRIL 18, 2001

Length of Time in Placement

Age In Years

Total

0–2 3–4 5–7 8–12 13–15 16–17 18∂

0–0.9 years ................................................. 78 77 160 320 155 106 91 987

1–1.9 years ................................................. 36 69 99 240 96 56 68 664

2–2.9 years ................................................. 3 45 81 157 64 32 44 426

3–4.9 years ................................................. 0 37 116 162 84 39 67 505

5–7.9 years ................................................. 0 0 38 132 53 44 68 335

8∂ years ................................................... 0 0 0 39 48 44 91 222

Total .............................................. 115 208 423 810 376 234 347 2,513

Average Duration of Time in Foster Home

in Years .................................................. 0.73 1.64 2.13 2.53 3.00 3.44 4.62

1 Foster homes are Therapeutic Foster Family, Traditional Foster Family, Kinship Foster Care and Proctor Foster Care.

Question. Once the goal of adoption is established, what is the average duration

of time that children are in care before being placed in a pre-adoptive home?

Answer. We have 931 children in foster care with the goal of adoption. The average number of years children are in care before being placed in a pre-adoptive home

is 1.39 years while the average number of years children are in care awaiting preadoptive homes is 1.82 years. The two charts below provide details of the average

number of years for children who are currently in pre-adoptive homes and those

with the goal of adoption but have not yet been placed in a pre-adoptive home. Of

the total number of children with the goal of adoption, twenty-eight percent (28 percent) are currently in pre-adoptive homes as detailed in Chart 6.1 below. The remaining seventy-two percent (72 percent) are awaiting placement in pre-adoptive

homes as detailed in Chart 6.2 below.

CHART 6.1.—CHILDREN IN PRE-ADOPTIVE HOMES

[Average Number of Years = 1.39]

Time from Adoption Goal is established to child being placed in Pre-Adoptive Placement

Number

of Children

Percentage of Children

0–3 months .......................................................................................................... 46 17.49

3–6 months .......................................................................................................... 40 15.21

6–9 months .......................................................................................................... 30 11.41

9–12 months ........................................................................................................ 25 9.51

1–2 years ............................................................................................................. 55 20.91

2–3 years ............................................................................................................. 34 12.93

3–4 years ............................................................................................................. 17 6.46

More than 4 years ................................................................................................ 16 6.08

Total ........................................................................................................ 263 100.00

CHART 6.2.—CHILDREN AWAITING PRE-ADOPTIVE HOMES

[Average Number of Years = 1.82]

Time from Adoption Goal is established to child being placed in Pre-Adoptive Placement

Number

of Children

Percentage of Children

0–3 months .......................................................................................................... 83 12.43

3–6 months .......................................................................................................... 75 11.23

6–9 months .......................................................................................................... 73 10.93

9–12 months ........................................................................................................ 59 8.83

1–2 years ............................................................................................................. 158 23.65

2–3 years ............................................................................................................. 94 14.07

3–4 years ............................................................................................................. 47 7.04
55

CHART 6.2.—CHILDREN AWAITING PRE-ADOPTIVE HOMES—Continued

[Average Number of Years = 1.82]

Time from Adoption Goal is established to child being placed in Pre-Adoptive Placement

Number

of Children

Percentage of Children

More than 4 years ................................................................................................ 79 11.83

Total ........................................................................................................ 668 100.00

Question. Once the goal of adoption is established, what is the average duration

of time that children are in the foster care system before the adoption is finalized?

Answer. There were 343 finalized adoptions during fiscal year 2000. The Average

Length of Time Between Establishing Goal of Adoption and Adoption Finalization

is 1.7 years and indicated in the chart below. (Based on Children Whose Adoptions

Were Finalized in Fiscal Year 2000)

[Average Number of Years = 1.7]

Time from Adoption Goal is established to child being placed in Pre-Adoptive Placement

Number

of Children

Percentage of Children

0–3 months .......................................................................................................... 87 25

3–6 months .......................................................................................................... 12 3

6–9 months .......................................................................................................... 19 6

9–12 months ........................................................................................................ 23 7

1–2 years ............................................................................................................. 75 22

2–3 years ............................................................................................................. 55 16

3–4 years ............................................................................................................. 34 10

More than 4 years ................................................................................................ 38 11

Total ........................................................................................................ 343 100

Question. What percentages of children who are identified as having a goal of

adoption have had parents’ rights terminated (TPR)?

Answer. The percentage of children with a goal of adoption who have had parents’

rights terminated is seventy-three percent (73 percent).

Chart 8.1

Number of Children With Goal of Adoption and Both Parents’ Rights Terminated .................................................................................................................... 681

Total Number of Children With Goal of Adoption .............................................. 932

Question. How many foster children are currently placed in homes without properly licensed foster parents?

Answer. Children Currently Placed in Foster Homes Without Valid Permits or Licenses. The Agency is currently hiring additional staff to process Foster Home Licensing after Licensing Authority becomes the full responsibility of the CFSA.

Chart 9.1

Number Of Children .............................................................................................. 895

Number Of Facilities ............................................................................................. 529

CASEWORKERS/SOCIAL WORKERS

Question. What is the average length of time most caseworkers/social workers

stay with CFSA?

Answer. Of the 248 caseworkers currently employed, the longest service period is

thirty four (34) years, and the shortest is that of the most recent appointee whose

entrance on duty date was April 2, 2001.

Question. What is the range most caseworkers/social workers stay with CFSA?

Answer. Information was compiled for 100 employees who separated during the

period of July 22, 1999 through a projected resignation effective April 20, 2001. The

range for the length of stay was three (3) months to nine (9) years.
56

Question. How many years of prior experience as a caseworker or social worker

did most caseworkers/social workers have when they started working at CFSA?

Answer. Using the social worker selection criteria, it may be possible to extrapolate the information requested from the agency’s current social work staff. For example, CFSA hires social workers as follows:

DS–9 grade level.—Recent graduates of an accredited school of social work who

are licensed graduate social workers (LGSW) and either have no professional experience or less than one year of professional experience.

DS–11 grade level.—Social Workers with a minimum of one year of professional

experience at the LGSW level.

DS–12 grade level.—Social Workers who are Licensed Independent Clinical Social

Workers (LICSW). To obtain the LICSW, a social worker must have approximately

three years of professional work experience.

Based on the agency’s selection criteria and its present workforce of forty-two (42)

social workers at the grade 9 level, one hundred forty-five (145) at grade 11 and

sixty-one (61) at grade twelve (12), the data supports a finding that most of the social workers hired at CFSA have at least one year of prior professional social work

experience in a case carrying capacity.

Question. What is the retention rate for caseworkers/social workers at CFSA?

Answer. During fiscal year 2000, CFSA experienced an attrition rate of twentyseven and one-half percent (27.5 percent).

Question. Please provide a breakdown of the reasons why social workers/caseworkers left CFSA in the past five years. (For example, what percentage of social

workers cited poor supervision?)

Answer. The primary reason cited for leaving CFSA was job opportunity/career

change. For a detailed breakdown, please see the attached Exit Interview Report

and the accompanying Social Work Staff Exit Report Key.

SOCIAL WORK STAFF EXIT REPORT KEY

Reason for Leaving Codes

I—No Reason Provided

II—Terminated During Probationary Period

III—Job Opportunity/Career Change

IV—Transfer to Another DC Agency (DCPS, etc.)

V—High Caseload

VI—Poor Supervision/Management Issues

VII—Stressed/Overwhelmed

VIII—Court/Attorneys/Judges

IX—Lack of Support and/or Appreciation

X—No Involvement in Management Decisions

XI—Family/Personal Reasons/Retiring

EXIT INTERVIEW REPORT SYNOPSIS

Percent

Total Number of employees included in this report ............................................................................... 100 100

Number of exit interviews completed ...................................................................................................... 76 76

Total Number of reasons for leaving submitted ..................................................................................... 120 ( 1 )

Number of employees citing Job Opportunity/Career Change ................................................................ 34 34

Number of employees supplying no reason ............................................................................................ 18 18

Number of employees citing Poor Supervision/Management Issues ...................................................... 15 15

Number of employees citing Transfer to another DC Agency ................................................................. 11 11

Number of employees citing High Caseload ........................................................................................... 9 9

Number of employees citing Stress/Overwhelmed .................................................................................. 7 7

Number of employees citing Family/Personal Reasons/Retiring ............................................................. 10 10

Number of employees citing Lack of Support and/or Appreciation ........................................................ 5 5

Number of employees citing No involvement in Management Decisions ............................................... 4 4

Number of employees terminated during probation ............................................................................... 5 5

Number of employees citing Court/Judges/Attorneys .............................................................................. 2 2

Many workers who left CFSA employment submitted more than one reason for

leaving. As a result, CFSA received a total of 120 reasons from the one hundred

people who left between July 1999 and April 2001. These 120 reasons have been

reduced to eleven main reasons, which are identified in the ‘‘Reasons for Leaving

Codes’’ chart above.
57

The above percentages reflect the percent of employees from the total number who

left (100), who identified one of the eleven reasons from the list in the ‘‘Reason for

Leaving Code’’ chart identified above. For example, the number of employees citing

court/judges/attorneys is two (2). These two employees are obviously reflected in the

two percent appearing at the end of the ‘‘Number of employees citing Court/Judges/

Attorneys’’ column. These employees may have also cited high caseload as another

reason for leaving. That being the case, both employee would also be reflected in

the ten percent at the end of the ‘‘Number of employees citing High Caseload’’ column on the ‘‘Exit Interview Report Synopsis’’ chart.

REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION

Question. How many cases of child abuse and neglect were investigated per year

in the last calendar year (2000)?

Answer. The number of reported abuse and neglect allegations investigated are

listed below by calendar years 1999 and 2000 is listed in Charts 10.1 and 10.2.

CHART 10.1.—Number of Referrals for Calendar Year 1999

Accepted for Investigation ..................................................................................... 4,934

Not Accepted for Investigation (Screened Out) ................................................... 85

Total ............................................................................................................. 5,019

CHART 10.2.—Number of Referrals for Calendar Year 2000

Accepted for Investigation ..................................................................................... 4,156

Not Accepted for Investigation (Screened Out) ................................................... 203

Total ............................................................................................................. 4,359

Question. In 1999 and 2000, how many reported cases of abuse or neglect resulted

in the removal of the child/children?

Answer. Number of Reported Abuse/Neglect Cases That Were Accepted for Investigation and Resulted in the Removal of the Child(ren) during Calendar Years 1999

and 2000 are reflected in Charts 11.1 and 11.2

CHART 11.1.—Calendar Year 1999 Investigations Resulting In Removals

Investigations Resulting in the Removal of At Least One Child ....................... 117

Investigations That Did Not Result in The Removal of Children from Their

Home ................................................................................................................... 4,902

Total Referrals ............................................................................................. 5,019

Chart 11.2.—Calendar Year 2000 Investigations Resulting In Removals

Investigations Resulting in the Removal of At Least One Child ....................... 544

Investigations That Did Not Result in The Removal of Children from Their

Home ................................................................................................................... 3,612

Total Referrals ............................................................................................. 4,156

Question. In 1999 and 2000, what was the average length of time between when

an initial report was filed and when the actual investigation began?

Answer. See report ‘‘Average Length of Time Between Intake Date and Investigation Initiative For Referrals Created Between January 1, 2000 and December 31,

2000’’ (APPA 14501.12). (Note: The CFSA child welfare information system was implemented on Oct. 1, 1999, therefore only 2000 data has been provided)

Average Length of Time Between Intake Date and Investigation Initiation For

Referrals Created Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000

Number of

Length of Time to Initiate Referrals

1 Day ....................................................................................................................... 516

2 Days ..................................................................................................................... 155

3 Days ..................................................................................................................... 64

More than 3 Days .................................................................................................. 709
58

Average Length of Time Between Intake Date and Investigation Initiation For

Referrals Created Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000—Continued

Number of

Length of Time to Initiate Referrals

Not Initiated 1 ......................................................................................................... 2,712

Total Referrals ............................................................................................. 4,156

1 Not Initiated means not documented properly in the electronic record.

Average time taken (for initiated referrals)—19.71 days.

Question. In 1999 and 2000, on average how many days did it take to investigate

a case?

Answer. The Average Number of Days to Investigate a Case is 57.2 days as indicated in Chart 13.1. (Of Investigations Completed in Calendar Year 2000)

[Average Number of Days = 57.27]

Num. Of Days to Num. Of Complete Investigation Investigations

0–30 days ................................................................................................................ 1,431

31–45 days .............................................................................................................. 484

46–60 days .............................................................................................................. 296

61 ∂ days ............................................................................................................... 1,004

Total ............................................................................................................. 3,215

Note: Prior to the implementation of the Agency’s information system, FACES, this information was not tracked and is unavailable for calendar year 1999. Implementation of the FACES

system was effective October 1, 1999.

Question. What are the ‘‘typical’’ reasons for removal of a child/children following

an investigation? (Example: Parental drug use, domestic violence, incest, etc.)

Answer. The complete values for ‘‘Reasons for Removal’’ of a Child/Children following an Investigation are:

1. Abandonment

2. Alcohol Abuse (Child)

3. Alcohol Abuse (Parent)

4. Caretaker Ill/Unable to Cope

5. Child’s Behavior Problem

6. Child’s Disability

7. Death of Parent(s)

8. Drug Abuse (Child)

9. Drug Abuse (Parent)

10. Inadequate Housing

11. Incarceration of Parent(s)

12. Non-Committed Child of Teen

13. Physical Abuse (Alleged/Reported)

14. Relinquishment

15. Sexual Abuse

16. Voluntary

Question. Please provide a summary of how the investigative process works. Typically, what does CFSA do when a child abuse or neglect allegation is made? What

is CFSA’s role in the investigation? Will this change as a result of the consent

order?

Answer. All reports are made to the single reporting hotline (202–671–SAFE).

Subsequent to a child abuse or neglect report, the Hotline Supervisor assigns the

referral to an Intake Unit, based on Wards in the District of Columbia. If the referral contains allegations of physical or sexual abuse, a worksheet is forwarded to the

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)—Youth & Preventive Services Division

(YSPD). The hotline worker conducts a search to determine if the family has been

previously known or is currently active with CFSA. This information is then relayed

to the investigating unit. The Intake Supervisor then assigns the investigation to

a licensed social worker in the unit to conduct the assessment. Prior to the initial

assessment, closed case records and FACES (CFSA management information system) are reviewed if the case has ever been known to the agency.

If the report contains allegations of physical or sexual abuse, the social worker

will conduct a joint investigation with MPD–YSPD. An initial assessment is attempted within 24 hours or immediately if the referral is considered an emergency.

Upon responding, the social worker conducts a safety and risk assessment (food,

clothing, shelter, education, medical care, supervision, and parenting skills) to determine if the child can remain in the home or if removal is warranted. Reasonable

efforts are made to prevent removal by providing crisis intervention, referrals, and

emergency services. If the child cannot safely remain in the home, the social worker

conducts a removal in conjunction with MPD. The child is medically screened

through DC Kids (neglect) or at the Children’s National Medical Center (physical

or sexual abuse) and a foster care placement recommendation is made. The Placement Unit then searches for the most appropriate facility or home according to the
59

child’s needs. The removal of a child requires legal action within 24 hours, therefore,

a Police Hold is requested and the case is presented before the DC Superior Court.

If the child can remain safely in the home, but the allegations are substantiated,

the social worker opens the case and transfers it for further assessment, supportive

services, and ongoing monitoring. If the allegations are unsubstantiated, the social

worker closes the investigation.

The Consent Order is expected to create certain changes regarding the investigation process and the role of CFSA: the responsibility and authority for child abuse

cases will be transferred form the DC Superior Court Social Services to CFSA and

CFSA Intake staff will acquire direct legal services.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. Your written testimony stated that CFSA has achieved a 33 percent increase in the availability of community based services to children, raising the number of children served from 987 to 1,316. What percentage of the total number of

families ‘‘eligible’’ or ‘‘in need’’ of such services does that number represent?

Answer. As a point of clarification, there was a 33 percent increase in the number

of families served by community-based partners (from 987 to 1,316). The actual

number of children served during the same period increased from 2,220 to 3,677.

100 percent of the total number of children and families who came to the attention

of the Child and Family Services Agency as eligible or in need of community-based

services were referred and received those services.

Question. In regard to your 97 percent success rate in safely protecting children

within their families, how exactly is that number determined? What does it represent?

Answer. Of the total number of children safely protected by the Agency within

their own homes (7,641), 206 of these children had to be removed from their homes

and committed to the Agency’s custody following case intervention for a period of

time in which the social worker attempted to prevent the out-of-home placement.

Question. As to the length of time in care, how was this reduction in time

achieved? Also, do you have any information as to the length of time children are

in care before adoption is identified as the permanency plan? In other words, the

total time in care?

Answer. This reduction was achieved as the Child and Family Services Agency

has continued to make a concerted effort to increase the number of internal permanency staffs to identify appropriate permanency goals for children in care. In addition, the Agency has increased the number of diligent search investigators who

search for missing/absent parents earlier in the process so that a permanency hearing does not need to be delayed due to the lack of information regarding the child’s

birth parent(s). The Agency is also working very closely with the Adoptions Judge

of the D.C. Superior Court to ensure adoptions are finalized as soon as practicable.

Currently, the average length of time in care to the establishment of the permanency goal of adoption is 2.44 years (28.77 months). However, as I stated at the

March 15th hearing, termination of parental rights does not typically occur in the

District until an adoptive home has been identified.
68

Question. Can you help to expose some of the reasons why the district is not able

to obtain the full level of Federal reimbursement to which they are entitled?

Answer. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the Department

of Health and Human Services published 70 percent as the District’s maintenance

payment rate for the 1st quarter of fiscal year 1998, and ACF Office of General

Counsel questioned the interpretation resulting in a revocation of the initial interpretation. ACF then determined that the District is not entitled to 70 percent Title

IV–E reimbursement.

The Agency does not fee it is recovering the federal revenues to which it is entitled. We believe that Title IV–E should be reimbursed at the same rate as Medicaid,

as it is in all other jurisdictions except the District of Columbia and Alaska.

Question. You have increased the number of children in foster care homes to 507.

Can you provide me with a breakdown in the types of placements for the remaining

children. For example, what percentage are in group homes, congregate care, therapeutic facilities etc.

Answer. The 507 figure actually represents an increase in the number of foster

homes not children. Provided below is a breakdown of the number of foster care children by type of placement as of February 2001.

Percent

Traditional Foster Care ......................................................................................... ¥46

Therapeutic Foster Care ....................................................................................... ¥14

Kinship Care Foster Care ..................................................................................... 1 ¥17

Group Homes .......................................................................................................... ¥9

Residential Treatment Facilities .......................................................................... ¥5

Special Infant Program ......................................................................................... ¥4

Other ....................................................................................................................... ¥5

1The remaining kinship care givers are not receiving the foster care board rate.

Question. Are the 2,545 children living with kin counted in your numbers of children in out of home placement?

Answer. Yes, however of the 2,545 children placed with kinship care givers in fiscal year 2000 approximately 500 were in paid foster care placement status. In fiscal

year 2001, approximately 1,907 children are placed with kinship care givers (both

in paid and non-paid status).

Question. The hearing highlighted the fact that the District is not in compliance

with ASFA in some areas. There are two requirements regarding time that I am

aware of (1) within 12 months a hearing must be held—how long is that time frame

currently in the District? (2) that any child who is in care for 15 of the past 22

months must be the subject of a hearing to terminate parental rights—again, what

is the time frame currently in the district?

Answer. The Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

is the entity statutorily responsible for holding a permanency hearing after a child

has been in care for 12 months. On April 28, 1998, Chief Judge Eugene N. Hamilton

issued Administrative Order No. 98–13 which required all judges to review their neglect and abuse cases and to conduct permanency hearings for all cases where eighteen months had passed since the entry of the order of abuse or neglect.

The Council for Court Excellence recently released a report describing the status

of the Court’s compliance with the new time frames under the Adoptions and Safe

Families Act. A copy of that report is attached.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ERIC THOMPSON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Question. What is your perception of the District of Columbia’s child welfare system? Are the problems plaguing the DC child welfare system similar to those across

the country?

Answer. The problems in the District’s child welfare system are similar to those

in other troubled systems around the country but these problems were exacerbated

for many years by the problems within District government itself and then by the

government’s resistance to working with the receivership that had been imposed by

the federal court. We hope those more general problems are abating, with recent

improvements within the government and with the transition plan to end the receivership. And although there are still significant problems in the District’s child welfare system, the receiver has succeeded in making many structural changes that

should lay the groundwork for better services. Nevertheless, many reform initiatives
69

have up to this point been stymied by system-wide barriers both within and without

CFSA.

Within CFSA, there is a critical dearth of competent, experienced supervisory

staff, so that many caseworkers are quitting as fast as they can be hired. Under

the best of circumstances, child welfare is a demanding field. When there is a critical and chronic shortage of casework staff, as there has been now for years at

CFSA, caseworkers covering inordinately high caseloads are bound to only perform

emergency tasks, if that. This jeopardizes service delivery and child safety. Current

initiatives to recruit and retain competent staff must be continued and fully funded,

and non-performing supervisory staff should be aggressively replaced.

Outside CFSA, there has been a lack of cooperation and coordination between

CFSA and the many other District entities responsible for child welfare, including

the Office of Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In many instances, these agencies have

even been openly antagonistic to CFSA and its staff to the detriment of the

LaShawn plaintiff class of children. As part of the recent LaShawn consent decree,

the District has now agreed to the full staffing of Corporation Counsel for CFSA representation, which will be a first. Full funding for these additional positions will be

necessary. The District has also agreed that abuse and neglect investigations and

case management must finally be consolidated in CFSA instead of being artificially

distributed between CFSA, the Police Department and the Superior Court. Reforms

at the Superior Court will also be needed to assure the continuity and competence

of judicial oversight over contested child welfare cases. Finally, the District has

agreed that other child welfare functions, such as foster home licensing and caseworker hiring, be transferred to CFSA from other understaffed and underperforming

District agencies. With full funding and staffing of these functions within CFSA, the

Agency will no longer be at the mercy of unresponsive District bureaucracies for

these critical child welfare functions.

Question. What role has the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) played in

making systemic changes in child welfare and foster care systems throughout America? What are the positive and/or negative effects of this new law? Would you recommend any changes to the law?

Answer. ASFA has forced child welfare agencies, the courts, and legal advocates

to pay far more attention to children’s best interests and safety in planning for children. In addition, by requiring that the states take action to free children for adoption after they have been in foster care custody for 15 out of the last 22 months,

the legislation also puts the states on notice that children should not remain in foster care indefinitely, and provides advocates with an important new tool for combating foster care drift. Unfortunately, many of the states are out of compliance

with the requirements of the statute.

Children’s Rights is doing a study on the progress various jurisdictions have made

in improving permanency outcomes for children since the enactment and implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Specifically with regard to adoption,

we have found mixed results so far. Some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, have significantly increased the numbers of children for whom adoptions are

finalized and have sustained the increase on a yearly basis (in DC, increasing from

47 finalized adoptions in 1992 to 279 in 2000). Other jurisdictions (such as Kansas

and Connecticut), however, reported an initial increase in the number of finalized

adoptions and a subsequent slowing in these rates. This trend suggests that the initial increases reflected success in finalizing the adoptions of children who were already placed with adoptive families and where legal steps were all that remained

to finalize the adoptions.

It may be that the current population of children in foster care waiting to be

adopted is increasingly comprised of children with significant special needs and/or

who are members of sibling groups. If so, these children are likely to need specialized and focused efforts to ensure that adoptive families are identified for them. Absent these efforts, compliance with ASFA provisions to file petitions to terminate parental rights and free children for adoption will lead to a new group of children for

whom permanency has not been achieved—children who may become ‘‘legal orphans.’’ Efforts to free children for adoption must be accompanied by aggressive efforts to recruit and support permanent new families for them. In addition, another

concern about the ASFA provision that requires the filing of petitions to free children for adoption is whether the states will direct all of their attention to that aspect of permanence, and neglect the other important aspect of permanence, that of

reuniting children with their birth families whenever it is appropriate and safe to

do so. So far, there is very little information about exactly how this statute is being

implemented.
70

The greatest strength of ASFA is that it requires timely state action to determine

and implement a permanent goal of adoption for children who remain in foster care

for 15 out of the last 22 months, if an exception does not apply. 42 U.S.C.

§ 675(5)(E). ASFA’s emphasis on termination of parental rights provides support for

the first critical step toward ensuring permanency for children who will not be reunited with their biological parents. ASFA also provides guidance to states in maximizing their use of resources to recruit adoptive parents for waiting children in foster care.

One weakness of the current statute is that there is no explicit requirement that

the election of an exception justifying the non-filing of a termination of parental

rights (TPR) petition be contemporaneously made and documented. States can

therefore defeat the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E) by failing to pursue timely

permanency and then seeking to justify their non-action years later with an exception that may only apply by then because of their previous non-action. For example,

if a state does not file a TPR petition for a child in foster care for 15 out of the

last 22 months who should be adopted at that time, the state may be able to justify

years later that it is no longer in the best interests of the child to be adopted because they have been allowed to bond in an non-adoptive foster home for years. Unless the states are required to elect and document that an exception applies at the

15 month mark when a TPR petition is not filed as otherwise required, then the

exceptions can swallow the rule by allowing the states to seek to justify their nonaction years hence to the detriment of the children.

Also, ASFA did not provide additional funding to states to expand their recruitment efforts for adoptive homes for the growing number of children who are being

freed for adoption. Nor did ASFA address the post-adoption needs of families who

adopt children with physical disabilities, mental health problems and developmental

difficulties (a significant percentage of children in foster care). Research and practical experience have demonstrated repeatedly that successful adoptions of children

in foster care depend to a significant degree on the availability of post-adoption

services and supports for children with special needs and their adoptive families.

Absent such support, the risk of adoptions disrupting and children returning to foster care is significant. To further ASFA’s goal of ensuring permanency for children

through adoption, emphasis must be placed on the development of and support for

post-adoption services for children and their families.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. Both yourself and Ms. Jackson identified the lack of legal representation

as a major barrier to improvement. While I understand that it is the intent to hire

additional attorneys and have them be located within the agency itself, I am wondering if any thought has been given to ensuring that: (1) these attorneys are appropriately trained to handle these cases and (2) It is clearly established what their

role as attorneys for the agency will in fact be?

Answer. This question raises important questions because, as the Senator recognizes, simply having an adequate number of attorneys does not ensure adequate

legal representation, and adequate legal representation is absolutely critical to ensuring protection for the District’s children. In the past, the Office of Corporation

Counsel in the District has been extremely resistant to either the question of additional numbers of attorneys, or to the role they play with regard to representing the

Child and Family Services Agency. As a result of the negotiations concerning ending

the receivership and returning the agency to the District’s control, the District has

agreed to appropriate staffing ‘‘to assist CFSA staff to effectively present their cases

in court,’’ and the provisions concerning adequate equal representation will be carefully monitored, given how important they are and how much of a problem this has

been. However, plaintiffs are not yet satisfied that the role of these lawyers, and

their supervision, has adequately been addressed by the District. Therefore, our negotiations with the District on the details surrounding this very important issue

continue, and plaintiffs will oppose an termination of the receivership until the details on legal representation are satisfactorily resolved.

Question. As a lawyer, I am sure that you recognize that even the most perfect

of social service systems can ultimately have their permanency and safety goals impeded by a overburdened and unspecialized court system? Can you expound for us

the role of the courts in this transformation?

Answer. We agree that the courts play a very important role in ensuring the protection of children. In the past, we do not think that the courts, CFSA and District

government have worked together as collaboratively as necessary. The separation of

responsibility for abuse and neglect has created a serious problem and the recently
71

passed legislation to end that separation is a critical step toward improving services

for children. We also believe that there are important steps toward reforming the

courts themselves that should be taken. These steps include: better, more efficient

scheduling of cases, so that case workers do not have to spend hours waiting in

court, and not serving children, for brief court appearances; a specialized bench, as

is the case in many jurisdictions, so that the judges will have the opportunity for

specialized training, and have a better and more sophisticated understanding of the

issues that are presented before them; and far better cooperation and liaison between the court and the administration of CFSA to address and resolve problems

cooperatively that interfere with each system doing the best possible job for children. The court also needs greater expanded technology so that it can ensure accountability, track permanency for children and keep far better track of the cases.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUDITH MELTZER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. You have provided us with some startling numbers which demonstrate

the depth of workforce issues facing CFSA. I am encouraged by your testimony that

a plan is being developed to increase recruitment and retention of social workers.

Are there any specific areas of the that plan you would like to highlight?

Answer. As indicated in my written testimony, addressing the workforce issues is

one of the most important challenges that the child welfare agency (CFSA) faces as

it seeks to comply with the LaShawn Remedial Order requirements to operate a

high quality child welfare system. Until fairly recently, the workforce problems were

in part budgetary, in that (1) there were not enough budgeted positions to bring

caseloads to required levels, and (2) social worker salaries were non-competitive

with surrounding jurisdictions. This is no longer the problem. The biggest barriers

have been the single reliance on MSW social workers for all of the frontline social

work functions and the difficulties that the agency has had in retaining social workers.

On the MSW issue, the LaShawn Remedial Order includes a requirement that all

social workers be licensed MSWs unless the District develop and the plaintiffs approve an alternative plan. This requirement was put in the decree at the recommendation of District government in 1991 because of a long-standing view that

District licensing law requires anyone practicing social work to have an MSW degree. Plaintiffs and the Court Monitors’ review of the District statute suggests that

either a licensed BSW or MSW can provide social work services. However, for many

years, the District’s Social Work Licensing Board and the professional association

(the Metropolitan Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers) have vigorously opposed any efforts by the Receiver to implement a plan to use licensed BSW

staff. As Monitor, we have always indicated that we believe that such a plan needs

to be developed and would be approved by plaintiffs. Given the current hiring crisis,

I have strongly recommended that the agency move forward with a plan to immediately hire BSW as well as MSW staff. That plan is currently in the final stages

of development by CFSA and assuming that it clearly identifies the functions that

BSW staff will perform; how they will be supervised, and how they will be trained,

both the Monitor and plaintiffs should approve it.

Assuming the agency goes forward to aggressively recruit both MSW and BSW

staff this spring, they should be able to hire a sufficient number of workers to fill

all current vacancies. The Mayor and the District Council have finally approved a

plan developed by the Receiver last year to allow the agency to provide hiring incentives and relocation allowances for staff recruited from other states. Bonuses to current staff who recruit and refer newly hired staff will also be provided. These incentives will help with the recruitment. In addition, I am encouraging the agency to

over-hire, that is to commit to hire new workers at a level at least 10 percent above

current vacancies, so that there is always a pool of available trained workers to fill

new vacancies.

The biggest issue facing CFSA is social worker retention. As indicated in my testimony, in the year 2000, the agency hired 132 new social workers and lost 128 workers, leaving a net gain of only 4 workers. Resolving retention issues will involve a

creative leader, who can increase the morale of workers at the agency. Also imperative are efforts to improve front-line supervision; to provide workers access needed

resources for families and children, and to provide workers with continuous opportunities for job satisfaction and professional development. In addition, current efforts

to improve the adversarial relationship with the Superior Court and the lack of effective representation for social workers by Office of Corporation Counsel attorneys
72

should positively impact retention (assuming these problems are successfully resolved).

Question. You mentioned that you are also faced with serious challenges in identifying prospective foster and adoptive placements? What are some of the specific barriers to securing these placements?

Answer. As Monitor, I have continually expressed concern about the need to identify, recruit and support foster and adoptive parents. As is true with the staffing

problems, the shortage of appropriate placement is as much a retention issue as it

is a recruitment problem.

The District faces difficult and special challenges in recruiting families because

it is such a small jurisdiction in a large metropolitan area. Although the District

is committed to intensifying its efforts to identify homes in the District of Columbia,

the majority of children are currently placed in Maryland and Virginia. Recruiting

and approving homes in the surrounding jurisdictions involves the District in the

Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) process which makes an

already difficult task more complex. As Monitor, we have advocated that the District

enter into a ‘‘Border State Agreement’’ with Maryland and Virginia. This will allow

the District to study, and approve homes within a 50-mile radius of the District

without going through the ICPC process. Several states with cross-jurisdictional

placement issues have ‘‘Border Agreements,’’ and it is clearly a sensible solution for

the District of Columbia. However, until such time as the District is able to persuade Maryland and Virginia to negotiate such an agreement, the District must

make sure that it devotes the necessarily resources to comply with ICPC requirements in a timely and professional way. In the past, this has not been done and

this has made cooperation with the surrounding jurisdictions more difficult.

One promising initiative is the work of the My Community, My Children project

which is funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and which is supporting neighborhood-based foster care recruitment and support in the District. This work is

being carried out by CFSA in collaboration with the Healthy Families/Thriving

Communities Collaboratives. It is designed to recruit families from District neighborhoods and to put in place a range of community-based supports for foster and

adoptive families so that these placements are successful.

Experience across the country has shown that the ability to effectively support

foster and adoptive parents through training, support groups, respite and day care,

among other things, is essential. In addition, foster parents must have ready access

to social workers when problems arise and must be respected for their work; foster

parents must also be included as partners in appropriate case planning for the children in their care. Effectuating these changes will also help with recruitment and

retention.

Question. In your testimony you stated that the ASFA is not being complied with

in the District. There are two requirements regarding time that I am aware of (1)

within 12 months a hearing must be held—how long is that time frame currently

in the District? (2) that any child who is in care for 15 of the past 22 months must

be the subject of a hearing to terminate parental rights—again, what is the time

frame currently in the district?

Answer. I am unable to provide compete information to the Committee on the District’s compliance with ASFA time lines. The agency’s data system does not yet

produce this information on a regular basis. However, as Court-appointed Monitor,

CSSP last conducted a case record review of statistically valid samples of foster care

and adoption cases in 1998. At that time, over half of the children in foster care

with a goal of return home had had that permanency goal for over twelve months.

In addition, the average length of time in foster care for children awaiting adoption

was five years and only forty percent of the children awaiting adoption were legally

free, either through relinquishment or termination of parental rights. More recent

data compiled by the Council for Court Excellence suggests ongoing problems in

meeting Court time frames for case fact-finding and disposition which will ultimately inhibit the system’s ability to meet ASFA time lines.

As part of the October 23, 2000 Consent Order governing transition of the

LaShawn Receivership to District government, CSSP will conduct another case

record review at the point of transition and again 6 months later in order to determine if there is sufficient progress to warrant exit from a probationary status. There

are several ASFA-related indicators and time lines that we will be assessing as part

of those reviews.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee received the following letter

from Carolyn N. Graham in response to questions posed in a letter

of April 4, 2001, which will be inserted in the record at this point.]
73

MAY 9, 2001.

The Honorable MIKE DEWINE,

United States Senator, 140 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DEWINE: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on March 15, 2001. Below I have attempted

to respond to the questions posed in your letter of April 4, 2001.

As you may know, on April 30, 2001, Mayor Williams announced the selection of

Dr. Olivia Golden as Director of the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). We

are extremely pleased that Dr. Golden has accepted the position as she brings with

her a wealth of experience in child welfare and human services more broadly. Dr.

Golden will begin working at CFSA for transition purposes on May 14, 2001. She

will assume full operating responsibility for the agency upon termination of the receivership which is expected to occur before the end of June 2001.

In your letter, you inquired about what accountability systems are being put in

place to ensure proper implementation of child welfare functions and reforms. The

Mayor and I will work closely with Dr. Golden to establish a high quality child welfare system. Specifically, there are a number of supports and checks and balances

that are or will be put in place by the Mayor’s Office including the following:

Monthly Meetings.—I will meet with Dr. Golden once a month for the following

purposes: (1) to receive a status report on agency progress; (2) to identify and troubleshoot any issues that present themselves; (3) to review Dr. Golden’s achievement

of goals identified in her performance contract (discussed below); (4) to review

progress against the November 30, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between

the District and the Superior Court which lays out the process for transferring the

child abuse responsibilities of the Court’s Social Services Division to CFSA; and (5)

to review monthly data on case practice, e.g., investigations completed within 30

days, cases with current case plans, length of time children in foster care, etc.

Among other data, I will review with Dr. Golden CFSA’s monthly reports on the

multiple performance measures included in Appendix A of the October 23, 2000

Consent Order in the LaShawn Case. Our review will be focused on measuring and

tracking CFSA’s compliance with the orders in LaShawn and with the Adoption and

Safe Families Act (ASFA). I will work closely with Dr. Golden and provide the necessary supports to improve the reliability of data contained in FACES, CFSA’s automated information system. I will also review data produced by the Superior Court

on compliance with ASFA.

In addition to data on case practice, I will also request and review monthly data

on social worker and foster parent training, social worker vacancies and social worker caseloads. I plan to work very closely with Dr. Golden to develop and implement

effective social worker recruitment and retention strategies.

Review of LaShawn Monitor reports.—I will review with Dr. Golden all reports

issued by the LaShawn Monitor, including the Monitor’s reports evaluating the

agency’s compliance with the performance standards set in Appendix A of the October 23, 2000 consent order.

Integration of CFSA with other DC Health and Human Service Agencies.—Dr.

Golden will attend the monthly meetings convened by my office of the Children,

Youth and Families Cluster, which includes the directors of the Department of

Health, Department of Mental Health, Department of Parks and Recreation, DC

Public Libraries and the Office on Aging. The CFSA Receiver already attends these

meetings. These meetings provide a forum to ensure that CFSA is fully integrated

with and utilizing the services and resources of our other health and human services agencies.

CFSA Director Performance Contract.—Dr. Golden will be required to develop a

Performance Contract. A performance contract is required of all department directors and is used by the Mayor to assess and rate the director’s performance. The

performance contract will set expectations in several areas including, but not limited to, outcomes for children in CFSA, financial management of CFSA and responsiveness of CFSA to judicial orders. Dr. Golden will also be required to develop a

‘‘scorecard’’ which highlights three to five goals that she will work to achieve by the

end of the year. All cabinet members have scorecards; these can be viewed on the

web at www.washingtondc.gov.

Integration with Mayor’s Strategic Plan.—We are implementing a city-wide, interagency, strategic plan to strengthen children, youth and families. This plan is

known as Safe Passages because the goal is to ensure that all children in the District experience a safe passage into adulthood. The Safe Passages plan includes and

tracks approximately 100 specific performance goals to be achieved by the end of

fiscal year 2001. Listed below are the performance goals included in Safe Passages

that specifically relate to the child welfare system:
74

—1. Reduction of children in out-of-state placements

—2. Reduction of children in institutional settings

—3. Reduction in disruption of kinship placements resulting in entry into foster care —4. Increase in children placed in relative custody

—5. Reduction in children experiencing multiple foster care placements

—6. Increase in adoptions

—7. Increase in clients receiving substance abuse services

—8. Increase in children receiving community-based support services

—9. Increase in children maintained in their communities.

Your letter also inquired about improving services at the ‘‘front door’’ when an investigation begins, identified the transfer of Court Social Services (CSS) to CFSA

as one possible solution and inquired as to the Mayor’s position on such as transfer.

A few clarifications are necessary.

Investigations of child abuse and neglect are conducted by CFSA and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Court Social Services does not conduct investigations. Court Social Services case manages those families in which abuse has been

substantiated, but children have not been placed in foster care. This function of CSS

is already in the process of being transferred to CFSA as required by the October

23, 2000 Consent Order in the LaShawn case and the November 30, 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Mayor and the Superior Court, which

lays out in detail the process for transferring CSS’ child abuse responsibilities to

CFSA by October 1, 2001.

The American Humane Association Child Welfare Division has been retained by

CFSA to coordinate and support the transition process, which involves transfer of

cases, staff, resources and data. This work is proceeding on schedule.

In addition to being legally obligated by the federal court to carry out this transfer, the Mayor fully supports this course of action, as it will put an end to the District’s so-called bifurcated child welfare system in which responsibilities are split between CFSA and Court Social Services, contributing to a fragmented response to

children and families.

The District is also, in fact, taking steps to improve the ‘‘front door’’ of the child

welfare system by moving to establish a state-of-the-art child assessment center

which will co-locate and integrate all of the agencies involved in the investigation

and prosecution of child abuse and neglect. We are currently working to identify a

physical site for the facility. In the meantime, in March 2001, an MOU was signed

by the Mayor, the US Attorney, Children’s Hospital, the Safe Shores Children’s Advocacy Center, DC Public Schools, CFSA, Court Social Services, the Office of Corporation Counsel and the Commission on Mental Health Services. In this MOU,

each of these agencies committed to working together to implement a coordinated

and child-friendly process for investigating and prosecuting child abuse. As a result

of this agreement, these agencies now meet on a regular basis to review cases and

take steps to ensure that children are properly protected and receiving appropriate

services and that investigations and prosecutions are proceeding as they should. My

staff participate in these meetings and apprise me of issues that require intervention or resolution at the Mayoral level.

Your letter inquired about the steps necessary for developing a stable and sufficient workforce. Indeed, this has been one of the greatest challenges faced by the

child welfare agency. Assessments of the problem indicate that it is worker retention, not recruitment of new workers, that is the primary challenge. In addition to

financial incentives for staff—which will continue—stabilization of the workforce requires that social workers have the resources they need to serve children and families as well as proper supervision and support from their superiors. Thus, our strategy to address the issue is multi-faceted and includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Increasing legal resources.—CFSA will have an additional 25 dedicated Corporation Counsel attorneys to process abuse, neglect, foster care and adoption cases as

well as appropriate legal support staff. Legal staff will be located on-site at CFSA.

Increasing staff resources.—The District is developing a plan and criteria for the

hiring and use of staff with Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degrees as well as paraprofessionals. These staff will support the work of those in CFSA with Master of

Social Work (MSW) degrees.

Increasing availability and accessibility of services for children and families.—

CFSA has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of

Health’s Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA) to ensure that

CFSA clients receive necessary substance abuse treatment. CFSA is also working

closely with the Department of Mental Health to establish diagnostic and counseling

resources for children and families on the CFSA caseload.
75

Implementing Performance-Based Evaluations of Supervisors and Managers.—A

significant number of CFSA supervisors and managers have elected to participate

in the Mayor’s Management Supervisory Service (MSS). Under this system, supervisors and managers are subject to performance-based evaluations and no longer

benefit from civil service protections. I am committed to working closely with Dr.

Golden to maintaining a rigorous performance review process as well as providing

ongoing training and professional development opportunities for supervisors and

managers.

Your final questions related to the Mayor’s position on the establishment of a separate family court and its potential impact on the investigation process and the stability of the workforce. The Mayor supports the general concept of the recent proposal by the D.C. Superior Court to Letter to the Honorable Mike DeWine Page Five

augment and enhance the Family Division of Court (through extending the tenure

of judges) rather than creating a separate family court which may ultimately suffer

the fate of having to compete with other ‘‘more prestigious’’ courts for resources, as

has happened in other jurisdictions. We have some concerns with the Superior

Court proposal and are actively working with the Court to resolve them in order

to ensure that CFSA and the Court can work effectively together to comply with

local and federal law. Strengthening and rationalizing the Family Division will indeed have a positive impact on virtually all functions of the child welfare agency

as the planned changes will serve to improve the working relationships between the

Court and CFSA.

Thank you for your commitment to the District of Columbia and its child welfare

system in particular. I am available to discuss these and any other questions you

may have.

Sincerely,

CAROLYN N. GRAHAM.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. We will hold additional hearings to monitor

what is going on. Frankly, as a result of today’s hearing I have got

in my mind some additional witnesses that I would like to bring

in and to further focus on what is going on.

So we appreciate your testimony very much, we appreciate your

patience with the crazy schedule of the U.S. Congress going back

and forth with votes, and we look forward to working with all of

you in the future. Thank you very much.

Ms. MELTZER. Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you.

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., Thursday, March 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(77)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD–116, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators DeWine, and Landrieu.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

STATEMENT OF HON. RUFUS G. KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

ACCOMPANIED BY:

HON. REGGIE WALTON, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY DIVISION, D.C.

SUPERIOR COURT

HON. DAVID E. GROSSMAN, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUVENILE

COURT DIVISION, CINCINNATI, OHIO

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. Let me welcome you all today

and welcome Delegate Norton, who is here. Always glad to see her,

and also members of the D.C. bench and the D.C. Bar who are

here. We would like to welcome them as well. Thank you very

much for coming. Good to see you. Let me begin by thanking Ranking Member Mary Landrieu for joining me in holding today’s hearing. This is a great opportunity. An opportunity for us to learn,

learn and discuss the District of Columbia Superior Court Judge’s

proposal for the Family Court Division. I certainly appreciate the

Judge’s efforts, and I know they have spent a great deal of time

and effort on this, and I believe that our hearing today will be constructive and will give us the opportunity to ask a lot of the questions, and find out what we can do, what this subcommittee can

do, what this Congress can do to help bring about reform in the

District’s court system.

As I said at the first hearing of this committee, and I’ll probably

say it at every hearing of this committee, there are many things

going on in the District of Columbia. There are many areas where

this committee has jurisdiction, but there is nothing that is more

important than the children of the District of Columbia, and we

will continue to spend our time and concentrate on this, and our
78

goal is to be as helpful as we can in the areas where we have some

responsibility.

Let me also thank and acknowledge Judge King and Judge Walton for their work in putting together this proposal. Let me also

thank Judge Grossman, who I have known for many years who

presided over the Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati in

1976, until he retired in 1998. His extensive experience with juvenile courts will add considerably to our hearing today.

Let me also remind all of our witnesses that the full text of your

statements will be made a part of the record. Without objection, we

will do that. We would like to limit your opening statements to

about 5 minutes. We are not going to hold you to that completely,

but if you could aim for 5 minutes, then that will give us a good

opportunity to have some questions. Without objection, the record

will remain open until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 24th for the

submission of any additional testimony or responses to questions

that members have for our witnesses.

All of us who are here today know that family court judges are

making tough, life-changing decisions every day. These are very,

very difficult under the best of circumstances. I learned this firsthand nearly 30 years ago, when I was serving as an assistant county prosecuting attorney in my home county in southwest Ohio,

Green County, and my job was to represent the local children’s

services, and we have some very, very difficult and very heartwrenching cases. I witnessed then that frankly too many of the

cases drag on and drag on endlessly and needlessly, leaving children trapped in temporary foster care placements which often entail multiple moves from foster home to foster home to foster home

for years and years and years.

Such multiple placements and the lack of permanency for these

kids is abuse really in its own right. And while children in the social welfare system come in contact with many individuals from social workers, lawyers, probation officers, and many others, it is

really the judges who ultimately are responsible for the safety and

security of these children. It is the court system. It is the judges,

who have the ultimate responsibility. And they really are the key

player, the player that has to bring all the other elements in the

system together.

And one of the things that we are going to look at in this plan

is that particular aspect, and whether or not the judges will have

the ability to be the dominant player to pull everybody together

and to get good results. Judges certainly have an obligation, an obligation to make sure that no child ever becomes entrenched in the

system, that no child is reabused by the very system designed to

protect him or her.

We, too, in Congress have an obligation, and that is to ensure

that these judges are trained properly and have the resources to

do that, and that they can feel confident about their decisions. That

is one of the reasons we are holding this hearing today. We are

here to examine the judges’ proposal to determine what they see

as best practices, and to find out more about the resources that

they need to do their jobs and improve the Family Division of the

court.
79

Nothing illustrates more vividly the need for a properly functioning child welfare system and court process than the tragic case

involving Brianna Blackmund. This is a familiar case and illustrates the persistent problem plaguing the District’s child welfare

system and the court division. Could this tragedy have been prevented? Well, we think it could have. In the aftermath of Brianna’s

death, D.C. Superior Court judges told The Washington Post about

the agony they feel in making child welfare decisions. One of the

judges quoted in an article said this, and I quote, ‘‘These cases are

for me the most difficult thing we do. We feel the least trained and

skilled at it.’’

We have to do something about that. We must do whatever it

takes to make sure that the District has the best court system possible so that Brianna’s death is not in vain. One of the reasons I

fought so hard to get Senate passage of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act, which became law in 1997, was to ensure that the

safety and interest of children in the court system, like Brianna,

are always paramount.

While this law represented a fundamental change in the culture

of child welfare law as we knew it, we also knew at the time that

this law was not a quick nor a complete fix. We knew that a law

that simply tells judges that the health and safety of children must

be paramount and that sets certain time frames would not necessarily mean that every decision would be a correct decision, and

we knew that to get the right decision, the judges would have to

have the right resources.

To get where we wanted to go, proper training must be available,

so the law can become an effective part of a judge’s decision making process. That is why last year I introduced the Strengthening

Abuse and Neglect Courts Act which is also now law. This new law

invests in computerized case tracking systems and programs to reduce pending backlogs of abuse in neglect cases. The law also allows judges, attorneys, and court personnel to qualify for existing

training programs, and would expand the CASA program to underserved and urban areas, so that more children are able to benefit

from its services.

Today, part of our oversight responsibility as members of this

subcommittee is to determine if the District has the resources necessary to meet its training needs. Does the District have what it

needs so that the courts cannot only comply with the goals of the

Adoption and Safe Families Act, but also can have the ability to

make additional changes in the Family Division? That is the question for us.

It is my hope that we can answer that question today, and discuss whether current budgetary resources are sufficient, and if

they are being used effectively and appropriately to get the job

done. We must review the District’s proposed budget with close

Congressional scrutiny to ensure that any dollars that flow into the

Family Division are used for the proper protection of the children

involved.

Ultimately, I believe that we all share, we all share the common

objective ensuring that children and families in contact with the judicial system are not traumatized by this experience. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation. More im-
80

portantly, the rehabilitation of families. Where there are families

going through a divorce or dealing with a troubled teenager in the

juvenile system, or bringing in a new family member through child

adoption, the Family Division must have the resources and the expertise to address all issues in a timely, accurate, and supportive

manner. In the process, we must never, ever lose sight of our responsibility to the children involved. Their needs and their best interests must always come first. And today I believe we are putting

children first in taking a step forward on their behalf.

Let me thank our witnesses and let me turn now to the Ranking

Member of our subcommittee, Senator Landrieu.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to

all of our panelists and to Congresswoman Norton and I want to

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your—for your focus and your work

in this area. I don’t know if everyone here gathered realizes that

besides being the chairman and most able member, he is also a father of eight children, which is quite, by any standard, a large family, and continues in his work in the Senate, to be so focused on

these issues that help not only his own State, but all of our States,

and the District. So I really appreciate your leadership, Mike, and

look forward to working with you on this.

I also want to especially recognize the leadership of Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is here this morning, and Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who have dedicated a tremendous amount of

time and passion to this issue. Their combined efforts have helped

to move us a great deal toward achieving our common goal, protecting the best interests of our children here in D.C., and I want

to thank them for their outstanding leadership on this issue.

I also want to recognize that the shadow Senator of D.C. is here,

Senator Strauss. We welcome you and with your background as an

attorney who practices family law, I know that you will have a

great deal to offer in this endeavor, so I want to thank you for

being here.

It is my hope that we can continue to move forward with the

help of the District. We must attempt to fashion a plan that is built

upon some of the best practices in the country on family courts

throughout the country. This is not to say that what works elsewhere must also work in D.C., because D.C., like every other State,

is unique. Their residents, their system, their challenges, their

strong points, make them distinct from other jurisdictions in the

country.

Recognizing this, Mr. Chairman, and members here, I think we

should attempt to use examples set by other jurisdictions as a blueprint, not a boilerplate, for effective reform. It is also important to

note that there is more than one approach to court reform. Successful family courts have been found incorporated within the jurisdiction of trial courts, as well as stand-alone family courts. Instituting

reform should take into account the varied examples in other cities,

the needs and desires of the District and the critical needs of the

families in D.C.

The court must have thoughtful practices and support mechanisms in place to provide for the newly created family court
81

branches. This, the judges’ proposal, and I thank you all for being

here to present that proposal today, marks an important step in

this process. Having reviewed this proposal, I believe it reflects a

genuine interest in doing what’s right for the children of D.C. As

an enthusiastic adoption advocate, and believe me, the chairman

and I are both in that category, I commend the court for its focus

on permanency for abused and neglected children in the District,

and want to reiterate my strong support for the Adoption and Safe

Families Act as a co-sponsor of that act and again recognize the

chairman’s leadership.

As the number of abused and neglected cases filed in the court

increase, it is imperative that the infrastructure, staff support and

expertise be in place to ensure that children and families are supported throughout the process. I appreciate that the courts are

working with the Council for Court Excellence to develop reform

consistent with best practices, and I look forward to the possibility

of hearing from the Council in the future. I encourage you all to

reach out to as many experts as possible, as we continue to help

shape this reform.

In speaking with other jurisdictions, it is also important that we

not only look at their success, but that we also look at the continuing challenges. I am concerned that judges in family court

sometimes tend to have less resources and as a result, can sometimes be neglected. I don’t want to see that happen here as we

shape this reform. We must have the right resources to back up

whatever we do.

Further, the court’s request for substantial capital funds to renovate existing courthouses is notable. You have got to have the facilities that help us to carry out these reforms. But I also want to

stress that it is more than just adequate facilities that are going

to make this reform successful. The court’s proposed target, reform

target, resources—the court’s proposed reform targets resources as

some of the key areas identified by the D.C. Child and Family

Services Agency, and the Center on Court Excellence.

I am particularly interested in attempts to alleviate the stress on

staff by hiring more personnel and training all staff to the unique

challenges of dealing with children and families in crisis. Additionally, I think that a significant investment in the court’s facilities,

as I said, is also necessary in balance with the above.

I also believe it is important that judges, and this might be the

most important thing to me, that the system that we create, that

the judges self-select, or enthusiastically volunteer to do this service. I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that we have people

that really want to do this because when you want to do something, you do it very well, and are willing to spend whatever time

it takes. So I hope that whatever reform, we most certainly would

put an emphasis on the judges being enthusiastic about that role.

It is the judges who are charged with some of the most difficult of

life’s decisions in these cases. If we do not do all that we can to

ensure that they have the necessary training and support to help

them make these decisions, then we are not meeting our obligations together trying to help the children that we all want to serve.

I also think it is important, whatever reform effort that we

shape, that the court be established in such a way so that the cases
82

have consistency of jurisdiction, so that the same cases appear before the same judges for as much or as long as possible so that the

judges have become more and more familiar and the cases do not

find themselves bumped between judges and between courts, which

is a problem in my home State, as well as in other places.

Finally, I am glad to see that the court’s proposal addresses

many of the difficulties outlined during this subcommittee’s first

hearing with the child and family services agency. Staff shortage,

inefficient data tracking system, and the challenges for social workers. Let me also reiterate my strong support for CASA, Court Appointed Special Advocates, how effective I find them to be, visiting

with many members of the Senate and the House in various jurisdictions. Regardless of the way the courts are structured, CASA

workers seem to be able to do a pretty good job, Mike, wherever

they find themselves, so I want to be very supportive in our reforms of that particular organization.

So again, I am pleased at the progress of this effort. I think that

there are many strong points in this proposal, but Mr. Chairman,

I most certainly look forward to working with you in a bipartisan

way, in a bicameral way to create the kind of reform that will be

meaningful for the children that we all hope to serve. Thank you

all.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. Let me invite our three

witnesses to come up and as you come up, I will introduce you.

Judge King, Rufus King, was designated Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in September, 2000. He was

appointed to the Superior Court in 1984, where he served in all divisions of the court. Among his many other D.C. bar and core activities, Judge King has chaired the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council in the Superior Court Child Support Guidance Committee.

Judge Reggie Walton was appointed to the District of Columbia

Superior Court bench in 1981. He currently serves as the presiding

judge of the Superior Court’s Family Division. Judge Walton has

actively worked with the youth of both the District and the Nation.

He has served as a Big Brother and frequently speaks throughout

the Nation on problems of drugs, crime, and personal responsibility.

Judge David Grossman, retired May 31, 1998 as presiding administrative judge of Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Cincinnati,

Ohio, where he was a judge since 1976. He is past president of the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. He is past

President of the Ohio Association of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges. We welcome the three of you. Thank you very much, and

Judge King, why don’t we start with you, and we have your opening statement, which will be made a part of the record. And we will

ask you to proceed for 5 minutes or so.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS G. KING, III

Judge KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Landrieu and

members of the subcommittee, I am Rufus King, Chief Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and I am joined, as has

been noted, by Judge Reggie Walton, presiding judge of the Family

Division. Thank you for calling this important hearing to discuss
83

the issue of the Court’s plan for reforming the Family Division to

enhance the safety of abused and neglected children. I am aware

that both the chairman and the Ranking Member have a special

concern for the safety of children, and families, and I welcome your

interest. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia was established as a unified court by the District of Columbia Court Reform

and Criminal Procedures Act of 1970. By statute, the court is comprised of 5 major divisions, Civil, Criminal, Family, Probate, and

Tax.

Several of the Court’s divisions have received national recognition. The Civil Delay Reduction project has served as a national,

and more recently international, model for expediting civil cases.

The Court’s domestic violence unit, combining family, civil and

criminal cases in one set of calendars was awarded the Council of

Court Excellence’s Justice Potter Stewart Award. The Family Division has been selected as a model unified court program by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Since before

taking office as chief judge, I have stressed that reform of the Family Division would be the highest priority.

In January, I asked Judge Walton to set up working groups to

examine the best practices and use around the country for serving

families, and to consult experts in the field and develop recommendation for the Family Division of the Superior Court. These

working groups consist of members of the bar, social workers and

other stakeholders. In the mid-1990s, neglected and abused children began entering the District of Columbia child welfare system

in alarming numbers, three times higher than a decade earlier, despite a decline in the District’s population. This disturbing trend is

continuing with new filings now projected at over 1,600 per year,

a 15 percent increase over even last year. In addition, the Court

is responsible for more than 4,500 children in existing cases.

In addition to reforming the Family Court, we look forward to

strengthening our working relationships with the new director and

staff of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency,

and Mayor Williams, as he assumes control of that agency and

seeks to improve its performance. The plan we are developing calls

for a strengthened, unified Family Court Division with a new Permanency Branch. This branch will be a separate unit located in one

part of the courthouse where all cases involving abused and neglected children will be heard and retained.

Judges who are now assigned for 1-year terms will be assigned

for minimum terms of 3 years with the option of extending their

service indefinitely. Magistrate judges will be hired for four-year

assignments to the Permanency Branch, again with the option of

extending indefinitely. We believe this structure best addresses the

need for extended terms while—while strengthening our ability to

attract lawyers of the highest caliber to enter this field of work.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With the support and resources of the Court and the city agency,

I believe this approach will encourage the emergence of leaders in

this field who choose to make it their life’s work and whose efforts

are so essential to enhancement of the Court’s ability to safeguard

children and families in trouble. The full plan and list of required
84

resources are included with my extended remarks for the record.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for the opportunity to

address the Court’s Family Division reform plan. Judge Walton

and I will be happy to answer questions in greater detail.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUFUS G. KING, III

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, members of the Subcommittee: I am Rufus G.

King, III, and I am appearing in my capacity as Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am joined today by Judge Reggie B. Walton, Presiding

Judge of the Family Division.

Thank you for calling this very important hearing to discuss the District of Columbia Superior Court’s plan for reform of the Family Division to enhance the safety of abused and neglected children. I am aware that both the Chairman and Ranking Member have a special sensitivity to the matter we are about to discuss, and

I welcome their interest.

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia was established in its current configuration as a unified court by the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal

Procedure Act of 1970. Statutorily, the Court is comprised of 5 major divisions:

Civil, Criminal, Family, Probate, and Tax. Several of the Court’s divisions have received national recognition. The Civil Delay Reduction Project has served as a national model for expediting civil cases. The Court’s Domestic Violence Unit, combining family, civil, and criminal cases in one set of calendars, was awarded the

Council of Court Excellence’s Justice Potter Stewart Award. The Family Division

was selected as a model unified court program by the National Council of Family

and Juvenile Court Judges of the National Judicial College.

At the time of my investiture as Chief Judge, I indicated that reform of the Family Division would be one of my highest priorities. Subsequently, I appointed Judge

Walton presiding judge of the Family Division and asked him to set up working

groups to examine the ‘‘best practices’’ for serving families around the Nation, to

consult experts in the field, and to develop recommendations for the Family Division

at the D.C. Superior Court. These working groups consist of members of the bar,

social workers and other stakeholders. The purpose of my testimony today is to relate to you various aspects of the Family Division Reform Plan that arose from these

working groups. The plan has also been presented to the Mayor and the City Council.

In the mid 1990’s, neglected and abused children began entering the District of

Columbia Child Welfare system in alarming numbers; three times higher than a

decade earlier, despite a decline in the District’s population. This disturbing trend

is continuing. In addition, in over 60 percent of cases now being filed, the child is

over the age of seven, making adoption less likely and the need for special services

more pressing. Last year, 1,500 children’s cases were filed and this year a 15 percent increase in new cases is expected. The Court is responsible for more than 4,500

children in existing cases.

The magnitude of this caseload compels me to take steps to address the problem

as soon as possible. I have therefore determined that some steps, which I will discuss shortly, can be taken immediately, within existing law and resources.

In addition to reforms within the Court, we look forward to forging new working

relationships with the staff of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services

Agency and Mayor Williams, as he assumes control of that Agency and seeks to improve its performance.

FAMILY DIVISION REFORM PLAN

The Reform Plan takes a team management approach, which is proven highly successful in other jurisdictions. The teams include professionals who will monitor each

child’s case and expedite its progress through the Court. The Reform Plan emphasizes using alternative dispute resolution, where safe and appropriate, to place each

child in a permanent home within ASFA time limits and in a non-adversarial setting. The Reform Plan also stresses increasing accountability on the part of judicial

officers for the results in each child’s case.

Key elements of the Reform Plan include——

—Family Court Within a Unified Superior Court.—Comprehensive information

about a family, including criminal cases, civil cases, and probate cases is essential for the judge or magistrate to make the best possible decision for each child.

Maintaining a unified court optimizes the flow of this vital information, alleviates the judicial burnout that can affect a separate family court, eliminates the
85

costs for duplicative administrative functions, and enhances the Court’s ability

to provide comprehensive services for the child.

—Judicial terms in the Family Court.—Voluntary service and renewable three

year terms are essential to ensure that Family Court judges are and remain

truly interested in family issues and want to dedicate significant time to children. Judges who wish to renew their terms may remain for many years, but

those who desire a different assignment may rotate after three years without

sacrificing judicial continuity and enhanced specialization within the family

court. The ABA stresses that no one model is best for all jurisdictions, and we

are aware that court systems in many States provide different terms. The three

year, extendable terms in our plan optimize increased specialization and appeal

to lawyers considering service as a judge on the Family Court in the District

of Columbia.

—Training.—Enhanced training on abuse and neglect ‘‘best practices,’’ case management, and related areas will develop the specialized knowledge base and upto-date skills judges, magistrate judges, and staff must possess to make the best

decisions for each child.

—Accountability.—Standards will be implemented for case management and for

attorney practices. The standards will be based upon leading court performance

standards now in use throughout the Nation.

—Technology.—Critical to the success of the Reform Plan is the establishment of

an automated Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS). IJIS will provide

comprehensive information on each child’s family, including, for example, a parent’s (or household member’s) pending drug charges. It will also permit the

Court to implement more effectively the ‘‘one family, one judge’’ concept (assigning all family cases involving a child and his or her family to the same judge)

by linking existing cases to new ones related to the same child.

—Child Protection Mediation.—When mediation is safe and appropriate, involving

parents in discussions about their child’s future produces better results for the

child. Parents are often more cooperative with parenting classes or rehabilitation efforts in a permanency plan that they have helped negotiate. Our preliminary mediations have enjoyed a very high success rate, and the Council for

Court Excellence is assisting with grant funds for a larger project.

—Staff.—The team approach requires additional judges, magistrate judges, special masters, case managers, courtroom clerks, and other support staff with the

expertise to work together to make prompt decisions in the best interests of

each child.

We are continuing to refine the Reform Plan. A copy of the current draft is attached. A preliminary cost estimate has been transmitted to the Committee. It involves approximately $45 million at the outset, including $32 million in one-time

renovations and equipment purchases and a continuing level of funding of $13 million and 74 personnel on an annual basis.

Immediate Steps

Unfortunately, as children age, the possibility of adoption becomes increasingly

remote. Accordingly, I have taken the following several steps, which can be accomplished within existing resources, to expedite the Court’s Family Division Reform

Plan:

—Judicial Terms

—I have asked sitting Superior Court judges to volunteer for minimum threeyear terms in the Family Court. As volunteers come forward, I will rotate

them into the Family Division.

—I have assigned an additional judge to the Family Division, effective June 11,

following specialized family training at the National Judicial College in Reno,

Nevada.

—Training in May, 2001

—Superior Court judges attended two full days of training on child abuse and

neglect law. Numerous experts participated, addressing topics such as assessing risk of abusing parents, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and

child development.

—Family Division staff attended training on meeting ASFA standards and child

protection and welfare.

—Technology.—I have modified the plan for the IJIS system to fully automate the

Family Division in the first year of implementation and redirected technology

grant funds to support this project. Once funding is available, implementation

can begin immediately.
86

—Family Waiting Room.—I have directed that space within the Courthouse be

reconfigured to provide a child-friendly area for waiting families and social

worker conferences. —Attorney Practice Standards.—I have directed the development of Attorney

Practice Standards for abuse and neglect cases; the standards are under review

by the Bar, and after their input has been addressed, they can be implemented

within 90 days. —National Model Court Project.—I have secured assistance from the National

Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges Model Court Project of the National Judicial College. As a participating model court project, the Superior

Court will receive technical assistance with case management techniques, training, and strategic planning.

Children Already in the System

Most of the 4,500 children for whom the court is responsible are unlikely to be

adopted, and it will be very difficult to place many of them in permanent homes.

The majority of children enter the system at age seven or older, when adoption is

increasingly unlikely. Children with special needs (health problems such as neonatal drug addiction and HIV, emotional or behavioral issues) and, often, minority

children are difficult to place in permanent homes at any age.

The Court’s Reform Plan calls for three teams of special masters to review all

pending children’s cases to determine whether a permanent placement is possible.

Other jurisdictions that have reformed their family programs have been able to reduce pending caseloads by about half. We will certainly strive for similar results in

the District of Columbia. In the meantime, their number requires that they be assigned to judges who are not in the family division. Many judges have come to feel

that they are the only constant in the children’s lives and want to continue to maintain responsibility for their cases. However, in order to assure the most effective

management and closure of these cases, only judges who ask to retain the cases and

who are willing to take ongoing training will be permitted to do so. The Court believes this arrangement will best meet the needs of those children with existing

cases for whom a permanent home cannot be found.

In Summary, we believe the Reform Plan will enable the Court to better fulfill

its role in the safeguarding of children and families. The plan will require a substantial increase in resources devoted to the Family Court to best provide the attention and supervision of services that all District of Columbia children and families

need and deserve and that are essential to breaking the cycle of abuse and neglect,

juvenile delinquency, adult criminal behavior and abuse and neglect in the next generation. Pending the availability of additional resources, the Court will proceed with

improvements that can be implemented using existing funding and other resources.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for the opportunity to explain the

Court’s Family Division Reform Plan. Judge Walton and I would be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT REFORM PLAN (DRAFT)

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

Maintain and enhance separate, specialized Family Court as a division within

unified Superior Court to: (1) respond to serious concerns recently expressed about

tragedies affecting children, (2) achieve permanency for children expeditiously and

(3) ensure cost efficiency by utilizing existing courtwide infrastructure and administrative staff.

ASSIGNMENTS

Assign judges who volunteer for service in the Family Court for three year, extendable terms

Stagger terms to ensure continuity and expertise

Appoint magistrate judges to serve four years, which is the duration of their term

of office, and permit reappointment

Fill judicial vacancies in Family Court immediately with volunteers from other divisions of the Court.

SPECIALIZATION

Establish holistic, team-based approach to abuse and neglect cases to secure continuity of care and swift permanency placement: Form three case management

teams within the Permanency Branch, each consisting of one judge and three magistrate judges with expertise in child welfare, and assisted by attorney advisors, a
87

psychiatrist or child psychologist, law clerks, administrative personnel and special

masters.

Provide space for an office within the Court staffed by representatives from District of Columbia agencies which provide needed services to abused and neglected

children and their families.

Permanently assign all new abuse and neglect cases to the Family Court to enhance family case coordination, quality control and case scheduling.

Support and work with a coordinating council which brings together all child welfare stakeholders (including CASAs and bar members) on a regular basis to ensure

open channels of communication and resolve issues regarding the delivery of services to the children and community.

MAGISTRATE JUDGES

Appoint magistrate judges with expertise in family law and trained by court-appointed experts, to be responsible for initial hearings, assessing the needs of the

children and families, and resolving cases assigned to them by the judges presiding

over the teams.

Under the supervision of the judge, oversee the work of case management teams

and ensure the delivery of court-ordered support services.

4,500 CASES CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY JUDGES

Return to the Family Court all cases not retained by judges for distribution to

special case management teams during transition.

Divide cases under review into three groups for those judges who volunteer to retain their current cases during the transition. Review groups to be staffed with special masters and case coordinators to assist the judge in achieving ASFA compliance

and permanency for the child.

Schedule reviews into specified time periods to accommodate CFSA social workers.

TRAINING

Require quarterly training for all judges, magistrate judges and support professionals on abuse and neglect issues, including ASFA compliance, and additional specialized training for those assigned to the Family Court.

Enhance training for court-appointed guardians ad litem (GAL) and parents’ attorneys by child welfare and trial practice experts.

CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION

Implement expanded child protection mediation among parents, the Office of the

Corporation Counsel, the District’s child welfare agency, the GAL and all other relevant parties and representatives, where safe and appropriate, to achieve early case

resolution.

SYSTEM ACCOUNTABILITY

Increase management capability, accountability and reporting through enhanced

access to data and case outcome information, and the adoption of appropriate standards for case resolution.

Implement integrated case management system to track and monitor cases involving family or household members across all court caseloads to permit judges and

team members access to comprehensive information before making placement decisions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT REFORM PLAN

Growing caseloads, new mandates applicable to courts through the passage of the

landmark Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and recent developments have

made it incumbent on the Superior Court to improve the management, supervision

and resolution of cases involving children and families in the District of Columbia.

The Superior Court has developed a comprehensive plan for reform of child abuse

and neglect cases.

Abuse and neglect case filings at Superior Court have risen steadily over the last

two decades. On average, 1,500 cases are filed with the Court each year. Moreover,

based on case filings since January 2001, the Court expects an increase of 15 percent this year in the abuse and neglect area. In addition, 4,500 cases are subject

by law to review and represent a substantial workload of the Court.
88

1 According to a recent report of the Council for Court Excellence, successful family court reform efforts in Cincinnati, Ohio took 10 years and those in Chicago, Illinois have taken six years

to-date. 2 Currently, Court positions of this type are referred to as ‘‘Hearing Commissioners.’’

This proposal provides an outline of the major components of the Superior Court’s

reform initiative. The Court is committed to achieving timely permanency for

abused and neglected children. Reform, however, is a multi-year process that requires sustained commitment and adequate resources.1 The Court looks forward to

working with Congress and the District in implementing needed reforms for the welfare of children.

Unified Family Court

The existing Family Division will be redesignated as the Family Court, a division

of the Superior Court. The Family Court will consist of the following branches: Child

Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch (hereinafter ‘‘Permanency Branch’’) (covering abuse and neglect, adoption and termination of parental rights (TPR) cases

as well as the Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect (CCAN) and a Family Drug

Court); Domestic Relations Branch (addressing divorce and custody and including

the Marriage Bureau); Juvenile Offender Branch (juvenile delinquency court and

Juvenile Drug Court); Mental Health and Retardation Branch; and Paternity and

Child Support Branch. A Presiding Judge, Deputy Presiding Judge and Director will

oversee the Family Court for administrative purposes.

The Permanency Branch will be organized into six (6) calendars: three (3) for

abuse and neglect cases; one calendar for adoptions; one for TPR cases; and one calendar for permanent custody and guardianships for abused and neglected children

(in order to allow these cases to be filed and resolved expeditiously, as required by

law). A judge and team of magistrate judges 2 will be assigned to each calendar.

Assignment of Judges

Judicial assignments to the Family Court will be a minimum of three years. This

represents a substantial increase in the duration of a current assignment to the Superior Court’s Family Division. Preference will be given to judges who volunteer for

the assignment. Judges may volunteer to extend their service in the Family Court

beyond their initial three-year assignment. As resources and support for judges in

the Family Court are put into place, it is anticipated judges will volunteer to serve

extended terms, thereby ensuring the involvement of those judges most committed

to presiding over child welfare matters.

The Chief Judge retains discretion to re-assign judges in and out of the Family

Court when extenuating circumstances require and it is in the best interests of the

children.

The three-year assignment will be staggered to maintain a complement of experienced judges in the Family Court.

Specialization

Abuse and neglect cases will be assigned to teams of judges, magistrate judges

and other professionals. Each of the three teams in the Permanency Branch will

consist of the following individuals with expertise in permanency case resolution:

the judge, three (3) magistrate judges, a special master and a case coordinator.

The teams will be further assisted by permanent attorney advisors and specialized

law clerks (to maintain compliance with ASFA, the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) and other Federal and local statutes), a psychiatrist or psychologist from the Superior Court’s Child Guidance Clinic, and an appropriate number of administrative support personnel (e.g., law clerks, secretaries and other

clerks). The team approach has been used in other jurisdictions as a best practice

and has resulted in expedited case resolution, improved case monitoring and oversight, and improved communication with parties.

Support professionals assigned to each team will be responsible for: (1) monitoring

the progress of each abuse and neglect case towards permanent resolution; (2) serving as liaisons with CFSA social workers; (3) monitoring and verifying compliance

with court orders; (4) reviewing all court actions for compliance with ASFA and

other statutes; and (5) filing compliance reports in consultation with attorney advisors. When a judge’s assignment in the Family Court is completed, he/she may volunteer to continue in the assignment. If the judge is reassigned outside of the Family

Court, all cases assigned to him or her will remain in the Permanency Branch, except in an extraordinary circumstance as approved by the Chief Judge and consistent with ASFA. In each such case, the judge will remain part of the original case

management team in the Permanency Branch.
89

3 Currently legislation governing the authority of hearing commissioners requires the consent

of the parties before such an individual may try a case. The Court recommends that this be

changed to allow magistrate judges to conduct trials of less complex neglect and abuse cases.

Magistrate Judges

Magistrate judges, with expertise in family law and appointed for four-year, renewable terms, will be responsible for intake of new cases and resolving cases assigned to them by the presiding judge of the team. Where agreements cannot be

reached, trials will be conducted by the judge or magistrate judge, depending on the

complexity of the case and other circumstances.3 Magistrate judges should have the

power of contempt, which would give them the authority to enforce their own court

orders.

Under the supervision of the judge, magistrate judges will oversee the work of

case management teams and ensure the delivery of court-ordered support services.

Until permanency is achieved, the judge, magistrate judges and other members

of the case management team will hold periodic case conferences at least quarterly.

4,500 Cases Currently Under Review by Judges

During the transition, the pending caseload will be screened to identify barriers

to permanency and to develop a strategy and timeline for resolution. Three (3) special case management teams will be established, with each group having approximately the same number of cases. If a judge does not volunteer to retain review

cases, they will be returned to the Permanency Branch and assigned to a case management team for resolution.

Each case management team, consisting of a special master and case coordinator,

will perform similar functions as are performed for the abuse and neglect teams

working in the Permanency Branch. Each team will be assisted by two attorney advisors and appropriate support professionals. They will provide expert advice and

support to judges by monitoring compliance with ASFA, other applicable laws and

court orders.

Training

The Court will expand training for judges, magistrate judges and case management personnel who will participate in Court-sponsored, in-service training on abuse

and neglect issues at least quarterly, in order to stay abreast of the current stateof-knowledge in the field of child welfare, including neglect and abuse. Additionally,

judges will be encouraged to remain updated in that field through professional reading, training at the National Judicial College and other relevant workshops. The assistance of expert trainers, such as individuals from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the ABA’s Center for Children and the Law, and the

National Model Court Project (of which the Superior Court has been selected as a

member), will be sought to plan and facilitate the training. The Court will participate in joint training with CFSA workers, the Office of Corporation Counsel and

managers.

Similarly, the Court will assume a leadership role in enhancing the court appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) and parents’ attorney training. Training will be

required of all attorneys who practice in this area before the Family Court. It will

be given by child welfare and trial practice experts, and experienced judges. The

training will include substantive legal areas in the field of neglect and abuse as well

as the law of evidence and other trial practice issues.

If funding is available, payments to attorneys will be increased in order to retain

competent counsel and prevent attrition in the CLAN Bar. In an effort to expand

the pool of available attorneys, a recruitment effort will be undertaken, targeting

attorneys with expertise in family law, particularly in the area of abuse and neglect.

The Court will coordinate training programs with area law schools and legal clinics

in the child abuse and neglect area. In addition, the Court will implement a requirement that all attorneys who wish to be appointed to a separate panel of GAL attorneys, must first have represented parents in a designated number of cases or must

have completed specified training.

Coordination

To ensure that information about services is readily available, the Court will provide space on site to be staffed by representatives from District of Columbia agencies that provide needed services to abused and neglected children and their families. This may include, at a minimum, representatives of the Office of Corporation

Counsel, District of Columbia Public Schools, the District of Columbia Housing Authority, the Child and Family Services Agency, Court Appointed Special Advocates
90

(CASA), District of Columbia Commission on Mental Health and the Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration, or their equivalents.

Where applicable, a judge or magistrate judge from the Superior Court’s Domestic

Violence Unit will be included on the abuse and neglect team in order to enhance

the Family Court’s multi-disciplinary approach to case resolution and to permit better coordination of cases involving a family unit.

Coordination of case management will also occur with the Juvenile Offender

Branch and a liaison will be developed between the team magistrate judge in the

Permanency Branch and the Court’s Social Services Division, (the District’s juvenile

probation department). The purpose is to coordinate all cases in which a child is before both the neglect and juvenile systems. This will allow the Family Court to

choose among the alternatives in both systems.

The Court will support and work with on a regular basis a coordinating council

which brings together all child welfare stakeholders (including representatives of

the Mayor’s office, CFSA, CASA, and bar members). The Court will work to replicate the success of the District’s existing Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

Child Protection Mediation

To encourage early settlement of dependency cases, the use of child protection mediation will be considered for use in all cases, where safe and appropriate. The process will include parents, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the District’s child

welfare agency, the GAL and all other relevant parties and representatives.

System Accountability

To foster informed and effective decisions concerning a child’s welfare, the Court

must have the ability to coordinate information concerning a child’s status in the

juvenile and neglect system with the criminal and mental health status of a parent

or other person residing in the household or with any pending child support or domestic violence cases involving either the custodial or non-custodial parent. Such

interfacing capacity does not currently exist at the Court and has been identified

as a critical need in a recent extensive study of the Superior Court’s infrastructure

conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

ccordingly, the Court will implement an integrated justice case management system (IJIS) to properly track and monitor family and other cases in which a family

member may be involved in order to ensure that all decision-makers within the

Court have access to comprehensive information to make decisions about placement,

child safety and well-being.

The needed integrated justice information system also would be capable of responding to requests for aggregate information for various quality assurance and

management reports concerning caseloads and workflow.

The Court will use the National Center for State Court’s Trial Court Performance

Standards (e.g., Access to Justice; Expedition and Timeliness; Equality, Fairness

and Integrity; Independence and Accountability; and Public Trust and Confidence)

to guide practice in the Family Court. The Court will also examine the use of time

standards set forth in existing Federal and local law and differentiated case management techniques to optimize case processing timeliness and effectiveness.

The Court will establish a working Implementation Committee consisting of representatives from the Family Court, Office of the Corporation Counsel, CFSA, and

the attorneys who represent parties in abuse and neglect cases. The Committee will

be responsible for implementation and oversight of the Court’s reforms initiatives.

Scheduling

To improve calendaring practices and scheduling, the Court will work with CFSA

to schedule review hearings on days and at times that will maximize social workers’

time in the field and minimize their time in court.

Improved Facilities

The Court is committed to allocating sufficient space to family matters and will

request the funding necessary to do so. The Court seeks to establish a child-friendly

waiting room for families and social workers, increase the number of courtrooms for

family proceedings, and will seek to consolidate all family-related offices and functions to a centralized court location (including the Court’s existing Child Care Center for litigants and witnesses, the Supervised Family Visitation Center and the

Crime Victims Compensation Program).

Other Initiatives

The Court will continue to seek funding, under the U.S. Department of Justice’s

Family Drug Court Planning Initiative and Grant Program, among other sources,
91

to establish a Family Drug Court to address the substance abuse problems which

are increasingly associated with parents and children involved in abuse and neglect

cases, and which serve as a barrier to achieving permanency expeditiously for children.

Resources

A preliminary analysis indicates that a full range of budget resources will be

needed to institute these reforms. The additional resource needs of the Court are

outlined in Attachment A.

ATTACHMENT A.—Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch

Reforms

Staffing (Recurring Costs):

Judges and Support Staff:

3 Judges (i.e., for additional calendars for: Neglect,

Guardianships and Permanency in Neglect; TPR/Adoptions) ..................................................................................... $539,772

3 Law Clerks ............................................................................ 149,865

3 Judicial Secretaries .............................................................. 164,988

3 Courtroom Clerks ................................................................. 136,359

3 Calendar Clerks ................................................................... 111,474

Total (15) .............................................................................. 1,102,458

Magistrate Judges and Case Management Teams (3 teams):

9 Magistrate Judges ................................................................ 1,489,770

3 Special Masters .................................................................... 326,853

3 Case Coordinators ................................................................ 164,988

2 Attorney Advisors ................................................................. 156,764

3 Law Clerks ............................................................................ 149,865

6 Secretaries ............................................................................ 272,718

9 Courtroom Clerks ................................................................. 409,077

9 Calendar Clerks ................................................................... 334,422

3 Calendar Coordinators ......................................................... 150,165

Total (47) .............................................................................. 3,454,622

Family Court and ADR Support Staff:

2 Family ADR Case Managers ............................................... 99,910

2 File Clerks ............................................................................ 53,626

1 Calendar Clerk ..................................................................... 37,158

1 CCAN Reappointments Clerk ............................................. 37,158

1 CCAN Eligibility Clerk ........................................................ 37,158

1 ADR Secretary ...................................................................... 45,453

Total (8) ................................................................................ 310,463

IT and Other Support Staff:

1 Database Administrator ...................................................... 1 92,624

1 Applications Manager .......................................................... 78,382

1 Database Support/Programmer ........................................... 1 78,382

1 Statistical Data Analyst ...................................................... 54,996

Total (4) ................................................................................ 304,384

Total Staffing (74) (Recurring) ........................................... 2 5,171,927

Contractual and Other (Recurring Costs):

CCAN Rate Increase ...................................................................... 1 797,000

IRS Database Support and Maintenance ..................................... 1 275,000

Mediator Stipends ($100 per session; 2 sessions per case; 2,500

cases) ............................................................................................ 3 500,000

Mediator Training (Initial training for 30 new mediators per

quarter) ........................................................................................ 50,000

Training ($12,500 judicial and $3,500 staff per quarter) ............ 60,000

Rental Space for Staff Offices ........................................................ 6,074,000

Security ........................................................................................... 284,000
92

ATTACHMENT A.—Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch

Reforms—Continued

Supplies, Postage and Phone ($2,762 per employee per year) .... 204,388

Total Contractual and Other (Recurring) ................................. 8,244,388

Subtotal, Recurring Costs .......................................................... 13,416,315

Less $1,263,006 Recurring Costs included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal

year 2002 Budget Request ................................................................. 12,153,309

Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-Recurring Costs):

Construction of Courtrooms, chambers, in Building B ................ 14,450,000

Capital Improvements in Buildings A & B .................................. 1 10,705,000

Relocation Costs (e.g. furnishings, moving, cabling) ................... 1,200,000

Renovate space for Family Waiting Room ($23,750 financed

with fiscal year 2001 funds) ....................................................... ........................... Chambers/Office Furnishings and Equipment ($3,000 per employee) .......................................................................................... 222,000

Equipment:

5 Photocopiers at 10,000 each ................................................ 50,000

5 Fax Machines at $750 each ................................................. 3,750

IJIS (Family Module: $2,600,000; Complete System:

$7,100,000; minus $1,200,000 in grants) .................................. 3 5,900,000

Total Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-Recurring) 32,530,750

Less $15,305,000 Non-Recurring Costs included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget Request ........................................................... 17,225,750

Grand Total ................................................................................. 45,947,065

Less $16,568,006 included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget

Request ............................................................................................... 29,379,059

1 Included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.

2Staffing costs reflect fiscal year 2001 salary plus fringe benefits at 24 percent of salary.

3Portion included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget Request: $20,000 for Mediator Sti- pends and $4,600,000 for IJIS (of which $1,500,000 plus grant funds are to be obligated in fiscal

year 2002 for the Family module).

Senator DEWINE. Judge King, you set a new record here. You are

31⁄2 minutes. Judge Walton.

Senator LANDRIEU. Excellent. Got us off to a great start.

Senator DEWINE. I was shocked. I don’t know what to do. Try

and beat it, Judge.

STATEMENT OF REGGIE WALTON

Judge WALTON. Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, it is an honor

to have the opportunity to be here today to talk about the problems

confronting all too many of our children here in the District of Columbia. I have served as a Superior Court judge for over 17 years.

When Judge King called me into his office and told me he wanted

me to take over the position as the presiding judge of the Family

Division, the assignment was not on my radar screen. However,

when I thought about the importance of what occurs in the Family

Division, I had the opportunity to serve in the division on a number of occasions, I readily concluded that what we do in the Family

Division is the most important work of the Court, and therefore,

more than willingly accepted the challenge that Judge King gave

to me.

I proceeded immediately with a plan of trying to assess the operations of the division, and to develop reforms. Admittedly, the in-
93

terest and the scrutiny that the Congress has directed at us increased the need to move expeditiously with those reforms, and I

do thank the Congress for that. I will restrict my comments to the

major components of our reform plan.

Obviously, there are a lot of different components to it, but the

major component is the creation of the team approach, and I think

that is the hallmark of our reform plan. We have talked to a lot

of experts, not only in the District, but also throughout the entire

country to try and test what is the best practice for handling neglect and abuse cases, and the team concept is what we decided

would best serve the children and families in these cases. I think

it ensures that there will be one judicial officer responsible for handling these cases, and in the event that judge becomes unavailable

for some reason, for example, for example, illness, death, retirement or whatever, with a team approach, our hope is that the

other team members will be equally aware of that case, and be able

to step in for that judge and continue the effort to move towards

permanency and closure of that case.

Also, we know that it is important to have judges who are well

qualified to handle these cases, not only well qualified, but as has

been indicated, who have a desire to handle these cases. So the one

thing that we obviously will do is to ensure that judges who serve

in this Permanency Branch are individuals who want to be there,

and individuals who have an expertise in the area, and individuals

who have been trained to do the best job in this area. The team

will consist of one judge, who will be in charge of the team.

There will be three separate teams. Each judge will have three

magistrate judges working with him or her. Those individuals will

be specially trained to handle these particular types of cases and

we also will have support staff who will assist the Court in ensuring that we move our cases expeditiously through the system with

the obvious desire of ensuring that we are in compliance with Federal and local laws.

I will be more than happy to comment further in reference to the

team approach, but I think it is essential that we implement this

effort because I think it is the best way to ensure that children are

appropriately serviced in the system.

One of the major problems that we have to confront are, is the

number of older cases that we have. We have approximately 45

older cases in the system, and we are going to——

Senator LANDRIEU. Hundred.

Judge WALTON. I am sorry. 4,500 cases in the system, and we

are embarking on a process at this time already to try and make

an assessment as to how we can close those cases, how we can

bring those cases to some degree of permanency. We already have

a special master who is looking on those cases, providing recommendations to the judges as to how those cases can be better addressed and how we can bring closure to those cases.

Our plan calls for three special masters to be hired by the Court,

along with a team working with them in order to assist the judges

in trying to bring closure to those cases. We have made an assessment that, while it would be obviously desirable to have those

cases placed into the Permanency Branch, for the time being, it

would be important to leave those cases with the judges who cur-
94

rently are handling them because many of those judges are acutely

aware of the particular circumstances in those cases. They have a

desire to keep those cases. And we believe it would be most efficient in trying to resolve those cases to leave those cases in their

current posture.

I again, as Chief Judge King indicated, welcome any questions

you have in reference to the plan. I believe that the plan has been

well thought out and that it will in fact significantly improve the

plight of children and families who come into the Family Division

of the Court.

Senator DEWINE. Judge, thank you very much. Judge Grossman.

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. GROSSMAN

Judge GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, it is a

pleasure to be here and I thank you for the opportunity to testify.

As you said, Senator, I have long been in the trenches in this affair

of juvenile and family courts. I started back in 1959 as a magistrate and spent 16 years as a magistrate and then 24 years as

a judge. One of the most serious issues that we faced in our town

and in our jurisdiction was this issue of children languishing in foster care, languishing in the system and like Washington, D.C., we

had about 4,500 in a backlog when we first attacked the problem.

I don’t think any of us are on a different page when it comes to

the necessary things that have to be done and the need to do it,

so I am not going to spend any time presenting the need. We all

know what that is. I have some points I would make quickly, and

then open the matter, of course, to questions for all of us. There

are four essential pieces, I think, that need to be addressed if a

court is going to attempt to deal with this problem of a number of

children who are in foster care drift.

Number one, the court must have sufficient staff and sufficient

personnel and sufficient magistrate or judge time in order to accomplish the task. And I was pleased to hear Judge King mention

a point that I find is applicable across the country when it comes

to this problem. A court must concentrate a laser-like focus upon

the issue of foster care drift in the children that are in the system.

They can’t spread it out across a broad section of a court. They

have to focus and I heard Judge King say he is going to have a permanency unit, which will be the dependency unit, and that is an

extremely important concept and step. If you don’t have that, the

thing tends to get lost.

In that unit, you must have, as I said, sufficient magistrate and

sufficient judicial personnel to accomplish the task before it. And

I hear a large number of filings coming into the Washington, D.C.

court, an unusual number, considering the size of the Washington,

D.C. population. It is an unusual problem.

The second thing that needs to be concentrated upon, and I

heard Senator Landrieu mention this, you need to have space. This

permanency unit must have a space that is suitable for the practice

before it, so that families are comfortable there. Children can be

brought there. There is enough security and enough space for lawyers, CASAs and others to consult and enough dignified hearing

rooms that they can handle these cases properly, and these courts,
95

this section again should not be spread out in the system. It should

be concentrated.

The third thing that is very important, and I know all of us are

aware of it, there must be a good information management system.

There must be a process by which the court, who will generate this

system, can handle its cases in a careful and responsible fashion,

knowing the playing field. If you do not know the numbers and you

do not know the profiles, you cannot do anything except rescue

emergencies. And with other services agencies—but I would stress

the point that the system must be under the authority of the court

and generated by the court for the court’s purposes.

And the fourth leg of the whole process, which is one that all of

us know, you have to supply the court with the resources for

dispositional purposes to handle the cases before it. If you want a

court to burn out, a judge to burn out, a magistrate to burn out,

do not give him the resources. Make him or her come to the court

every day knowing what the answers ought to be when he can’t fill

them or she can’t fill them. That is a recipe for frustration, for bitterness, for burnout. I can tell you it will happen, so you must give

them that, and that involves other agencies, service delivery people, placement people, all kinds of agencies and services to help the

court do its job.

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Those are the four legs. Those must be in place. They are generic. They can be handled in different ways in different jurisdictions, but they all must be there. Thank you.

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID E. GROSSMAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for

this opportunity to testify before you here today. I am David E. Grossmann, Retired

Presiding Administrative Judge of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am here on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges, where in 1995–1996, I served as President. I currently serve as

Chairman of the National Council’s Adoption Committee. Honorary Chair for the

National Council’s Adoption Committee is former United States President Gerald R.

Ford. Ex-Officio member of that Committee is Dave Thomas, CEO of Wendy’s International.

We at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges are pleased to

have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Family Division reform of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I commend the Subcommittee for their

commitment to improving family court practice and improve outcomes for children

and families in the District of Columbia.

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

For over 25 years, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has

recognized the need for judicial oversight of child abuse and neglect cases. Pointing

to rising numbers of children in the nation’s foster care system and recognizing that

thousands of children were being raised without the benefit of permanent homes,

Congress passed key legislation in 1980 to reduce the number of children experiencing ‘‘foster care drift’’ in the nation’s foster care system. The passage of Public

Law 96–272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, heralded the

need for improved practice in handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Courts and

child welfare agencies were given the mandate to place strict 18-month time limits

on resolution of dependency cases. The system as a whole was required to make

‘‘reasonable efforts’’ findings and to ensure: (1) Unnecessary separation of children

and families be avoided; (2) Reunification of families when safely possible to do so;
96

and (3) When reunification was not feasible, moving forward in finding adoptive or

other permanent placement alternatives for children.

As a result of that legislation, courts and child welfare agencies nationwide began

to examine practice; identify barriers to permanency; plan for change; and implement changes in policy, practice and court rules. However, soon after the Adoption

and Safe Families Act was passed, the nation’s foster care system began to experience a new crisis. Soaring drug use, violence in families, child abuse awareness

campaigns, and poverty rates began to bring more children into the child welfare

and court systems than ever before. As a result of burgeoning caseloads and limited

resources, court and child welfare agencies were struggling to meet the new demands placed upon them. Numbers of children in the child welfare system once

again began to rise.

Thanks to the foresight of Congress, including Senator DeWine and many members of this Committee, additional legislation was passed in November 1997, which

once again required court and child welfare agencies to improve practice. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89) shortened time frames for

dependency cases from 18 months to 12 months, and focusing practice on three specific outcomes for dependent children: (1) Safety; (2) Permanency; and (3) WellBeing.

In order to implement the Federal legislation in the spirit in which it was intended, state courts and child welfare agencies refocused their efforts on improving

practice in handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Several national initiatives to

improve practice gained new momentum. The Court Improvement Program of the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides support through state supreme courts for states to gather key stakeholders and examine practice. Court Improvement Program resources include funding for training and technical assistance,

and are under way in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In 1992, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges initiated a

project which would break new ground in guiding courts and child welfare systems

through their reform efforts. With support from the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Council

formed a committee of judges, child welfare agency administrators, attorneys, court

appointed special advocates (CASAs), and others to develop a document which would

outline best practice for handling of dependency cases. The result of this three-year

effort was the RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse

& Neglect Cases, published in 1995, and endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the American Bar Association. This document, which outlines key components of complete and fair hearings, is being used as a blueprint for change by

Court Improvement Programs and individual courts nationwide. Since its first printing, over 22,000 copies of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES have been disseminated

nationwide, with hundreds of additional copies being distributed every month.

Also groundbreaking in its efforts to improve practice, the follow up work in development of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES was initiation of the Victims Act Model

Court Project. In 1995, the National Council began work in a number of courts nationwide to put the RESOURCE GUIDELINES into practice. Criteria for selection

of Model Courts was developed. Courts under consideration were asked to make a

commitment to change, and to implement the RESOURCE GUIDELINES in their

change efforts. Courts were asked to select a lead judge’ whose task it would be to

guide court improvement efforts in his or her jurisdiction. The lead judge’ was to

select a committee of key stakeholders, who would work collaboratively to examine

practice, identify barriers, strategically plan for change, and implement improvements. Each court was asked to sign onto the project for the long term, recognizing

that systems change is a lengthy and time-consuming process. And, finally, each

court, as a laboratory for change, was asked to commit to mentoring other courts

engaged in their own court improvement efforts.

Since 1995, the number of Model Courts has risen from the original four to a current total of 23. Courts range in size from the largest metropolitan courts in the

nation—Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Newark, and Miami—to many midsized and smaller jurisdictions, including Cincinnati, Indianapolis, New Orleans,

Salt Lake City, El Paso, Honolulu, Des Moines, Charlotte, San Jose, and Reno. Just

last week, the first Tribal Court, Zuni Pueblo of New Mexico, agreed to participate

in the project.

Model Court achievements over the past six years have been many, and in some

cases, remarkable. The Cook County Juvenile Court—Child Protection Division—

through leadership of then lead judge, the Hon. Nancy Salyers, and in close collaboration with Jess McDonald, Director of the Illinois Department of Children and

Family Services, implemented court and child welfare system reforms. This resulted
97

in a reduction in the number of children in out-of-home care in that county alone

from over 58,000 to under 27,000 in little over three year’s time.

Specific improvements accomplished in many of the Model Courts which have resulted in moving dependent children more effectively through the child welfare system include the following:

—Expanded initial, or preliminary protective hearings

—Focused effort to reduce case backlogs

—Implementation of one family/one judge court calendars

—Implementation of front-end diversion programs, including family group conferencing and mediation

—Scheduling hearings at a time certain

—Implementation of strict continuance policies

—Implementation of continuous hearings and trials

—Setting the next hearing date at the end of the current hearing

—Distributing copies of orders to all parties at the end of the current hearing

—Focusing on reducing the number of children in the child welfare system whose

parental rights have been terminated and who are awaiting adoptive or other

permanent placements

—Development of court-based data information systems for case tracking and reporting, reporting on aggregate data and trends, calendaring and court records,

tracking compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act and State mandated time lines.

In 2000, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia became one of the newest

Model Courts in the Victims Act Model Court Project. Committed to improving practice, the Washington, D.C. Court began to identify areas in need of change, and to

draw key stakeholders into the planning process. The Washington, D.C. Model

Court early-on focused on a variety of challenges to be addressed: judicial rotation,

timely case processing, the need for resources both in judicial personnel and court

personnel, the need for a court-based data information system, addressing case

backlogs, and development of an effective working relationship with the District’s

child welfare agency were among the priorities set by the Family Division of the

Superior Court.

We at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have supported

the improvement efforts of the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia since that court’s initiation into the Model Court project, and we are

supportive of the efforts of Chief Judge Rufus King III and Presiding Family Court

Judge Reggie Walton. We have committed to providing resources in terms of training and technical assistance to enhance the court’s ability to achieve its goals. We

note that there are several issues to be addressed which invite further comment.

JUDICIAL TENURE

Rotation.—The law, social science, and practice issues involved in dependency

practice are the most challenging of those faced by any court today. This is a specialized field, which requires specific knowledge and expertise of judicial officers beyond that required of many other areas of practice. Throughout the National Council’s experience in working with Model Courts, and as cited by the aforementioned

RESOURCE GUIDELINES, it is critical that a judge who hears dependency cases

be expert in the law, in issues related to child development, in current practice, and

in the placement and treatment resources available within his/her specific jurisdiction.

In order to gain this critical knowledge and to maintain a knowledge of the families within the child welfare system, it is extremely important that judicial officers

be retained on this bench for lengthy periods, and that length of time between judicial rotations be increased. One family/one judge, a key component of best practice

can best be achieved when judicial officers serve for a significant period of time.

Commitment.—A commitment to this case type by judicial officers is critical. In

order to achieve best practice in this area, it is helpful for judges to self-select to

this bench. Those who have a desire to sit on this bench should be allowed to do

so, even beyond the rotation schedule set, if requested. Many states currently require that judges rotate off the dependency bench, in spite of the desire of judges

to remain in this work. This does a disservice to the committed judges who wish

to stay, and to the families whom they serve.

JUDICIAL OFFICERS/MAGISTRATES

The Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati has successfully operated a

magistrate system for a number of years. Early in the last decade, when we were

first setting about systems reform, we identified the need for judicial officers who
98

1 ‘‘Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform: ONE COURT THAT WORKS,’’

ABA Center on Children and the Law, National Conference of Special Court Judges, Chicago,

1992. 2 Resolution 21, ‘‘Statement of Principles Regarding Children and Families,’’ adopted as proposed by the Courts, Children and Family Committee of the Conference of Chief Justices, Baltimore, Maryland, at the 24th Midyear Meeting on January 25, 2001 States:

‘‘. . . we will seek to assure those [juvenile and family] courts and judges the facilities, resources, and statute among their colleagues that they need and deserve to have . . .’’

would be committed to the dependency bench and who would make a career of hearing child abuse and neglect cases.

In Hamilton County there are two full-time judges, who oversee the work of a

number of magistrates. This has led to best practice as recognized by the American

Bar Association in its publication ‘‘Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning

Reform: One Court That Works.’’ 1 Cases are held timely, parties are held accountable, families and children are represented, and permanence for children is achieved

well within mandated time frames.

CASE BACKLOGS

In a system with ever-growing case loads and limited resources, it is critical for

courts to identify a date from which to implement new systems reforms, and to

begin reviewing and hearing cases which have languished in the system for a variety of reasons. Clearing of case backlogs has been achieved in different ways in a

number of jurisdictions.

Following passage of that state’s child welfare reform legislation in the mid-1990s,

Utah’s state legislature funded a number of special judge positions with the specific

task of clearing case backlogs. Other jurisdictions have cleared backlogs by assigning volunteer judges to commit to the additional work necessary to review and hear

‘‘old’’ cases.

The Strengthening Child Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–

314), introduced by Senator Mike DeWine and supported by many members of this

committee, will provide some resources to courts nationwide to address case backlogs. This type of concerted effort will be necessary if the Family Division of the Superior Court is to clear backlogs as they now exist.

RESOURCES

It is critical that the Superior Court receive the resources necessary to achieve

success in its court improvement efforts. As noted by the Conference of Chief Justices, these courts require adequate resources.2 These include:

Judicial Officers and Staff.—In order to achieve outcomes necessary, it is critical

that funding for adequate personnel be made available to the court. Staff will include judicial officers, clerks, case managers, and other system professionals.

COURT-BASED DATA INFORMATION SYSTEM

In order for the court to hold itself, and all system players accountable, it is critical that the court have a state-of-the art data information system in place. Such

a system will allow the court to track individual cases, aggregate information,

record trends in practice, record performance of system professionals, improve

calendaring, more efficiently develop and disseminate court orders, and most importantly track ASA time lines.

The Hamilton County data information system was critical to that court’s success

in identifying barriers to permanency, how effectively the system was addressing

problem areas, and how successful the system was in improving practice.

FACILITIES

It is critical that the Court have access to facilities which will provide a safe and

efficient working environment for court staff, but most importantly provide a respectful and enhanced environment for the families it serves. This can include an

adequate number of courtrooms, family-centered waiting areas, rooms for client/attorney consultation, family resource centers, child care services, and secure areas for

handling of inmates required to appear during dependency hearings.

TRAINING

Regular in-service training for judicial officers, case management personnel and

others, as well as interdisciplinary cross-system training is critical in order to facilitate court improvement efforts. As a jurisdiction, the District of Columbia should
99

focus on in-house training of judicial officers and other court personnel, and also

gather key stakeholders, including attorneys, child welfare personnel, treatment

providers, and others to develop strategies for systems change.

Finally, may I comment that even the best efforts of the Family Division cannot

achieve systems change alone. It is critical that all key system personnel be included in this effort. The Bar, the Office of Corporation Counsel, the child welfare

system—including those assigned to handling the ICPC, Court Appointed Special

Advocates, service providers, treatment providers, and others involved in handling

of child abuse and neglect cases—must all be brought to the table. Only with commitment from all system professionals to improve practice in handling of child abuse

and neglect cases can better outcomes for the families and children in the District

of Columbia be achieved.

In closing, on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to participate in hearings

on this important legislation. We at the National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges believe that with adequate resources, commitment of the judiciary,

commitment of key system players, and a focus on improving practice, that better

outcomes for families and children can be achieved. We look forward to continuing

to assist the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in

its efforts to improve practice in handling of child abuse and neglect cases.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL STRAUSS

Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the District of Columbia

Subcommittee on Appropriations, I am Paul Strauss, the shadow United States Senator elected by the voters of the District of Columbia and an attorney who practices

in the family court division of our local courts. In that capacity I have made approximately 5 hundred appearances in our family court, representing children and families in the Abuse and Neglect System.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement on behalf of my constituents in the District of Columbia. The subject of this hearing is extremely important

to me and to my constituents of Washington, D.C. It involves the physical, emotional and psychological health and welfare of our children and their need to be protected by a strong, well-structured and experienced judiciary. I testify today in support of the Family Division Reform Plan, developed by the Chief Judge and the Associate Judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Let me add for the

record that I personally oppose the creation of a totally separate family court, which

has been called for by the House Majority Whip.

The issue before this committee is two-fold in nature. The first issue surrounds

the need to adhere to home rule principles in governing the District of Columbia.

These principles pertain to the respect for local control and decision making maintained under the umbrella of the District’s home rule charter, and to respect the

decision making process apparent in our local judiciary. The second issue of even

greater importance concerns the protection of our community’s most vulnerable

members. These issues involve a choice between the strengthening of the District

of Columbia’s current court structure rather than its complete deconstruction.

As is apparent today, the State of Ohio has developed arguably well-managed

family court programs. Let me first take this opportunity to thank those Judges

from Ohio who have traveled to Washington DC to share their experiences with us.

These beneficial models, which work well in given States, will provide valuable

guidance to the District of Columbia. It does not necessarily follow, however, that

the exact same structure will serve the specific socio-demographic and economic

needs of the diverse population situated within the District of Columbia. As you

know, the District contains an overwhelmingly urban population, and we are not

provided the same level of resources bestowed upon State governments. Due to the

current political status of the District, any change to our judiciary, such as the proposed Family Court, must be carefully implemented by the local professionals who

understand and appreciate the needs of the population.

The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District’s most vulnerable citizens—its children, as well as provide countless other, more mundane, legal

functions common to every jurisdiction. The safety of children should not and will

not be compromised due to political agendas.

Let me state for the record that there have been many times when the Republican

majority, particularly in the U.S. House of Representatives, has attempted to substitute its personal and political judgments for the democratically expressed wishes

of the District of Columbia citizens. I have spoken out against those efforts, and
100

criticized those who would violate our democratic rights for the sake of political expediency. I have no such criticism today.

It is clear that the House Majority Whip, and his colleagues who are pushing the

idea of an independent and separate family court, do so not to impose any particular

ideology on our judiciary, but based on their own good faith belief on the best interests of our children and legal process.

There is no Democratic or Republican way to adjudicate cases of child abuse and

neglect. The District of Columbia’s non-State status makes it a necessity that any

reform must come from this body. While I have often resented the actions of a D.C.

sub-committee, which appropriates money both from and for the District of Columbia in the absence of a member from the District of Columbia, I welcome today your

input and involvement. Our legitimate desire for self-determination does not mean

that the U.S. Senate should ignore this important issue.

An important component of this proposal offers judges of the Family Court a fixed

three-year term with the option of continuing service beyond that time period. It is

my belief, based upon my own experience, that judges who hear nothing but child

abuse and neglect cases are susceptible to an unusual amount of emotional stress

due to their exposure to the horrific nature of these cases, which often involve great

brutality visited amongst helpless innocents. I can appreciate and sympathize with

these hardships because I too found that after years of litigating multiple trials involving abused and neglected children, the emotional toll could be quite significant.

The Court’s present proposal allows judges the opportunity to volunteer for such assignments, thus allowing them to seek out the special challenges in one or more of

the family court sectors, but also involves a plan to avoid burn-out and frustration.

The Family Division Trial Lawyers Association of the District of Columbia opposes separating the Family Court from the rest of the judiciary. All of the major

components of the Superior Court’s reform initiative depict sound modes of achieving enhanced protection to abused and neglected children. The comprehensive plan

demonstrates the most efficient and effectives means of implementing a Family

Court. Rather than duplicate administrative efforts, the plan concentrates upon

team management tactics, continual training procedures, judicial specializations,

and a multi-disciplinary approach to case resolution which emphasizes coherent

lines of communication. Even more importantly, it has the appropriation envisioned

to provide real reform. Without the requested additional resources, any plan will

surely fail.

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to support the Court’s restructuring

plan and to allocate the financial support to make it a success. A strong Family

Court, united within the existing Superior Court, will improve the quality of life and

enhance justice.

On behalf of the citizens of the District of Columbia, I thank you for the opportunity to make these comments; I would be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF JAMES J. ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, AND BETTY E. SINOWITZ,

CO-VICE PRESIDENT, FAMILY DIVISION TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, Members of the Subcommittee of the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations. We are James J. Roberts and

Betty E. Sinowitz, and we have prepared this statement in our capacities as President and Co-Vice President respectively, of the Family Division Trial Lawyers Association (FDTLA). Previously, we had communicated by letter to Members of the Senate and House of Representatives who are most concerned with the District of Columbia.

Thank you for initiating this very important hearing to address the District of Columbia Superior Court’s plan to reform its Family Division to ensure the protection

of our abused and neglected children. As officers of FDTLA and as citizens of the

District of Columbia, we fully support the Family Division Reform Plan authored

by Chief Judge Rufus G. King, III and the Associate Judges of the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia. We welcome the special interest of both the Chairman

and the Ranking Member in these matters.

The Family Division Trial Lawyers Association (FDTLA) is a voluntary association of court-appointed attorneys who represent abused and neglected children and

their family members, juveniles, and mentally retarded and mentally ill adults in

Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Our clients are the District of Columbia’s most defenseless and vulnerable citizens in need of professional legal services.

FDTLA strongly advocates the maintenance and improvement of the unified Family Division that currently exists within the construct of the Superior Court of the
101

District of Columbia. FDTLA vigorously opposes the establishment of a separate

Family Court. FDTLA officers and members are working with the Superior Court

to suggest reforms, some of which have already been implemented.

Since our members practice every day in the Family Division of the Superior

Court, FDTLA has a keen interest in current efforts to bring about positive changes

in the Family Division. We are working with the Court, the legal community, Congress, and community groups concerned with abuse and neglect and foster care

issues, examining both positive and negative aspects in the current system.

Chief Judge Rufus G. King, III brings commitment, intelligence, and energy to his

recent appointment. Under Chief Judge King and Presiding Judge Reggie Walton

of the Family Division, FDTLA representatives, as well as judges, hearing commissioners, government attorneys, social workers, and administrative court personnel

have met over the past several months to scrutinize the Family Division’s current

operations and embark on an intensive effort to develop a program that will rectify

problems which had developed.

FDTLA supports Chief Judge King’s reform plan and the appropriation of additional and sufficient financial resources to change the existing Family Division. An

increased budget will enable Chief Judge King to implement his plan in the following ways:

—Adding additional judges and magistrates for adjudicating abuse and neglect

cases and termination of parental rights and adoption matters, as well as for

the domestic relations, paternity and child support, mental health and mental

retardation branches of the current Family Division.

—Increasing the terms for judges and hearing officers or magistrates in the Family Division to three years, with at least one year per calendar.

—Utilizing a collaborative team approach, whereby judges, magistrates, court

staff attorneys, court staff social workers, and better trained support staff would

provide a new approach to case management and the ongoing review of abuse

and neglect matters.

—Enlarging the use of court mediation services for abuse and neglect and other

family law cases, as appropriate.

—Implementing a better coordination system for scheduling hearings, trials, and

reviews of open cases in order to cut down court waiting time, so that both attorneys and social workers can spend more time monitoring their cases and securing services for their clients.

—Modernizing the computer system to enable more effective tracking of cases and

coordination of all cases involving the same families in the court system, the

child welfare system, the police department, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, and other agencies

—Providing extensive and ongoing training in abuse and neglect law and policy

for judges, magistrates, attorneys, social workers, and administrative personnel.

—Allocating larger courtrooms and hearing rooms; providing family friendly waiting rooms for witnesses, parties, and children involved in family law cases; and

assigning designated conference meeting rooms for attorneys, social workers,

and mediators who work with families and children.

—Filling vacant file room positions in the clerks’ offices and adding more administrative support staff for file rooms and courtrooms.

—Increasing pay rates for court-appointed lawyers and investigators.

FDTLA strongly asserts that children already traumatized by abuse and neglect

deserve the full and serious attention of the most experienced, committed, and competent judges who have acquired expertise and perspective handling a wide range

of cases in many areas of jurisprudence. The current system of rotating judges

should be continued, albeit with changes made less frequently. Determinations concerning the removal of children from their parents, placements of children with relatives or foster parents, return of children to their birth parents, termination of parental rights, and adoption; institutionalizing children; and the other difficult decisions must be made by judges who are not experiencing burnout resulting from their

exclusively hearing cases involving human tragedy.

The present inclusion of the Family Division within the Superior Court is the best

model. It has much merit. This model integrates family matters into the overall

structure of the court system, thereby maintaining equality of commitment with the

criminal, civil, and probate divisions. Judges rotate among all divisions giving equal

time, attention, and commitment to whichever division they are assigned.

Currently, each of 59 Superior Court judges, regardless of their current court assignment, conducts periodic reviews 75–90 cases per year, thus presiding over approximately two abuse and neglect matters per week. If a separate family court

were created, each of some thirteen judges on such a court would need to review

nearly 400 abuse and neglect cases per year, in addition to presiding over initial
102

hearings, status hearings, trials, show cause hearings, and emergency hearings.

This is an unworkable and unrealistic proposal.

In other jurisdictions with separate family courts, the family court is frequently

referred to as the ‘‘kiddy court.’’ Such courts are frequently staffed with new judges

who are learning the ropes before they are assigned to the ‘‘real’’ court. Other jurisdictions have found it convenient to cut costs in their budgets by staffing this ‘‘kiddy

court’’ with magistrates and commissioners, rather than with judges, thereby saving

the ‘‘real judges’’ for the ‘‘real court’’ with ‘‘real problems.’’ Jurisdictions, such as

New York, which have separate family courts, are now advocating the establishment

of unified courts similar to the one existing now in the District of Columbia. Congress will be better advised to study this similar metropolitan jurisdiction prior to

introducing legislation creating a separate family court.

Although many government leaders decry big government and call for less bureaucracy and lower taxes, the proposed creation of a separate and distinct ‘‘Family

Court’’ will cost tens of millions of dollars in the first year alone.

FDTLA opposes the creation of a separate stand-alone family court entity for the

following reasons:

—Merely creating a separate family court will not address the important need for

systemic reform in the operations of the Child and Family Services Agency

(CFSA), the Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the

Office of the Corporation Counsel. These government agencies are in transition

and are in need of further reforms.

—In addition to the massive additional costs to establish and maintain a separate

family court, a separate court is likely to have difficulty in recruiting and retaining highly qualified judges and hearing commissioners to work in what is

likely to be regarded a ‘‘lesser’’ or ‘‘kiddy’’ court.

—A separate entity will add massive construction costs and duplicative administrative expense for personnel, equipment, and maintenance.

—A separate family court may siphon already limited judicial resources from the

Superior Court.

—The time involved in the establishment of a separate court would serve to defer

the closure of long-standing, pending cases.

—A separate court would interfere with the operation of the existing domestic violence branches’ its innovative, unified approach to civil and criminal proceedings involving intrafamily violence.

FDTLA recognizes that there have been problems in the protection and permanent placement of children in the child abuse and neglect system. It is important

to note that it is the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), not the D.C. Superior Court, that failed to adequately protect children, properly monitor temporary

placements for children, recruit adoptive parents and place children in permanent

homes. CFSA is the agency under a Federal court receivership, not the D.C. Superior Court.

Now, however, the Superior Court, under the leadership of Chief Judge King, is

taking a leadership role in developing long-term solutions to the difficulties that

trouble the Family Division, and FDTLA trusts that the Court’s reforms will result

in a less expensive, quicker, more flexible, and more comprehensive response to

meeting the pressing legal needs of the District of Columbia’s most vulnerable citizens than would be possible if a separate Family Court were established. Addressing complex management issues, limited judicial resources, and working with other

branches of government will do more to meet these needs.

On behalf of FDTLA, we urge you and your congressional colleagues to continue

your interest in resolving the problems of the D.C. Superior Court and in providing

it with adequate financial resources to accomplish the reforms planned for the Family Division of the D.C. Superior Court under its current leadership.

On behalf of our clients who are citizens of the District of Columbia, we thank

you for the opportunity to present our comments. We would be happy to provide answers to any questions that you may have. We additionally request an opportunity

to testify at any public hearing regarding any congressional proposals concerning either a stand-alone or a unified family court.

Senator DEWINE. Great. Great testimony from all three of you.

Thank you all very much. I really do not know where to start. Let

me start, I guess, with you, Judge King. Judge King, you and I

talked about this issue the other day, and I want to explore it just

a little bit more. I think we all agree that one of the objectives has

to be to develop the expertise in the judge, and the point has been

well made, and I think correctly, that you have to have people that
103

want to do this. You do not want someone in there who you have

to pull kicking and screaming into the courtroom. You want a judge

who wants to be there, who wants to do it, and wants to handle

this type of case. Explain to me a little bit how you envision this

working with the new change. Let us start with how many judges

you think are needed in this unit, and what are we calling this

unit? I want to make sure I get the terminology.

Judge KING. It would be the Permanency Branch of the Family

Division, or Family Court Division of the Superior Court. But it is

the Permanency Branch we are focusing on.

Senator DEWINE. Permanency Branch. And how many judges?

Judge KING. The way we look at it within the Permanency

Branch, we are looking at, as we now see it, 3 judges and 9 magistrates, divided in teams, so there would be a total of 12 judicial

officers.

Senator DEWINE. Now, let me make sure and again, these are

some real basic things, and I apologize, but I want to make sure

I understand. What does the Permanency Branch do?

Judge KING. These are cases involving abused and neglected children primarily. And by having the Family Division as a unified

family court, if you will, when there is a related divorce or other

support issue and that type of thing, all would be before a cadre

of judges who are doing this work and are talking to each other

and working with each other, but the Permanency Branch would

address the children who have either been abandoned or abused

or——

Senator DEWINE. So if you have got——

Senator LANDRIEU. How many judges are in the big section?

Senator DEWINE. In the Family Division?

Senator LANDRIEU. In the Family Division.

Judge KING. In the entire Family Division, we see a need for 15

judges.

Senator DEWINE. Total.

Judge KING. And we currently have 11 judges, including what

will later become the Permanency Branch.

Senator DEWINE. But Judge, excuse me, you envision 15 total?

Judge KING. 15 judges.

Senator DEWINE. Which means——

Senator LANDRIEU. Total.

Judge KING. We now have eight hearing commissioners, two of

whom I believe, and if I can, if need be, I will correct the record

before it closes, address these cases now. So there are some magistrate judges who would be needed for other things. For example,

child support is an area that is handled by magistrate judges. And

that would need to be continued. So we see ultimately—ultimately

15 judges and then the existing, and the nine new positions.

Senator DEWINE. I am lost.

Senator LANDRIEU. I am lost. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. Yes. State—tell me where you want to go. Do

not tell me what you’ve got now. We will get to that in a minute.

Judge KING. 15 judges.

Senator LANDRIEU. You want 15 total?

Senator DEWINE. Total.

Judge KING. In the Family Division.
104

Senator DEWINE. And three of those 15 are in the Permanency

Branch?

Judge KING. Correct.

Senator DEWINE. All right. And then you have got nine magistrates in the Permanency Branch, and you are going to have how

many magistrates in the total?

Judge KING. We are going to have, the total would be an additional six, I believe, which will cover paternity and support.

Senator DEWINE. Now I am lost.

Judge KING. I think you asked about going outside the Permanency Branch.

Senator LANDRIEU. How many magistrates for the nonpermanency family judges?

Judge KING. Six.

Senator LANDRIEU. Not six new. How many total? How many

would you have?

Judge KING. Outside the Permanency Branch.

Senator LANDRIEU. You have three times more magistrates than

the Permanency Branch. Can we assume you need three times

more magistrates for the other branches? Because that would be

45.

Judge KING. No. I don’t believe that follows.

Senator LANDRIEU. All right. How many would we need?

Judge KING. I believe eight, if I may supplement the record to

be sure that I have got that exactly right.

Senator DEWINE. Well, but that means then there is a total of

17 actually then.

Judge KING. That’s right.

Senator DEWINE. Seventeen. I mean the totals for the Family Division which includes the Permanency Branch is 15 judges, 17

magistrates.

Judge KING. That’s correct.

Senator DEWINE. Total. And then after that you take out of that

three judges who go in the Permanency Branch and nine magistrates?

Judge KING. Correct.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Tell me, tell me, explain to me, and

Judge Grossman, I’d like your input on this as well, how it works

between the judge and the magistrate. Hamilton County, for example, had just a few judges, how many did you have?

Judge GROSSMAN. Two.

Senator DEWINE. Two. So your ratio was phenomenally different.

And I am not saying one is right or one is wrong. I am just curious

how it works with the magistrate. I am curious how it worked with

your system and Judge King, I am curious to know how you see

it working with your system. Who does what?

Judge GROSSMAN. In Hamilton County, we have some 29 magistrates and two judges and the judges act as the reviewing authority for those magistrates. But the magistrates have rather broad

authority to handle their cases. And particularly, in the permanency system in our court, the magistrate can take the case from

start to finish. With the ability to appeal to the judge, but that

magistrate becomes a tenured person. He is a professional who re-
105

mains with the system for many years. And as such, has that ability to carry a case on.

Senator DEWINE. So in reality, with that ratio, in almost every

case, that is the final?

Judge GROSSMAN. Yes. Yes. But these magistrates are almost as

judges, so that you understand.

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Judge GROSSMAN. That when they say they have got 15 judges

and 17 magistrates, that is, that is the same type of thing, and

they have more business considering their population than we

have.

Senator DEWINE. Is that right?

Judge GROSSMAN. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. And how are the magistrates appointed, just

to clarify while we are on the subject?

Judge GROSSMAN. In our court the judge appoints them.

Senator LANDRIEU. Judge appoints the magistrates.

Judge GROSSMAN. The courts control their own magistrates.

Senator LANDRIEU. And under your plan, how would you——

Judge KING. The Court, and ultimately the Chief Judge, but with

the recommendation of a committee which reviews the applicants

and presents them to the Board of Judges, and then all the judges

are consulted and then ultimately the Chief makes the pick.

Senator DEWINE. Judge King, tell me a little bit about how it

works.

Judge KING. On your, on your question, we see a slightly different alignment for the District of Columbia plan. We see the

teams as being comprised of a judge and three magistrates. All of

them will rotate through the intake court and take in cases, so that

a magistrate, for example, would cover a week of intake. We call

them new referrals in our system. That case then becomes that

magistrate’s case for the life of the case.

Senator DEWINE. Is that——

Judge KING. It is much like the magistrate in Ohio.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. But that is just in the—for example, so

that magistrate, he is not taking in criminal cases?

Judge KING. No. Absolutely not. That magistrate is hired up

front because the open position will be a magistrate in the Permanency Branch. People who apply for that job are people who want

to do that work.

Senator DEWINE. What has been your experience and your ability to attract, is there anything comparable now? The question is

if you had the challenge of going out there and seeking out lawyers

who want to do this full time——

Judge KING. No. Up until now, the application has been as a

hearing commissioner whose responsibilities are plenary. We want

people to come in and be qualified as plenary magistrates, but

these positions will be what’s up for—what’s up for filling is a position.

FILLED AS A FAMILY COURT

Senator DEWINE. When you interview for that job, you know that

is what you are going to do. If you do not want to do it, you

shouldn’t interview for the job.
106

Judge KING. Exactly.

Senator DEWINE. Now, you anticipate the ability to fill these

nine. Let us stay on the magistrates for now.

Judge KING. Yes. I do. I anticipate that with a—first of all, as

Judge Grossman said so aptly, with, with enough resources, this

work begins to get very, very satisfying, in addition to being challenging and difficult and everything else.

Senator DEWINE. Sure. Sure.

Judge KING. It becomes as satisfying as anything a judge can do.

And I do not anticipate a difficulty in finding people who want to

do it. If we enter this period and enter these reforms without adequate resources, then yes, there will be a problem filling those positions.

Senator DEWINE. I think that is a good point. Let us go—well,

let us go back to the, to the 3 judges, and you told me a little bit

about this the other day in the office. But these would be, you envision, these would be terms of 3 years?

Judge KING. Three years as a minimum with an extension

by——

Senator DEWINE. Self-extension?

Judge KING. That’s right. And the reason that I look at 3 years

is for a couple of reasons. The culture here has always been 1-year

rotations. That obviously is going to have to change. We want to

change it so that we encourage people who are genuinely interested

in this area to stay. Yet, we do not say up front that you have to

know now that you are going to commit to 8, 10, 12 years in this

area, because we would miss highly qualified judges. An example

is Judge Walton sitting next to me, who is doing terrific work in

this area, and might not have signed on for a 10-year term. With

3 years, I believe that very highly qualified lawyers and then

judges will be interested in coming on the Court and doing this

work. I believe the leaders that we need will emerge in that process.

Senator DEWINE. Judge, as a practical matter, how do you deal

with this situation? These are Presidential appointments, correct?

Judge KING. They are.

Senator DEWINE. And how do you make sure the White House

understands that you are looking for a few good people who want

to worry about kids all day?

Judge KING. We need a few good men and women. I have actually already done that. As you may know, the structure is that a

local commission selects three candidates for each seat, and then

the White House has to pick from among those three. I went to the

commission during the discussion of this process as we have been

developing this plan, and indicated to them that we really needed

their support in using interest in family law as an important criteria in who they select.

Senator DEWINE. What kind of reception did you get?

Judge KING. We have three names pending at the White House

now, two of whom have a significant interest in family law and

family background.

Senator DEWINE. Good. Good.

Judge KING. I believe that process, when we reach a point where

we need to add some judges, I believe that that process can be
107

made to work in the same way. I believe the Commission will recruit for applicants. They will get them and I think that we will

be able to——

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I ask a question while we are on that

point? Do you mind if we go back and forth a little?

Senator DEWINE. No. You go right ahead. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. While we are on that point can you all clarify

for us and for the record how many vacancies there are now of the

58?

Judge KING. Fifty-nine is the total.

Senator LANDRIEU. Fifty-nine total authorized, how many current vacancies there are today, and how many do you anticipate,

let us say in the next 18 months?

Judge KING. I believe it is three now, and one of the facts of life

for us, I think it is probably just a fact of the numbers if you take

any cohort of 59 people, somebody is always going to another job,

retiring, getting sick, doing one thing or another. We always have

one or two vacancies. I don’t think——

Senator LANDRIEU. A year. One or two a year?

Judge KING. Or at any one time.

Senator LANDRIEU. But there are three current openings now?

Judge KING. But now, let us see, there is one pending at the

White House. Two I believe are pending here in the Senate, so they

are in the pipeline.

Senator LANDRIEU. They are in the pipeline, but there are three

vacancies?

Judge KING. Correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. But these I understand are 15-year terms?

Judge KING. That’s correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. So we could surely get a list of those whose

terms are expiring in the next 18 months. Do we know what that

is? Do we know how many?

Judge KING. It isn’t always indicated because many times we can

renew in a less formal process than the initial appointment. There

is a judicial tenure commission which reviews applications to review the term. So often you’ll get judges to renew. I have indications that there are two retirements that are likely to occur.

Senator LANDRIEU. But could you just for the record—I think it

would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if just for the record we had the

absolutely official information.

Judge KING. Absolutely.

Senator LANDRIEU. About how many of these terms——

Judge KING. Numbers and terms and when they expire.

Senator LANDRIEU. There has got to be an expiration date for

every judge currently serving, and I think for the record, we need

to have that so that we can help make the best decisions here and

if you could provide that for the record not today, because you do

not, I am sure, have all those details. 59, but I thought that would

be helpful.

Senator DEWINE. That would be great.

Judge KING. Be happy to do that.

[The Information follows:]

At the hearing, you also inquired as to the number of judges authorized for the

Superior Court, the current number of vacancies, and the number of judges whose
108

terms expire this calendar year. The District of Columbia Code, Section 11–903, authorizes 59 judges on the Superior Court. The Superior Court currently has 3 judicial vacancies. The Senate confirmed two of the three candidates nominated by the

President in late May. They will be sworn in this July. It is not unusual for there

to be one or more vacancies on the Court.

Judge Queen is the only judge whose term will expires this calendar year; she

is retiring this month. The President’s nomination to replace Judge Queen is now

pending before the Senate. In addition, Judge Wynn recently announced her decision to leave the bench in October, 2001.

Senator DEWINE. Before we move away from this particular

issue, let me make sure I understand. Your goal in the Permanency

Branch is to have three judges, nine magistrates. The nine magistrates would basically be hired with the understanding that this

is what they are going to do. I will let you read your notes.

Judge KING. I am—I am pointing out that we have been focused

on the neglected and abused children in the Permanency Branch.

There is, of course, also an adoptions calendar, termination of parental rights calendar, and a custody determination calendar.

Those would each have judges. So they are actually——

Senator DEWINE. That would be a separate branch?

Judge KING. No. Would be within the permanency branch, but

they are all related to the neglected and abused children. In other

words, to achieve permanency, you have to get to adoption or——

Senator DEWINE. Right. Right. You couldn’t separate those.

Judge KING. Or TPR or you have to do one of those other things.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, could we clarify, though, then how

many total judges we are talking about?

Judge KING. It is still 15 judges and 17 magistrates in the Family Division.

Senator DEWINE. How many in the Permanency Branch?

Judge KING. In the Permanency Branch, six judges and then the

nine magistrates.

Senator DEWINE. Six judges.

Judge KING. Six judges because of these other calendars that I

frankly wasn’t thinking of.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Wait a minute now. I got the numbers,

but take a case through for me. Are we switching judges here in

the middle of the stream here? I mean, Permanency Branch covers,

give me the list of what you cover. You cover——

Judge KING. Permanency branch is abuse.

Senator DEWINE. Abuse. Adoption. Neglect.

Judge KING. Then have you an adoption calendar. A termination

of parental rights calendar.

Senator DEWINE. Well, now wait a minute now. The termination.

You say calendar.

Judge KING. That means a judge presiding over those cases.

Senator DEWINE. Well, how could—why would, why, you mean

you would have a different judge—let us say a case comes in, allegation of a child has been abused, okay. Judge makes a determination, got to take the child out of the home for a while. Takes the

child out of the home. Comes up every so much, you review the

case. You are working with children’s services. That judge, Judge

X is doing that. Okay. Now, are you saying that at some point

when you are getting ready to terminate rights and that goes to a

different judge? I must be confused.
109

Judge WALTON. It might.

Senator DEWINE. Well, why in the world would that happen?

Judge WALTON. For legal reasons. A party may believe and may

file a motion for a judge who has handled that matter throughout

the process to recuse him or herself in reference to the termination

issue because they may believe that the judge has already formed

opinions about the parents and therefore the parents may feel that

they may not receive a fair adjudication before that particular

judge, so they may move to have that judge——

Senator DEWINE. Well, are those automatically granted?

Judge WALTON. They would not automatically be granted.

Senator DEWINE. I would hope not. I mean, it is the one person

in the court system who knows what’s going on. You have lived

with this mom and dad, who are no good for 4 or 5 years and you

finally come to the conclusion based on all the evidence that they

are never going to be any damn good. And this kid never can live

there.

Judge WALTON. That is very true.

Senator DEWINE. Now, we are going to get another judge. I am

not blaming you, Judge. I just think it would be absurd if they do

that.

Judge WALTON. We would hope, we would hope that would not

be the case. But we also have a Court of Appeals that we have to

answer to. And we have due process.

Senator DEWINE. But what you are telling me is that would not

automatically switch over?

Judge WALTON. It would not.

Judge KING. No. The notion of——

Senator DEWINE. So the one judge could take that case basically

all the way through.

Judge WALTON. We would hope that would be the norm.

Judge KING. That is the desired response.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. I get it.

Senator LANDRIEU. Could I jump in here too, and I really appreciate the chairman’s leeway. Normally we kind of do questions 10

minutes and 10 minutes.

Senator DEWINE. It is a lot easier this way.

Senator LANDRIEU. It is a lot easier this way. And he and I have

so many similar views. But I just want to say how concerned I am

about the statements about—that were just made about children

moving from either abuse judges then to adoption judges, then to

termination judges. I think that as we work through this process,

if we could get back to what Judge Grossman said, regardless of

whether we have it integrated or separated, or how it is established, the most important, one of the most important pillars that

I understand reform, and I could be wrong, but I have done this

a lot around the country in my own State, is that it is so important

for the same case to be handled throughout its entire many different stages by the same judge. But frequently, there will be cases

of abuse that turn into cases of adoption or cases of abuse that turn

into cases of reunification or cases of abuse that turn into termination of rights plus adoption and then post-adoption services.

So I hope that we could think, and I know you have spent a lot

of time thinking about your proposal, but I just have to say, Mr.
110

Chairman, that that is worrisome to me. I just have to say, Mr.

Chairman, that I hope we can revisit the issue of the structure so

that one goal we reach, whatever the numbers are, whatever the

training is, whatever the term time of the judges and magistrates,

is that we try to keep the children in the same, before the same

judge—the families before the same judge so that that 18 months

that we have put into effect as law, and I want to say to the chairman, I know he feels this way, but I have every intention as a cosponsor of that legislation of making that 18 months the outside

limit of what a child has to go through to be outside their biological

family. So they are either going to be back with their family and

we are going to hopefully have services around the country to support it, or they are going to be with a new family.

Senator DEWINE. And let me just add, I totally agree with your

comments. The continuity is absolutely vital in my opinion. And I

must also, Mary, comment about the time limit. I mean, my experience, well, what I have seen is unfortunately the time limit is becoming, it flips and instead of being, the maximum as we intended

it to be, it is sort of like everyone says, well, we have got 18

months. And that is just, I am not talking about the District. I am

talking about around the country, and it is a problem and I do not

know how we are going to deal with that, but I think this Congress

frankly has to revisit that.

Judge KING. If I may?

Senator DEWINE. It is just becoming, I have seen too many counties in my home State of Ohio where it is just, oh, that is just 18

months and whatever the time period is, we got that long, let us

not worry about it.

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes.

Judge KING. If I may address, because the concern I understand

is very real. I do not want to leave here with a misunderstanding.

Our vision is that a magistrate picks up a case and that is, that

case belongs to that magistrate until it is closed by a permanency

decision. But we can’t abandon due process. We can’t abandon the

law, and that will require sometimes a contested trial.

Let me also make sure that everybody understands, TPR is when

you have a contested situation where you may already have, for example, an incipient adoption ready to go. You have made all those

services, but you need to deal with a contested termination of parental rights situation.

Senator DEWINE. Right.

Judge KING. Where you may be unable to do it by consent. That

has to be done and sometimes due process is going to require that

that be done outside one magistrate. But the design is not to have

people going from magistrate to magistrate or judge to judge.

Senator LANDRIEU. So the case would stay with the magistrate.

It would not be moved, regardless of whether it is abuse or neglect,

termination, reunification, adoption.

Senator DEWINE. It is the same kid.

Senator LANDRIEU. Same kid. Same magistrate. Same family.

But under your plan, you are proposing they may see a different

judge at a different calendar, like an adoption calendar.

Judge KING. Yes. If it is necessary for due process reasons or

because——
111

Senator DEWINE. But that will not show up automatically. That

won’t flip over automatically?

Judge KING. No.

Senator DEWINE. That would have to be a motion in court. Somebody is coming in and saying——

Judge KING. Exactly right.

Senator DEWINE. Obviously Judge King is prejudiced, he has

ruled against me 18 times in a row, obviously he hates me.

Judge KING. Then if it does go over, far better to have that in

the Permanency Branch, where you have got judges who are still

in the work and up to speed and knowing what’s going on.

Senator DEWINE. Judge Grossman? Just jump in here, all of you,

Judge Walton, we are pretty informal today.

Judge GROSSMAN. One thing that will help this Permanency

Branch concept is if there is one judge who is in fact the presiding

administrative judge of that branch, one of these six is one judge

who is in charge and probably envisions being there for the long

pull.

Senator DEWINE. Why does that matter?

Judge GROSSMAN. Well, that will add stability and responsibility

to that section. I hear Judge King saying well, you are going to

have to have some contested cases that will move to a judge. That

isn’t necessarily the law. You know, across the country, we have

this same problem, and in fact, again, in my own court, the magistrates handle contested, uncontested, you name it. It doesn’t matter. It is a matter of what you clothe them with in the way of authority. So you can do this in different ways, but you need to look

carefully at the authority you have given to the magistrates here

in Washington, D.C.

Senator DEWINE. Well, let us talk about that a minute. That is

an interesting question. How much authority do the magistrates

have? Can they take this case all the way? Is there something to

stop that from happening? Is there something in the law that is

written or——

Judge WALTON. We would have to change the law to the extent

that there would not be a requirement of consent by the parties for

the magistrate to handle certain matters.

Senator DEWINE. The law is now what? Explain to me what it

is now. What do you have to have consent for?

Judge WALTON. There has to be consent of the parties for the

magistrate to handle certain types of matters.

Senator DEWINE. What would those be, Judge?

Judge WALTON. Clearly there would have to be a consent in reference to adoption and termination.

Senator DEWINE. What would those—do you know what those

are, though? Where you have to get, the magistrate can’t hear the

case unless there is consent of the parties?

Judge WALTON. I have to go back specifically and look at the legislation.

Senator DEWINE. Judge King?

Judge KING. It would include a contested adoption trial or TPR

trial. It would include other things unrelated to the civil trials and

criminal trials.
112

Senator DEWINE. Let me ask, well, what’s your opinion about

that?

Judge KING. For the Permanency Branch, our expectation is we

would change so that the magistrate would have full authority

without consent. Parental consent. I think what Judge Grossman

has in mind and what we have in mind is very much the same.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, quite candidly, I know I will shock the

judges in this room, but I would assume that the magistrates can

handle these cases as well as the judges can.

Senator LANDRIEU. Do not tell the judges that.

Judge KING. That is probably true.

Senator DEWINE. I mean in all seriousness, if they have got the

expertise. You hired them. They got to be good.

Judge GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, in my court, that is true. The

magistrates know their stuff.

Senator DEWINE. I mean that is what they are going to do every

day. I mean quite frankly, Judge, one of the things that I like

about this is I get to understand it better, the permanency of the

magistrates and the expertise of the magistrates. It seems to me

that that is going to be the saving grace even if you have trouble

keeping—if it turns out under your proposal that no judge can

stand it for more than 3 years. I mean even assuming you get a

lot of movement up here which you do not want, but the saving

grace is going to be you got the magistrates sitting down there who

are going to do that every day and they are going to develop the

expertise and they are going to be able to do it, so I guess as we

look at what you are planning on doing, it seems to me that the

more flexibility you can give yourselves—I mean, there is nothing

to stop you from pulling the case up, I guess, but you know, it

seemed to me that you would want to be in a position where that

magistrate can handle just the bulk of this stuff, if not all of it, and

then if you decide that is not working, you want to pull some of

these up, you can, I suppose, do it. But I would let that magistrate

have an awful lot of authority.

Judge KING. That is exactly what we have in mind, and in fact,

what I see, and I think we are still, some of this, you understand,

we are still refining and looking at and developing as we go on.

Senator DEWINE. That is why we are talking.

Judge KING. I appreciate that. What I see is the magistrate

would ordinarily take the case and we would need the law changed

to make sure that the magistrate had full authority to do that. The

judge would take selected cases where there were unusual—maybe

contempt issues or systemic issues with the agency or something

like that. But otherwise the magistrate is the beginning and end

of that case.

The other thing I did want to point out, if a case did go out to

a separate adoption or TPR calendar, it doesn’t leave the magistrate. It goes out there for that contested proceeding, but the

magistrate remains responsible for the supervision of the case. Is

the child in the right placement or are the right educational services in place, or the right counseling services and the like. That all

continues under any circumstances with the same magistrate.

Judge WALTON. And this would be a new system where the case

would be handled by one judicial officer from beginning to end, and
113

at some point we are going to have to test the waters and see what

the Court of Appeals will sayif we have an objection.

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Judge WALTON. And that objection is overruled, to what extent

the Court of Appeals is going to take a contrary position if the

judge keeps the case.

Senator DEWINE. Right. I guess my only point is that you know

as you draft this, the law should be as flexible as possible. You always have the Court of Appeals who can look down and say well,

you know, obviously there is prejudice here and there is appearance and they should have gotten a new judge. That is life. But you

are right. It seems to me to get as much flexibility as you can so

these cases can remain right with that magistrate. Mary, do you

have anything else on this?

Senator LANDRIEU. No.

Senator DEWINE. If we are done, I want to move to another—I

am very much appreciative of one’s indulgence, and I think that it

looks to me as if with the caveats that I have stated, I think that

by and large it makes sense, your approach here with the magistrates and with the way you have it set up with the permanency

unit. I mean, obviously what our goal is, everyone’s goal is to get

the continuity and get the expertise. It is continuity and expertise.

Let me talk a little bit or ask you a little bit about training. The

training that you talk about in the plan, is that cross-training? In

other words, are you involving the other disciplines at the same

time?

Judge KING. Yes. In fact we, in fact we just——

Senator DEWINE. I mean all the different players.

Judge KING. That’s right. And actually, one of the things that we

have talked very preliminarily about with some of the agency people, and one of the things as you understand, Olivia Goldman was

just selected as the new head of Child and Family Services. She actually assumed her duties yesterday morning, so I have not yet had

time to set up the lunch that I intend to set up to explore with her

how we can work together in a way that gets us off on a footing

to let us do our planning together. We have some separation of

powers, demarcation lines. We’ll honor those, but that doesn’t prevent us from rolling up our sleeves and figuring out how we can

do this together.

Senator DEWINE. Do you have the money to do that in this proposal?

Judge KING. Some of it will be needed, additional money. We

have it in the proposal.

Senator DEWINE. You have included that in the——

Judge KING. Yes. That’s correct. I particularly picked up on your

point, on cross-discipline training. We just completed training on

the psychology and sociology of persons at risk for abuse—for abusing children. I think judges and others working with children in

this context need to have not just legal training. We, of course, do

need that, but we also need to understand the profiles of the

human beings who are involved in this system and how we can better understand what the dynamics are.

Senator DEWINE. Judge Grossman, any comments on training in

your experience in Hamilton County? Anything to do or not to do?
114

Judge GROSSMAN. Well, your comment, Mr. Chairman, of crosstraining is extremely important. And the bringing in to this process

the people that are going to be assisting the court in their handling

of these cases is very important. There is no closer connection that

needs to be made between the judges and human services than sitting down together on a regular basis. We did it in Cincinnati once

a week for a long time and now we don’t have to do it quite so

often.

Just working through the problems of getting the systems to

mesh, and the only way to do that effectively is for the tops on both

sides to sit down together and talk frankly about what’s holding

the train up. And then, of course, the training will follow under

that, and by the way, in the training process, as you are going to

also develop a sense of who might be a good recruit for your court

staffs or your court magistrates or your court people. You are going

to find that, you are going to find some good people in that process.

Senator LANDRIEU. Could I just jump in and say that this is a

really, I think it strikes me as a wonderful opportunity with Ms.

Goldman now coming in as a new leader on basically the District

side and once, Mr. Chairman, we hopefully will move forward and

identify the senior judge over this permanency and family—to have

their chief administrative officers identified and work as a team to

help us really implement the reforms that we hope will be passed

and reflected in this legislation, because as you know, it is more

than just drafting and passing. It is the implementation where the

rubber really hits the road, and I hope we would just keep that in

our minds as we move forward. That strong administrative support, working together, just as you said, to make this new system

really come to life more quickly, sooner than later because literally

lives are at stake and we do not have a lot of time. So I am very

encouraged by that.

Judge GROSSMAN. Senator, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu,

there is another advantage. One of the things we found in our

court when we started our, our pathway to fixing our system is the

problem of placing blame, and the court had to admit its own

faults. You cannot try to get other people to do things right.

Senator LANDRIEU. The blame game doesn’t work.

Judge GROSSMAN. Right. If you are not willing to say look, we

are part of the problem. And when you get together, you get the

chiefs together and you say look, it isn’t just you that is doing it,

we are all in this, so the blame game drops out, and you start saying hey, we are all in the same track. We need to work together.

We all have enough problems that we need to look at, and that

process is helped immeasurably by that.

Judge KING. If I might mention the, current buzz word co-location; we contemplate providing space for representatives of all of

the city agencies that would be involved in providing necessary

services to children and families. That way when you are in court

deciding, for example, we need an educational assessment, instead

of saying go talk to a social worker some indefinite time in the future, can you say step out of the back of the courtroom. If you will

turn left the second door on your right, go in there, there is a person who will sign you up. Go in and get the appointment you need

and get the change going. We plan to do that with the CFSA, Pub-
115

lic Schools, the Department of Housing, all of the agencies that are

critical.

Senator LANDRIEU. That would be excellent if we could fashion

something like that. How do you want to do the vote?

Senator DEWINE. Well, how much more——

Senator LANDRIEU. Why don’t you go vote and I stay.

Senator DEWINE. There are 2 votes. Why don’t we push ahead

here for another 5 minutes, see how we can cover——

Senator LANDRIEU. I do have a few questions, but go ahead.

Senator DEWINE. Tell me a little bit about the IJIS. Judge, you

used it in Hamilton County, the system, is that right? And Judge,

you are into it now?

Judge GROSSMAN. That’s right.

Senator DEWINE. How should it work? What’s it do for you?

Judge GROSSMAN. Our information system?

Senator DEWINE. Yes. What’s it do for you?

Judge GROSSMAN. Well, not only does it keep docketing systems

in order, it also has case histories and the whole background of the

individual child, the individual family that stands up in front of the

sitting magistrate or the sitting judge on his screen.

Every court has computers in it. We are now at the point where

we actually have cameras in the court where we can actually tape

the whole process, and get everybody’s on a videodisc, you know.

And I would invite all of you to come and kind of look at what we

have got because it might be helpful as you set up. They are not

cheap to start with, about $40,000 a courtroom to get everything

you need put into it in the way that you need in the way of an information system, but once you got it, you got it.

Senator LANDRIEU. But is this something unique to Ohio, Mr.

Chairman, or is this a system that has been developed that is off

the shelf software, pretty much, that many courts are using?

Judge GROSSMAN. No. No. Every court is sufficiently unique,

every jurisdiction, that they cannot just take it off the shelf. You

are going to have to do some development on your own now. Obviously, you can use some systems as a guide or as a base to start

with, but do not try to put in a system that is going to be one size

fits all. It won’t work. You need to let the Washington, D.C. courts

really take the lead in developing their system.

Senator DEWINE. Judge, where are you on this?

Judge KING. We are at the point where we actually have had a

needs analysis done for our entire court system. We are like many

State courts, we have a patchwork of systems so we have got 18

different database systems that do not communicate with each

other and many of them are difficult to use and outdated. We have

done a study to set out the parameters, what it is we need. The

recommendation coming out of that is that we do just what Judge

Grossman says, take advantage of the off the shelf items, which

have come a long way, to the extent possible and then build on that

platform.

And my commitment from the beginning has been that as soon

as we are given any funding to proceed with that—we patched it

together and sort of strung along on grant money, but as soon as

we are given the serious, I think it is between $1.5 and $2.6 million

that we need for the Family Division piece of it, that is where we
116

will get started. We will get this platform built. Ultimately, what

I want to see is a system that encompasses the entire court system

so that a magistrate sitting in an abuse case will be able to immediately and easily figure out, well, is there a landlord/tenant issue

that’s holding things up here that could be resolved in a way and

that type of thing.

Senator DEWINE. Judge, Congress did appropriate $2.5 million

for this. Where is that?

Judge KING. It had a—this was, I think a couple of years ago.

We were zeroed out last year.

Senator DEWINE. 2000 budget.

Judge KING. That’s right.

Senator DEWINE. 2000 budget, $2.5 million.

Judge KING. The language said, this is before my tenure, so I do

not know all of the details, but as I understand it, the language

read ‘‘up to $2.5 million’’. It didn’t say 2.5, and because we were

faced with other emergencies in the CJA funding, did not use the

money at that point.

Senator DEWINE. Okay, so that money, that $2.5 million was

never used?

Judge KING. That’s right. And it said ‘‘up to’’, though, and that

is the problem. I would hope that in this we would have a clear

sense of what’s earmarked and what’s not. If there is something

earmarked for technology, then that is my wish.

Senator DEWINE. Your total request for this is what, though?

Judge KING. For the entire system courtwide is $7.2 million from

where we are now. Minus some grant money, which I think brings

it down to maybe $5.9 or $6, somewhere in there.

Senator LANDRIEU. But this piece of it is——

Judge KING. Family piece is $2.6 million total, and I think we

have some grants which will bring that down a little bit in order

to complete the Family piece, and you understand what I want to

do is build the——

Senator LANDRIEU. Family piece first.

Judge KING. Piece of the platform, but the platform has to be

consistent with what we are later going to do, so we will build the

Family out so that is complete and ready to go, but we will do it

in a way that we can then add on in a consistent fashion so that

we then end up with the entire system.

Senator DEWINE. We have two votes. I think we better come

back. What do you want to do? We have got—I have got some more

questions. Can you all hang with us for a while?

Senator LANDRIEU. About 15 minutes. We will take a 15-minute

break.

Senator DEWINE. Mary is a lot more optimistic than I am,

but——

Judge KING. I have testified, please take your time.

Senator LANDRIEU. We will vote fast and we will try to come

back.

Senator DEWINE. We will see you all in 15 or 20 minutes.

Senator DEWINE. We will get started. Senator Landrieu is on her

way. I just have a few more questions. Just so I understand, Judge,

your understanding is that that, the facts are that $2.5 million just

was never spent at all then?
117

Judge KING. One thing—it slipped my mind, and in fact I was

engaged, I was one of the slowdown guys. Part of the reason we

didn’t spend it is we weren’t ready. We didn’t have the planning

in place and I have always been an advocate of advance planning,

we aren’t going to spend this money until we can spend it wisely,

so it was partly we weren’t ready to go in that direction. We did

do some of it. I think we ultimately ended up spending $350,000

or something that year. But it was spent—I think we had a, an

emergency need in the CJA funding, for good or ill. Again, this

wasn’t my decision.

Senator DEWINE. CJA is what?

Judge KING. I am sorry. Criminal Justice Act. Compensating

lawyers for indigent defense. We had to cover that, and so we did.

Senator DEWINE. That is how you did it.

Judge KING. And that is how we did it. So the money was spent

properly and we apparently misread the intent of the language

that said ‘‘up to’’, and one of the things I am very hopeful is that

as we go forward from here, now it is my watch, and I want to be

sure that we stay in touch enough so that if there is an intent that

we spend that type of money——

Senator DEWINE. But you would be ready to roll fairly quickly?

Judge KING. That’s correct. We are ready now.

BACKLOG

Senator DEWINE. Let me talk about the backlog. I think Judge

Walton and Judge King, I think you both talked a little bit about

the backlog, at least in your prepared statement. What do you

mean by backlog? I mean, what constitutes a backlog and what are

you going to do about it? But what is it, first of all?

Judge WALTON. We do not call it a backlog. The older cases, the

cases that are currently in the system post-disposition that are currently being supervised and reviewed by judges, and as I indicated,

that number is about 4,500 cases. That is a real difficult problem

for us to deal with, and we believe that to transfer those cases back

to the newly created Permanency Branch would impede the ability

of the new Permanency Branch to handle new cases that are coming in.

Senator DEWINE. Give me an example, though. Just make up

one example.

Judge WALTON. Of a case that is difficult?

Senator DEWINE. Well, of a—Judge King in his prepared statement said, let me read it to you. ‘‘Most of the 4,500 children for

whom the court is responsible are unlikely to be adopted. It will

be very difficult to place many of them in permanent homes. The

majority of children enter the system at age 7 or older, when adoption is unlikely.’’ Are these the kids we are talking about in this?

Judge KING. If I can jump in, since that is my statement, I realized after, as you know, we have been on a very fast track. I do

not mean by that, that every effort wouldn’t be made to get them

adopted. We certainly go in with the attitude that in—any case as

far as we are concerned—this case is going to reach a permanency

closure in a reasonable time. What I meant by that statement is

that we do need to be realistic that some of these cases do have

real challenges in them and we shouldn’t plan on or build a struc-
118

ture that would be overwhelmed if our expectation of a very rapid

drop in the caseload weren’t realized because some of the cases are

problemmatic.

I can give you an example of a child who had severe learning disabilities who was Hispanic speaking. There was a very good foster

care situation. The readily available resources included a Hispanic

school and a special school, but not the two together. And so there

had to be a very expensive private education option taken which

could not have been done under the existing adoption subsidies.

So now we are stuck with these foster parents who would love

to adopt that child and close the case and be on with their lives,

but out of love for the child, they cannot do that because the best

interests of the child would be frustrated if they did that. So it is

that kind of situation where there are just issues that aren’t necessarily going to neatly get packaged up and resolved quickly. But

we need to. Obviously with more resources, I hope the caseload will

drop in half in a reasonable period of time. But we do not want to

build a structure which would have no safety valve or no ability to

cope with a situation where the caseload didn’t drop right away,

and that it took some time to get it worked out.

Senator DEWINE. Judge Grossman?

Judge GROSSMAN. I think when you speak about backlog or the

current cases that are in the pipeline, it will be important, first of

all, to elect a date upon which your new process begins, so that the

backlog or the old cases are not simply added to it. You do not push

more over in that direction, so that is the first important step. Set

a date. Move your new system forward at that date with the new

filings.

The older cases, it has been the experience across the country

where you start looking carefully at all of those older cases and as

Judge King says, you start trying to solve them. Each one may

have a little different glitch in it or little different problem, but you

try to solve it and work at it, and the experience has been that in

fact the shrinkage occurs in a relatively, I do not want to say fast

way, but in a relatively efficient way. Those cases are not nearly

as intransigent in general as the number would seem to indicate.

You’ll find that you can work them to get into some form of permanency, to get them into some form of stable situation where they

come off the court’s calendar.

Senator DEWINE. In the example that you gave, are you saying

that basically the permanent situation is that this child is going to

be in this home, he is going to be—for economic reasons cannot

really be adopted, and that child is going to be in that home until

he or she leaves?

Judge KING. That’s right. And now that might be listed as an extended foster care situation, but in fact, there is bonding, and the

child is part of that family.

Senator DEWINE. In fact, you have resolved that case as best as

you can.

Judge KING. As best as we can. That’s correct.

Senator DEWINE. What do you do with it then? You put this over

in a different category?

Judge KING. Under law, as long as it is in foster care, we have

to review it twice a year under supervision.
119

Judge GROSSMAN. You need a category, like some people call it

permanent guardianship, some people call it permanent custody.

There is a system in many States, in ours and many others, where

you simply have a category that says to this family with whom this

child has bonded, it is your child. You have authority over that

child. You have custody permanently, and you cut off the court’s review.

Judge WALTON. I have a case almost exactly like Judge King described. The problem is that the money is available to provide the

educational resources for this child who also is severely learning

disabled and in the foster care process, but if we went to guardianship or if we went to some other type of arrangement, funding at

that level would not be available so the child could not remain in

the most appropriate educational setting.

Senator DEWINE. Which also tells those of us in Congress that

we got a problem with the law, but that is long-term. We do.

Judge KING. My thought is that if the different options, whether

it is permanent guardianship or permanent custody or adoption, if

they could be rendered revenue neutral, so that whatever is available, whatever you do and you close it, the revenue is the same for

people who step in.

Senator DEWINE. I mean the reality is the local jurisdiction

ought to have the option to make the decisions, whether it is, you

know, however you label the child shouldn’t be the determining factor. The child should be the determining factor. We are not going

to solve that today, but that is obviously the problem.

In the area of adoption, that really is not your, you are not the

moving force in that, though? You are the receiving player. I mean,

in other words, in the D.C. system, it is not your responsibility, is

it, to go out and find adoptive homes for these kids?

Judge KING. No. Of course, it is our responsibility to see that

that effort is being made.

Senator DEWINE. Well, but what do you do in this area? What

is your responsibility? Where are the lines drawn? I mean, obviously you have to hear the case, but—but what do you do beyond

that?

Judge WALTON. At the review hearing, we will instruct the social

worker to advise us as to what efforts have been taken to find an

appropriate adoptive or preadoptive home for the child, and that is

really the best that we can do. But we cannot initiate adoption proceedings. We cannot go out, as you say, and find adoptive parents.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, at the last hearing we did hear some

statistics about what the District has been doing, but that really

is not, you are not the moving people there.

Judge WALTON. No. But we do play a role. I mean, we have increased the number of adoptions significantly within the court system, so the court system does play a role in expediting those cases

that are actually brought before us for adoption. I think we have

done a fairly good job at doing that.

Senator DEWINE. Anything else that any of you would like to

make us aware of today? I think it has been a good hearing, and

I thank you for coming in. I thank you for your patience. You

know, we obviously want to work with you, and we obviously want

to help you try to get the funds to try to get the job done. Judge?
120

Judge GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would offer the good offices

of the National Council of Juvenile Family Court Judges for the

model courts projects, for all of the work that we have done in the

area of technical assistance. We stand at the ready to help the

Washington courts. We stand at the ready to do anything we can

to be of assistance in furthering this process. I know, Senator, you

are well aware of that work. I just want to make that known.

Senator DEWINE. Well you are a great resource, Judge. You are

personally. And the organization is, too. But we—we will utilize the

expertise that you have.

Judge WALTON. I would just like to say publicly that we do thank

Judge Grossman for his efforts. He has always been willing to

speak to us and provide us with sound assistance in trying to solve

our difficulties, and I also want to thank you personally, because

change sometimes is difficult, and sometimes it is painful to reach

that point, but I think the scrutiny that you have shown to this

issue has forced us to look critically at what we are doing, and I

think ultimately it will result in a better product.

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu?

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And he was much

better getting back from this vote than I was. Let the record reflect

that. But I am glad I was here just to personally thank you all for

your good work and say how much I look forward to working with

you, as I said, in my opening statement, I think that the document

that you have presented is a good working document. It is a good

step, and as we negotiate this between the House and the Senate,

and Democrat and Republican, looking at this, I think there is a

lot of common ground into how we will shape this reform.

We intend, though, for it to be very meaningful, very real, have

as an immediate impact as possible. I want to assure you that with

every step of reform that we work with you on, I will do my very

best to help provide, and I know the chairman will, the resources

to make that real. And Judge Grossman, I want to thank you for

giving us some help and expertise and for your testimony about

there is no magic way, but there are some magic principles that

need to be adhered to for the courts to work, whether it is D.C. or

Ohio or Louisiana, and as much as we can adhere to those magic

principles, I think that those children and families of Washington

will be well served. And I would just hope, Mr. Chairman, we will

have some follow-up time.

But in the record I want to just reiterate my strong support for

the role of CASA and the workers and the volunteers. I wanted to

say because I didn’t get my questions about how important I think

it is for mediation by the courts and the system to facilitate families, extended families making the best decisions for the children

and families as possible.

And I think sometimes across the country, we have used a very

adversarial approach unnecessarily, and that this is a chance for

us to create and pioneer in some aspects a new model where we

are facilitators of helping to strengthen and encourage families to

make the best decisions for the long-term benefit of the children in

their care and for the parent or parents or guardians involved. So

I just think the chairman raised some excellent questions about the

role of training and the role of the magistrates and compensation
121

and term limits of the judges and look forward to working with you

all in the process.

Judge KING. Thank you both, Mr. Chairman, and Senator

Landrieu. I think the focus by the Congress has been a critical element in accelerating the pace, and in extending the depth of the

reform effort that we are going to be able to undertake, and I particularly welcome the signals that you seem to be sending that you

recognize the importance of resources to do this work right.

And——

Senator DEWINE. Well Judge, we intend to try to get you the resources.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Judge KING. I very much appreciate that, and I appreciate, I also

want to say I appreciate the informal ‘‘give and take’’ of this hearing. I think it is been a very constructive dialogue, and I hope we

have been able to clarify some of your questions.

Senator DEWINE. Good. We will continue to work together.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Judge.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUDGE DAVID E. GROSSMAN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

REDUCTION IN CASELOAD AND LENGTH OF STAY FOR CHILDREN

Question. What court practices and resources have had the biggest impact on both

the caseload reduction and length of time children spend in the child welfare system?

Answer. In the 1980’s the Hamilton County Juvenile Court created a dependency

department and implemented numerous reforms to reduce the number of children

in agency foster care and their lengths of stay. We are not able to empirically separate the impact of individual reforms to determine which had the greatest impact.

The court, however, views the following reforms as foundational to the success

achieved.

The 1980’s also marked a major change in the role of the court in handling child

abuse, neglect and dependency cases. Prior to implementing reforms, the court

largely rubber-stamped agency requests and reviewed cases infrequently. The court

played a minor, insignificant role in the management of these cases.

The court shifted from playing a passive role to actively managing cases and accepting responsibility to hold itself and other stakeholders accountable for achieving

the goal of timely permanence for children. This was achieved by holding early, substantive hearings as well as scheduling frequent and thorough reviews of the cases.

The purpose of more rigorous court oversight was to make certain that cases were

adjudicated in a timely manner, that appropriate services were provided, and that

cases were moved through the system expeditiously.

With these changes, the court also implemented a system of assigning one magistrate to hear each case from beginning to end. The principle of ‘‘one family-one

magistrate’’ was, and continues to be, a crucial component of our system. It allows

one magistrate to thoroughly understand the facts of a case and the needs of the

parents and children over a series of hearings. It gives each magistrate a sense of

ownership and accountability for the handling of the case. It also allows the court

to speak with a single voice and convey consistent messages and expectations to the

parties.

Finally, the court worked to develop a collaborative relationship with our local

child welfare agency. Although reforms were initially met with resistance by our

local children’s services agency, the court over time was able to establish a working

relationship with the agency and this has been important to the achieving successful results. The court met frequently with agency administrators over the years to

address systemic issues and problems that have been identified through the hearing

process and through the court’s management information system. The court facilitates quarterly meetings with the judges, court administrator and each director of

the stakeholder agencies to address policy issues that impact the child welfare sys-
122

tem. Monthly meetings are scheduled with the deputy chief magistrate in dependency and the upper level management from each stakeholder agency to address

daily, systemic issues in effort to achieve best practice in this area.

Question. What role does information technology play in the administration of

your court today-specifically in regard to case management, accountability and information sharing across agencies? Do you follow any specific standards for performance and accountability, such as the National Center for State Court’s performance

standards or new mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act? What impact

has the court’s information system had on the allocation of support personnel?

Answer. The court continues to collect an extensive array of data concerning each

child who enters the court system. The data collected includes:

—identification of the parent and child problems that brought the case to court;

—identification of each child’s demographic profile, as well as the child’s psychological, physical and educational needs;

—tracking of each child’s placements; and

—tracking of how each case moves through the judicial system from the initial

adjudication and disposition through changes in legal status until the child

leaves the system. The information is tracked for the court as a whole and by

individual hearing officer.

The management information system is used to accomplish the following: determine the staffing needs of the court; allocate cases among magistrates; monitor compliance with statutory timeframes and internal guidelines; hold dependency stakeholders accountable; and identify problem areas or barriers to timely permanence

for children. Our court distributes annual reports to the media, service providers

and the community, which allows outside sources to evaluate the process and to determine resource needs.

The case information is reviewed periodically. Although the court has not adopted

specific standards for performance and accountability that have been promulgated

by other organizations, the court does regularly examine the following trends:

—the number of complaints that are filed and the initial dispositions of those

complaints;

—the number of complaints filed that involve reactivated cases;

—the number of complaints that are pending for more than 90 days before adjudication and an initial dispositional order is made;

—the number of motions for termination of parental rights that are pending for

more than six months;

—the number of children in each legal status and whether these numbers are increasing or decreasing;

—the number of children who enter and leave each legal status, the length of time

children remain in each legal status and the outcomes of the case when children

leave a legal status;

—the number of placements children experience; and

—the parent and child problems that bring cases to court.

Areas of concern identified through this review process are discussed within the

court and with agency administrators and other stakeholders in regularly scheduled

meetings. For example, the court recently identified problems with delays in achieving statutory timeframes for the initial adjudication and disposition of complaints.

This court took corrective actions by hiring an additional magistrate. In addition,

the court worked to increase the number of attorneys willing to serve as counsel for

parents by persuading the Public Defender’s Commission to increase the attorneys’

fees.

Court Facilities/Space

It is critical for the court to provide a respectful and enhanced environment for

the families we serve, and the Hamilton County Juvenile Court avoided the use of

conventional courtrooms as they may be intimidating to the children and families

who appear before the court. Our court elected to use smaller, more intimate settings for the dependency courtrooms in an effort to offer comfort while promoting

more open dialogue and exchange of information between the parties during the

hearings. The ‘‘one family-one magistrate’’ model allows the judicial officer to establish relationships with all the parties thereby fostering an environment of cooperation whenever possible. The intimate courtroom settings compliment this philosophical approach, and it is our belief that this environment is more conducive to

the development and implementation of timely, permanent plans for children. Each

courtroom is equipped with a silent buzzer in the event that security is need in the

courtroom. In an effort to promote privacy and to separate the parties from the delinquency cases, Hamilton County Juvenile Court has an entire floor with courtrooms that are dedicated solely for the use of dependency hearings.
123

The courtrooms must have adequate space to accommodate the judicial officer,

court staff, the agency attorney and social worker, the parents, counsel for the parents, and the guardian ad litem. Courtrooms are equipped with at least three counsel tables: one for the public children service agency; one for the parents; and one

for the guardian ad litem. Reliable recording devices are imperative to avoid delays

in obtaining transcripts for objections and appeals. We recently installed a state of

the art, computerized audio video system in each courtroom.

Coordination of Delinquency and Dependency Cases

In Hamilton County, a delinquency magistrate would hear the plea hearing and

adjudication on a delinquency or unruly offense for a child who is who is committed

to the custody or supervision of the public children service agency and subject to

the jurisdiction of the court on the dependency docket. Following the adjudication,

the court would transfer the case to the assigned dependency magistrate for the

dispositional hearing. The assigned dependency magistrate is in the best position to

impose a sentence and to make decisions concerning placement and services for the

child. This policy is also consistent with the ‘‘one family-one magistrate’’ philosophy

of our court for the following reasons:

—The dependency magistrate has the long-term perspective of the case and is

thoroughly familiar with the needs of the children and the families on the docket;

—The dependency magistrate is in a better position to identify patterns of behavior over a period of time, to assess the efficacy of interventions employed in the

past and to select the most appropriate intervention or consequence for the

child on the delinquency or unruly offense that is before the court; and

—The dependency magistrate is in a position to deliver consistent messages and

expectations to the child and the family from the bench.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUDGE RUFUS G. KING III

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS MIKE DEWINE AND SENATOR MARY L.

LANDRIEU

PERMANENCY BRANCH

Question. Could you please provide a diagram of judges and magistrates for the

different branches of the Family Division that was discussed during the hearing on

May 16, 2001? In the diagram, indicate the responsibilities of the different judges

as well as the magistrates, especially in regard to the Permanency Branch. It would

also be beneficial if you would provide a cost in salary for the staff including judges

and magistrates.

Answer. Attachment A provides a diagram of judges and magistrates for the different branches of the Family Division as envisioned by the Court’s Family Division

Reform Plan. Attachment B, estimated resource summary included in the Court’s

Family Division Reform Plan submitted to Congress in early May, lists the positions

and costs (in salary and benefits) for the judicial and non-judicial staff needed to

fully implement the Plan. As you will note, we estimate approximately $5.2 million

in salaries and benefits will be required.

ATTACHMENT B.—Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch

Reforms

Staffing (Recurring Costs):

Judges and Support Staff:

3 Judges (i.e., for additional calendars for: Neglect,

Guardianships and Permanency in Neglect; TPR/Adoptions) ..................................................................................... $539,772

3 Law Clerks ............................................................................ 149,865

3 Judicial Secretaries .............................................................. 164,988

3 Courtroom Clerks ................................................................. 136,359

3 Calendar Clerks ................................................................... 111,474

Total (15) .............................................................................. 1,102,458

Magistrate Judges and Case Management Teams (3 teams):

9 Magistrate Judges ................................................................ 1,489,770

3 Special Masters .................................................................... 326,853

3 Case Coordinators ................................................................ 164,988
124

ATTACHMENT B.—Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch

Reforms—Continued

2 Attorney Advisors ................................................................. 156,764

3 Law Clerks ............................................................................ 149,865

6 Secretaries ............................................................................ 272,718

9 Courtroom Clerks ................................................................. 409,077

9 Calendar Clerks ................................................................... 334,422

3 Calendar Coordinators ......................................................... 150,165

Total (47) .............................................................................. 3,454,622

Family Court and ADR Support Staff:

2 Family ADR Case Managers ............................................... 99,910

2 File Clerks ............................................................................ 53,626

1 Calendar Clerk ..................................................................... 37,158

1 CCAN Reappointments Clerk ............................................. 37,158

1 CCAN Eligibility Clerk ........................................................ 37,158

1 ADR Secretary ...................................................................... 45,453

Total (8) ................................................................................ 310,463

IT and Other Support Staff:

1 Database Administrator ...................................................... 1 92,624

1 Applications Manager .......................................................... 78,382

1 Database Support/Programmer ........................................... 1 78,382

1 Statistical Data Analyst ...................................................... 54,996

Total (4) ................................................................................ 304,384

Total Staffing (74) (Recurring) ........................................... 2 5,171,927

Contractual and Other (Recurring Costs):

CCAN Rate Increase ...................................................................... 1 797,000

IRS Database Support and Maintenance ..................................... 1 275,000

Mediator Stipends ($100 per session; 2 sessions per case; 2,500

cases) ............................................................................................ 3 500,000

Mediator Training (Initial training for 30 new mediators per

quarter) ........................................................................................ 50,000

Training ($12,500 judicial and $3,500 staff per quarter) ............ 60,000

Rental Space for Staff Offices ........................................................ 6,074,000

Security ........................................................................................... 284,000

Supplies, Postage and Phone ($2,762 per employee per year) .... 204,388

Total Contractual and Other (Recurring) ................................. 8,244,388

Subtotal, Recurring Costs .......................................................... 13,416,315

Less $1,263,006 Recurring Costs included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal

year 2002 Budget Request ................................................................. 12,153,309

Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-Recurring Costs):

Construction of Courtrooms, chambers, in Building B ................ 14,450,000

Capital Improvements in Buildings A & B .................................. 1 10,705,000

Relocation Costs (e.g. furnishings, moving, cabling) ................... 1,200,000

Renovate space for Family Waiting Room ($23,750 financed

with fiscal year 2001 funds) ....................................................... ...........................

Chambers/Office Furnishings and Equipment ($3,000 per employee) .......................................................................................... 222,000

Equipment:

5 Photocopiers at 10,000 each ................................................ 50,000

5 Fax Machines at $750 each ................................................. 3,750
125

ATTACHMENT B.—Resources for Child Abuse and Neglect/Permanency Branch

Reforms—Continued

IJIS (Family Module: $2,600,000; Complete System:

$7,100,000; minus $1,200,000 in grants) .................................. 3 5,900,000

Total Space, Furnishings and Equipment (Non-Recurring) 32,530,750

Less $15,305,000 Non-Recurring Costs included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget Request ........................................................... 17,225,750

Grand Total ................................................................................. 45,947,065

Less $16,568,006 included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget

Request ............................................................................................... 29,379,059

1 Included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget Request.

2Staffing costs reflect fiscal year 2001 salary plus fringe benefits at 24 percent of salary.

3Portion included in D.C. Courts’ fiscal year 2002 Budget Request: $20,000 for Mediator Stipends and $4,600,000 for IJIS (of which $1,500,000 plus grant funds are to be obligated in fiscal

year 2002 for the Family module).

Question. An IJIS will enable the court to track and properly monitor family and

other cases in which a family member may be involved. This ensures that all judges

and magistrates have access to the information necessary to make the best decisions

about placement and child safety. For Fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated $2.5

million for the IJIS. The fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill required you to provide

Congress with a plan for implementing this program. During the hearing you indicated th[at] around $600,000 of the $2.5 [million] was used, what was it used for?

Has a formal plan for implementing the IJIS system for the entire DC Superior

Court been submitted to Congress? If not, when can we expect to see the plan for

the IJIS system? What costs will be involved with its implementation?

Answer. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. No fiscal year 2000

appropriated funds were used for IJIS. To date, only grant funds have been used

on IJIS. The Court expended $350,000 of grant funds in fiscal year 2000 and will

obligate $600,000 of grant funds later this year.

Using grant monies, the Court contracted with the National Center for State

Courts (NCSC) to develop a comprehensive requirements analysis for IJIS. In the

fall of 2000, the Court submitted copies of the multi-volume requirements analysis

to Congress. Last month the Court submitted to Congressional authorizing and appropriations committees the IJIS Request for Proposals (RFP), which provides a detailed plan for the system design and requirements.

SPECIALIZATION

Question. In your proposal, when judges rotate out of the Family Division, their

cases will remain in the Family Division except under extraordinary circumstances.

What is meant by extraordinary circumstances? Furthermore, what safeguards will

be implemented to ensure that no staffing issues arise due to the crossing over of

divisions for the cases that a judge maintains?

Answer. Under the Court’s Family Division Reform Plan, all neglect and abuse

cases will remain in the Family Division and continue to be assigned to one of the

Permanency Branch teams. We are proposing that the judges who rotate out of full

time service in the Family Division be permitted to retain responsibility for certain

children whose cases present extraordinary management challenges (listed as ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ below) and where continuity with the judge as the most

consistent adult in the child’s life is necessary.

It should be noted that the turnover and caseloads of social workers in the District of Columbia are far higher than the national average and have contributed to

the need for judges to remain more involved in children’s lives for longer periods

of time. We anticipate that as social worker turnover and caseloads drop, children

will experience greater consistency of care and fewer cases will need to be retained

by judges who rotate out of the Family Division.

If additional training and resources are provided to the guardians and Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), to ensure they maintain a bond with the child

and are independently versed in the child’s needs, there will be less need for the

judge to remain the one person consistently involved with the child.

‘‘Extraordinary circumstances’’ may include the following:

—the child is a teenager and permanent placement in a family is difficult;

—the child is 14 years old or older and exercises his or her statutory right to

refuse adoption;
126

—the child is parenting a baby;

—the child is mentally ill, mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed;

—the child has a substance abuse problem for which no effective treatment is

available;

—the child frequently absconds from placements;

—the case is nearing permanency and changing judges might delay that goal;

—the child has been terminated from numerous placements and will be very difficult to place again; and/or,

—the child has developed a special bond with the judge due to the absence of continuity in other parts of the child’s life.

The number of cases a judge retains would be reduced if permanent guardianship

were included with adoption and permanent custody as a legally permissible option,

and if all of them were precisely revenue neutral—that is, all services and treatments cost exactly the same regardless of the type of placement.

CASES CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW

Question. I understand that there are around 4,500 permanency cases under review. How would your plan alleviate the backlog and how long do you estimate it

would take to properly address the backlog issue? Once the backlog gets resolved,

how will the system change with regard to staffing needs and assignments, so as

to avoid future backlog? Would new employees need to be hired? Would there be

additional costs in staff salaries?

Answer. Thank you for allowing me to clarify the Court’s position that these cases

do not constitute a ‘‘backlog’’ in the traditional sense of the word. ‘‘Backlog’’ implies

that these are cases that judges have not yet addressed. The cases you refer to are

closely followed and reviewed periodically, some as often as each month. These cases

have not reached closure for a number of reasons, which relate directly to the best

interests of the child in terms of providing long-term security and emotional stability.

To help close these cases, the Court has established a remedial project under

which a special master has been appointed to review old cases for closure opportunities. In addition, we are currently undergoing an internal review by all judges of

the entire caseload to identify those that may be closed within a year.

The Court’s Reform Plan calls for augmenting these efforts by appointing three

teams of special masters to expedite review of all pending children’s cases to re-examine whether a permanent placement is possible. I am hopeful that as many as

half of the cases can be closed by a permanent placement within a year.

In the meantime, the large number of cases pending review requires that they be

assigned to judges who are not in the Family Division, so that Family Division

judges can address the ongoing cases in Division. However, in order to assure the

most effective management and the closure of these cases as soon as possible, only

judges who ask to retain the cases and who are willing to take ongoing training will

be permitted to do so. I believe this is the best approach using currently available

personnel and resources to meet the needs of those children for whom a permanent

home has not been found.

Under the Family Court Reform Plan, the bulk of the additional resources will

be directed to the growing number of children coming to the Court for the first time.

Most of the 74 new employees and estimated $45.9 million in the Court’s request

would be used to staff, equip and house teams of judges and magistrates to resolve

new cases. Attachment B contains a detailed list of the resources necessary to implement the Reform Plan. Closely focused attention early in each child’s case will

help expedite permanent placement for these children. The requested resources are

critical to the success of the Reform Plan.

PERMANENCY PLANNING

Question. In your opening statement, you refer to the abundance of hard to place

children currently in the system—specifically children who enter the system at age

seven or older, children who are HIV positive or neonatal drug-addicted, and children with emotional or behavioral issues. For all of these children, it would be difficult to find them adoptive homes. If adoption is not an option, what other permanency options exist for these children?

Answer. If adoption is unavailable, permanent custody and guardianship are preferred where safe and feasible. However, lack of adequate subsidies sometimes make

use of these options more difficult. Independent living programs, group homes and

residential institutions are among other alternative options.

Question. What is the court’s plan to expedite establishing permanency plans for

these children in compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)?
127

Answer. The Court plans to expedite the establishment of permanency plans for

these children under ASFA by devoting more judicial and staff time and attention

and by establishing a team-based approach to abuse and neglect cases, as proposed

in our plan submitted to Congress. We also have reviewed all our current procedures with working groups of court personnel and other stakeholders to create a

more responsive Permanency Branch, and to improve the level of coordination with

the City.

Question. Appointment and Assignment of Judges: I agree with your proposal’s

emphasis on appointing judges with an interest in Family Law. Your proposal would

allow judges already on the DC Superior Court bench to volunteer for a three-year

term in the Family Division. How many openings do you foresee in the Family Division? How many judges currently sitting on the bench at the DC Superior Court do

you expect to volunteer for the three-year term? Would you agree that the remaining vacancies should be filled with judges who have an interest and experience in

Family Law?

Answer. A number of judges have indicated potential interest in service in the

Family Division as structured in the Court’s plan. However, it is difficult to determine how many vacancies would occur without knowing specifics of the legislation

that will be enacted and the resources that will be provided to the Family Division.

I will remain committed to seeing that capable judges with backgrounds and interest in family law serve in the new Family Division.

Question. Space: How many courtrooms and hearing rooms are there at the D.C.

Superior Court?

Answer. We currently have 65 courtrooms and 13 hearing rooms for a total of 78

forum rooms. Two hearing rooms have recently been converted into a family waiting

room. The Superior Court has 59 associate judges, 15 hearing commissioners, and

20 senior judges (who sit part time).

Question. In the budget, you request $32.5 million in non-recurring costs for

space, furnishing, and equipment. And it is our understanding that the court plans

to expand to the Old Courthouse located at 451 Indiana Avenue. What divisions of

the Court do you plan to move?

Answer. For a number of years, the D.C. Courts have been preparing detailed

plans for using the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue for the D.C. Court of

Appeals, the court of last resort of the District of Columbia. This relocation would

free 37,000 square feet in the Moultrie Building that could house some of the Civil

and Probate Division operations displaced when the offices, courtrooms and hearing

rooms of the Family Division are consolidated on the lower floors of the building.

In addition, we are considering use of space in buildings at 515 5th Street, N.W.,

and 409 4th Street, N.W., as necessary.

Question. Coordination: The judge’s proposal and the current family court division

consist of a number of branches: Domestic Violence, Juvenile Offender, Mental

Health and Retardation, to mention a few. How would the following hypothetical situation be coordinated in Hamilton County? [I take this to mean ‘‘District of Columbia’’]

A 14-year-old boy living in a foster home has an open case in the Permanency

Branch. If this same teenager were caught stealing, he would then have a case

pending in the Juvenile Offender Branch. It would seem that the judge who has

been presiding over his permanency case would be the best judge to preside over

the charge in the juvenile branch. However, under the system in the proposal it

would seem that the two cases would be before two different judges who would coordinate.

Can you explain how this coordination would take place?

Answer. Under the Court’s proposed Family Division Reform Plan, the two judges

would confer over how to best serve the child. If the crime was not of a very serious

nature (that is, not murder, rape, armed robbery or the like), then the permanency

branch judge would likely handle the case, continuing to work with the child while

the juvenile judge would either close the case or opt for probation to be implemented

in the neglect case. If the crime were more serious, the permanency branch judge

would close the case, because it would not be possible to provide effective services

for a detained child.

Question. The proposal indicates the reason for the cases being split between different judges is it would allow the Family Court to choose among the alternatives

in both systems. Can you give me examples of some of the alternatives that would

not be available among branches within the same division? And why does this

occur?

Answer. Typically, more services are available in the neglect system than in the

juvenile justice system. For example, for a child in the juvenile system, the only

available housing alternatives may be incarceration at the Oak Hill facility or deten-
128

tion in a community-based group home. However if the juvenile case is closed and

the child continues in the neglect system, he could return home under ‘‘protective

supervision’’; live with a relative deemed fit and willing to handle a child with his

type of behavioral problems; go into foster care; or be moved to a group home.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. Thank you all very much. Thanks, Mary.

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Wednesday, May 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]
(129)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Landrieu and DeWine.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COURTS

STATEMENTS OF:

ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

RUFUS KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

CYNTHIA JONES, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES

JASPER ORMOND, INTERIM DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY

JOHN L. CLARK, CORRECTIONS TRUSTEE

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our

committee meeting. Senator DeWine and I are pleased to be here.

We may be joined by some additional colleagues, and we also may

be joined by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, who may come

in, but we appreciate the panelists that have been asked to and are

willing to testify today about several different important aspects

concerning the District.

So we will ask you all, if you would, to come forward and take

your seats, Mr. Clark, Mr. Ormond, Mrs. Jones, Judge King, Judge

Wagner. I would like to begin with a brief opening statement which

I will submit to the record, and I am going to ask Senator DeWine

to begin with his opening statement, and then we have, as you

know, read and reviewed your statements. You can summarize

your remarks, and we will try to move this hearing along as quickly as we can, but we do have some questions to each of you.

According to the schedule today, it looks as though we are going

to have votes, several votes between now and 4:00, so we may have

to take a brief break, go over and vote, try to come back if we can,

but we will just do, Senator, the best we can. Do you want to add

anything before I start?
130

Senator DEWINE. No.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me again take this opportunity to thank

all of you for being here. I know that each of you and the work that

you do for the District and really for our whole Nation, you are

very busy. Your willingness to help us better understand the funding needs and remaining challenges for the D.C. courts, the Court

Services and Offenders Supervision Agency, and the Office of Corrections is very much appreciated.

As we all know, in 1997, in an effort to help the District rebound

from its financial distress, the previous administration worked with

us in Congress to enact legislation that would shift certain district

functions traditionally carried out at the State level to the Federal

Government.

We enacted legislation, the D.C. Revitalization Act, eliminating

the approximate $600 million appropriated by the Federal Government to the District. Instead, the act transferred several functions

of the D.C. Government to Federal supervision. It was decided that

the Federal Government would be fully responsible for two specific

areas, and that is what our hearing is about this morning.

The first function transferred the criminal justice activities into

two main components, the D.C. courts and the transitional D.C.

Corrections Trustee System. Specifically, the following changes

were made: federally funding the Superior Court, free trial services

and defender services, transferring sentenced felons from D.C.

Lorton Correctional Complex to the Bureau of Prisons, and transferring parole decisions from the D.C. Parole Board to the U.S. Parole Commission. Also, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency was established as an independent Federal agency.

Although any criminal justice system faces coordinating challenges, this unique structure and funding in which Federal and

D.C. jurisdictional boundaries are mixed creates additional challenges for all of us. Each of you in your respective capacities has

been faced with overwhelming challenges, and in most instances

has succeeded remarkably in overcoming many of these challenges,

yet it is clear that we face some additional problems and concerns

that are ahead.

For the Office of Corrections, many of these challenges rest in

completing the closure of Lorton Complex, which we will hear more

about today, and the transfer of all adult sentenced felons to prisons operated by the bureau. As you well know, under the terms of

this act, all D.C. felons must be transferred from Lorton to various

facilities by December 31, 2001, which is the end of this year. It

is my understanding that approximately 4,500 of the 8,000 adults

have been transferred to the permanent custody, but this means

that there are another 3,500 inmates remaining to be transferred.

I know the progress has been somewhat restricted by overcrowding issues—the problems were highlighted by the Youngstown incident—and the consequences of significant staff reductions,

but there are real challenges that require real solutions, and we

are anxious, both of us, to hear some of the specifics today.

I am particularly concerned about the relocation of inmates who

are parents of young children, and that was an issue when this was

initially crafted and created. I think it remains an issue today, and
131

I hope that we will get some additional comments on that particular area.

In fact, this budget blueprint and the President’s blueprint has included $67 million for a new program that he is promoting, mentoring children of prisoners, designed to help children of inmates

all around the Nation retain intimate connections that are necessary between children and their parents.

So I hope, Mr. Clark, particularly in your testimony, you will

take advantage to focus somewhat on this particular new initiative,

and how the District could incorporate this new directive into what

we are trying to do here.

I am also interested in learning more about the plans for the

9,000 acres which currently make up the prison site of Lorton.

About 5,500 of those acres are already preserved as parkland and

a national wildlife refuge. I appreciate there are plans underway

to continue the preservation of the land at Mason Neck and the undeveloped peninsula that juts into the Potomac, so we will get

hopefully some more information.

In addition, I think the effects of this closure, while there are

some benefits to it, affect the thousands of employees that are currently employed. Overall, the number of employees has already

been reduced by 46 percent, a reduction of about 2,000 employees.

While I understand there is a policy of priority consideration with

the Bureau of Prisons and other Federal and District agencies, I

believe that a great number of people, many have families or other

considerations which prohibit them from transferring out of this

area, so perhaps we could get an update.

With the final closure date fast approaching and the prospective

reduction of available bed space, the system put in place and supervised by the agency is all the more important. There will be between 2,500 and 3,000 new cases that will need to be processed

through the D.C. Department of Corrections and transported to

Federal prisons. This complicated process involves two courts, the

U.S. Parole Commission, two offices of the U.S. Marshal, the U.S.

Attorney’s Office, the Federal Probation, Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Existing pretrial halfway houses are at capacity. Also, about 100

to 400 District inmates are released from prison each month, and

the final closure of Lorton will all but eliminate overflow space

which is now used when the jails reach capacity, so these are real

problems and issues that need to be dealt with.

But somewhat on the bright side, the research that we have received has shown that the use of halfway houses that we have tried

to focus on recently has created a dramatic positive effect in reducing the number of repeat offenders. In fact, in D.C. the number of

parolees arrested on new charges dropped from 158 in 1998 to 42

in 2000, which are very promising statistics.

I would like to commend the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency for their attention and quick intervention in addressing the serious backlog of processing offenders. Yet again,

there are significant challenges ahead. Further progress will require this agency to redress the remaining shortages, available

halfway house beds and other transitional services for inmates that

will be released shortly.
132

Let me move on to say that I recognize there has been some recent controversy about the location of these halfway houses, and

that is a problem or challenge in every community around the Nation. Of course, every community has the right to be concerned

about the safety and well-being of the residents that are already

in the neighborhood, but I hope that we can work together with the

Mayor, with the Council, with the Department to work on these

issues and to try to strike a balance between the need of public

safety and the needs of finding proper locations for these important

services for our community.

One area of transitional service that in my view requires some

additional attention is the area of drug treatment. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that over 570,000 of the Nation’s prisoners, 51 percent, reported the use of alcohol or drugs while committing their crime. We know this. It is evident. It is not necessarily new research, and we know what to do about it. We need

treatment, effective treatment, and funding for such treatment.

So perhaps in some of your comments you could address the successes of the research, which show that when people receive adequate treatment and take advantage of the treatment that is offered, fully one-third can recover almost completely, another onethird can recover with occasional lapses but ultimately will kick

the habit, if you will, and then a third basically remain sort of

chronic problem areas which then have to be dealt with in other

ways, but we know that halfway houses, if run, drug treatment, if

it works and is effective, can in fact work to help us in some of the

challenges that are before us.

Finally, let me move to Chief Judge King, and I thank you for

the courtesies that you have extended and the time that we have

spent with the judges in my office, speaking about this issue. I

want to thank you all for your work with Senator DeWine and I

in our efforts to reform and strengthen D.C. Family Court Division.

Over the past several months, we have conducted several hearings on the recent developments in child welfare. I am pleased by

the rate of progress that has been made, but we need to make a

lot more progress, and I think the steps of creating and fashioning

this specialized court with the right resources and right funding

will go a long way to help us relieve that backlog and move children into permanent placement more quickly, which not only helps

them but helps their families and the whole community.

Let me also just stress that it is essential that how the specific

outcome, whether it is 15 judges or 12, whether it is separate, or

separate calendars, the most important things to me are effective

and specialized training for judges, for magistrates and support

staff, so that they can be up-to-date and knowledgeable with the

best practices and staffed correctly so that these reforms can actually take root and we can see real progress in that area.

I would also like to emphasize in my closing the importance of

the physical surroundings of this new court. There have been several great examples around the Nation of courts that have reformed and remodeled so that it is a welcoming place for children

and their families, not sort of the traditional, adversarial, overwhelming, can be frightening, sterile court environments that we

sometimes find.
133

But as Senator DeWine knows, who is the father of eight, and

I as a mother of two and from a family of nine, large families, it

is important when you are dealing with children that are emotional, and their parents and relatives, et cetera, that the facilities

sort of help us to kind of reach these good ends that we hope for

these families.

So I hope in our renovations and our plans for renovation, we

can create a court that is a credit to this community and to the Nation, but also really serves our families, and particularly the children, to make them feel comfortable about telling the truth and

minimize the trauma that is associated in many of these horrible

situations.

Finally, on the tracking system for the automation, I have said

in many speeches on this particular subject that it is very frustrating to those of us that have been promoting these changes now

for many years, in our own States and now here in D.C., that we

can actually track a crate of apples leaving Seattle, for instance,

that is being shipped anywhere in the world. We can find out who

touched the crate last, where it was stored overnight, how many

apples are in that crate, how many, literally, are bruised or not before it is finally delivered, but we cannot still keep track of children—living, human, breathing children in our system, who seem

to get lost all the time because of lack of commitment to the kind

of data that would keep track of them.

Clearly, the technology is there, because we track crates of apples and goods all over the world every second of the day, but we

need to do a better job of keeping track of children in our care, and

I hope that we will hear some testimony today about the data collection and dispersement and technology that we are developing.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With that, I am just looking forward to hearing each of you, and

let me welcome you again and just say that Senator DeWine will

have his opening statement, and then before we begin your testimony, just to remind you that your entire statement will be made

part of the record, so you can summarize your statement. We would

like to limit your statements to 5 minutes, and then we will take

a round of questioning.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

I would like to first take this opportunity to thank all of you for being here this

afternoon. I know that each and every one of you is extremely busy. Your willingness to help us better understand the funding needs and remaining challenges for

the D.C. Courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the Office

of Corrections is very much appreciated.

In 1997, in an effort to help the District rebound from its financial distress, the

Clinton Administration worked with Congress to enact legislation that would shift

certain district functions, traditionally carried out at the State level, to the Federal

Government. The enacted legislation, the D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997, eliminated

the approximately $600 million appropriated by the Federal Government to the District. Instead, the act transferred several functions of the D.C. government to Federal supervision. It was decided that the Federal Government would be fully responsible for two specified areas, criminal justice and district employee pensions.

The first function transferred, the District’s criminal justice activities, are divided

into two main functions: the D.C. Courts and the transitional D.C. Corrections System Trustee. Specifically, the following changes were made: federally funding the
134

Superior Court, Pre-Trial Services and Defender Services; transferring sentenced

felons from D.C.’s Lorton Correctional Complex to the Bureau of Prisons; and transferring parole decisions from the D.C.Parole Board to the U.S. Parole Commission.

Also, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) was established

as an independent Federal agency.

Although any criminal justice system faces coordination challenges, the unique

structure and funding of the D.C. criminal justice system, in which Federal and

D.C. jurisdictional boundaries aFfd dues are mixed, creates additional challenges.

Each of you, in your respective capacities, have been faced with these challenges

and, in most instances, have succeeded in overcoming these challenges. For this. you

should be commended. Yet, it is clear that there are many challenges still ahead.

For the Office of Corrections, many of these challenges rest in completing the closure of the Lorton Complex and the transfer of all D.C. adult sentenced felons to

prisons operated by the Bureau of Prisons. As you well know, under the terms of

the Revitalization Act of 1997, all D.C. adult sentenced felons must be transferred

from Lorton Correctional Facility to various facilities in the, Federal Bureau of Prisons by December 31, 2001. It is my understanding that approximately 4,500 of the

8,000 adult felony inmates have been transferred to the permanent custody of the

Bureau of Prisons. This means that approximately 2,500 inmates remain to be

transferred before this coming December.

I know that the progress in transferring these inmates has been somewhat restricted by the overcrowding issues plaguing the Federal facilities, the problems

highlighted by the Youngstown incidents, and the consequences of significant staff

reductions. These are real challenges and will require innovative solutions. I am

anxious to hear your thoughts and strategies for the final close-down, the transition

and the final transfer of the property back to Virginia.

Specifically, I am sympathetic to those who were concerned that the transfer of

these inmates, in some instances several hundreds of miles away from the District,

could potentially have a very negative impact on an inmate’s ability to reintegrate

into the community or, more importantly, his or her family. For several families involved in the criminal justice system, transportation of this nature would be cost

prohibitive. As a result, many of the transferred inmates may be deprived of the

contact necessary to their ultimate reintegration into society.

I am particularly concerned by the relocation of inmates who are parents to small

children. I would hope that special consideration and assistance would be given to

inmates who are parents, not necessarily for their sake, but for the sake of their

children. In fact, in his Budget Blueprint, President Bush included $67 million for

a new program, Mentoring Children of Prisoners, designed to help children of inmates retain the intimate connections which are vital to their ultimate development

as a human being. I hope, Mr. Clark, that you will not only take advantage of this

Federal focus on preserving families but also do what you can to incorporate these

notions into your transfer policies and inmate services.

I am also interested in learning more about the plans for 9,000 acres which currently make up the prison site in Lorton. About 5,500 of the 9,000 acres are already

preserved as parkland and a national wildlife refuge. I appreciate that there are

plans underway to continue the preservation of the land at Mason Neck, the undeveloped peninsula that juts into the Potomac River.

Finally, Mr. Clark, I am greatly concerned about the effect the closure of this prison site may have on the employment opportunities for those currently employed by

the Lorton facility. Overall, the number of employees has already been reduced by

46 percent, a reduction of about 2,000 employees. While I understand there is a policy of priority consideration with the Bureau of Prisons and other Federal and District agencies, I believe that a great number of people may have families, or other

considerations, which prohibit them from transferring out of the area. In fact, in

your report, dated April 30, 2001, you stated that only 20 or so employees had

availed themselves on the priority consideration program. I hope that you can discuss ways that you have been trying minimize the effect on the staff displaced by

the final closure.

With the final closure date fast approaching and the prospective reduction of

available bed space, the systems put in place and supervised by the Court Supervision and Offender Services Agency are all the more important. Between 2,500 and

3,000 new cases per year will need to be processed into the system through the D.C.

Department of Corrections and transported to Federal prisons. This complicated

process involves two courts, the U.S. Parole Commission, two offices of the U.S.

Marshals, the U.S. Attorney’s office, CSOSA, Federal Probation, and the Federal

Bureau of Prisons. Existing pre-trial halfway houses are at capacity. Also, about 100

to 400 District inmates are released from prison each month, and the final closure
135

of Lorton will all but eliminate overflow space which is now used when the D.C.

jail reaches capacity.

One of the most important functions of the CSOSA is their role in helping parolees reintegrate into society. Research shows that the use of halfway houses can have

a dramatic effect in reducing the number of repeat offenders. In fact, in D.C., the

number of D.C. Parolees arrested on new charges dropped from 158 in 1998 to 42

in 2000. This reduction occurred in large part because of the Federal policy that required all parolees to be released into halfway houses.

I would like to commend the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for

the attention and quick intervention in addressing the serious back log of processing

offenders. Yet, again there are significant challenges still ahead. Further progress

will require that CSOSA address the remaining shortage of available halfway house

beds and other transitional services for inmates that will be released into the District; developing community education and understanding for the need for the expansion of these services and selecting appropriate sites for these services.

I recognize that there has been some recent controversy about the location of

these halfway houses and the CSOSA treatment center. Of course, any community

has the right to be concerned about the safety and well being of its residents and

there are certain locations which might put the community and the offender at risk

for repeated offenses. However, I encourage the Mayor, the Department of Corrections and CSOSA to work to strike a balance between the need for public safety and

the importance of promoting the rehabilitation of previous offenders. Perhaps, there

are ways, such as tax credits for employing parolees, to help involve the community

in the rehabilitation process.

One area of transitional services that, in my view, requires additional attention

and perhaps resources is in the area of drug treatment. The U.S. Department of

Justice reports that over 570,000 of the Nation’s prisoners (51 percent) reported the

use of alcohol or drugs while committing their offense. For this reason, effective

drug treatment is critical. Experts report that drug addiction treatment is as effective as treatment for other chronic illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, and hypertension. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that nearly onethird of those in treatment achieve permanent abstinence in their first attempt at

recovery. An additional one-third have periods of relapse but eventually achieve

long-term abstinence, and one-third have chronic relapses that result in premature

death from substance abuse and related consequences.

Despite this, reports indicate that the drug treatment program for D.C. parolees

is only serving about 30 percent of the population in need of such services. I am

pleased to learn that CSOSA hopes to expand their substance abuse and mental

health programs. If used effectively, these programs could not only help prevent a

crime but also save the taxpayers a good deal of money.

Additionally, the Public Defender Service provides a critical link between offenders and the criminal justice system. I commend their dedication to ensuring due

process is carried out in all cases in the District.

Finally, I would like to commend Chief Judge Rufus King for his willingness to

work with Senator DeWine and I in our efforts to reform the D.C. Court’s Family

Division. Over the past several months, we have conducted several hearings on the

recent developments in child welfare in D.C. I am pleased by the rate of progress

that has been made so far and hope that we can continue to move in a positive direction. I have reviewed the summary of the Court’s requested funding priorities.

In regards to the Family Court reform, I would like to stress two areas of critical

importance to the success of this venture.

First, it is absolutely essential that an effective and specialized training program

be instituted to ensure that the judges, magistrates and support staff are well

trained in the areas involving children. Last year, I joined with Senator DeWine in

calling on Congress to approve legislation that would provide State courts with the

funding necessary to implement such training programs nationwide. The types of

issues resolved in the family court are unlike any other legal matters before the

court. If properly trained, a judge is a far more effective arbiter of the truth.

Second, I would like to emphasize the importance of the physical surroundings of

a family court. Clearly, the first concern is the critical space shortage currently facing the D.C. courts. Yet, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the

courts to use the creation of this new branch to ensure that the courtrooms and

waiting spaces are as family friendly as the judges, advocates and the support staff.

Several courtrooms throughout the country have found that an inviting infrastructure can be as important to a traumatized child as a successful decision.

Also, I support your efforts to improve the automation and collaboration of information between the different divisions in the courts. Again, I hope that you will

make sincere efforts to ensure that these systems are implemented in the family
136

court. Often times, it is these courts that are the least and last funded. It has always frustrated me that in this day and age, where one can track a crate of apples

to Taiwan, we cannot keep better track of children and families in our child welfare

system.

Again, I am looking forward to hear from each of you and thank you for your

time.

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator DeWine.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and

congratulations on your first hearing as chairman of this subcommittee.

Since the start of the 107th Congress, when Senator Landrieu

and I were appointed, and I must say recently reappointed to this

committee—an interesting time—we have emphasized the need to

reform the District of Columbia’s child welfare system and the

Family Division of the Superior Court. Today, as we examine the

District’s proposed court budget, we are, I believe, at a crossroads.

It is a crossroads both in terms of responsibility and accountability.

We are here to analyze from a budgetary perspective what the

District’s resource needs are, and how those investments can play

a part in helping the District create a court system that ultimately

puts the safety and health of children first above all else.

In our efforts to match resources with reforms, there are a number of issues to be discussed, and right now I would like to focus

my attention on the plan to reform the family court and the court’s

overall role in the child welfare system.

Senator Landrieu and I, along with a number of our Senate colleagues, have developed a discussion draft of a family court bill. We

are collaborating with our colleagues in the House to draft legislation which we hope to introduce in both the House and the Senate

later this month.

Several important and necessary changes must take place as the

District shifts to a family court system. First, I believe it is paramount that the one-judge-one-family concept be the center of the

court reform. I say this because judicial consistency will ensure

that families will not be shifted, one judge to another. Quite simply, a judge who knows the entire history of a family can better

protect the interests of the children who are involved.

Second, the judges in family court should specialize in family

law. This is, of course, simpler said than done, as we have found

out in the last few months. All judges serving in Superior Court

oversee a total of approximately 4,000 cases, regardless of their

current court assignment. They preside over approximately two

abuse and neglect matters per week, which I think brings up the

point of how difficult, under the status quo, it is for a judge to develop over a long period of time the real great expertise that I

think is really needed, expertise in the area of family court and

children and related issues.

Currently, the court assigns 12 judges to the Family Division.

While they are assigned for 2-year terms, the average judicial term

is actually about 1 year. This exceptionally high rate of turnover

means that cases involving children do not benefit from judges who

have had the experience. Judges who serve longer become more fa-
137

miliar with the law, and they are better able to more consistently

implement the law.

I think it makes good common sense to say that, and this is in

no way a reflection on the determination of the judges who are in

this position. They do a good job. It in no way reflects on their capabilities. It simply is, in my opinion, a matter of common sense

that someone who has done something longer does it better, whether it is a teacher, whether it is a welder, whether it is a judge who

is dealing with the most precious thing that we have, and that is

our children.

Third, I believe that we must make sure that the courts in the

District comply with the permanency time line outlined in the 1997

Federal law that I helped write called the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Family and Juvenile Courts across the country have implemented this law, yet the District still only has a plan to implement it. The time for compliance with the regulations has long

since passed. The District absolutely must act, and act now. The

lives of children are hanging in the balance.

Fourth, we need to maintain case consistency. The court in its

budget has requested an additional $5.4 million for defender services initiatives, to increase the hourly compensation rate for attorneys and investigators. However, there are still many unsolved, unresolved issues surrounding how and when attorneys or guardians

ad litem are compensated, which in the end is threatening the adequate representation of children. When examining the court’s budget, we need, I believe, to explore options that could help in this situation.

Let me conclude by saying that for the best possible treatment

of families a specialized family court is vital, and in creating such

a court we must ensure that the resources we provide lead to sound

structural changes, changes that will make a lasting, long-term difference. I fear that a newly renovated courthouse and an increased

number of judges and magistrate judges is simply not enough to fix

the systemic problem that is plaguing the District’s child welfare

system.

I will say that the changes that have been outlined as far as the

structure are unique and I believe, as the chairman has indicated,

that they can be integrated into an overall plan of change, and that

is something that we obviously need to work on.

The children and families in the District I think deserve better

than they have received. They deserve judges who have expertise

in family law and who possess a strong and sincere concern for

their best interests. We owe it to the people, and we owe it to the

children.

Madam Chairman, thank you very much.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator DeWine, for those remarks.

We have had the votes called and we have three stacked votes,

and it is usually 15 minutes or more a vote, but Congresswoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton is here, and I hate for you to be delayed.

Would you like to make a brief statement now, or would you like

to stay?

Ms. NORTON. I will stay.
138

Senator LANDRIEU. Should we go vote, and will you all just take

a break, have some water—I wish we could serve you more than

that, but that is all we have—and I will be back.

The meeting will come to order, and we will reconvene, and

again we apologize, but this is the way these afternoons work here

in the Senate and the House.

We will now be prepared for opening statements, so we would

like you to keep your time, if the panelists would, to 5 minutes

each, and I understand because of the scheduling change that,

Judge Wagner, you have an engagement, so we would be pleased

to have you go first.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE ANNICE M. WAGNER

Judge WAGNER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and to members of the committee, thank you first of all for the opportunity to

make an oral presentation to the committee. It is my first time appearing before you, and I am delighted to see you.

As you know, the D.C. Courts have submitted a request for budgetary resources in a very detailed fashion. I think you have a copy

of our submission in a white book. I am appearing as chair of the

Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, which is responsible

for preparing the budget estimates for the Courts, and we approved

the submission that was submitted to you earlier as our request.

We comprise, of course, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the

Court System. To support our mission in 2002 we have requested

$153,046,000, which is divided among the various components of

the court system in the manner which appears in our written submission.

I wish to emphasize that after we submitted our request for review by the President and to the Congress, the Superior Court did

formulate a family court reform plan some preliminary cost estimates. What I want to emphasize is that those cost estimates are

in addition to the amounts which we have requested, except as otherwise indicated.

I think that Chief Judge King in his statement will get into that

more, but what our concern is, is that those items that we have

previously requested are needed to support what we have, what exists, and to the extent that something else has to be funded, if it

has to come from those operations, there is the danger of undercutting other functions which must go on in the Courts, criminal, civil,

tax and other types of cases.

During the past year, the Courts have taken steps to strengthen

our budgeting and financial management. This is a continuing

process. However, we have placed a number of reforms in place of

which we have kept you apprised. I would just like to highlight

that for the second year in a row the Courts have secured an unqualified opinion from KPMG in an independent audit of the fiscal

year 2000 financial statements.

The Courts have also commenced implementation of key aspects

of the Government Performance and Results Act. The Courts’ fiscal

year 2002 budget request begins to provide performance data, and

to link budgetary resource increases to enhancements in the performance of our Courts. We have strengthened our Courts’ account-
139

ing system, including refinements that track expenditures by object

classification among the Courts divisions, programs, and offices,

and we will continue to keep the Congress apprised of the Courts’

enhancement of our financial management operations as we move

along.

We have initiated a comprehensive strategic planning and reengineering process that will enable us to then focus our efforts

and resources on measurable results. We are pleased to report the

beneficial impact that a long-overdue employee pay raise has had

on our operations, and we really owe a great deal of appreciation

to this committee, which is the committee that supported pay parity for our employees with their Federal counterparts in similar

jobs in the last budget cycle.

What we have noticed is that our recruitment efforts have improved significantly. We have 20 percent more applicants for crucial positions today than in fiscal year 2000, and employee morale

is noticeably improved.

Many initiatives and programs that enhance management of the

courts are underway, including the integrated justice information

system, in which you have expressed an interest. Following a comprehensive requirements analysis by the National Center for State

Courts, the Courts completed a detailed plan for the new case management system which will not only enhance case processing and

information management, but also provide better information for

judicial officers and others seeking information about court activity.

We have submitted that plan to you, and we are awaiting approval

of this plan so that we may proceed with this critical project.

With the assistance of KPMG experts, we have initiated an information technology strategic plan to focus the resources of the Information Technology Division and ensure that their efforts conform

to the larger vision and mission of the Courts and the District’s justice community.

The Courts are focused on training in all aspects of the law, and

in all aspects of our administrative and our court processes. We

have an extensive training program for judges and for staff that offers a variety of courses designed to enhance performance.

The Courts are working with the General Services Administration to conduct a building evaluation report, a comprehensive assessment of our capital needs to ensure that our limited resources

can be deployed in a most effective manner.

Senator LANDRIEU. One minute.

Judge WAGNER. Oh, I have 1 minute left? I have not touched my

priorities. I did want to touch defender services because you mentioned it, but let me just skip to the priorities.

We basically have three or four priorities this year. One is court

staffing. Our request includes enough funds to enable the Courts

to fill vacancies and to staff mission-critical functions.

Our capital infrastructure. We need information technology in

order to come into the 21st Century. Really the integrated justice

system will do that.

The other priority is the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue.

It is a historic treasure. It is a national treasure. It was first constructed in 1831. We already have plans to develop this site for the

Court of Appeals in order to free space in the building we are in
140

now so that Superior Court can expand and use the entire building.

Our building was built for 44 judges in the trial court. We now

have 59, and we also have 15 hearing commissioners now, which

we did not have previously, so we really need additional space.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The family court is something, of course—I will just leave that

to Chief Judge King, and finally, defender services. We have devoted particular attention to enhancing that program. There is a

long overdue rate increase for lawyers, who handle all of the cases

in both child abuse, neglect, criminal cases, and guardianship

cases. The lawyers have not had an increase for 8 years. The investigators have not had an increase for 13 years. In order to assure

competent counsel in all of our cases we feel that this is very essential.

I wish to thank you for hearing us, and we believe that we are

taking steps to be fiscally responsible, but adequate resources are

necessary to meet these critical priorities.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDGE ANNICE M. WAGNER

Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, thank you for this opportunity to discuss

the District of Columbia Courts’ budget request for fiscal year 2002.

The Courts have submitted a detailed request for the budgetary resources needed

in fiscal year 2002. My remarks this afternoon will highlight the Courts’ most critical priorities.

Comprised of the Court of Appeals, the Superior Court, and the Court System,

the District of Columbia Courts constitute the Judicial Branch of the District of Columbia government. The Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, which I chair,

is the policy-making body for the Courts. The mission of the District of Columbia

Courts is to administer justice fairly, promptly, and effectively. Through our strategic goals, the Courts strive to provide fair, swift, and accessible justice; enhance

public safety; and ensure public trust and confidence in the justice system.

To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2002, the D.C. Courts

request $153,046,000 for Court operations. Of this amount, $8,528,000 is requested

for the Court of Appeals; $69,203,000 is requested for the Superior Court;

$33,945,000 is requested for the Court System; and $41,370,000 for capital improvements for courthouse facilities. In addition, the Courts request $39,711,000 for the

Defender Services account.

Following submission and presidential review of the Courts’ fiscal year 2002 request, the Superior Court formulated the Family Court Reform Plan. Preliminary

cost estimates to finance the increased judicial and support staff, consolidate the

Family Division within the Moultrie Courthouse, and provide space for the additional staff are $13.4 million for recurring operational costs and approximately $32.5

million for capital improvements. Of these amounts, $16.5 million is in the Courts’

budget request, although only $2.1 million of that amount was included in the president’s recommendation for the Courts.

STRENGTHENING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AT THE COURTS

During the past year, the Courts have taken many steps to strengthen our budgeting and financial management. Although this is a continuing process, we have put

into place a set of initiatives and reforms that demonstrate our commitment to fiscal

integrity and responsiveness to Congressional concerns. For example, the Courts

have—

—For the second year, secured an ‘‘unqualified’’ opinion from KPMG in an independent audit of the fiscal year 2000 financial statements.

—Implemented a number of recommendations made by the National Center for

State Courts, which conducted an independent study of the Courts’ financial operations, including an examination of the budget process; expenditure account-
141

ing and budget controls; revenue accounting and internal controls; and internal

auditing.

—Commenced implementation of key aspects of the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). The Courts’ fiscal year 2002 budget request begins to provide performance data and to link budgetary resource increases to enhancements in performance. During the past year, upper and mid-level managers participated in a series of GPRA training programs conducted by experts from the

Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Personnel Management.

—Strengthened the Courts’ accounting system, including refinements that track

expenditures by object classification among the Courts’ divisions, programs, and

offices.

We will continue to keep Congress apprised of the Courts’ enhancement of our financial management operations.

ENHANCING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The Courts have initiated a comprehensive strategic planning and reengineering

process that will enable us to focus our efforts and resources on measurable results.

The Courts also have initiated major reform efforts for family matters, and appreciate the Congressional support we are receiving for this work.

We are pleased to report the beneficial impact that the long overdue employee pay

raise has had on court operations. Non-judicial employee pay parity with Federal

counterparts in similar jobs was attained with the implementation of an 8.48 percent pay increase required by the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2001. The result has

been a more stable, skilled, and productive workforce: retention of employees has

been enhanced (employee turnover in the last quarter is down 45 percent from fiscal

year 2000); recruitment has improved significantly (we have 20 percent more applicants for crucial positions today than in fiscal year 2000); and employee morale is

noticeably improved.

Many initiatives and programs to enhance management of the Courts are underway. For example—

—Integrated Justice Information System.—Following a comprehensive requirements analysis by the National Center for State Courts, the Courts completed

a detailed plan for this new case management system, which will not only enhance case processing and information management, but also provide better information for judicial officers and others seeking information about Court activity. We await your approval of this plan so we may proceed with this critical

project.

—Strategic Planning.—Court leaders—both judges and managers—have participated in a series of strategic planning conferences to formulate an updated vision for the Courts’ future and to develop plans and priorities to achieve that

vision and fulfill the Courts’ mission in the community.

—Electronic Filing Pilot Project.—On May 1, the Superior Court launched a oneyear pilot project that requires parties in complex civil cases to file all documents after the initial complaint electronically. E-filing is expected to streamline case management, reduce paper, and provide instant access to case-related

documents.

—Reengineering.—Court managers and staff have participated in training programs on reengineering techniques and philosophies in order to update and

streamline the way we conduct operations. For example, a series of clerical jobs

has been redesigned, and staff are receiving training to enhance career opportunities, reduce turnover, increase accountability, and provide better service to

the community.

—IT Strategic Plan.—With assistance from KPMG experts, the Courts initiated

an IT strategic plan to focus the resources of the IT Division and ensure that

their efforts conform to the larger vision and mission of the Courts and the District’s justice community.

—Training.—The Courts have an extensive training program for both judges and

staff that offers a variety of courses designed to enhance employee performance.

Subjects range from basic computer skills to specific legal areas. For Judicial

training, substantive areas of the law are selected and instruction is provided

in legal and sociological aspects of the subject. In addition, senior staff and

judges attend professional conferences where they have the opportunity to learn

best practices from both experts and peers in their fields.

—Capital Planning.—The Courts are working with GSA to conduct a Building

Evaluation Report, a comprehensive assessment of our capital needs to ensure

that our limited resources can be deployed in the most effective manner.
142

—Human Resources Information System.—The Courts are in the final phases of

implementing a new personnel management information system to ensure ready

access to detailed personnel information, which will assist managers and policymakers. —Independent Study of Court Staffing Levels.—As recommended by the GAO, the

Courts have contracted with experts to conduct a study of staffing requirements. This comprehensive study will provide the data the Courts need to deploy their limited staff resources most effectively and efficiently.

IMPROVING DEFENDER SERVICES OPERATIONS AT THE COURTS

One area to which the Courts have devoted particular attention and made significant improvements is Defender Services. The nature of the defender services programs makes it difficult to predict future costs because each year claims are submitted for Criminal Justice Act (CJA), Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect

(CCAN), and Guardianship case assignments made in previous years.

During the past year, the Courts began several initiatives designed to strengthen

management of the Defender Services programs and provide better service to the

community: —Payment time cut in half.—By reengineering procedures to process vouchers, the

Courts have reduced the average time from voucher submission to payment

from by more than half, resulting in a 29 day turnaround time in June 2001. —Defender Services obligations tracked automatically.—In fiscal year 2000, the

Courts implemented an automated system to track all CJA and CCAN vouchers

presented for payment, from receipt at the Courts to payment by the General

Services Administration.

—CJA Plan undergoing revision.—The Joint Committee is considering major revisions to the CJA Plan to streamline the processing of vouchers and set guidelines for the cost of certain types of cases. The Courts solicited comments and

recommendations from the legal community on the proposed revisions and are

currently working with the Bar to finalize the Plan revisions.

—Defender Services customer service initiative.—This fiscal year 2000 initiative includes (1) providing attorneys with computer access to the voucher tracking and

payroll systems, to allow electronic queries on vouchers; (2) a dedicated staff

member, or ‘‘duty fees examiner,’’ who provides immediate assistance to attorneys with voucher status inquiries; and (3) comment forms, to solicit feedback

and suggestions from attorneys for service improvements.

—Standards for submission of vouchers developed.—The Courts have promulgated

revised standards for submission of completed vouchers and the Courts’ payment of interest to comply with District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001.

THE COURTS AND THE COMMUNITY

As part of the District of Columbia’s criminal justice system, the Courts participate in collaborative projects with other agencies, and provide many services to benefit the community at large. Some examples include:

—Active participation in the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) which

seeks to improve the criminal justice system in the District. The Superior Court

is currently utilizing the results of a CJCC-sponsored study in its effort to assist

the District in reducing police overtime costs, thereby better using resources

throughout the criminal justice system.

—The District’s award-winning Domestic Violence Project, spearheaded by the Superior Court, promotes victim safety and integrates the adjudication of both

criminal and civil aspects of domestic violence cases. This project provides one

central location for a victim to meet with representatives of various agencies,

and permits one specially trained judge to address both civil and criminal aspects of a case.

—In cooperation with the D.C. Bar Association, the Courts encourage District

high school students to reflect on the law with an annual essay contest to celebrate National Law Day. This year, Ms. Lyndsey Williams, of the U.S. Senate

Page School, won First Place for her essay on the juvenile justice system.

—Also in cooperation with the D.C. Bar Association, the Courts participated in

the second annual D.C. Youth Law Fair in March 2001. More than 200 D.C.

school students toured court facilities, participated in a mock trial, and discussed legal issues of interest to youth, including the effect of pop culture on

teen violence and teen rights and responsibilities in the workplace.

—In 1999 the Court established a mentoring program with the U.S. Department

of Justice. Justice Department employees volunteer for the program, are

screened and then are trained by specialists in the Abuse and Neglect section
143

of the Family Division. Once trained, they serve as mentors to children in the

abuse and neglect system, children who all too often have not had a stable, consistent adult influence in their lives.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AT THE COURTS

As part of our strategic goal of providing fair, swift, and accessible justice, we

monitor our performance in efficiently processing cases in terms of (1) the case

clearance rate, or the ratio of cases disposed to cases filed in a given year (a standard efficiency measure is 100 percent, meaning one case disposed for each case

filed); and (2) the reduction in cases pending at the end of the year.

—In fiscal year 2000, the Courts’ caseload management practices resulted in a

case clearance rate of 107 percent in the Court of Appeals and 113 percent in

the Superior Court.

—In addition, the Court of Appeals reduced its pending cases by 4 percent and

the Superior Court reduced the number of cases waiting to be resolved by 8 percent in fiscal year 2000.

In fiscal year 2000, the Court of Appeals saw 1,739 new cases filed. Including

pending cases and reinstatements, 4,407 cases were on appeal in fiscal year 2000.

During the same time, in the Superior Court, 144,046 new cases were filed. Including reinstated cases and pending cases, 209,329 were available for disposition in fiscal year 2000.

The Courts look forward to enhancing our performance measurement system by

moving toward implementation of the strategic planning and related strategies of

the Government Performance and Results Act in the next fiscal year.

FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET PRIORITIES OF THE COURTS

The Courts continue to require adequate funds to ensure the prompt and fair administration of justice for the citizens of the District of Columbia and the many others who must rely on our court system in the Nation’s capital. I would like to briefly

discuss the Courts’ four highest priorities for which funds are requested in fiscal

year 2002.

Court staffing.—The Courts’ current on-board FTE of 1,127 is 9 percent below the

fiscal year 1999 authorized level of 1,239 FTE. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation

permits the Courts to replace only 41 of the 76 FTE lost during fiscal year 2000.

The fiscal year 2002 request is essential to enable the Courts to fill vacancies and

staff mission-critical functions. At a minimum, key vacancies must be filled in fiscal

year 2002 to produce court records, process cases timely, and support effective court

administration.

Capital infrastructure.—The Courts’ physical plant consists of 1.1 million square

feet of space in four buildings located around Judiciary Square. The oldest building

was constructed in 1820 and the newest in 1978. The Courts’ capital budget has not

received adequate funding for some time. As a result, many basic capital repairs

have been deferred and building projects have been delayed. The fiscal year 2002

capital request includes funding for health and safety projects, information technology, the historic Old Courthouse, and to maintain our aging infrastructure. Two

critical needs are:

—Information technology.—The Courts’ current information technology infrastructure cannot meet the demands of the 21st century. In 1998, the Courts

launched the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), a major capital initiative to replace 18 different computer systems with a unified case management system. In addition, to make financial accounting improvements recommended by KPMG, the Courts’ independent auditors, a general ledger system

is required. $2.2 million in capital and operating funds is critically needed in

fiscal year 2002 to finance these projects.

—The Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue.—The Courts face a critical space

shortage in the main courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, which was built in

1978 for 44 trial judges. Today, with 59 trial judges (34 percent more) and 15

hearing commissioners in the Superior Court, 9 judges in the Court of Appeals

and senior judges in both Courts, the main courthouse is filled well beyond capacity. The Courts request $15 million in the fiscal year 2002 budget to continue preservation of the Old Courthouse, a national treasure, and to readapt

it for use, once again, as a courthouse, thereby freeing 37,000 sq. ft. for use by

the Superior Court in the main court building. The Courts are working closely

with GSA and with National Law Enforcement Officers’ Memorial Fund, which

plans to build a museum near this site. At a minimum, funding is critically

needed in fiscal year 2002 to commence design and site preparation work and

to prevent further deterioration of the structure.
144

Family Court.—The Court is restructuring its Family Division operations to meet

the critical needs of the increasing number of abused and neglected children entering the Court. Our Family Division Reform Plan calls for new teams of judges and

magistrate judges to monitor and process the children’s cases toward permanency,

increased mediation, and enhanced coordination with the District’s social services

agencies. Although not included in the Courts’ original budget submission, the Court

estimates $46 million will be necessary to finance the increased judicial and support

staff, consolidate the Family Division within the Moultrie Courthouse, and provide

space for the increased staff.

Defender Services.—In fiscal year 2000, the Courts devoted particular attention to

improving the financial management of the Defender Services programs. The fiscal

year 2002 request of $39.7 million builds on these accomplishments. The request includes $5.4 million for the first phase of an hourly rate increase for attorneys and

investigators. This long-overdue rate increase, the first for investigators in 13 years

and for attorneys in 8 years, is essential to ensuring continued high quality legal

services to the District’s indigent population.

Madam Chairwoman, Senators, the District of Columbia Courts have long enjoyed

a national reputation for excellence. We are proud of the Courts’ record of administering justice in a fair, accessible, and cost-efficient manner. We believe we are

taking the administrative steps, as highlighted above, needed to enhance our operations and ensure the fair administration of justice in the District of Columbia. Adequate funding for the Courts’ highest priorities in fiscal year 2002 is critical to our

success, both in the next fiscal year and as we plan our strategy to continue to provide high quality service to the community in the future. Madam Chairwoman, we

look forward to working with you throughout the appropriations process, and thank

you for the opportunity to discuss the Courts’ budget request.

Chief Judge King, Anne Wicks, the Court’s Executive Officer, and I would be

pleased to address any questions.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for your testimony. I understand

you may have to leave, so let me just ask one question to clarify,

and then you can leave your statement, of course, for the record.

You said you have submitted your budget of $154 million, but

that does not include the additional funding for the new family

court.

Judge WAGNER. That is correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. Were you or the analyst able to estimate of

that $154 million in previous years what percentage was sort of

committed to family work, because while we can add some funding

for what I think we want to do, it is going to have to probably be

a combination of some new funding and some current funding that

was already previously dedicated for this portion of the courts’

charge, and I do not know if you want to try to just answer that

generally, and maybe Judge King can——

Judge WAGNER. I think Judge King probably would have the details of that. There is a certain amount of our submission which includes, obviously, some of the staff and judicial personnel who

would be devoted to this, and we have come up with an estimate

of what we believe the operational costs would be and also what

we believe the capital budget requirements would be for new courtrooms and the like, but I think I would defer to Judge King to go

into detail on that.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you again.

Judge.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS KING, III

Judge KING. Very well. If I may, I will just——

Senator LANDRIEU. Would you speak into the mike, Judge? Pull

that over closer to you.
145

Judge KING. I will finish that answer briefly, and we can go into

it in greater detail, but since that is freshly on the record. We already have 12 judges in the Family Division. That expense and the

facilities to accommodate them do not change because of the new

family reform plan, so that would carry over directly.

The additional funds, and the reason it is so high, is because not

only do we need to add additional staff, which is laid out in our

plan—you and your staff have been made aware of that—but we

are already, as Chief Judge Wagner indicated, bursting at the

seams. I sometimes now have senior judges who want to sit and

I am unable to use their services because I do not have a courtroom

for them, so every additional person that we would use in the family court reform plan is going to come with a need to build a courtroom, a chambers, and the facilities that accommodate the people

and the support staff.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I think we understand there will be additional expenses for the physical, the building, courtrooms, the

equipment, but I was trying to get, as the percentage of your current budget that is devoted to or directed, operations budget, to

sort of the family aspect, so as we try to define it more clearly we

could build on the budget that is already there, but we can come

back to that.

Judge KING. Well, I think that—let me just be sure that I am

expressing myself clearly. The existing budget includes a Family

Division expense, that is, judges, and courtrooms, and chambers.

Senator LANDRIEU. In the 154?

Judge KING. In the 154.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay, fine. I am sorry, then.

Judge KING. What we have submitted as our plan is in addition

to that.

Senator LANDRIEU. And it is mostly physical capital improvements.

Judge KING. It is building out—there is a capital expense that I think works out at about $32 million, and then the balance of $12

or $13 million is the cost of additional personnel, but those are all

pretty easy——

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for clarifying that.

Judge KING. I mean, to the extent that we have not done that,

clearly we could derive percentages, but there is already a Family

Division operation in that.

Judge WAGNER. Would you like us to try to estimate that?

Senator LANDRIEU. We can figure the other percentages. Thank

you.

Judge KING. We would be happy to submit, and if you have any

questions that would help clarify it, we would be happy to do that.

I will be very brief, then. I want to thank you for the opportunity

to discuss the budget. I fully support the budget request and priorities as stated by Chief Judge Wagner for the Courts’ infrastructure, including the technology, the increased space, and restoration

of the Old Courthouse, family court reform costs, and a rate increase for attorneys and investigators who serve indigent defendants and families.

This afternoon, I would like to mention the resources required for

the reform of the Superior Court’s Family Division which were not
146

included, as we have just been talking about, in the fiscal year

2002 budget request. Let me begin by noting the Court’s appreciation for the courtesy shown by both you, Madam Chairwoman, and

you, Senator DeWine, and your staffs, in discussing your concerns

in the Court’s plan. Your willingness to engage in a constructive

and informal dialogue on our shared concern for improving service

to children and families has, I believe, been very helpful to the reform process, and I hope it will continue.

As you know, our Family Division reform plan is centered on

teams of judges, magistrate judges, and staff to serve the increasing number of abused and neglected children coming to the Court,

and I am delighted to hear of your focused interest on areas such

as one judge and one family, a concept we entirely agree with, and

one that we have already been substantially implementing with juvenile and neglect cases. We are very conscious of the need to expand that and to see that it becomes more firmly and strongly established in the rest of our family court operations.

I am also happy to see your interest and receptivity to the notion

of improved training. We have already undertaken some of that, including a recent 2-day conference that expanded the training on

ASFA requirements and the like, and the infrastructure, including

the technology infrastructure, are critical pieces that we are very

much aware of and share your concern that they be done in a way

that really serves children and families in a friendly way.

The plan was formulated, or the plan that we are working on

now, and this has been discussed—I see my light.

Senator LANDRIEU. Two minutes. I took 2 minutes of your time.

Judge KING. Very well. I will be very brief.

The plan was formulated after submission and presidential review of the Courts’ fiscal year 2002 budget request, and so the cost

of just under $46 million has for the most part not been included

in the Courts’ budget request or the President’s budget, which was

prepared before our family division reform plan was drafted.

However, to commence the needed reforms expeditiously, resources are required in fiscal year 2002 to hire and train judges

and staff and to construct additional courtrooms and office space to

ensure that the plan can be promptly implemented.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Madam Chairwoman and Senator DeWine, your support for the

required resources is critical to the success of the Family Division

reform plan. We look forward to working with you throughout the

appropriations process, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the priority in the budget request, and I would be happy to

address questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS KING, III

Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, I am Rufus G. King, III, and I am appearing in my capacity as Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

and a member of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. I thank you for

this opportunity to discuss the District of Columbia Courts’ budget request for fiscal

year 2002.

I fully support the fiscal year 2002 budget priorities Chief Judge Wagner outlinedadequate staffing for critical functions; adequate funding for the Courts’ infrastruc-
147

ture, including technology and increased space through restoration of the Old Courthouse; family court reform costs; and a rate increase for attorneys and investigators

who serve indigent defendants.

This afternoon, I would particularly like to address the resources required for reform of the Court’s Family Division, which were not included in the Courts’ fiscal

year 2002 budget submission.

As you know, our Family Division Reform Plan is centered on teams of judges,

magistrate judges, and staff to serve the increasing number of abused and neglected

children coming to the Court. Although the plan was formulated after submission

and presidential review of the Courts’ fiscal year 2002 budget request, to commence

the needed reforms expeditiously, resources are required in fiscal year 2002 to hire

and train judges and staff and to construct additional courtrooms and office space

to ensure that our Reform Plan can accomplish its goals.

STAFFING

To create the teams of judges, magistrates and support staff to serve the children,

the Reform Plan calls for 74 new full-time employees. In addition to the judges and

magistrate judges and their chambers staff, non-judicial employees would form the

remainder of the case management teams, staff the additional courtroom operations,

and administer the expanded Child Protection Mediation Program.

TRAINING

Specialized training for Family Division judges, magistrate judges, and staff is a

critical component of the Reform Plan. Building on the Courts’ existing training program, the increased resources associated with the Reform Plan will provide the enhanced specialization needed to best serve abused and neglected children.

Already, the Court has taken steps to build the expertise of judges and staff in

family issues. In May, Superior Court judges attended two full days of comprehensive training on child abuse and neglect law. Local and national experts provided

information on a variety of subjects including—

—The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and judicial responsibility from the

initial hearing through permanency;

—The family unit and how substance abuse fuels the cycle of child abuse and neglect;

—The role of judges in fostering collaboration and providing leadership in the

community;

—Mental health experts’ means to assess the level of risk to a child and how the

District’s Child and Family Services Administration determines the best residential placement for a child;

—Child development issues and how they can assist in judicial decision-making;

—Special education, how the Court may initiate the process, and the responsibility of the District of Columbia Public Schools; and

—Mental health intervention.

Family Division staff also attended training on meeting ASFA standards, child

protection and welfare, and roles and expectations at Court hearings.

SPACE NEEDS

The Reform Plan envisions a consolidation of the Family Division offices and

courtrooms in the Moultrie Courthouse, which is large enough to accommodate the

expanded Division in a consolidated location. Other offices currently located in the

Moultrie Courthouse will be relocated to two other Court buildings (Bldg. A and

Bldg. B), which will need to be upgraded and reconfigured. Significant work needs

to be completed in both Buildings A and B before offices with increased public traffic

can be moved into the buildings, including—

—Roof repair and replacement to curtail leaks;

—Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) repair and replacement of

original 1920’s vintage air conditioning equipment;

—Increased electrical capacity to accommodate modern office equipment;

—Plumbing upgrades;

—Elevator repair;

—Fire and security system enhancement;

—Restroom improvements; and

—ADA enhancements.

In addition, to accommodate the increased number of judicial officers, additional

courtrooms and judicial chambers must be constructed in one building. Support operations currently occupying Buildings A and B will be moved to leased space in

the local area, as needed.
148

Madam Chairwoman and Senator DeWine, your support for the required resources is critical to the success of the Family Division Reform Plan. We look forward to working with you throughout the appropriations process, and thank you for

the opportunity to discuss this important priority in the Courts’ budget request.

I would be pleased to address any questions.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you.

We could hear from all the panelists, Senator, and then come

back for a round of questions.

Ms. Jones.

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA JONES

Ms. JONES. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senator DeWine.

My name is Cynthia Jones, and I am the Director of the D.C. Public Defender Service. I appreciate the opportunity to come before

you today in support of the agency’s fiscal year 2002 budget request.

As a result of the revitalization act, PDS was established as a

federally funded, independent District of Columbia agency. The revitalization act requires PDS to transmit its budget and receive its

appropriation through the Court Services and Defender Supervision Agency, but PDS is not a component of court services. We

have a separate mission.

The Public Defender Service provides constitutionally mandated

legal representation to indigent people who are facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia. PDS shares this responsibility

with the local court, which is responsible for assigning cases to CJA

panel attorneys, private lawyers who provide indigent legal defense

representation under the Criminal Justice Act.

While much of our work is devoted to ensuring no innocent person is ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal

services to mentally ill people who are facing involuntary civil commitment, recovering substance abusers participating in drug court,

juveniles with learning disabilities, and many other indigent people

facing a deprivation of liberty.

For fiscal year 2002, the Public Defender Services requests

$20,829,000, and 211 positions in direct authority. Our request

would allow us to continue to build upon the success of our current

operations and add one new initiative, a community reentry program to educate juvenile and adult defenders of their legal rights

and their responsibilities upon returning to the community. This

initiative is aimed at reducing the number of offenders who face

revocation and reincarceration. To support this initiative, we are

requesting approximately $1 million and 10 positions.

The past year has been very successful for the Public Defender

Service. We have increased the number of cases we handle by approximately 29 percent. We have provided assistance to the court

in administering the Criminal Justice Act, held over 40 training

sessions for CJA panel lawyers, and we have helped to create a

mental health treatment program called Options.

PDS joined forces with the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency and the

Superior Court and the Corrections Trustee to establish a treatment program for mentally ill people charged with minor, relatively

minor, and nonviolent offenses. As a result, mentally ill people who

would have been subject to costly institutionalization or incarcer-
149

ation without treatment are now receiving treatment in a community-based program. We are very encouraged by the success of this

initiative.

Madam Chair, one initiative forwarded by the Public Defender

Service last fiscal year was a Lorton closure initiative. With the

support of the Court Services and Defender Supervision Agency

and the U.S. Parole Commission, the Public Defender Service requested funding to establish a unit called the special litigation unit

to represent parolees facing revocation. Since August 2000 we have

hired 10 lawyers. We have handled over 700 cases, approximately

100 percent of all cases in which an individual is facing revocation

of parole.

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the agency will allow

PDS to continue to partner with the Court Services and Defender

Supervision Agency and create a community-based legal services

program to address the legal needs of adults and juveniles who regularly face revocation and reincarceration for violations of their

structured release program.

Because the Public Defender Service provides legal representation to nearly every parolee facing revocation, PDS attorneys have

been able to see first-hand that in many instances parolees who

have been incarcerated for over a decade require additional legal

assistance in order to adjust to their structured community release

and the profound changes in the law that have occurred since their

incarceration.

Under this proposed community reentry program, PDS will provide legal assistance to parolees on their legal obligations, like payment of child support and compliance with community supervision

requirements, and educate parolees on the critical recent changes

in the law, like in the areas of domestic violence, victims’ rights,

violence against women, and sex offender registration.

Similar to their adult counterparts, juveniles who have been released, or who are detained in detention facilities, require additional services, additional legal services in order to successfully

transition back into the community. Under this proposal, we would

provide special education advocacy to juveniles in the delinquency

system who have learning disabilities, and we would provide civil

legal services and help juveniles and their families attain critical

public benefits necessary for a successful transition.

PREPARED STATEMENT

PDS is uniquely situated to provide these legal services, and the

PDS reentry proposal is the perfect companion to the community

reentry efforts underway by the Court Services and Defender Supervision Agency and other criminal justice agencies. Consequently, I respectfully request your support of this important initiative.

Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA JONES

Good Afternoon, Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee. My name is

Cynthia Jones, and I am the Director of the Public Defender Service for the District

of Columbia (PDS). I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today in support of the agency’s fiscal year 2002 budget request.
150

As a result of the National Capitol Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the ‘‘Revitalization Act’’), PDS was established as a federallyfunded, independent District of Columbia agency. The Revitalization Act requires

PDS to transmit its budget and receive its appropriation through the Court Services

and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), but PDS is not a component of CSOSA.

We have a separate mission.

The Public Defender Service provides constitutionally-mandated legal representation to indigent people who are facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia.

PDS shares this responsibility with the local court, which is responsible for appointing private attorneys to provide indigent defense representation under the Criminal

Justice Act (‘‘CJA panel attorneys’’).

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

wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal services to:

—mentally ill people facing involuntary civil commitment;

—recovering substance abusers participating in the structured Drug Court treatment program; and

—juveniles in the delinquency system who have learning disabilities and require

special accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education

Act.

For fiscal year 2002, the Public Defender Service requests $20,829,000 and 211

FTE in direct authority. Our fiscal year 2002 request would allow us to continue

to build upon the success of our current operations and add one new initiative, a

Community Re-Entry Program, to educate juvenile and adult offenders of their legal

responsibilities upon returning to the community. This initiative is aimed at reducing the number of offenders who face revocation and re-incarceration. To support

this initiative, we request approximately $1 million dollars and 10 FTE.

PROGRESS ON AGENCY FUNCTIONS AND FISCAL YEAR 2000 INITIATIVES

The past year has been a very successful and productive one for the Public Defender Service. We have been able to work with other agencies to improve the quality of legal services received by indigent people in the D.C. criminal justice system.

INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED BY AGENCY

First, although the legal staff of 100 attorneys at PDS is still relatively small in

comparison to the 300 CJA panel attorneys and the 300 attorneys at the local prosecutors office, the agency was able to handle almost 1,000 more cases last year than

in fiscal year 1999. In the largest legal services division of the agency—the Trial

Division—there was a 29 percent increase in the number of cases handled in fiscal

year 2000. All tolled, the Public Defender Service provided legal representation and

assistance in over 10,000 legal matters in fiscal year 2000. More specifically, we

have been able to increase the number of resource-intensive and time-consuming serious felony cases handled by the agency. Our experienced attorneys are able to

draw upon the institutional knowledge of our staff and the resources of our Investigations and Offender Rehabilitation Divisions, to resolve these complex cases in

a manner that is far more cost-efficient than if handled by CJA panel attorneys.

ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT IN ADMINISTERING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

The second area where PDS has expanded its services is assisting the court in

administering the Criminal Justice Act. First, PDS now offers a series of training

programs to CJA panel attorneys to further improve and enhance the quality of

legal services rendered to poor people in the District of Columbia. In June 2000,

PDS instituted the Summer Criminal Defender Training Series, a 20-session intensive and comprehensive training program that was attended by over 200 CJA panel

attorneys. The presenters included Superior Court judges, experienced attorneys in

private practice, as well as local and national experts on DNA evidence and related

topics. In 2001, we have again offered the Summer Training Series and the reviews

from CJA panel attorneys have been very positive.

PDS also offered more intense training sessions on juvenile matters. In April of

this year, we offered a 6-day training program in Special Education Advocacy and

trained 60 attorneys to provide legal representation to children in the delinquency

and neglect system who suffer from learning disabilities or special education challenges. This training program utilized presenters from the Department of Education, the DC. Public Schools, area law schools and law firms, as well as PDS staff

attorneys. Finally, we offered a 5-day intensive juvenile delinquency training session

that was attended by 40 CJA panel attorneys. The participants in this program received instruction from Superior Court judges, the D.C. Department of Human Services, local practitioners and law professor and PDS staff attorney on all aspects of
151

representing children in the delinquency system. Over the course of the next year,

we hope to work closely with the court to develop an intensive training program for

the criminal defense investigators who work on cases with CJA panel attorneys.

In addition to training, PDS has been working very closely with the court and the

Corrections Trustee to institute major improvements in the issuance of payment

vouchers for CJA legal services. The new streamlined, automated procedures should

be implemented by the end of this fiscal year.

CREATION OF A MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT PROGRAM

The third major project of the Public Defender Service in fiscal year 2000 and in

fiscal year 2001 was the creation of diversion programs in cases involving very

minor, low-level crimes. In furtherance of this objective, PDS joined forces with the

D.C. Pretrial Services Agency, the Superior Court and the Corrections Trustee to

establish OPTIONS, a treatment program for mentally ill people charged with

minor, non-violent offenses. The OPTIONS program has only been underway for a

few months, but already it has had a huge impact. Mentally ill people who would

have been subject to costly institutionalization or incarceration without treatment

are now receiving critically-needed treatment in a community-based program.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 INITIATIVE: PAROLE REVOCATION

Finally, I am pleased to report that the one new initiative for the agency in fiscal

year 2000, the Lorton Closure Initiative, has been fully and successfully implemented. Under the Revitalization Act, all of the functions of the former D.C. Board

of Parole were transferred to the United States Parole Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

in August 2000. With the full support of the Commission and the Court Services

and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), PDS requested funding to create a new

unit of lawyers to provide the constitutionally-mandated legal representation to parolees facing revocation before the Commission. With the increased efficiency and

strict accountability measures in place by CSOSA, parolees who fall short of their

structured supervision requirements are quickly identified and brought to the attention of the Commission. Since August 2000, PDS has represented over 700 parolees,

nearly 100 percent of those facing revocation. We estimate that the D.C. Superior

Court would have incurred costs in excess of $600,000 in order to provide this same

legal representation through the Criminal Justice Act Program.

FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST: COMMUNITY RE-ENTRY

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the agency will allow PDS to continue to

build on the success of its current operations and, in partnership with CSOSA, create a community-based legal services program to address the legal needs of adult

defendants, parolees and probationers who regularly face revocation and re-incarceration for violations of their structured release program. This initiative will also

allow PDS to provide the same community transition services for juveniles in the

delinquency system. The costs associated with parole revocation and reincarceration

are enormous. Because the Public Defender Service provides legal representation to

nearly every parolee facing revocation before the commission, PDS attorneys have

been able to see first-hand that, in many instances, parolees who have been incarcerated for over a decade require additional transitional legal assistance in order to

adjust to the a structured communitybased supervision program and to the profound

changes in the law that have occurred since their incarceration. Under this proposed

Community Re-entry Program, PDS will provide legal assistance to parolees on legal

obligations, like payment of child support and compliance with community supervision requirements, and educate parolees on critical changes in the law during

their period of incarceration, like domestic violence, victim’s rights, violence against

women, sex offender registration, as well as other legal changes that have occurred

under the Revitalization Act ( e.g., truth-in-sentencing changes, abolishment of the

D.C. Board of Parole).

Similar to their adult counterparts, juveniles who have been released, or who are

detained in juvenile detention centers require additional services in order to successfully transition back into their communities. One very critical, long-standing problem in the D.C. criminal justice system is the lack of post-commitment (conviction)

services for juveniles. CJA panel attorneys are not usually involved in a case after

the child has been sentenced or institutionalized. PDS, through it’s Juvenile Services Program, provide some limited legal assistance to these children while they are

at the Oak Hill Detention Facility (representation at institutional disciplinary hearings, street law courses, etc.), but there are currently limited resources available to

assist juveniles with the transition back into the community. Under this proposal,

PDS would seek to provide:
152

—Special Education Advocacy to get children placed back in public school and provide the legal assistance to juveniles who are entitled to special education benefits under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act;

—Civil Legal Services to assist juveniles (and their families) to obtain benefits

that the child is entitled to receive (child support, public assistance, social security, food stamps, etc); and

—educate juveniles under criminal justice supervision, as well as at-risk youth in

the community about the law and their responsibilities.

PDS is uniquely situated to provide these legal services, and the PDS Community

ReEntry proposal is the perfect companion to the community re-entry efforts currently underway by CSOSA and other criminal justice agencie. Consequently, I respectfully request your support of this important initiative.

I would like to thank you and the committee members for your time and attention

to these matters and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee

might have.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you.

Mr. Ormond.

STATEMENT OF JASPER ORMOND

Mr. ORMOND. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before

you, Madam Chair and Senator DeWine. CSOSA is comprised of

community supervision programs, the pretrial service agency, and

we also transmit the budget of the Public Defender Service, as Ms.

Jones indicated.

CSOSA requests $147 million and 1,167 FTE’s in direct budget

authority this year. Of this amount, $94.1 million is requested for

our community supervision programs, $32.4 million is requested for

pretrial services, and $20.8 million is requested for D.C. Public Defender Services.

CSOSA supervises approximately 26,000 individuals, 9,500 pretrial defendants, 10,900 probationers, and 5,700 parolees. The period of supervision varies, approximately 107 days for pretrial defendants, 20 months for probationers, and 5 years for parolees.

The typical offender under our supervision shows significant educational, employment, and social deficits, as well as multiple prior

arrests, convictions, and a history of substance abuse. Our goal is

to reduce recidivism by offenders by 50 percent over the next 5

years, and we think these goals are very, very achievable by the

year fiscal year 2005.

Our funding request is tied to five strategic objectives, critical

success factors which define what we must do in order to achieve

our goal of the 50-percent reduction. I would like to discuss briefly

our major achievements in this area, and introduce our proposed

initiatives for this year.

The first objective is that of improved risk needs assessment. We

have been able to implement a comprehensive risk screener for all

probationers and parolees. We are also very proud of a state-of-theart forensic toxicology drug-testing laboratory. We have been able

to increase drug testing among our population by 600 percent. In

fiscal year 1999 we had 50,000 samples. In fiscal year 2001 we

have had 300,000 samples, a 600-percent increase, which is very

significant. In this regard, our request for this year is for $486,000

to increase our efforts for expanded drug-testing.

In addition, our next major objective is that of close supervision,

which is our primary mandate, continued reduction in probation

and parole caseload is very significant to us. We have been able to
153

reduce those caseloads by 50 percent over the last 3 years, and currently we are looking at a 70 to 1 ratio. We still feel our ultimate

goal would be one of a 50 to 1 ratio in order to do the level of supervision that we propose.

We have also opened two new field offices in Washington, both

on Taylor Street and South Capitol Street, which has been a significant collaboration with the city. We have implemented programs to report reentry, and roughly we are looking at about 2,000

offenders reentering the community over the next year.

PSA pretrial services has also established new restrictive community supervision programs to support the halfway house placements, as well as a new case management system for Federal defendants.

Supervision is the area in which we indicate the majority of our

resources. Three of our goals or initiatives are primarily focused

under our close supervision. First, we request $13 million and 92

positions to establish a reentry sanctions center. We propose expanding our existing assessment orientation center, which is on the

grounds of Karrick Hall at D.C. General Hospital. We have operated the AOC since 1997 very successfully. We are seeing an 84-

percent completion rate among our participants.

In the expansion of this facility and the new sanctions facility we

think that we can cover at least 70 percent of those folks that are

transitioning back into the community, which is very, very critical

to supplement the halfway house issues and resources in the city.

Our second major initiative under close supervision is $1 million

for expanded space and equipment. Our need to move our staff into

the community is very, very important. Our collaboration with the

Metropolitan Police Department and the community has shown significant successes, so this $1 million will support an expanded field

unit within the community.

We are also occupying current sites that are owned by either the

court or the D.C. Government, and because of the initiatives of the

court, we need to really look at expanding those spaces.

Our third major initiative is that of reducing the caseload at pretrial services. Now, pretrial services roughly has a ratio of 204 to

1, which is not acceptable. We are hoping to support a reduction

in those caseloads for 84 to 1. $1 million would reduce those ratios

to 84 to 1 from 204 to 1.

Our next major initiative is that of treatment and support services, which is the core of what we do. Seventy percent of the people

that we are serving are drug-involved. They have a significant history of drug use, and we have found that if there is one precipitator, drug use is that precipitator.

We have been very successful in serving these folks this year.

Roughly we have resources to serve about 35 percent of the population. The request this year of $5.3 million would allow us to expand our contract treatment services to serve roughly about 70 percent of the population that is in need of service, and roughly we

have about 7,200 people in need of those services.

Our fourth major initiative is that of partnerships. Again, we

have developed 30 community-justice partnerships with the Metropolitan Police Department. We have trained over 3,000 Metropoli-
154

tan Police officers in our form of supervision. It has been a very

successful outcome for us.

Our last initiative is that of timely and accurate information. The

Pretrial Service Agency basically processes about 16,000 bail reports throughout the course of the year, and we have registered

about 499 people in our sex offender registration. These data bases

are very, very important. In order for us to expand these data

bases we are requesting roughly $4 million to expand our case

management offerings.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We really feel that we have significantly impacted close supervision in the city. The rearrest rate has fallen by 70 percent since

1998 of parolees, and in our partnership with the police department we have seen a 35-percent decrease in violent crimes in those

neighborhoods that we have had a full-blown partnership.

Again, we look forward to the support of the committee, and

thank you very much for your time.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASPER ORMOND

Madam Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 2002 budget request

for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia

(CSOSA).

CSOSA was established under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization Act) and was certified as an

independent Executive Branch Agency on August 4, 2000. The Agency is comprised

of the Community Supervision Program (CSP), which supervises offenders on probation and parole, and the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), which supervises defendants released pending trial. The Public Defender Service transmits its budget with

CSOSA’s, and it receives a transfer from CSOSA’s appropriation.

For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA requests $147.3 million, and 1,167 FTE in direct

budget authority to build on our accomplishments to date and to continue implementation of our strategic plans. Of this amount, $94,112,000 is requested for CSP;

$32,359,000 is requested for PSA; and $20,829,000 is requested for the D.C. Public

Defender Service.

According to a recent survey, CSOSA monitors or supervises 9,641 pretrial defendants, 10,988 probationers, and 5,663 parolees. The period of supervision varies

according to the individual’s status. Pretrial defendants are typically supervised for

approximately 170 days; probationers, approximately 20 months, and parolees, an

average of 5 years. Split, sentence probationers typically serve approximately two

years in prison and three years under probation supervision.

As in the rest of the Nation, offenders under community supervision in the District of Columbia are poorly equipped to establish stable, law-abiding lives. The typical offender under CSOSA supervision has four prior convictions and nine prior arrests. Two-thirds are unemployed. Almost half have no high school diploma or GED.

The average literacy level is seventh grade. Nearly three-quarters have a history of

substance abuse, and almost half have 1 current substance abuse problems. Forty

percent show some evidence of a personality disorder. Twenty percent have experienced a major loss of someone close to them in the last six months.

Due to these circumstances, CSOSA is working to maximize opportunities for defendants and offenders to succeed and minimize the risk of reoffense. Unless current

trends are reversed, most released offenders will soon return to prison. Nationally,

almost two-thirds of all parolees are rearrested within three years. In 1998, probation or parole violators constituted 36 percent of admissions to state prisons.

Our mission is to increase public safety, prevent crime, reduce recidivism, and

support the fair administration of justice in close collaboration with the community.

Our tools are proven best practices grounded in performance-based goals and measurable indicators of success. Our goal is to reduce recidivism by offenders under our

supervision for drug-related and violent crime by 50 percent, as well as to reduce

rearrest and failure to appear among supervised pretrial defendants. This will re-
155

quire maximum performance from both Community Supervision and Pretrial Services, but we believe it is achievable by fiscal year 2005.

In the three years since CSOSA was established, we have put in place a performance management structure that supports our strategic objectives. We have

achieved significant progress in changing the way defendants and offenders are supervised in the District.

The Agency’s policies and operations are grounded in a cohesive set of strategies

that define what must be achieved in order for the overall goal—the reduction of

recidivism—to be met. These strategies are the five Critical Success Factors (CSFs):

—Establish and implement an effective classification system, including Risk and

Needs Assessment, case management, drug testing, and ongoing evaluation of

our progress. Effective community supervision is grounded in sound decisionmaking about who should be released, what level of supervision is appropriate,

and how much progress the individual under supervision has made. Approximately 11 percent of the fiscal year 2002 budget request is dedicated to activities in this area.

—Provide Close Supervision of high-risk defendants and offenders, with intermediate graduated sanctions for violations of release conditions. Approximately

53 percent of the fiscal year 2002 budget request is dedicated to activities in

this area.

—Provide appropriate Treatment and Support Services, determined by the needs

assessment, to assist defendants in complying with release conditions and offenders in reintegrating into the community. Approximately 16 percent of the

fiscal year 2002 budget request is dedicated to activities in this area.

—Establish Partnerships with other criminal justice agencies and community organizations. Approximately 2 percent of the fiscal year 2002 budget request is

dedicated to activities in this area.

—Provide Timely and Accurate Information and meaningful recommendations to

criminal justice decision-makers consistent with the defendant’s or offender’s

risk and needs profile. Approximately 18 percent of the fiscal year 2002 budget

request is dedicated to activities in this area.

Our efforts to this point have focused mainly on establishing the processes and

programs through which we will achieve these results. Our fiscal year 2002 budget

submission contains our first formal performance plan. By the end of fiscal year

2002, we believe that we will begin to see the benefits from reducing caseloads, increasing drug testing and sanctions, expanding treatment services and establishing

additional partnerships with law enforcement and community service organizations.

We are confident that our program strategy will result in such positive outcomes

as reduced rearrests, lower drug use and expanded employment among the population we supervise.

PROGRESS AND NEW INITIATIVES

CSOSA’s fiscal year 2002 budget request builds on our progress under each Critical Success Factor. I would like to discuss briefly our achievements in each area

and introduce our proposed initiatives for next year.

Under CSF 1, Improved Risk and Needs Assessment, we achieved three important

milestones:

—CSP is currently standardizing the process of screening all probation and parole

cases to ensure the maximum consistency in evaluation the risks and needs of

offenders across the supervised population. The University of Maryland is working with us in this capacity.

—A new state-of-the-art Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory was completed and opened in February 2000. The Drug Lab processed over 193,000

samples in fiscal year 2000 and expects to process over 300,000 in fiscal year

2001.

—CSOSA continues to increase the number and frequency of drug tests of defendants and offenders. The number of offenders tested increased by 41 percent, and

the number of samples collected increased by 89 percent over fiscal year 1999

levels.

For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA requests an additional $486,000 over fiscal year 2001

level to increase offender drug testing .

CSOSA maintains a zero tolerance policy for substance abuse by offenders under

our supervision. Drug testing is conducted on all offenders placed on supervision by

the Courts and the U.S. Parole Commission to identify those who are using illegal

substances and to allow for appropriate sanctions and/or treatment interventions.

Studies show that among offenders, high rates of drug use are associated with high

rates of criminal activity. Conversely, during periods of relative abstinence, criminal
156

activity tends to decline. Drug testing is necessary to detect illegal substance use,

effect swift sanctioning where appropriate, make treatment referrals to ensure the

successful rehabilitation of offenders, and reduce the risk to the community of further criminal conduct.

Under CSF 2, Close Supervision, we achieved five important milestones:

—PSA created the Restrictive Community Supervision Program to supervise defendants placed by the court in halfway houses.

—PSA’s District Court Unit implemented a new case management system and

close supervision for Federal defendants.

—CSP’s current General Supervision caseload is 70 offenders per supervision officer. This represents substantial progress since the Agency’s establishment—cutting the active caseload roughly in half.

—CSP opened two new field offices (Taylor Street and South Capitol Street) to

increase supervision officer presence in the community, bringing our total number of field sites to five. We expect to finalize a location for a sixth field site

very shortly.

—CSP implemented Transitional Interventions for Parole Supervision (TIPS), a

structured program for offender reentry and a pilot reentry program in Police

Service Area 605.

Three proposed fiscal year 2002 budget initiatives are related to this Critical Success Factor:

First, CSOSA requests $13,234,000 and 92 positions to establish a Reentry and

Sanctions Center.

The cornerstone of our reentry strategy is a dedicated facility for assessment and

residential sanctions. Such a facility greatly increases the range of programming

and sanctioning options available to judges, supervision officers, and treatment

staff. We propose expanding the existing Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC)

program at Karrick Hall into a full-fledged Reentry and Sanctions Center.

CSOSA has operated the AOC program since 1997. It is currently funded by

CSOSA with grant assistance from the Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug

Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. The AOC program provides intensive assessment and treatment planning for a limited number of defendants and offenders with

serious criminal histories and long-standing substance abuse problems. More than

84 percent of participants have completed the program successfully.

The additional resources requested to renovate the facility will enable us to expand the scope of the AOC’s operations to include a continuum of reentry assessment, treatment, and sanctions programming for defendants and offenders under

supervision. We also request authorization for positions to operate the facility and

funding for start-up staffing.

Once the Reentry and Sanctions Center is operational, our three-phased reentry

strategy for parolees can be implemented fully. The assessment phase will be followed by intensive supervision and relapse/recidivism prevention phases, during

which the parolee may be placed in contract residential treatment for up to 90 days

and transitional housing for an additional 90 days. As the parolee completes treatment and demonstrates progressively responsible behavior, he or she progresses to

less frequent supervision contacts and drug tests. If the parolee violates release conditions, appropriate sanctions (including residential placement) will be imposed immediately.

We estimate that at least 70 percent of returning offenders, or approximately

1,250 persons per year, need this assessment and transitional programming, but we

do not presently have the capacity to provide it. That is why we are seeking to expand the AOC and reduce our reliance on grant funding for its operation.

CSOSA also requests $1,000,000 to acquire space and equipment for a new supervision field unit. The field unit will relocate CSP staff from downtown buildings that

are owned or controlled by the D.C. Courts and the District Government, as well

as relieving overcrowded conditions at existing field units.

These resources will enable CSOSA to acquire space and equipment for an additional community supervision field office. Moving CSOSA’s supervision officers to

the neighborhoods where most offenders live is an important part of our strategy.

In that way, the officers become an active public safety presence in District of Columbia neighborhoods. They are close to the offenders they supervise. Seeing the supervision officer on neighborhood streets reinforces the message of offender accountability. This structure also facilitates interaction with the police. We have structured our field operations to provide officers with the time and support they need

to visit offenders at home and at work, as well as to interact with the police and

the community. Our caseloads are assigned according to the Police Service Areas in

the District, further strengthening the link between community supervision and

community policing.
157

CSOSA requests $1,000,000 to reduce caseloads for higher risk felony defendants.

Caseloads within PSA’s General Supervision Branch are approximately 204 defendants to 1 Pretrial Services Officer (PSO). The funding requested for additional

PSA positions will lower the caseload ratio for higher-risk defendants to approximately 84 to 1. With these additional PSOs, the full range of supervision services

will be provided for higher-risk defendants, including: needs assessments for treatment and service referral, electronic monitoring, intermediate sanctions for selected

violations, and improved coordination with CSP on dual supervision and

presentence investigations.

Under CSF 3, Treatment and Support Services, we achieved five milestones:

—We have implemented a continuum of treatment services, including detoxification, inpatient, and outpatient treatment from more than 10 contract providers

and in-house staff.

—PSA created the New Directions Intensive Drug Treatment and Supervision

Program to closely supervise and treat drug using defendants.

—CSOSA placed 527 defendants and 1,165 offenders in contract treatment programs.

—The CSP Learning Lab at St. Luke Center was dedicated in November 2000.

The Learning Lab provides educational and job placement services to defendants and offenders. The program was developed through a grant from the Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed program. For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA requests $5,297,000 to expand contractual treatment

to meet court-ordered and assessed treatment needs of supervised offenders and defendants.

Sanction-based treatment has proven an effective tool in changing the behavior

of offenders. The synergistic impact of treatment and graduated sanctions together

produces better public safety-related outcomes than would either approach individually. Gains over and above those associated with treatment alone are achieved with

the addition of swift and certain sanctions that hold defendants and offenders accountable for continued drug use or other non-compliant behavior. Research performed by the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area project

found that involvement in a drug treatment program with regular drug testing and

immediate sanctions for violations resulted in a 70 percent reduction in recidivism

12 months following completion of the program.

CSOSA currently estimates that each year at least 7,200 individuals under supervision—3,700 defendants and 3,500 offenders—require placement in an intensive

treatment program, such as inpatient or outpatient contract treatment. In fiscal

year 2000, CSOSA placed 1,165 offenders and 527 defendants in contract treatment.

We will increase these placements in fiscal year 2001.

Under CSF 4, Partnerships, we have achieved four milestones:

—CSP launched Community Justice Partnerships with the Metropolitan Police

Department in 30 Police Service Areas (PSAs).

—CSP executed 27 agreements with community agencies, providing opportunities

for offender community service.

—CSP established a cross jurisdictional approach to supervision with the Metropolitan Police Department, the Prince George’s County, Maryland, Police Department and the Maryland Division of Probation and Parole.

—PSA restructured the General Supervision Branch to work more closely with the

Superior Court.

Under CSF 5, Timely and Accurate Information, we have three important achievements to report:

—PSA staff completed over 16,000 Bail Reports in fiscal year 2000.

—CSP staff completed over 4,800 Pre-Sentence Investigation reports in fiscal year

2000.

—CSP established a secure database for sex offender registration information and

has registered 499 offenders to date.

For fiscal year 2002, CSOSA $4,069,000 for continued work on improved case

management systems and to complete the Agency’s Information Technology (IT) infrastructure upgrades.

The ability to track and analyze performance and results is critical for CSOSA

to efficiently manage its resources. This year’s request will ensure the Agency’s case

management systems are properly designed to complement and support the Justice

Information System (JUSTIS) being developed under the auspices of the Criminal

Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia.

The additional resources requested for information system development will be

used to address significant deficiencies in the current system which include: lack of

a single data repository, poor data integrity, lack of timely information retrieval capacity, lack of IT support for the integration of PSA and CSP supervision practices,
158

and inability to track data supporting PSA’s transition to a performance-based organization.

CONCLUSION

In the short time that CSOSA has managed the functions of supervised release,

probation and parole in the District of Columbia, we have seen real progress in

terms of both processes and outcomes. We have reduced caseloads to levels that are

improving supervision and contributing to enhanced public safety. More offenders

are tested for drug use, and we have put in place a system of sanctions and treatment for those who test positive.

Are our strategies working? We are only beginning to measure results, but outcomes look promising so far. We have seen the number of parolee rearrests fall by

nearly 70 percent since May 1998. In a two-year period, we have seen reported Part

I violent crimes reduced by as much as 35 percent in the neighborhoods where community supervision and police officers collaborate. We have seen the rate of positive

drug tests begin to fall among supervised offenders. We look forward to seeing these

positive trends continue and accelerate as our programs mature.

We appreciate the support the Subcommittee has shown us in past years, and we

hope that support will continue. Thank you for the opportunity to share our

progress with you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, and I really appreciate your comments regarding the outcomes of some of our initiatives, and the

performance and outcomes are important to keep focused on. I

thank you for that.

Mr. Clark.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. CLARK

Mr. CLARK. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senator DeWine.

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to report on the progress

that has occurred in carrying out the mandates of the 1997 Revitalization Act as it relates to the corrections components of the D.C.

Government.

I need also to report on some of the challenges that are still remaining. We are a little different than the others, who all have initiatives. We are kind of phasing down here.

Our office, the Corrections Trustee’s Office, was established by

the Revitalization Act for several purposes:

First, to provide a funding vehicle and consequent financial oversight for implementation of the Federal Government’s responsibilities to the District of Columbia Department of Corrections under

the act during the period when the D.C. felony population is being

transferred to the Federal prison system.

Second, to facilitate implementation of aspects of the act related

to the closure of the Lorton Corrections Complex and the transfer

of 8,000 felons to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

And finally, to provide assistance to the DOC in upgrading its

operations.

More recently, the unique role and perspective of our office has

led to a somewhat broader mandate in terms of facilitating interagency communications in the District. This role evolved from requests from the Office of the Attorney General to investigate and

help remedy several problems in the District, particularly those involving coordination between District, local district and Federal

criminal justice agencies, and the reengineering of certain interagency processes that were altered by the act.

Madam Chair, I am proud of the way that our office has fulfilled

these mandates. In particular, just to mention a couple of things,
159

for this 4-year fiscal year period between 1998 and 2001 the Corrections Trustee will have provided the Department of Corrections

with approximately $640 million in operating funds, in addition to

having financed necessary short-term repairs at the Lorton facilities and certain new major initiatives, such as improvement of

technology and information systems in the Department of Corrections.

We have also worked closely with the Department of Corrections

to provide technical assistance, with the goal of creating a streamlined, efficient Department of Corrections, well-prepared for its new

role as a more typical urban jail system, responsible primarily for

pretrial and misdemeanor populations.

The Corrections Trustee has also prepared several investigative

reports or reviews at the request of the Department of Justice, particularly on the problems at the private prison in Youngstown,

Ohio, and I did have a chance to brief Senator DeWine on that report some months ago.

Another investigative review for the Justice Department focused

on problems associated with the District’s interagency processing of

offenders. These reports made a number of recommendations which

I am proud to say have led to significant improvements in both situations.

And more recently, the trustee has been asked to play a role in

funding and shepherding several pilot projects, one of which Cynthia Jones mentioned, the Options mental health treatment program, projects for the larger D.C. justice system to improve the

case flow processing from the time of arrest through movement into

custody.

Let me briefly address, Madam Chair, the progress on implementation of the revitalization act, and I must say it would be hard to

overestimate the magnitude and complexity of some of the issues

that have been thrust upon not only the Department of Corrections, but the other agencies who are represented here today, and

a number of complex logistical issues have come up in the implementation.

Frankly, these challenges are made even more complex in the

District, and more cumbersome to an extent, because of the unique

relationships and responsibilities between the District government

and the Federal Government in terms of the criminal justice operations.

On the other hand, on the positive side, while there is a long way

to go to finish the job, I am firmly convinced, after 4 years in this

job, that in the end the operations of the local criminal justice system in the District and the public safety of the District of Columbia

will have been significantly enhanced through this process.

I want to assure the committee that the transition will be completed on time, by the end of this year, and hopefully by mid-November Lorton will be vacated of inmates, and all the prisoners will

have been transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As you

mentioned already, about 4,600 have been transferred.

Skipping forward just to mention a couple of things, looking at

the yellow light, I would also point out that although by the end

of the year all the prisoners will have been transferred, the actual

transfer of the final portions of the Lorton property to GSA will not
160

occur immediately on December 31. After the inmates have left,

there will be a period of decommissioning the property, disposing

of extensive records and equipment.

Madam Chair, you have mentioned one area that I would emphasize, and that is the particular difficulty impacting upon the staff

at Lorton and with the Department of Corrections. The size of the

DOC staffing is being reduced by three-quarters, from 3,300 employees to under 800, and again, without going into detail at this

point, we can all imagine the anxiety and disruption that this has

caused, although generally the staff have adjusted well after the

initial shock, and I would say that we have developed an interagency task force to provide services to the employees. We have set

up a career transition center at Lorton, and we have implemented

the priority consideration program which was mandated in the law.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In order to meet all these challenges, finally I will mention, that

face our office and the Department of Corrections in fiscal year

2002, the Corrections Trustee requests a total of $32.7 million. This

represents a reduction of $101 million below our current year level

in view of the transfer of most of the prisoners to the Federal prisons this year.

With that, I will conclude and be happy to take any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. CLARK

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member DeWine. I am pleased

to appear before you today to report the progress that has occurred in carrying out

the mandates of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Act) relating to the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to share with you the progress we

have made and challenges still facing our office.

BACKGROUND

The Corrections Trustee was established by the National Capital Revitalization

and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997:

—to provide a funding vehicle and consequent financial oversight for the Federal

government’s responsibilities under the Act to the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) during the period when the D.C. adult felony population is being transferred to the Federal Prison System;

—to facilitate implementation of aspects of the Act related to the closure of the

Lorton Correctional Complex and the transition of felons out of DOC; and

—to provide assistance to DOC in upgrading its operations. However, the Trustee

has no operational authority within DOC, since that authority remains with

DOC’s Director.

Broadened Mandate.—Although the mission of the Office of the Corrections Trustee was originally conceived to be a financial and operational partner of DOC during

the transition period, the unique role and perspective of the Office of the Corrections

Trustee led to a wider role in terms of facilitating interagency communications. This

role evolved from requests from the office of the Attorney General to investigate and

help remedy several problems, particularly those involving coordination between

District and Federal criminal justice agencies, and to foster an interagency re-engineering of the detention-related processes altered by the Act.

Financial Support of the District.—For the fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the

Corrections Trustee will have provided DOC with approximately $640 million in operating funds, in addition to having financed necessary repairs at the Lorton facilities and certain major new initiatives such as a new $2.8 million jail management

information system. The Corrections Trustee allocates funds provided through the

Federal appropriations process to finance the operations associated with the Federal

government’s responsibilities for District of Columbia adult ‘‘sentenced felons,’’ as
161

set forth in the May 1997 Memorandum of Understanding signed during the development of the Revitalization Act. The Federal funding responsibility is limited to

the Department of Corrections operations related to those felons serving sentences

and whose legal charges have been fully adjudicated (‘‘State ready’’). This definition

excludes those felons awaiting trial on other charges, parole revocation procedures,

or other court appearances, which are considered to be a local responsibility.

The Corrections Trustee works closely with the D.C. Department of Corrections

on its financial operations as well as on critical operational issues facing the Department. The Corrections Trustee’s goal is to assist in the strategic planning process

to create a streamlined, efficient Department of Corrections prepared for its new

role as a local correctional authority in the District of Columbia. In its new role as

a more typical urban jail system, the Department will be responsible for its pretrial

and misdemeanant inmate population, as well as those prisoners held for court-related procedures. The Corrections Trustee also works with the Department to ensure the safety of all inmates, staff, and the community, including the safety of inmates, staff and the community at Lorton, Virginia, where the facilities are scheduled to be closed at the end of the transition period.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT AND THE LORTON CLOSURE PROCESS

It would be hard for me to overstate the magnitude and complexity of the implementation tasks thrust upon the various agencies by the Revitalization Act, particularly on the D.C. Department of Corrections, the Courts, and the Court Services and

Offender Supervision Agency. The scope of the operational and logistical changes required to be made during a relatively brief period is unprecedented in my knowledge. Frankly, the challenges are made more complex and cumbersome in the District by the unique nature of the responsibilities and relationships among local and

Federal criminal justice agencies here. Those relationships have been significantly

altered in the new regime, often with consequences which undoubtedly were unforeseen by those involved in the formulation of the Act. However, although there is a

long way to go to finish the job, I am firmly convinced that in the end the operations

of the local criminal justice system and the public safety of the District of Columbia

will have been significantly strengthened and improved in the process, but not without great effort by many.

The mandates of the Act to close the Lorton Complex and transfer all sentenced

D.C. felons to BOP operated or contract prisons by the end of this year will be met,

due in large part to the hard work and cooperative planning of all the involved

agencies. The transfer of District of Columbia adult felony inmates has been progressing in accordance with schedules developed jointly by the Federal Bureau of

Prisons with the Office of the Corrections Trustee and the Department of Corrections. These schedules have been shared with the Subcommittee as part of the

Trustee’s mandated Lorton closure reports submitted in 1999 and 2000.

Of the current D.C. inmate population of 10,200 inmates, almost 8,000 are adult

felony inmates, of which about 4,500 have already been transferred to the permanent custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Since the establishment of the Office

of the Corrections Trustee, four of the five facilities have closed at Lorton, Virginia:

the Occoquan Facility in early May 1999, the Minimum Security Facility at the end

of July 1999, the Youth Facility at the end of January 2000, and the Maximum Security Facility at the end of January 2001, two months ahead of schedule. This was

accomplished in part by the transfer of inmates to BOP.

However, due to the lack of available bedspace in Federal facilities during most

of the transition period, BOP was unable to accept most of the DOC inmate population, especially medium and high security inmates which constitute the largest

portion of the DOC population or about 70 percent. In order to continue the Lorton

closure process in an orderly fashion, the D.C. Department of Corrections, with

funding and cooperation from the Trustee’s Office, entered into a contract with the

Commonwealth of Virginia and modified a previous contract with the Corrections

Corporation of America (CCA) to house medium and high security inmates. About

1,350 medium- and high-security inmates were placed in Virginia prison facilities,

and about 1,500 inmates were placed in facilities operated by CCA. Only the Central Facility currently remains open at the Lorton Correctional Complex, housing

approximately 1,300 inmates.

Staying on schedule has been made less arduous in part due to the relatively stable size of the District of Columbia inmate population, which was about 9,700 in

1997. However, during fiscal year 1999, a very large, unanticipated increase of more

than 10 percent in the sentenced felon population occurred at the same time the

DOC was closing the Occoquan and the Minimum Security Facilities. The rise in

inmate population was not due to an increase of new commitments, but rather was,
162

in large part, a result of more intensive parole revocation procedures, more stringent release procedures that occurred as a result of the Revitalization Act, and a

court decision on the handling of parolees. This increase in the population necessitated the reopening of a Modular Unit within the Central Facility in April 1999

to accommodate the growth in the number of inmates while closing the Occoquan

Facility. In fiscal year 2001, the current population has decreased slightly and is

relatively stable at the present level of 10,200 inmates, of which close to an estimated 8,000 inmates are a Federal responsibility.

The transfer of inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons raised the concern that

the inmates would be relocated far away from the District of Columbia and their

families. This concern was reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding signed

during the development of the Revitalization Act which provided that inmates would

‘‘ordinarily initially be assigned to institutions located within a 500 mile radius of

their release residence.’’ This is not always feasible due to the special requirements

in handling certain inmates, such as the availability of adequate bedspace at the

appropriate security level. However, of the current 4,500 D.C. inmates in the Federal Prison System, nearly 80 percent are housed in facilities within 500 miles of

the District.

Transfer of the Lorton Property.—Although all the adult felony inmates will have

been transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons—including those in facilities contracted for by the Department of Corrections—the actual transfer of property at the

Lorton Correctional Complex to the General Services Administration will not occur

immediately on December 31, 2001. After the inmates have left, the equipment and

property inventory and hundreds of thousands of records must be relocated or otherwise disposed of, as well as the transfer of certain Lorton-based functions such as

the transfer and incorporation of warehouse functions, armory, laundry, and staff

training to another suitable location. In addition, certain clean-up activities, including the decommissioning of the sewage treatment plant, must take place prior to

the land’s conveyance. The license plates, furniture, print shop, and the Metrobus

seat repair prison industry programs at Lorton will be discontinued with most of

these functions transferred to Federal prison facilities.

PERSPECTIVES ON CURRENT OPERATIONS

Difficult Challenges of Downsizing DOC Staff.—The Department of Corrections is

being confronted with some unique issues and problems as its mission is altered and

the size of the Department is reduced by about three quarters both in funding and

in staffing from 3,300 employees in 1997 to about 800 by the end of the transition

later next year. The closure of four prisons and the gradual reduction of the Department’s size over the past four years have been accompanied by a steady or even an

accelerated rate of natural attrition. In recent months, that rate of attrition has

slowed significantly. Overall, the impact over the past several years of the attrition

phenomenon has been to minimize the need for conducting large Reductions-inForce (RIF) efforts, though several of modest proportions were necessarily implemented by DOC. In certain cases as particular facilities were closed, vacancies in

uniformed positions at DOC-operated correctional facilities were backfilled with

staff transferred from closed facilities, thus reducing the need to separate some employees and reducing the need for a portion of the overtime.

In contrast, the next six months present a more difficult situation since the number of staff who will be required to depart from DOC employment will be significant

and, in order to live within constrained budget levels of the post-Revitalization Act

period, RIFs will need to be planned well in advance of December 31, 2001, and be

implemented during the final stages of downsizing and closure of the Lorton Correctional Complex. This issue has been complicated by the slow pace in carrying out

certain previous RIF actions, such as with the recent delay in the processing of RIF

actions after the closure of the Maximum Security Facility which closed at the end

of January 2001. Separation notices associated with that closure were only recently

issued, with most to take effect later this month, six months after the closure of

the Maximum facility.

The final downsizing needs to occur in a gradual, phased-in fashion and requires

accelerated planning, including steps to process an additional RIF of significant size

before September 30 of this year. These formal RIF actions are complex endeavors

requiring coordination among the Department of Corrections, other District entities,

and District officials. Because of this complexity, there is the strong potential for

delay in this procedure due to the length of the approval process and the number

of involved parties both within and beyond the Department of Corrections. I have

recently reiterated to the Department of Corrections my concerns that the pace of

separations needs to be accelerated to keep pace with the dramatic decline in the
163

inmate population under supervision in DOC-operated facilities and the associated

closing of correctional facilities and various housing units within the one remaining

Lorton prison. Likewise, there is a significant concern that the available financial

resources will soon be outstripped by the requirements to compensate a pool of employees who remain on duty, in spite of the drastic reduction in the requirements

for on-board staffing corresponding to the diminished inmate population. It is incumbent upon the Department of Corrections to take the lead to ensure that this

process is handled in an orderly and timely fashion.

Employment Assistance for Departing Employees.—The priority consideration program and the Career Transition Center at Lorton were established by the Corrections Trustee and DOC to assist staff scheduled to be separated from the Department of Corrections to mitigate the difficulties of these separations. This program

continues to provide an array of employment-related counseling and other services

and is coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the D.C. Office of Personnel,

D.C. Department of Employment Services, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

One major benefit available to separated employees is preferential consideration

for employment with BOP and other Federal and District agencies. Although only

20 applicants have been hired by the Bureau of Prisons to date both within and outside of the priority consideration program, it is expected that applications will increase as we approach the final closure of the Lorton Correctional Complex. As always, DOC staff are continually encouraged to avail themselves of the Federal employment opportunities through the priority consideration program.

Improvements in Operations at the Department of Corrections.—One of the successes initiated by the Corrections Trustee in concert with the DOC administration

has been in the implementation of a system of internal audits and controls within

DOC. This system fosters the development of policies by which program accountability can be assessed. DOC Director Washington has supported this initiative by

establishing a permanent unit to oversee the development and implementation of

the new system. The Office of the Corrections Trustee instructed Department of

Corrections staff on how to develop audit standards in 12 areas that will measure

policy compliance in core correctional practices as well as focus on adherence to national policy standards, such as standards of the American Correctional Association,

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National Commission

on Healthcare.

Likewise, the Trustee’s Office has worked with the management of the DOC to

attempt to remedy a long-standing problem with the lack of adequate information

systems, a problem which has plagued the efficiency of staff operations and the ability of other agencies on a daily basis to access necessary accurate information on

particular offenders. Installation of a state-of-the-art $2.8 million jail information

system funded by this Office is currently being completed. This system should be

of great benefit to DOC and its sister agencies. Several other technological enhancements have been provided to DOC through the assistance of the Trustee’s Office.

Improvements in services and supervision for offenders returning to the community

after a period of incarceration.—Prior to the Revitalization Act and the establishment of the Office of the Corrections Trustee, few inmates returning to the community had the benefit of a transitional period in a halfway house prior to release. We

strongly advocated that the prisoner re-entry and halfway house program be reinvigorated, and currently nearly all parolees have been placed in halfway houses before returning to the community. This improvement has resulted in reducing the

rate of re-arrest by more than 50 percent among parolees.

INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Investigative Reviews of the Youngstown Prison and of the District’s Interagency

Processing of Offenders.—The Corrections Trustee has prepared several reports at

the request of the Department of Justice. The first was a review completed in November 1998 examining the very serious, well-publicized problems at a private facility at Youngstown, Ohio, operated under a contract with DOC which predated the

transition mandated by the Revitalization Act. This review led to a detailed report

with 19 major findings of issues to be addressed along with 24 recommendations to

ameliorate the problems, directed at both DOC and the operations at the private

facility. The major issues have subsequently been addressed by both entities, leading to significant improvements, including the removal of all high-security or disruptive prisoners. The Youngstown facility has operated in a much improved fashion

over the past two and a half years, with no major incidents or disruptions.
164

The second report requested by the former Deputy Attorney General resulted in

a 280-page review of a number of other interagency and inter-jurisdictional issues

and problems unique to D.C.’s current transition, including problems associated

with the processing of newly sentenced inmates and those who are sentenced under

both local and Federal statutes. The request was in response to an order from the

U.S. District Court requesting that the Department of Justice investigate and remedy the policies and procedures related to these areas. The Court’s order reflected

serious public concerns, including those raised in the Congress, regarding the mishandling of the highly publicized case of murderer Leo Gonzales Wright, and specifically with the commitment processes for Federal and D.C. code cases. This report

included 24 major recommendations. It was released in October 1999 and has been

favorably received by both the U.S. District Court and the Superior Court, as well

as DOC and Department of Justice and its component agencies.

Critical Importance of Interagency Coordination of Case Processing to the Courts,

Corrections and Department of Justice.—As a result of the Leo Gonzales Wright report and the recommendations on interagency case processing issues, the former

Deputy Attorney General requested that the Corrections Trustee coordinate implementation of the report’s recommendations with all affected agencies of the Federal

and District governments. Beginning in January 2000, the Office of the Corrections

Trustee organized an ongoing interagency committee of Federal and District criminal justice agencies to improve the coordination and logistical planning in various

detention related processes. This Interagency Detention Work Group meets on a

monthly basis and includes ranking representatives from 15 Federal and local agencies, including Judges from both the District and Superior Courts. Six separate committees are working very effectively in resolving a number of interagency issues and

problems and in improving the coordination of interagency processes.

The progress made and the collaborative approach of the agencies involved in this

work group were acknowledged in a report released to the Congress in March 2001

by the General Accounting Office, a report which in many ways was otherwise critical of the lack of adequate coordination efforts in the District’s criminal justice system.

Coordination of Re-entry and Halfway House Issues.—In response to requests

from Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and the former Deputy Attorney General in September 2000, the Trustee’s Office coordinated a joint effort of several

agencies participating in the Interagency Detention Work Group to develop and implement a short-term action plan to address several immediate problems in the

processing of offenders being released or those assigned to halfway houses. The collaboration resulted in much needed progress in the effective elimination of the backlogs of two major categories of inmate cases, those beyond their parole dates due

to lack of available halfway house beds and those ordered to halfway houses by the

Court as a condition of pretrial work release. Although there continues to be a

shortage of halfway house beds, the enhanced interagency communication resulted

in a responsive allocation of available beds.

FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST OF THE CORRECTIONS TRUSTEE

In fiscal year 2002, the Office of the Corrections Trustee requests funding to continue reimbursement to DOC for operations associated with the adult felony population for the period until the final group of inmates is transferred to the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, which will be no later than December 31, 2001. The last remaining inmates at the Lorton Correctional Complex will be housed at the Central Facility, where it is estimated that no more than 500 to 600 inmates, and hopefully

fewer, will be located at the beginning of the fiscal year. This facility will be closed

on schedule no later than December 31, 2001.

The Trustee’s office also requests funding to reimburse DOC during this period

for major support activities related to housing felons, such as health services, facilities management, and transportation. For a reasonable period beyond December 31,

during the period that all physical property including records and equipment is

being removed in preparation for final transfer to the General Services Administration, and, ultimately to Fairfax County, I anticipate that there will be some diminishing level of funding provided.

Contract Confinement.—Most secure confinement contract bed spaces for the adult

felony population will be vacated by the beginning of fiscal year 2002, but the Office

of the Corrections Trustee requests contingency funding to DOC for some higher security bed spaces to be made available, as necessary, through contractual arrangement until December 31, 2001. Funding is also requested for the same period for

a limited number of re-entry halfway house beds for prisoners being paroled, as the
165

last felons who are under DOC custody are released to halfway house bedspace prior

to BOP taking over full responsibility.

Transfer of Lorton-based Activities.—Lorton-based functions that are required to

continue will be transferred from the Lorton Complex. We support the DOC’s plan

in which it is anticipated that these and other administrative functions will be

transferred to a single location in the District. The warehouse, facilities management, and staff training must be relocated from Lorton. Since the relocation is directly associated with the closing of the Lorton facility, the Trustee’s office requests

funding to contribute a portion of the total costs in the preparation of the new space

for the relocated functions.

Severance Pay.—Prior to the Revitalization Act, DOC employed more than 3,300

staff. The current DOC staffing level is about 1,600 employees, and it is projected

that with current attrition, another 140 employees will separate before the Central

Facility closes. Of the remaining employees, a significant number must still be separated to downsize DOC in accordance with its new, reduced mission. Under the

pending budget request, the Office of the Corrections Trustee would reimburse DOC

for severance pay and terminal leave for employees released as a result of the closing of the Central Facility, including those employees in support operations such as

health services, transportation, facilities management, and administration.

Assistance with Broader-based Local Justice Initiative.—In fiscal year 2001, in addition to assistance with strictly correctional operations, one million dollars in Congressional funding was provided through the Trustee’s Office to the District’s criminal justice system for the implementation of caseload and records management improvements. The intent of these funds was to quickly begin to implement some recommendations of a report then underway for the District by the Council for Court

Excellence, a report which was released only in the past two weeks. The importance

of this report and its recommendations for the District’s criminal case processing

was emphasized in the new GAO report to the Congress cited above. Four major

projects are under development among several criminal justice agencies. The

projects include:

—Reinvigorating the MPD citation release process and citation caseload management system;

—Implementing, with a view of future expansion of, the MPD Papering Reform

Pilot Project;

—Implementing a Differentiated Case Management System for Misdemeanors

and Traffic offenses at D.C. Superior Court; and

—Implementing a pilot ‘‘options’’ project in coordination with the D.C. Commission on Mental Health Agency and the Pretrial Services Agency to test the

value of adding additional mental health services as conditions of pretrial release for appropriate non-violent, non firearm, post-arrest mental health offenders. This type of project is a progressive approach that is being promoted in

other State and local governments throughout the Nation.

The Office of the Corrections Trustee requests continued funding to assist in further implementation of criminal justice improvements in fiscal year 2002.

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to respond

to any questions.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you all very much. Senator DeWine

does have a few questions specifically about the court, so since our

time is short, Senator, and that is very important to us, why don’t

we go ahead and focus on those questions, and why don’t you go

ahead and you can begin, and I will do a few wrap-up questions

on some of the other points.

FAMILY COURT REFORM

Senator DEWINE. Thank you all for coming. We appreciate it.

Sorry for the delay. Sometimes the Senate does not cooperate too

well when you are trying to do hearings.

Judge King, I want to follow up on your comment about the one

judge one family, and that you are basically doing that now, is that

correct?
166

Judge KING. Particularly in the juvenile area, where one family

or one young person would find himself before the neglect and

abuse court, and involved in a juvenile case, and in that instance

by far the predominant practice is for the judge who is responsible

for the neglect or abuse case, to be in contact with the judge to

whom the juvenile case came in the first instance, and what usually happens is, the juvenile case is transferred to the judge with

the neglect and abuse case for the child.

In other words, the child remains before one judge, and essentially the judge who has the neglect matter is responsible for everything.

Senator DEWINE. Judge, I am not sure I am following you. So

that would mean that the first contact with this family, this whatever family, DeWine family, whatever, the first contact with this

family, that judge would then——

Judge KING. Take other matters that came in relating to that

family. Informally we do that less—it is less uniform at this point,

and that is one of the things—I mean, we absolutely agree with

your emphasis on the importance of one family one judge, and one

of the things we are working on our plan to do is to tighten up that

aspect of it, in part in respect to our dialogue on that subject.

Senator DEWINE. So you would not have a situation where the

case just stayed on the docket of one judge but another judge was

dealing with it.

Judge KING. No. Once a case was—there are clearly two cases

that ought to be in front of one judge, that child is transferred to

one judge, and that judge is responsible for all the cases. In other

words, it does not make any sense to go back and forth between

judges.

Senator DEWINE. But I guess my question is, it would be decided

basically on who had the kid first? I mean, whatever the case that

came up, or how would that work?

Judge KING. No. The usual—in that instance, and as I say, this

is still a work in progress, but the child in the neglect system is

the one where the most critical issue is at stake, the greatest need

for services, so that is likely to be the predominant——

Senator DEWINE. So the neglect aspect of it would dominate.

Judge KING. That is right, and one of the things that I think we

will be looking at down the road, as the rules change—I mean, that

is easy to address in a rule. We want to make sure that we have

thought through how the plan is actually going to be implemented,

what ultimately is the amount of resources that we are going to

have, and how this process comes out, but one of the things that

I see as helping this process would be a rules change, or a rules

procedure.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me just follow up on that for 1 minute.

Senator DeWine and I, as you know, have worked so closely on this

issue together, and we have conducted these meetings at question

time a little more informally than some of the other committees.

Judge KING. In a very helpful way.

Senator LANDRIEU. We hope that this is more helpful, because we

really want to try to fashion a remedy that really works, and what

we are struggling with is not so much, if I could, one judge one

child, but one family one judge, so that there is one judge, or one
167

magistrate that understands the depth and breadth of the problems facing a particular family.

It could be drug addiction and criminal behavior by a father or

a mother, it could be abuse of one child or more, it could be truancy

by a child, but once that family comes into contact with—whichever

member of a family to a courtroom, to a judge, we are hoping that

the system that would result would be that that judge would basically be in charge of that family so that these cases are not passed

from one judge to another, and a new judge has to familiarize

themselves with the condition of the mother, the condition of the

father, the brothers and sisters, et cetera.

I realize that every jurisdiction in the country is struggling with

this. I mean, this is not a problem just with the District, but it is

a very important problem and challenge in the Nation, and that is

why the way that you all have described to me your docket—you

have a divorce docket, I think, a termination docket, an abuse

docket, a such-and-such docket.

But it is important if you could say for the record either what

you are doing now, or what we should do in the future, to make

sure that somebody has their eye on this family unit in an attempt

to hold it together, which is very important, if possible, and then

somebody who has got enough information to make some tough decisions sometimes about placing those children with other families

that can raise and nurture them, and then providing compassionate but disciplined counseling or whatever to parents, and

there are different levels of that, from counseling to imprisonment,

based on what those actions of those parents or adults would be.

So can you just sort of elaborate a little more, and if you do not

mind, if we could just sort of focus on this for a minute.

Judge KING. This has been a constant source of, I think, concern

for all of us, and I think perhaps maybe I have not expressed myself as clearly as I might have, because we really do not disagree

a bit on the goal and where we ought to go.

I find sometimes it is frustrating, because I think we all would

like a simple, two sentences as to how this is all going to work, and

we have got it, and boom, now we have solved the problem. And

in my now almost 30 years at the bar I have not encountered very

many legal problems that are susceptible of that kind of approach.

It gets complicated when you get to the details. That is where the

devil is.

But the short answer to your point, I think, is that most cases

do not have multiple issues in them, and so it makes sense to have

judges responsible for divorce cases, for example, people who have

divorces, because most divorces do not have neglect and abuse and

all the other things, so in terms of organizing a family court and

running it day to day, for most of the time it makes sense to have

judges have areas of responsibility where they have the benefit of

efficiencies of doing cases.

For example, one of the things you have to work out is, all the

neglect cases and adoption cases are closed proceedings, whereas

other family proceedings are open to the public, and so that is just

some logistics you have to work out in order to have all of those

matters brought before a judge in a timely and sensible way so
168

that people are not kept waiting. That is why it makes sense for

judges to have one general area of responsibility.

The number of cases that you are addressing that are of vital

concern but are not that huge in number are ones where there are

different cases relating to one family, where there is a divorce case

and a neglect case, or an adoption that is going to resolve a neglect

case, and in those cases I think we can and we are looking at ways

to move us to a point where all of those cases will be handled by

one judge, end of discussion.

Now, one caveat is that there are a few types—for example, if

dad is in a criminal case, is in trouble for armed robbery, it does

not make a lot of sense to bring that into the family court, where

you have got to then have a whole jury process set up.

Senator LANDRIEU. I would say that could be the one exception.

Judge KING. Things like that, with other exceptions I think we

can get to a place, and the plan that we have now gets us there

by the collaboration and, if you will, a rules change which would

set up the dominant judge given a particular family member or

child, but that is not the end of our work on it, either. Just as you

are concerned about it, we are responding and trying to look at it

again.

We still have our task forces which were convened in January.

They are being reconvened to take another look at this to see, for

example, if there is a way to find out which are the cases where

duplicate types of litigation are most likely to occur, and deal with

those separately, maybe do some different ways of assigning those

responsibilities so that the judge will be responsible for all the

cases that affect that family.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, just to bring this point to a close, I am

happy to hear that we are all pretty much in agreement of where

we want to be, and where we think we should be, and where we

really need to be for the families that are involved.

I mean, it must be extremely frustrating to everyone involved to

have to start with a new person every week or every month, trying

to explain to the case workers, to the people in the courtroom, to

the neighbors, to the friends that are trying to help. It has just got

to be extraordinarily frustrating, so whether we do it by rule or by

law, or in what way, and there is probably no perfect way, but

there are good ways that it can be accomplished, we look forward—

Senator DeWine will probably have a few more questions, and Senator, go right ahead.

COURTHOUSE FACILITY RENOVATION

Senator DEWINE. Judge King, after the last hearing I asked you

to identify, or at the last hearing I asked you to identify the division or divisions of the court that you plan to move to the Old

Courthouse, and in your response you indicated that you plan to

move the Court of Appeals.

Judge KING. Which, of course, is not mine to move, but the thinking is that that is the effort.

Senator DEWINE. But in dealing with the big problem that one

impacts the other.

Judge KING. That is the initiative.
169

Senator DEWINE. Why would you not move the family court

there? I mean, it seems that you have a new renovated facility, you

have the ability to design from scratch, basically, all the things

that we have talked about with Senator Landrieu, some of the

things she mentioned in her opening statement, and then wouldn’t

you have, therefore, basically the segregation between the criminal,

those who have been charged with criminal offenses, and the family court?

Judge KING. There are a couple of things there. First of all, that

building has no cell block facilities or underground access to bring

prisoners in and out, so that you would have to duplicate that apparatus not only for the juveniles who would be in the Family

Court, but for the incarcerated parents, which is enough so that we

at least need to think about that problem.

One of the main reasons is timing.

Senator DEWINE. Whatever you do, it is temporary. We are not—

I know we have got to follow our standards, but it is a temporary

holding cell, or temporary holding facility we are talking about. We

are talking about hours. We are not talking about even probably

overnight.

Judge KING. No, no, the problem is moving people. For the incarcerated parents, it is moving people back and forth across the

street, and we have had that experience, in having to move people

in irons.

Another very important consideration for us is that the Court of

Appeals may be 3 or 4 years away from going over to that building,

and I am hoping that we do not have to wait 3 or 4 years before

we can effectively open our new family court operations, and let me

say that we are looking at three possibilities for the Family Court.

One is to keep it in the Moultrie Building and get contiguous

space there, displacing other operations needed in order to do that.

Another is that there is another building, Building B, it is called,

which was years ago the old civil court. It is also in need of renovations. That may be one that would be accessible to us early, and

it already does have cell block facilities, so there would be a leg up.

The third is that there was some consideration at the time the

Moultrie Building was built to having additional floors, or having

capacity for additional floors on it. We want to do, and it seems to

me the only competent, careful way to do this is to complete a

building evaluation report on our existing facilities and then to do

a feasibility report on these various things, and we have actually

already initiated discussions with GSA to begin to look at that so

that we will figure out what the best solution is.

Certainly, it is conceivable that they would come back and say,

the Old Courthouse is the way to go. We are going to listen to that,

but I think for now we are looking at that as maybe untimely, and

it seems, at least at first blush, to have some problems that the

other options do not have.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much.

Senator LANDRIEU. I just want to follow up on this, and I will

get the schematics and sketches and brief myself more than I was

able to today, but I do want to make this point, that if there is any

way in this sort of redesign that we could have a sort of, either a

stand-alone or a separate facility for parents who are not crimi-
170

nals—these are families that need help. These are children who are

not criminals. They need help.

They do not need to literally be walking around where other people are in chains, and people have guns. These children are traumatized enough already. They need to be in a setting that is more

conducive to sort of healing and nurturing, so whether they are in

one building, or on a separate floor, or whether they are in a building—I think Senator DeWine and I would be very interested in trying to work with you all to figure out what is the best place where

these situations of abuse and neglect and some sort of—not that

that is not criminal, but the children are not the criminals—in a

way that makes sense, and so, since we have got some options with

these facilities, we will continue to work with you, Judge, and see.

Judge KING. We certainly want to do a—as I say, I want to do

it carefully and competently. If this were my money I was chasing,

I would want to know what the options were, and I would want to

have a report in hand.

The other thing, let me issue an invitation to both you and your

staffs at any time to come over and I will show you what our thinking is.

Senator LANDRIEU. And I will. I think I would like to, and I

think the Senator would like to.

Judge KING. We would be delighted.

Senator LANDRIEU. We would love to do that and come see what

some of the options are, and perhaps our staff could, based on what

the proposals are, submit some options for this.

Judge KING. Sure.

Senator LANDRIEU. Because it is a great opportunity to create, as

we talked about before, a real model for the Nation, because many

of the courts around the Nation are trying to use this model and

have their facilities match the reforms.

Judge KING. May I just add one thing I forgot to mention. We

have already moved in that direction. We had a hearing room

which was really so small that it was dangerous to use for the use

that it was being used, and I have already had that broken out and

turned into a family-friendly waiting room, so that is just using resources we have now, without any additional things. We are very

conscious of the need to have somewhat less chaos and more kind

of a sense of safety around the places where children and people

with the children are going to be waiting for court proceedings.

LORTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CLOSING

Senator LANDRIEU. That would be great. Let me follow up with

you, Mr. Clark, for just a moment on this—and this is prior, I

think, to my service on this committee, and I am not as familiar

with the law that established your initiative, but your charge is basically just to empty a facility, and to transfer these prisoners, all

8,000 to 9,000 to Federal jurisdiction. Basically the physical movement of them and the closure of the facility is your general charge.

Mr. CLARK. That is the core of our charge, that is correct, and

to engineer a number of processes that are involved in setting up

some permanent case processing.

In other words, we have probably 1,500 cases a year sentenced

in Superior Court, who in the past have just gone—they have been
171

in the D.C. Jail, and they have gone to Lorton. Now, they will all

have to be committed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which involves the meshing of four or five or six agencies, between the court

and the court services who develops the presentence report, the

Marshals, the Bureau of Prisons, so there is some of these processes that we have been in the middle of trying to reengineer and,

say, a thing occurs with the parolees——

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, the reason I ask is because, you know,

all States, and I understand that we are trying to help the District,

and it does help them significantly to relieve this financial responsibility. It is a huge responsibility for States, and very, very expensive, the criminal justice piece, and on moving it we have helped

the District in terms of their financial management.

But in addition to basically moving bodies around that States do,

people in prison, they also have obligations for skill development

and education, and trying to transfer people back into the community, and the human aspects of prisoners and their families, contact

with their families—is it your agency that has responsibility for

that, or Mr. Ormond, or Mrs. Jones, or who right now—I know you

are focused on sort of just the movement of them to the Federal

system, but once they get in the Federal system, then they come

under the jurisdiction of all of the programs available to Federal

prisoners, and initiatives with Federal prisoners, and they just

come under the general Federal prison rules, or——

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. And that is clear in the law.

Mr. CLARK. That is clear, that they are to be treated in every respect as a Federal prisoner, to have access to all of these programs.

Senator LANDRIEU. Whatever services are available to Federal

prisoners, skill development, educational options.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct, and in my walking around, and I

served for 23 years in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, so I am very

familiar with that agency, but in my walking around Lorton and

Youngstown and all the other facilities, to be truthful I find that

most of the inmates are eager to move to the Federal system.

They are not necessarily eager to be a little further from home,

although that is not an issue with many of them, but they are

eager to have access to those kinds of programs, drug treatment

programs, as you say, skill development programs, parenting programs, many of which have not been as available.

Senator LANDRIEU. Which are more robust in the Federal system

than they are in this current system.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct, yes. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. Are there any things—I have got a few other

questions, but I could submit some of them in writing, and since

it is 4:30, is there anything, though, that you all wanted to add to

the record that you did not get to say in your statement, or anything you wanted to bring to my attention or emphasize just briefly

in a one-minute closing?

Judge KING. I would welcome any written questions that would

clarify, and I particularly would like to be sure, whether it is by

staff meetings or a meeting with you, that we come to a shared understanding as to the budget that is already devoted to family, as

opposed to the extra that we will need to implement some reform.
172

We may not ultimately agree, but I sure would like to know that

we all see the same reality, and then are dealing with that picture,

so I will look for an opportunity to do that with you or your staff

at some point.

Senator LANDRIEU. Great. Mrs. Jones.

Ms. JONES. I do not have any other things I need to add, but I

would invite any questions you might have about the Public Defender Service.

Mr. ORMOND. I would just like to thank you again for the opportunity, and we feel very good about the progress we have made so

far, and the support we have gotten from the committee, and we

would welcome any further questions for clarification.

Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Madam Chair, the only thing that I would mention,

again, after having spent the last 4 years in this process, is how

impressed I am with the progress that has been made in a number

of areas in the District, where the public safety of the District is

being enhanced by a number of these initiatives, and in that same

regard I have been impressed by the growing sort of communication and coordination among the many agencies, maybe as compared to 4 or 5 years ago.

I mean, we just meet each other coming and going trying to work

out some of these processes, and trying to make improvements in

the local system, so we all see each other and many other folks

from other agencies all the time, so I am just impressed that in the

District right now there is this energy to not only take care of our

own agency, but to try to work together with the other agencies.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that is very good to hear.

Thank you all, and again I am sorry for the delay, but this meeting will be recessed.

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 10, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
(173)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Landrieu and Hutchison.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATEMENTS OF:

HON. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR

LINDA M. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND

MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

DR. ALICE M. RIVLIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

DR. NATWAR M. GAHDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

ACCOMPANIED BY:

CAROLYN GRAHAM, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

SERVICES

PAUL VANCE, SUPERINTENDENT, D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Good afternoon, and if those here would take

a seat, we will begin. I would like to call the meeting of the Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia to order and

welcome all of our very, very special guests and our panelists

today. Particularly to the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Mayor

Williams, welcome, and Mrs. Cropp and all of the administrators

for the District.

It is a pleasure for me to conduct this hearing, and we may be

joined by one or two of the other members, but as you know, there

are other subcommittee hearings taking place and bills and activity

on the floor at this moment. But we may be joined by some of our

other members.

Let me just begin by saying that the purpose of this hearing is

to review the local budget and discuss the policy priorities of the

District.

As you all know, I will just remind each of you that your entire

statement will be made part of the record, so I would appreciate

it if you could limit your opening statements to about 5 minutes.
174

Mr. Mayor, we will give you a little latitude here with yours in just

a few minutes.

So, without objection, the record will remain open until 5:00 p.m.,

Friday, July 20, for the submission of any additional testimony or

responses that myself or other members may raise.

So, let me begin, if I could, with an opening statement, and then

we will take your statements and questions. Hopefully, we can finish our work in about an hour and a half, but if need be, we can

go a little bit further into the afternoon.

I have already welcomed all of you here but I would specifically

like to say, Mayor, what a personal honor it is to have you here.

I have watched your work now very closely as a part-time resident

of D.C. and back and forth between my home State. And to Councilwoman Cropp, for your good work that you do here in the District too. I follow the work that you do quite closely in the newspaper, not only as a Senator but as a resident of the District. If

our house can ever get finished, Mayor, we will invite both of you

over. It is not your fault but our fault that it is taking a while right

on East Capitol.

But, Mr. Mayor, you have done a wonderful job, and you are supported by a very able city council. You have made a tremendous

impact, Mayor, in such a short period of time. Much to your credit

and others and the team that you have assembled around you, you

have succeeded in streamlining the District’s management processes, providing better, more efficient services to the residents of

the District, which we all appreciate. The budget, which your office

has crafted and which you are here, of course, to testify on, truly

reflects that your vision is for more truth in budgeting, which I appreciate and the members of this committee appreciate.

Since taking office, this Mayor has succeeded in surpassing the

balanced budget benchmarks set by Congress while maintaining a

fiscally responsible budget focused on key areas and priorities.

The key to any strong society rests on its ability to provide primarily, in my opinion, an education for its youth, stability and

safety for the least of its members, a strong economy, and a clean

environment. Under your leadership, Mayor Williams, and the City

Council, the District has made tremendous strides towards building

a new and vibrant D.C. With an eye towards each of these visions,

you have helped to improve education, begin the reform of the child

welfare system, which is so critical to this city and to any city in

our Nation, to reinvent the capital’s parks and recreation sites for

families everywhere in every neighborhood and for the children

who desperately need places to run and play and recreate and to

enjoy all the benefits of childhood, and most importantly, unify the

city around a shared vision of a better tomorrow for the District

and its residents.

I am pleased to find that several of the areas of focus within your

budget are areas of great importance not only to me but members

of the committee and things we work on in Louisiana every year

and for many decades actually, and that is, education, child welfare, environmental conservation, and recreation have long been

cornerstones of my own legislative agenda. In each of these areas,

the Mayor and the council have been faced with a variety of different challenges, some of which are unique to the District, but
175

most of which many communities around this Nation struggle with

each and every year. The tremendous efforts you have made will

make sure that as the Nation’s capital, the District is better positioned to serve as a model for other cities around the Nation.

Again, for the thousands, hundreds of thousands of residents, but

also the millions of people who visit here, it is a very, very special,

place indeed.

They say that the test of a true leader is his or her ability to surround himself or herself with like-minded talented people. I would

like to commend you and the leaders around you for the work that

you have done, specifically Carolyn Graham, the Deputy Mayor for

Children and Youth; Margaret Kellems, Public Safety; John

Koskinen, City Administrator; Eric Price, Deputy Mayor for Economic Planning; and Nat Gandhi, the CFO, who we will hear from

in a minute.

And to you, Ms. Rivlin, I thank you for the commitment that you

have made in your role with the Control Board and others to give

guidance through this difficult, but increasingly promising situation we find ourselves in.

I am pleased to know that Superintendent Vance has recently

agreed to remain as Superintendent through another contract

term. In his relatively short tenure as the Superintendent of D.C.

Public Schools, Paul Vance has taken the Mayor’s vision of education reform to a new level and begun to make it a reality. In his

recent report to the Board of Education, Mr. Vance said, ‘‘I came

to the D.C. Public Schools because ours is a rare opportunity to do

for our children today the things that will make a difference for

their future for today and tomorrow.’’

Might I say that any strengthening of our public schools or investment in our children is not only the right and moral thing to

do for them, but it is the smart economic thing to do for this community and for our Nation. We look forward particularly to working with you all in that regard.

I am very interested in the District’s efforts to use charter

schools to help broaden school choice options for D.C. students. It

is important that students and their parents have real choices between several quality educational options. Their education will

most certainly be benefitted by that.

While the Nation’s charter school movement has been slowed

somewhat by certain barriers, the District continues to employ innovative approaches to increasing the number of charter schools

and magnet schools. Just last month, the city celebrated the dedication of the first new public school to be built in over 20 years.

The new school is a bilingual elementary school constructed at no

cost to the taxpayers through an innovative community initiative

public and private development partnership, a real model for many

of our communities around the Nation. The state-of-the-art Oyster

School, home to a nationally recognized dual-language immersion

program in English and Spanish, will provide a unique learning experience for its students. It is this type of innovation that will

allow the District to really move ahead.

I would also like to encourage the District to do its work to implement a District-wide system of assessment and accountability.

Many cities and many States are moving to very rigorous account-
176

ability systems in schools. There are different measures of testing,

some better than others, some more rigorous than others. Texas

has its own system. Louisiana has its own system. But we have

met with tremendous success when the tests and the measurements of accountability can be properly crafted and the right resources match the reform and the rhetoric, if you will, to make sure

that each child is getting a quality education and we are getting

the finest teachers and focusing on performance as opposed to process.

In fact, as you know, Mayor and Council Chairman, the Senate

just recently passed our version of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act—and it was a bipartisan effort with the President,

Democrats, and Republicans—to really be a catalyst for this school

reform effort nationwide. So, we hope that the wind is truly at our

back and here in D.C. we can catch part of that wind and continue

the good work.

I also want to note in my opening the remarkable success of

some of the college education programs that have been initiated

here and the real challenge of not having the university base that

we have in our own States. So, how do we make a college education

really available to students here? Through the D.C. resident tuition

program, which is fully federally funded and created by statute in

1998, this gives District residents the opportunity for a college education.

But there is work to do. Let me suggest that one program that

I helped to start in Louisiana that may serve as a model—of

course, there are many varieties of this around the Nation. But we

have, to my knowledge, the only sort of 401(k) for education in the

country. Not only do we have a full scholarship program in Louisiana called TOPS, which costs our State $100 million a year in

Federal dollars, but the result of that investment is that every

child in Louisiana gets to go to college, that has a 2.5 percent average, for free at an in-state college. That amount of money is applied

to out-of-state.

But to supplement that very robust scholarship program—and

Georgia has something that is similar, not exactly—we put into

place—and 3,000 families in Louisiana are taking advantage of—

a 401(k) match where the poorer the family or the more challenged

the family is, the greater the match. So, even if you can just manage to put up $12.50 a week or $25 a week or $50 a month, over

the course of 10 or 15 or 20 years saving for an education can

amount to a serious amount of money, as your treasurer can tell

you, with the value of compounded interest and a direct match

from the State. And under this tax bill that we just passed, it is

federally tax exempt. So, it could be quite an astonishing amount

of money accumulated. So, I am hoping to visit with you all about

the possibilities of opening some of those options for the children

and families here in D.C.

Let me just end my statement by saying, in addition to the child

welfare system, the education system, that we have made great

progress on, and the budgetary systems, which will be more part

of this hearing, I also want to commend you for your work on the

Anacostia River, the development of parks and recreation, which is

so important to the families and the residents of the District, but
177

to really make this beautiful city even more beautiful and a place

where our Nation can truly celebrate all that is wonderful about

being an American. So, to you, Mayor, and to your deputy and for

all of the leadership that you have shown, let me thank you.

Now, we have a lot of work to do. This budget is in good shape,

but it could be improved. There are still some very sticky wickets,

if you will. There are some tough areas that still need to be addressed. But I want to just again commend you for your good work.

Let me recognize now my colleague from Texas who will have an

opening statement, and I am sure some of her remarks will be focused on the importance of these reserve funds and how we want

to work with the city in terms of the budgetary process and some

other areas that she has worked in. I thank her for joining us. Senator Hutchison.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you so much, Senator Landrieu,

and welcome to your very first committee hearing as a subcommittee chairman. That is very exciting.

I want to say that I found being the chairman of the D.C. Subcommittee very rewarding, and I feel so good about all four of the

people sitting in front of me because I think they are turning the

District around. I am very proud of what each of you have done,

Mayor and Ms. Cropp and Ms. Rivlin. You certainly have given a

lot of time on a volunteer basis. And Dr. Gandhi, with whom I have

worked since you came on board.

I would just like to say I asked to stay on the D.C. Subcommittee

because I am so excited about the progress that is being made for

our capital city. I am committed to doing the right thing, and I love

this city and I want it to be the best that we have in America. I

think we are on our way there.

Second, I think we have made some great strides in some innovative areas.

I think the tuition scholarship grants that we started so that

D.C. students would have the opportunity to go to colleges and offset some of those college expenses because there is a shortage of

space in the colleges here.

Second, I think what you have done in education in the charter

schools having an option there for parents. The charter school that

I visited was wonderful and doing a terrific job. I think that is a

major step in the right direction.

I think the greatest accomplishment that we have made is in fiscal management and responsibility. This has certainly been tough

for everyone, but I think you have worked so well with me in trying

to establish real reserves. When I came on board as chairman, we

had a budget reserve, but that did not seem to be strong enough

to put us really into the investment grade bond arena. And I wanted us to have that in the District.

So, I started looking at what other cities have in reserve that

make them fiscally sound and came up with a plan. We are in the

process now of working into the 4 percent emergency fund with a

3 percent contingency. The emergency fund requires a very strict

test before you can take money from the emergency fund; the contingency fund, less so. But it would be one-time only expenses, non-
178

recurring. But it is real money in the bank that the rating agencies

can look at and know that if there were a real emergency, D.C.

could handle it without worrying about taxing their people or coming back to Congress.

So, I think it is a very good beginning that we have, and from

what I have understood from the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi, we will

have that fully funded probably early, hopefully. So, I think we are

on very sound ground, and I think once it is fully funded, the District of Columbia will have the same fiscal profile that the good,

well-run major cities in America have. So, I am very proud of that.

I certainly look forward to working with you to continue on that

program. As long as we have the money in the reserves, I think

you can start whittling away at the budget reserve because the real

money would certainly be the safe and sound way to have your

emergency needs met.

So, with that, I thank you very much and I applaud all of you

for the leadership that you have shown. Sometimes it has been

tough, and I appreciate that. But you have always been open and

responsive and I think we are on the right track. And I thank you.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Mr. Mayor.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Good morning, Chairman Landrieu and Senator Hutchison. I thank both of you. I think this is a very able committee since both of you come from financial backgrounds. I feel

like we are in good company here and we have worked well together as partners in moving our city forward.

I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the reserve

issues, on her leadership in working with us on economic development. We had a major ground breaking today for the Kmart and

the Home Depot. So, we are very, very proud of that. You were

there at the initial opening, so we were pleased with the support

that you have given us.

And certainly, Senator Landrieu, your support for what we are

doing not only with children in foster care and adoption but also

now with the Anacostia River is welcome. We look forward to a

very strong partnership with you to really make, as you say, the

Anacostia River a river that unites our city. It is really a model waterfront for our Nation, and I thank both of you.

I have with me here John Koskinen, my City Administrator, who

is sitting to my right, and I am also pleased that with me, although

he does not really work for me, but in attendance is Superintendent Paul Vance of our schools. So, they are available to also

help us answer any questions that you may have.

The theme of our budget this year is building a city that works

for everyone, neighborhood by neighborhood. As our city moves forward, as both of you have remarked, it is important that we move

forward together. It is equally important that we invest in critical

services, most importantly high quality education for our children.

SCHOOL BUDGET

I am proud of the fact that our budget includes a $29 million increase for the D.C. public schools, as well as a $37 million increase
179

for the D.C. public charter schools. In addition, we include

$750,000 to launch the Lead Principals initiative, a recruiting drive

by the superintendent that will draw highly talented principals

from across the country to our lowest performing schools, and $1.2

million for the Teaching Fellows program which will help the District recruit and train committed new teachers from an array of

professional backgrounds.

We appreciate the fact that Congress and President Bush also

place a high priority on education in the District. We are particularly gratified that First Lady Laura Bush was with us when we

launched the Teaching Fellows program.

We are even more pleased to report that more than 1,200 people,

including dot-com executives, retired persons, and even a few

former congressional staffers, have applied for the program in its

first year. 1,200 people. To me that is a solid indication that folks,

regular citizens, are willing to invest themselves in turning around

schools and our school system.

As you may also know, Washington is home to probably the most

vibrant, vigorous, robust charter school movement in the country.

This fall we are going to have 40 charter schools in operation. We

have not been able to satisfy all needs for facilities, but we are

working closely with these schools to help them and all of our public schools. Between the large array of charter schools and liberal

out-of-boundary enrollment programs in our school system, the District has embraced public school choice. Parents in the District in

fact, practically speaking, have many options. It is our hope to

broaden those choices, especially for those in chronically low performing schools as the superintendent implements his plan to reconstitute schools and provide parents with new environments

within the public school system.

I think the subcommittee would also be pleased to know that,

thanks to the tuition assistance grant program, more than 1,800

District youth received financial assistance to attend colleges and

universities in 37 States. For many of them, this program means

a difference between attending and not attending college. The number of applicants, grantees, and participating schools has far exceeded our expectations.

With a year’s worth of successful operations under our belt, the

District now needs the Congress to amend the original statute and

remove the requirement that participants have graduated after

January 1, 1998 and that they have commenced higher education

within 3 years of their high school education. These restrictions we

find needlessly exclude older students and others who, for whatever

reasons, fall into these categories. Financially and administratively, the program can withstand this expansion. Congresswoman

Norton has drafted a bill, H.R. 1499, to effect this change. This bill

has been passed by the House Subcommittee on the District and

is now being considered by the full Committee on Government Reform in the District of Columbia. And we urge you to also consider

and we hope approve this initiative.

To further ensure quality educational opportunities, our budget

includes $174 million to renovate and build quality school buildings

for our children. Going forward, we believe that we have to pursue

every means of supporting our master facilities plan, designed with
180

the input council and District citizens and under the leadership of

our superintendent. As we look to the future, we also have to make

sure that we fix what has not worked in the past, and there are

clear indications that superintendent Vance has begun turning the

facilities division around. We need to see the continued vigilance to

make sure that our school construction projects are starting and

staying on schedule on a reliable basis.

As we rebuild our schools, we also have to ensure that children

and adults receive the support they need beyond school walls. To

this end, the budget provides for three key enhancements.

First, it includes an expansion of the District’s Earned Income

Tax Credit for low income residents, increasing the local credit

from 10 percent to 25 percent of the Federal level. The capital budget, secondly, includes more than $8 million for construction of senior wellness centers, and $15 million to enhance

the infrastructure of information and facilities that are critical to

delivering human services to our most vulnerable residents. Third, it invests $62 million in new program funding to provide

better health care to those citizens who need it most through a restructured health delivery system that provides more health care

to more people at a lower cost.

But even with these enhancements, our residents cannot reach

their full potential if they live in unhealthy neighborhoods. Children, youth, adults, and families cannot thrive unless they live in

a clean and safe community, a community with jobs, stores, parks,

and affordable homes.

So, toward this goal, our budget enhances Fire Department operations with more than $12 million for capital equipment and facility upgrades, enhances the Police Department with a $12 million

increase for staffing and equipment, and includes $11 million for

library renovations, $59 million to improve local streets, which we

all know is clearly needed, and $67 million to renovate recreation

centers in our city.

ANACOSTIA RIVER INITIATIVE

The capital budget includes $2 million in matching funds to take

another step in an enormous task of cleaning up the Anacostia

River. This river has suffered for many, many years to the point

of becoming a health hazard and a deterrent to economic development in some of our most challenged communities. My administration is partnering with the Federal Government to aggressively

begin restoring this river.

To improve water quality, the District has planted, in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, 46 acres of wetlands and

installed several trash traps on the river. We have also removed

three vessels that were either abandoned or sunk in the river, and

I am proud of that.

While these measures are tangible steps, we are also working

with the Federal Government on a massive effort toward a longterm solution, what we call combined sewage overflow. We need a

system that can remove the toxic materials in the river bed and the

discharges that contaminate the river.

Central to this effort is $12 million that Congresswoman Norton

and I requested from the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in
181

the House in March of this year to begin to implement the longterm combined sewage overflow control plan design. This plan

would mitigate the negative environmental impacts from 60-plus

discharges of diluted sewage that flow into the river annually. We

hope that Congress will continue and sustain its support with us

on the Anacostia River in general and certainly on the combined

sewage overflow issue in particular.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

I want to speak a minute about the area of fiscal responsibility

because in meeting the benchmarks put forward by Congress, we

have achieved a high level of fiscal strength that many would have

thought unthinkable and certainly unattainable a few years ago.

We have now achieved four clean annual financial audits in a

row. Our accumulated fund balance is projected to exceed $550 million in fiscal year 2004, and bond ratings reached investment grade

years ago and continue to improve. Local revenues have increased

nearly 30 percent, and we have done this with fewer full-time employees than we had 20 years ago.

And the District’s success in attracting new economic development has been well documented.

One of the greatest indications of the District’s restored financial

health is our swift progress in building financial reserves. Last

year Congress challenged the District to establish emergency and

contingency cash reserves that, when fully funded, will equal 7 percent of the total annual operating expenditures appropriated from

local funds. These accounts are to be fully funded at 1 percent a

year by fiscal year 2007. I am pleased to report that the first 1 percent—that is $33 million—was set aside in fiscal year 2000. So far this year, we have

deposited an additional 2 percent, $69 million to be exact, for a

total of $102 million. At this pace, the District will meet the 7 percent target, which we are happy to say—and are pleased with—will

exceed every other State and local jurisdiction in the country, by

fiscal year 2003, 4 years ahead of schedule. So, we are happy with

this reserve requirement. We do not complain about this reserve

requirement.

The establishment of these permanent cash reserves should

eliminate, though, the ongoing need for an additional budget reserve. As such, we ask that you include language in this year’s appropriations bill to amend the existing budget reserve requirement.

Currently, the $150 million budget reserve is scheduled for complete phase-out at the end of fiscal year 2004. Under our proposal,

this phase-out would begin gradually in fiscal year 2002, and by

fiscal year 2004, the budgeted reserve would be replaced by a fully

funded operating cash reserve in the amount of $50 million. This

$50 million reserve would be in addition to the approximately $250

million in emergency and contingent reserves that will be accumulated by this time, as we have discussed above.

So, we would like to initiate the phaseout in the fiscal year 2002

budget with a $30 million reduction in the $150 million budgeted

reserve requirement toward the path, as Senator Hutchison suggested, matching where we are with our cash emergency and contingency reserve with where we are with our budget reserve. I
182

think this is consistent with that philosophy and with that principle and moves in that direction.

I want to emphasize again that as far as I can see—and I cannot

speak for my colleagues, but I believe we in the District are happy

because we understand our history, we understand our circumstances in context. We do not complain with a 7 percent reserve requirement. We are happy to lead the rest of the country.

We just want to make sure that we are mapping the cash requirements with our budget requirements on an ongoing basis.

We have talked about one government, moving our receiverships

back into the city, and good government. Just a word about selfgovernment. We do believe that living in the greatest democracy in

the world, we as citizens of the capital city should be able to elect

voting representatives to the Congress. On top of this, we should

not have to, given the circumstance, pay more Federal taxes per

capita than any State other than Connecticut.

So, early this spring, the No Taxation Without Representation

Act of 2001 was introduced in Congress to provide D.C. residents

full voting representation in Congress. This is the first voting

rights bill that has been introduced simultaneously in the Senate

and the House. On behalf of all of the citizens in the District who

suffer from this taxation without representation, I urge the committee to look favorably on this bill.

In addition to no voting representation, we also suffer under very

limited legislative and budgetary autonomy. Again, we are very,

very happy with the partnership that we have built with the Congress, and we want to continue this partnership. But in the Federal

appropriations process, Congress reviews our local decisions and

imposes its will on how we spend our local dollars. Likewise, Congress often inserts itself in our legislative process by requiring a

30-day review before local legislation can take effect. Both of these

processes create major delays and disruptions at the local level and

further infringe on rights of citizens to manage local affairs.

So, along with Congresswoman Norton, we are now advocating

for a reasonable level of budgetary and legislative autonomy for the

District. In our recent testimony and discussions with Members of

the House, members of both parties I should add, this proposal has

earned a positive reception, and I urge this committee to join with

its colleagues to provide for well-deserved legislative and budgetary

autonomy for the District.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With that, once again, I would like to thank the committee for

its efforts on behalf of the District, thank the committee for its

leadership in a number of key areas, and as always, stand willing

not only to work with you but to answer, in conjunction with my

colleagues, any questions you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Good morning Chairman Landrieu, Senator DeWine, and members of the committee. I’m very pleased to be here today to discuss the District’s fiscal year 2002

Budget and Financial Plan. The theme of this budget is Building a City that Works

for Everyone—Neighborhood by Neighborhood. This theme reflects the focus of our

efforts in the District to date, and reflects our vision for the future.
183

INVESTING IN CRITICAL PRIORITIES

As we invest in critical services, the foremost priority of my administration is to

ensure that every child has access to a high quality education in a safe and healthy

school. In fiscal year 2001 I committed to full funding for education, and I continue

that commitment in fiscal year 2002. Our budget includes a $29 million increase for the D.C. Public Schools and a $37

million increase for the D.C. Public Charter Schools. In addition, we include

$750,000 to launch the Lead Principals initiative—a recruiting drive that will draw

highly talented principals from across the country to our lowest performing

schools—and $1.2 million for the Teaching Fellows program, which will help the

District recruit and train committed new teachers from an array of professional

backgrounds.

We appreciate the fact that Congress and President Bush also place a high priority on education in the District. The city is particularly gratified that First Lady

Laura Bush helped launch the Teaching Fellows program.

We are even more pleased to report that over 1,200 people—including ‘‘dot-com’’

executives, retired persons, and even a few congressional staffers—applied for this

program in its first year. This is a solid indication that citizens are willing to invest

themselves in turning around our school system.

As you know, Washington is home to probably the most vibrant charter school

movement in the country. This fall we will have 40 charter schools in operation. We

have not been able to satisfy all needs for facilities, but we are working with these

schools closely to help them and all of our public schools. Between the large array

of charter schools and a liberal out-of-boundary enrollment program, the District

has embraced public school choice. Parents have many options. It is my hope to

broaden those choices—especially for those in chronically low-performing schools—

as DCPS implements plans to reconstitute schools and provide parents with new environments within the public school system.

The subcommittee will be happy to know that thanks to the Tuition Assistance

Grant Program, more than 1,800 District youth received financial assistance to attend colleges and universities in 37 states. For many of them, this program means

the difference between attending and not attending college. The number of applicants, grantees, and participating schools far exceeded our expectations.

With a year’s worth of successful operations under our belt, the District now

needs the Congress to amend the original statute and remove the requirement that

participants have graduated after January 1, 1998 and that they have commenced

higher education within three years of their high school graduation. These restrictions needlessly exclude older students and others who, for whatever reasons, fall

into these categories. Financially and administratively the program can withstand

this expansion. Congresswoman Norton has drafted a bill, H.R. 1499, to affect this

change. This bill has been passed by the House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and is now being considered by the full Committee on Government Reform

and the District of Columbia. I encourage you to also approve this initiative.

To further ensure quality educational opportunities, my capital budget includes

$174 million to renovate and build quality school buildings so that our children have

safe, functional, inviting environments in which to learn. Going forward, we need

to pursue every means of supporting the proposed Master Facilities Plan, designed

with the counsel and input of citizens. And, as we look to the future, we must also

make sure we have fixed what has not worked in the past. There are clear indications that Superintendent Vance has started turning the facilities division around.

We need to see that continued vigilance to make sure that school construction

projects start and stay on schedule.

While we rebuild our schools, however, we must also ensure that children and

adults receive the support they need beyond the school walls. To that end, this

budget provides for three key enhancements.

—First, it includes an expansion of the District’s Earned Income Tax Credit for

low-income residents—increasing the local credit from 10 percent to 25 percent

of the federal level.

—Second, the capital budget includes more than $8 million for the construction

of senior wellness centers, and $15 million to enhance the infrastructure of information and facilities that are critical to delivering human services to our

most vulnerable residents.

—Third, it invests $62 million in new program funding to provide better health

care to those citizens who need it most through a restructured health care delivery system.

Even with strong schools and quality human services, however, our residents cannot reach their potential if they live in unhealthy neighborhoods. Children, youth,
184

adults, families, and seniors cannot thrive unless they live in a clean and safe community—a community with jobs, stores, parks, and affordable homes.

To move us toward that goal, this budget enhances Fire Department operations

with more than $12 million for capital equipment and facility upgrades, enhances

the Police Department with a $12 million increase for staffing and equipment, and

includes $11 million for library renovations, $59 million to improve local streets, and

$67 million to renovate recreation centers.

The capital budget also includes $2 million in matching funds to take another step

in the clean up of the Anacostia River. This river has suffered for too many years,

to the point of becoming a health hazard and a deterrent to economic development

in one of our most challenged communities. My administration has partnered with

the federal government to aggressively begin restoring this river.

To improve water quality, the District government has planted, in partnership

with the Army Corps of Engineers, 46 acres of wetlands and installed several trash

traps in the river. We have also removed three vessels that were either abandoned

or sunken in, the river.

While these measures are tangible steps towards a cleaner river, no real victory

can be achieved without addressing the long-term solution of the Combined Sewer

Overflow System, the removal of toxic materials in the riverbed, and the removal

of silt that clogs the flow of the river.

Central to this effort is the $12 million that Congresswoman Norton and I requested from the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in March of this year to

begin to implement the long-term Combined Sewer Overflow control plan design.

This plan would mitigate the negative environmental effects from the 60 plus discharges of diluted sewage that flow into the river annually. We hope the Congress

will support the District in this appropriation.

As we clean up the natural environment, the District is also taking great strides

to maintain and develop affordable housing. As the District economy experiences

historic levels of prosperity, we must ensure that everyone shares in that prosperity.

One key to doing so is to help low- and moderate-income residents gain and maintain access to affordable homes. Through these investments, the District will continue to make great strides in service improvements across the city.

MAINTAINING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Even while investing in critical priorities, the District maintains high standards

of fiscal responsibility. In meeting the benchmarks put forth by Congress, we have

achieved a level of fiscal strength that many would have thought unattainable in

such a short period of time.

—We have achieved four clean annual financial audits in a row.

—Our accumulated fund balance is projected to exceed $550 million in fiscal year

2004.

—Our bond ratings reached investment grade years ago, and continue to improve.

—Our local revenues have increased nearly 30 percent, and we have done this

with fewer full-time employees than we had 20 years ago.

—And the District’s success in attracting new economic development has been

well documented.

One of the greatest indications of the District’s restored financial health is our

swift progress in building financial reserves. Last year Congress challenged the District to establish emergency and contingency cash reserves that—when fully funded—will equal seven percent of the total annual operating expenditures appropriated from local funds. These accounts are to be fully funded, at one percent per

year, by fiscal year 2007.

The first one percent—that’s $33 million—was set aside in fiscal year 2000. So

far this year, we have deposited an additional two percent—$69 million to be

exact—for a total of $102 million. At this pace, the District will meet the seven percent target by fiscal year 2003—four years ahead of schedule.

The establishment of these permanent cash reserves should eliminate the ongoing

need for an additional budget reserve. As such, I ask that you include language in

this year’s appropriations bill to amend the existing budget reserve requirement.

Currently, the $150 million budget reserve is scheduled for complete phase out at

the end of fiscal year 2004. Under our proposal, this phase out would begin gradually in fiscal year 2002, and by fiscal year 2004, the budgeted reserve would be replaced with a fully funded operating cash reserve in the amount of $50 million. This

$50 million reserve would be in addition to the approximately $250 million in emergency and contingent reserves that will be accumulated by this time, as discussed

above. We would like to initiate the phase out in the fiscal year 2002 budget with

a $30 million reduction in the $150 million budgeted reserve requirement.
185

Considerable benefits would be realized by such a restructuring. The District

would begin to establish budget flexibility through the creation of a new cash reserve that it could access for routine budget adjustments. At the same time, phasing

out the obligation of the District to fund the $150 million annual budget reserve will

provide much needed relief in the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 operating budgets helping us to meet critical operating needs while maintaining balanced budgets in the

immediate post-control period.

ONE GOVERNMENT, GOOD GOVERNMENT, AND SELF-GOVERNMENT

As we invest in critical priorities and maintain fiscal responsibility, we continue

moving toward one government, good government, and self-government. District

leaders have demonstrated a high level of cooperation and an unprecedented level

of responsiveness to our citizens.

We live in the greatest democracy in the world, but ironically, we citizens of the

capital city cannot elect voting representatives to the Congress. On top of this disenfranchisement, District residents pay more federal taxes per-capita than any state

in the union except for Connecticut.

Early this spring, the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2001 was introduced in Congress to provide D.C. residents full voting representation in Congress.

This is the first voting rights bill that has been introduced simultaneously in the

Senate and the House. On behalf of the more than half a million people in the District who suffer taxation without representation, I urge you to pass this bill.

In addition to no voting representation, the District also suffers under very limited legislative and budgetary autonomy. In the federal appropriations process, Congress reviews our local decisions and imposes its will on how we spend our local

dollars. Likewise, Congress inserts itself in our legislative process by requiring a 30-

day review before local legislation can take effect. Both of these processes create

major delays and disruptions at the local level, and further infringe on rights of our

citizens to manage local affairs.

Along with Congresswoman Norton, we are now advocating for a reasonable level

of budgetary and legislative autonomy for the District. In our recent testimony and

discussions with members in the House—members of both parties I should add—

this proposal has earned a positive reception. I encourage this committee to join

with your colleagues to provide this well-deserved autonomy to the District.

And finally, as part of this commitment to democracy and autonomy in the District, I encourage Congress to end the practice of attaching riders to our appropriation. This micromanagement is not only an affront to home rule, but it disrupts the

timely passage and execution of our budget. Therefore, it is my hope on behalf of

all District residents that this Congress will respect local will and pass a clean bill

that provides the District with the autonomy it deserves.

This concludes my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity to present our priorities to you today, and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for that concise statement. We will return in just a moment with questions.

Mrs. Cropp, Councilwoman, would you like to proceed?

STATEMENT OF LINDA M. CROPP

Ms. CROPP. Thank you very much. Let me say good afternoon,

Chairman Landrieu and Senator Hutchison. It is indeed a pleasure

to be here with my colleagues and testify before you today on behalf of the 2002 budget.

Chair Landrieu, let me just say I listened to stories of my husband’s brother talking about the Anacostia River where they grew

up near what is called the Eastern Branch, and they used to go

swimming in that part of the river. Let us hope that we can bring

it back to that state.

Senator LANDRIEU. We can do that hopefully sometime soon. I

look forward to taking the plunge with you when we can do that.

Ms. CROPP. Senator Hutchison, I join with the Mayor to be able

to say the cash is in the bank and we are pleased that that has

occurred.
186

Fiscal year 2002. This is the year that we have all been looking

forward to with great anticipation. The council, together with the

Mayor, is pleased to present to Congress our 2002 budget. Although the budget is another in a series of fiscally sound and responsible budgets, it is a turning point in our young history of

home rule. This budget was accomplished without the Financial

Authority and came on the heels of several major accomplishments

of the city.

We have demonstrated—and there are a lot of ‘‘we’s’’—that as

elected leaders, we are ready to govern the city ourselves, and that

is without the Financial Authority. However, I must take this time

to personally thank, on behalf of the citizens, the work of Chairman Alice Rivlin with the Financial Authority, Andrew Brimmer,

and the other members who put in an awful lot of time and effort

on behalf of the city and its citizens.

We also have exercised sound financial discipline in our oversight

role by putting safeguards and insurance policies, when necessary,

and triggers in our budget to make sure that we would not overspend.

We have made remarkable progress in improving our city’s image

and our services.

We are in good shape economically as seen in our real estate

market, both private and commercial. Signs do not stay up. People

automatically offer more money than what people are asking.

We have obtained clean audits for the fourth consecutive year.

We have ended fiscal year 2000 with a healthy accumulated surplus of $465 million.

We are in good fiscal standing and our bond ratings have been

raised.

We have a healthy rainy day savings which is projected to reach

the 7 percent requirement, as the Mayor stated, by 2003, way

ahead of the schedule that had been anticipated by most.

We have prepared a spending plan which is our fifth consecutive

balanced budget.

As part of the council’s reorganization period, the council and its

committees have established a legislative agenda. Our legislative

agenda had certain criteria within it. We demand fiscal discipline.

We are looking at revitalizing our neighborhoods. We want to invest in our youth, protect our vulnerable residents, oversee the executive performance of service delivery, promote continued economic stability and growth, and expand home rule and democracy.

We are pleased to say that the council worked, in conjunction with

the Mayor, because we all agree that these are very important

issues for us to address in order to make this city move forward.

For your information, we will present to you a copy of the Council Period XIV Legislative Agenda for your records.

LOCAL FUNDS BUDGET

An integral part of the council budget process is the public input,

and as such, many hearings on the fiscal year 2002 budget were

held. The process gave citizens and our work force an opportunity

to comment and critique programmatic and funding needs and

agency performances throughout the city. This feedback is invaluable because it contributed and culminated in the decisions and
187

recommendations of each committee in the markup of the budget.

Following a review for the committee recommendations, the committee of the whole made additional revisions in order to bring the

budget into balance. At the end of the process, the council had conducted a total of 61 public hearings and, where appropriate, incorporated the findings from our citizens and our employees into this

budget.

In May, the council approved the $5.3 billion spending plan that

provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs.

Our schools continue to receive full funding. Health and neighborhood revitalization programs were funded. For example, there is a

$2 million pilot for the interim disability assistance program for

disabled adults, and there is funding for more stabilization officers

to help abate nuisance properties.

This budget also earmarked $23 million for local road repairs,

contribution, and maintenance. Of this amount, $11 million is set

aside in contingency funding for freed-up appropriations. We ask

you to approve the $11 million because this is a one-time expenditure and it is critical for the District to address the disparity between the excellent Federal roads and the poor or fair local roads

that we are trying to move to that excellent condition also.

It is my understanding that in recognition of the District’s accelerated establishment of the 7 percent cash reserve, the committee

is receptive to recommendations of lowering the $150 million budgeted reserve to a more realistic level of approximately $120 million

for fiscal year 2002. The council supports this idea and we will

work very closely with the Mayor and the CFO and this committee

to finalize whatever is necessary in order to do this. I concur with

the remarks made by our Mayor with regard to our reserve. He

was certainly speaking, I think, on behalf of the council also when

he said we want to have money in the bank, a cash reserve in the

bank. It is a safety net and we think that is a fiscally sound budgeting process. But once we go over that, we still have needs for our

community, and we would like to be able to support those needs.

It is worth recalling to you, however, that last year the council

requested that the Greater Washington Society of CPAs analyze

the District’s purported disproportionate share of revenues from

Federal grants. Their conclusion was that the ratio of Federal

grants to the District general fund revenue is not high. And there

is a table that we have submitted for this. In short, the Federal

Government is not subsidizing the District as generously as many

think. When compared to the other 50 States, 32 States received

a greater portion of the Federal funds for their general fund than

the District does, and that is in table 2. Again, this was done by

an independent group, the Greater Washington Society of CPAs.

It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was

passed, one recommendation was that since the District no longer

receives any Federal funds or payments, that the Congress would

not need to review or approve its budget. At a minimum, Congress

should no longer approve the local portion of the District’s budget.

We concur wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the Mayor with

regard to budget and the legislative autonomy. We passed an awful

lot of emergency legislation due to our lay-over period.
188

1The 10 committees are Government Operations, Economic Development, Judiciary, Public

Education, Human Services, Public Works, Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Finance & Revenue,

Public Service, and Committee of the Whole. The 2 subcommittees are Subcommittee on Latino

Affairs, Human Rights, and Property Management and Subcommittee on Labor, Voting Rights,

and Redistricting.

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

you support and pass in time for the start of the new fiscal year

this budget. This budget is important for the city because it is put

together by locally elected leaders. It is important to remember

that at the end of the budget process, both the council and the

Mayor found themselves in sync and approved the budget that invests in service delivery and basic programs. Furthermore, we urge

you to pass this budget as is without any extraneous riders. This

much anticipated fiscal year 2002 budget is important because it

shows that the Mayor and the council can coexist and underscores

our commitment to make Washington, D.C. one of the best governed cities in the world.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Let me also join with the Mayor, in conclusion, in asking the

committee’s support for the No Taxation Without Representation as

it comes forward. We pay more than $2 billion annually in Federal

taxes, and we do not have a seat at the table. So, we agree with

that.

Thank you so very much for this opportunity.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA M. CROPP

INTRODUCTION

Fiscal year 2002... this is THE year that we have been looking forward to with

great anticipation. The Council, together with the Mayor, is pleased to present to

Congress our fiscal year 2002 budget. Although this budget is another in a series

of fiscally sound and responsible budgets, it is a turning point in our young history

of home rule. This budget was accomplished without the Financial Authority and

came on the heels of several major accomplishments in the city:

—WE have demonstrated that, as elected leaders, we are ready to govern the city

ourselves, that is, without the Financial Authority; (As the control period comes

to an end, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Alice Rivlin, the

former Chair Dr. Andrew Brimmer as well as each member of the previous and

current Financial Authority for their service and commitment.)

—WE have exercised sound financial discipline in our oversight role by putting

safeguards, ‘‘insurance policy’’, and triggers in this year’s budget;

—WE have made remarkable progress in improving the city’s image and services;

—WE are in good shape economically as seen in our real estate market both private and commercial;

—WE have obtained clean audits for the fourth consecutive year;

—WE ended fiscal year 2000 with a healthy accumulated surplus of $465 million;

—WE are in good fiscal standing and our bond ratings have been raised;

—WE have a healthy rainy day savings which is projected to reach the seven percent by fiscal year 2003, and;

—WE have prepared a spending plan which is our fifth consecutive balanced

budget.

COUNCIL PERIOD XIV

As part of Council reorganization for Period XIV, we have added two subcommittees to the existing 10 standing committees.1 Our legislative agenda also included

seven important goals. These are:

—Demand Fiscal Discipline

—Revitalize our Neighborhoods

—Invest in our Youth
189

—Protect our Vulnerable Residents

—Oversee Executive Performance of Service Delivery

—Promote Continued Economic Stability and Growth

—Expand Home Rule and Democracy.

For your information, we will send you a copy of the Council Period XIV Legislative Agenda when it becomes available.

THE COUNCIL-MAYOR BUDGET PROCESS

In December of last year, the Council passed the fiscal year 2002 Budget Submission Requirements Resolution of 2000. It established March 12 as the date by which

the Mayor shall submit to the Council the proposed budget. The Mayor transmitted

his budget on March 12 and the Council acted on it within the 50 days as required

by the Home Rule Charter. During this 50-day period, the Council worked diligently

with the Mayor in aligning both sets of priorities and, put together a fiscally sound

and responsible spending plan that will serve our citizens well and make the District a better place to live. The operating budget funds basic city services and programs. The capital budget, as a result of stringent oversight by the Council, was

realigned by directing funds from non-performing or delayed projects to new or existing projects, resulting in a better Capital Improvement Plan that will improve the

infrastructure of the District and encourage economic growth.

When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 12, he had proposed a local

budget of $3.53 billion, an increase of $95 million or 2.7 percent over the new fiscal

year 2001 budget as amended by the supplemental request. An integral part of the

Council budget process is public input and, as such, many hearings on the fiscal

year 2002 budget were held. The process gave the citizens and our workforce an opportunity to comment and critique programmatic and funding needs and agency performances throughout the city. This feedback is invaluable because it contributed

and culminated in the decisions and recommendations of each committee in the

mark-up of the budgets. Following a review of the committee recommendations, the

Committee of the Whole made additional revisions in order to bring the budget into

balance. At the end of this process, the Council had conducted a total of 61 public

hearings and, where appropriate, incorporated the findings from our citizens and

employees into this budget.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET

On May 1, the Council approved the $5.3 billion spending plan that provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs. Schools continue to receive full

funding. Health and neighborhood revitalization programs were funded, for example, there is $2 million for a pilot Interim Disability Assistance program for disabled

adults, and there is funding for more Neighborhood Stabilization Officers to help

abate nuisance properties. This budget also earmarks $23 million for local road repairs, construction, and maintenance. Of this amount, $11 million is set aside in

contingency funding from the fiscal year 2001 freed-up appropriations or pending

additional revenue certification. We ask you to approve this $11 million because this

one-time expenditure is critical for the District to address the disparity between the

‘‘excellent federal’’ roads and ‘‘poor or fair local’’ roads in every ward of the city.

All of this was done without any general tax increase. In fact, we are continuing

with the phase-in of tax reductions associated with the Tax Parity Act passed by

the Council in 1999. This Council action will bring our taxes more in-line with our

neighbors over a five-year period. We believe this has contributed to the economic

‘‘renaissance’’ that our city is experiencing.

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Historically, the relationship between the District and the federal government has

been a unique political and financial arrangement. Between 1879 to 1920, the federal government would provide assistance by paying half of all District expenditures. Subsequently, given the various federal prohibitions on taxing nonresident incomes, federal properties, federal purchase of goods and services, the District would

receive a direct payment. This payment was stopped in 1997 when the federal government took over some of the ‘‘unusual’’ costs such as contributions for the police,

firefighters, and teachers’ retirement plans and various Court services. Last year

the Council requested that the Greater Washington Society of CPAs (GWS of CPAs)

analyze the District’s purported disproportionate share of revenues from the federal

grants. Their conclusion was that the ratio of federal grants to the District General

Fund revenue is not high (see Table 1). In short, the federal government is not subsidizing the District as generously as many think. When compared to the other 50
190

states, 32 states received a greater portion of federal funds for their general fund

than the District does (see Table 2).

It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was passed, one recommendation was that since the District no longer receives any federal payments,

Congress would not need to review or approve its budget. At a minimum, Congress

should no longer approve the local portion of the District’s budget. Just like the

other 50 states, the District would be solely responsible for approving its own local

spending.

CONCLUSION

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

pass the budget in time for the start of the new fiscal year. This budget is important

for the city because it is put together by the locally elected leaders. It is important

to remember that at the end of the budget process, both the Council and the Mayor

found themselves in sync and approved a budget that invests in service delivery and

basic programs. Furthermore, we urge you to pass the budget as is, without any extraneous riders. This much anticipated fiscal year 2002 budget is important because

it shows that the Mayor and the Council can co-exist together and underscores our

commitment to make Washington D.C. one of the best governed cities in the world.

Nonetheless, the Council will continue to oversee executive operations and expenditures. We will be responsive to our constituents who call the District their

home. We will work with the Mayor, Congress, and the surrounding governments

to achieve mutually shared goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce good

responsible budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for future

generations. Granted we do not always agree from time to time, but we will be at

the table to assert ourselves as an institution and work for the betterment and future of our citizens.

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE REVENUES DC VS. OTHER

GOVERNMENTS FOR ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2002

[Dollars in millions]

District of

Columbia

State of

Maryland

Prince

George’s

County, MD

State of

New York

Federal Grants ...................................................................... $1,253 $3,974 $663 $24,004

Federal Pension Costs .......................................................... $182 ................ ................ ................

Federal Reimbursements for Restrictions and Unusual

Costs ................................................................................ $254 ................ ................ ................

Taxes ..................................................................................... $3,128 $10,405 $854 $37,259

All Other ................................................................................ $488 $1,523 $101 $10,474

Total Revenue .......................................................... $5,305 $15,902 $1,618 $71,737

Percent Federal Grant Revenue to Total Revenue ............... 24 25 41 33

Source: District of Columbia Audit Task Force, Greater Washington Society of CPAs, District of Columbia Audit Briefing

Fiscal Year 2000 Report

TABLE 2.—COMPARISON OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN TOTAL GENERAL FUND FOR ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR

1999

[Dollars in millions]

State

Total general fund

revenue

Federal

funds

Percent

federal

funds to

total GF

revenue

North Dakota ............................................................................................. $2,123 $810 38

Alabama .................................................................................................... 13,675 5,152 38

Tennessee .................................................................................................. 15,772 5,793 37

Montana ..................................................................................................... 2,615 954 36
191

TABLE 2.—COMPARISON OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN TOTAL GENERAL FUND FOR ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR

1999—Continued

[Dollars in millions]

State

Total general fund

revenue

Federal

funds

Percent

federal

funds to

total GF

revenue

New Hampshire ......................................................................................... 2,549 923 36

South Dakota ............................................................................................. 1,959 706 36

Vermont ..................................................................................................... 2,020 722 36

West Virginia ............................................................................................. 6,067 1,980 33

Mississippi ................................................................................................. 8,149 2,643 32

California ................................................................................................... 109,635 34,375 31

South Carolina ........................................................................................... 11,121 3,443 31

Oklahoma ................................................................................................... 10,000 3,094 31

Maine ......................................................................................................... 4,479 1,356 30

Idaho .......................................................................................................... 3,372 1,018 30

Texas .......................................................................................................... 44,700 13,098 29

Pennsylvania .............................................................................................. 36,863 10,679 29

Kentucky .................................................................................................... 14,635 4,220 29

New York .................................................................................................... 74,482 20,937 28

Louisiana ................................................................................................... 14,984 4,204 28

Rhode Island ............................................................................................. 4,042 1,120 28

Indiana ...................................................................................................... 15,014 4,115 27

Colorado ..................................................................................................... 6,523 1,732 27

Alaska ........................................................................................................ 5,092 1,350 27

Georgia ...................................................................................................... 24,218 6,414 26

North Carolina ........................................................................................... 23,810 6,122 26

Missouri ..................................................................................................... 15,228 3,899 26

Arizona ....................................................................................................... 14,803 3,785 26

Michigan .................................................................................................... 33,180 8,471 26

Nebraska .................................................................................................... 5,358 1,355 25

Kansas ....................................................................................................... 8,306 2,089 25

New Mexico ................................................................................................ 7,803 1,959 25

Wyoming .................................................................................................... 2,155 536 25

Iowa ........................................................................................................... 10,649 2,516 24

District of Columbia .................................................................................. 5,350 1,260 24

Washington ................................................................................................ 20,357 4,738 23

Utah ........................................................................................................... 6,543 1,479 23

Massachussetts ......................................................................................... 24,267 5,456 22

Arkansas .................................................................................................... 9,463 2,050 22

Illinois ........................................................................................................ 31,416 6,675 21

Maryland .................................................................................................... 17,116 3,533 21

Florida ........................................................................................................ 46,213 9,349 20

New Jersey ................................................................................................. 26,788 5,371 20

Minnesota .................................................................................................. 17,592 3,444 20

Wisconsin ................................................................................................... 22,797 4,349 19

Oregon ....................................................................................................... 12,891 2,457 19

Virginia ...................................................................................................... 21,535 3,504 16

Hawaii ........................................................................................................ 6,496 1,015 16

Delaware .................................................................................................... 4,701 682 15

Nevada ....................................................................................................... 6,947 928 13

Ohio ........................................................................................................... 36,210 4,413 12

Connecticut ................................................................................................ 14,772 1,351 9

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 1999 State Expenditure Report.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you again for that excellent statement.
192

I’m sorry. The shadow Senator is here, and I did not recognize

Senator Paul Strauss. Would you stand and be recognized please?

Thank you very much for your attendance.

Dr. Rivlin?

STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE M. RIVLIN

Dr. RIVLIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very pleased to

be here, and I am pleased that it is the last time I will be here.

I want to join with my colleagues in recognizing not only your leadership, Madam Chairman, but the very significant contributions of

Senator Hutchison when she chaired this committee, particularly

but not exclusively on the question of the cash reserve.

Senator HUTCHISON. Dr. Rivlin, I would just say I do not know

if it is a blessing or a curse, but you have two successive State

treasurers now as chairman of D.C. Approps. So, I think it is good.

I do not know if you do.

Dr. RIVLIN. We think so too.

I appear this time in a limited transitional role. This year, as you

know, the Authority was required to review but not to approve of

the District budget, a very significant difference. Even last year we

played a less active role than in prior years. That budget was

worked out between the Mayor and the council, not without some

difficulties, and we played a less active role in the process, but approved the budget when it came forward to us.

We also approved the supplemental budget for 2001 and we appreciate the subcommittee’s support of that measure.

In 2002, we have reviewed the budget that was put together by

the Mayor and the council. We have sent a letter to which we attached our review of the District’s budget for the subcommittee’s

use.

We believe the budget is a good one, that it is based on realistic

revenue and expenditure projections.

The District’s financial condition, as has been detailed by my colleagues, has improved greatly over the last few years. Lots of work

does remain to be done.

The financial management system needs to be fully implemented

with particular emphasis on training and training at the agency

level.

Management reforms and improved operations must continue

with, we believe, particular emphasis on the procurement process.

The independence of the Chief Financial Officer needs to be assured.

The legislative package passed by the council at its final session

we believe to be a good one.

But a law is not enough. The Mayor and the council need to work

with the Chief Financial Officer to enable the Chief Financial Officer and the CFO’s at the agency level to build a strong, continuing

staff of professionals that are respected all over the country. That

is what it will take to give this city the financial credibility on the

continuing basis that it needs.

The council too, we believe, needs a stronger professional staff,

particularly in the area of financial analysis.
193

Finally, a couple of points. We strongly support the Mayor and

the Council in their efforts to regain the city’s control over the allocation of our own money.

PREPARED STATEMENT

And we believe that the Congress should come back to the question of the long-run fiscal viability of the District of Columbia. The

District of Columbia has a very narrow tax base, we believe too

narrow, to support the high quality of services that the Nation’s

capital ought to have. There is a very strong need to grow the city’s

tax base by economic development and increased population, but in

addition, we believe there is a need for additional Federal support,

either through a payment in lieu of taxes or through a tax bill

similar to the one proposed by Congresswoman Norton. It does not

really matter how this is accomplished, but the city needs to supplement its narrow tax base in order to provide excellent services.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE M. RIVLIN

Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am

pleased to be here, today, representing the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (‘‘the Authority’’), to present testimony

on the proposed fiscal year 2002 District of Columbia Budget and Financial Plan.

I am particularly pleased to appear on this panel with my able colleagues, the

Mayor of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams, the Chairman of the Council

of the District of Columbia, Linda Cropp, and the Chief Financial Officer (‘‘CFO’’),

Natwar Gandhi, as you assume leadership of the Subcommittee.

On behalf of the Authority, I want to commend the Mayor and the Council, as

well as the Chief Financial Officer for an exceptionally cooperative and productive

approach to developing the District’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2002. We believe the Mayor and the Council have shown an ability to work together on the

budget that augurs well for future cooperation in the post-control era.

This is the last time that the Authority will appear before this Subcommittee to

discuss the proposed District of Columbia Budget and Financial Plan, because, as

you know, the Authority has fulfilled its statutory mission and will sunset at the

end of the current fiscal year. Indeed, today we already appear in a transitional role

that differs from our role in previous years.

In the past, the Authority was required to approve the District’s budget. The approval (and disapproval) power gave the Authority considerable leverage in the formulation of the budget, which it used effectively to broker compromises between the

Mayor and the Council, and to ensure that the budget was solidly in the black. Last

year at this time, the Authority reported to the Subcommittee that we played a less

active role in the formulation of the 2001 budget, because we believed the District

increasingly capable of operating without the heavy participation of the Authority.

The fiscal year 2001 budget was the product of a consensus process in which the

Mayor and the Council played the leading roles and the Authority provided oversight and final approval.

The Authority also approved the proposed fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Budget

Request for the District of Columbia recently submitted for your consideration. This

supplemental request allocates additional revenues (certified by the Authority) not

foreseen in the original budget for fiscal year 2001, and the Subcommittee’s support

for this request to use these local resources is very much appreciated.

Now we have reached a new stage in the District’s return to fiscal autonomy. Public Law 104–8, the Authority Act, provides that the Authority in this last control

year simply reviews the District’s proposed budget and makes appropriate comments to the District government, the Congress and the President. That process is

complete, and the Authority is pleased to have transmitted the findings to the Subcommittee, Madame Chairman, as you begin your consideration of the fiscal year

2002 Budget and Financial Plan (attachment).

Traditionally, the Authority has focused its attention to the budget process on the

operations of the entire District government in significant detail. This year, the Au-
194

thority determined that its most useful role would be to narrow our review to major

service and cost areas. This approach permits us to provide the most useful information, and as appropriate, recommendations for policy-makers as management of the

District’s government operations and fiscal affairs return to local authorities.

Overall, the Budget and Financial Plan reflect realistic expenditure projections.

The figures prepared by the District appear to be generally consistent with and supported by available data. The Authority has also identified areas in which the District may have an opportunity to achieve significant savings relative to the current

projections.

The District assumes, for example, in developing budgets for large agencies, that

the net cost of salary step increases will be offset by salary lapses. Although the

offset may occur, it is not always the case. Consequently, we recommend that the

District analyze historical data on salary lapses and step increases to determine the

appropriateness of this practice. The District is now better equipped to collect and

analyze this type of information allowing it to better manage its operations and finances.

Years ago, however, the District and the public lacked access to credible financial

information, and by 1995 the government faced a fiscal emergency. The Congress

and the President responded by enacting Public Law 104–8, the District of Columbia

Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act of 1995.

Since that time, the District has achieved a remarkable financial turnaround to

which a growing economy and the Revitalization Act of 1997 have contributed. Much

of this success is owed to the numerous examples of the District’s strong effort to

manage its fiscal affairs responsibly:

—The level of District total local source tax collections increased by 28 percent

—The District and the Authority successfully developed a program to secuntize

the proceeds from the tobacco settlement to reduce the District’s debt burden

—With the leadership of Senator Hutchison, the District also worked in fiscal

year 2001 to use the debt services savings from the tobacco securitization initiative to build a cash reserve position

—Following the completion of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

(‘‘CAFR’’) for fiscal year 2001, the Authority certified the District’s fourth consecutive balanced budget, and with a significant fund balance a The District has

recovered from the fiscal year 1996 cash deficit of over $200 million to dramatically improve its cash position, and reduce dependence upon short term borrowing

—The District convinced the marketplace that it deserves improved ratings for its

bonds—an achievement that will tangibly benefit the District’s taxpayers in the

future because of lower borrowing costs.

In a less visible, but critically important area, financial management, the District

has made progress in improving systems and procedures. The unfortunate delay in

completing the fiscal year 2000 CAFR, was the result of a very ambitious but necessary implementation schedule for SOAR (the District’s financial accounting system) in response to Y2K. There have also been difficulties because of inadequate

staff training SOAR is a financial accounting system, not simply a program for

issuing financial reports.

The implementation of SOAR is not yet complete, as GAO has pointed out, but

there are no magic bullets, just hard work. The District is aware of the challenges.

It is implementing business process improvements and better employee training to

capitalize on the strengths of the accounting system. Other high priority areas, like

performance based budgeting, are important works-in-progress.

Nevertheless, with the exceptions of the former Public Benefit Corporation and

the University of the District of Columbia, auditors have issued clean opinions for

the District’s overall performance in recent years. The District has made progress

on cash management, budgeting and treasury functions.

The District has also made progress in managing the delivery of municipal services. For example, tax payers are routinely issued refunds within a matter of weeks;

the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs now provides the means for

businesses and homeowners to pay for and obtain some permits electronically; and

wait-times for obtaining drivers licenses and related permits have been reduced.

The District is strongly committed to management reform. The management supervisory service and the annual ‘‘score cards’’ are helping to change the workplace

environment by making service agencies both aware of and accountable to the public

interest in improving the quality of service delivery. Elected officials and agency directors now understand and support plans to move agency managers and frontline

employees to a culture of goal setting, performance measurement and accountability.
195

Voters must ensure the District’s commitment to this primary goal in the years

following the Authority’s sunset, but the Authority, the Council and the Mayor are

working together to prepare for the resumption of normal governance.

Since January 2, 1999, the District Government assumed operational control of

the government functions in a Memorandum of Agreement (‘‘the MOA’’) with the

Authority (the District’s Board of Education resumed responsibility for system governance in January, 2001.) So although Fiscal 2001 is the last control year, calendar

2001 will actually be the third year in which the District has been accountable for

managing the day-to-day operations of the city. It is extremely important to build

on the progress of recent years. The essential challenge is to assure strong financial

management for the District as it returns to normal governance.

One of the most significant weaknesses of the local government before 1995 was

the lack of information. Information on the government’s finances must be credible

and available to citizens, decision-makers, financial markets and the Congress. A

chief objective for the post control period is ensuring that the District has a financial management structure that provides such information.

Achieving this goal requires a structure that both requires and encourages the

OCFO to rely upon capable, professional staff to provide expert projections, judgement, and analysis without political influence or fear of retribution. The District

must continue to build such a staff with expertise in accounting, costing, budgeting,

expenditure control, finance and related disciplines. It must attract and retain excellent staff, invest in their training and development, and assure them of a professional working environment that encourages initiative and supports a culture of responsibility with clear accountability. The Council also needs strong professional

budget and financial staff.

Recognizing that no structure will work well unless the elected leadership of the

city works together, and the voters hold the leadership responsible for sound financial management and effective delivery of services, the structure for carrying out the

District’s financial management functions remains a critically important factor.

The Mayor, the Council and the Authority have discussed this central goal at

great length and have developed legislation for strengthening the financial management infrastructure in a manner that will support these shared goals. The principal

provisions of the ‘‘Independence of the Chief Financial Officer Establishment Act of

2001’’ are that:

—the District’s Mayor appoints the District’s CFO to a fixed term with a resolution of the Council (the Mayor may terminate the CFO only for cause and with

a two-thirds vote of the Council.)

—the agency CFOs shall be appointed by the District CFO from a list of qualified

candidates developed by the District CFO (the agency head shall measure the

agency CFO performance relating to agency mission support)

—the OCFO must provide a financial impact statement to measure the impact of

District contracts that exceed a certain threshold, legislation and regulations.

Local government enactment of these provisions will help cement the District’s

steady progress in developing and maintaining the structure, administration and integrity of the financial management infrastructure. Thank you for your interest in

these matters, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you.

Dr. Gandhi?

STATEMENT OF DR. NATWAR M. GANDHI

Dr. GANDHI. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Senator

Hutchison. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer of the

District of Columbia, and I am here to testify about the District’s

fiscal year 2002 budget.

Before I turn to the fiscal year 2002 budget, let me thank you,

Senator Hutchison, the subcommittee, the Senate, and the House

and House subcommittee for the positive action on the District’s

fiscal year 2001 supplemental.

In terms of the fiscal year 2002 budget, the total budget, as

amended, is about $5.3 billion, which represents an increase of

about $439 million, or about 9 percent over fiscal year 2001. The

total number of positions in fiscal year 2002 from all funding
196

sources is about 33,364, which represents a decrease of about 1,000

from 2001.

The budget for the District projects positive net operating margins through fiscal year 2005. The projection appears to show a

positive financial picture and is based on a revenue forecast built

using realistic economic assumptions generally accepted by the

forecasting community and used by the Federal Government.

A closer examination of our 5-year plan, however, suggests that

the District is operating on a tighter financial margin. While we believe the costs of maintaining current services can be kept within

the amounts projected, it is unlikely the District will operate over

the next several years without program initiatives or finding a reason to tap its budget reserves. Should either of these likely events

occur, the District would be operating on a very thin margin indeed. This means the District needs to continue to build financial

diligence in managing its resources and looking for ways to contain

costs, while improving services through new business processes instead of additional spending.

It also suggests that there is a long-term structural imbalance inherent in the city’s budget which, if not addressed, may eventually

precipitate spending in excess of revenues or serious cuts in the

city’s services. The sources of this imbalance are well known and

documented.

First, the District provides as much as $227 million in public

services to support Federal property, which comprises over 40 percent of the District property by area. Second, the District spends as much as $486 million per year on

state-like expenditures even after accounting for the net contributions for the 1997 Revitalization Act changes.

Third, the District can tax only 34 percent of the income earned

in the city.

And finally, tax exemptions of Federal commercial activity re- duce District revenues by as much as $193 million.

The Federal assumption of certain pension and Medicaid liabilities, courts, and prison functions was an important step in correcting this imbalance, but I believe that even good government

and fiscal prudence will not be enough in the event of a serious

sustained economic downturn. The long-term solutions to this imbalance are matters to be addressed by District and congressional

leaders, and there are several options. Federal tax incentives may

be part of the answer. Revising restrictions on the District’s local

taxing power might be another. Congresswoman Norton sponsored

legislation in the 106th Congress to enact a nonresident wage tax

with a corresponding Federal tax credit. These funds could be used

either to equitably compensate the District for services provided to

the Federal Government or to create an infrastructure fund for city

improvements. Now is the time, while the District is in good financial condition, to begin working on this issue and to put a permanent solution in place.

Now I will turn to a recommendation for a change in the District’s reserve policy. Today the District has $102 million in its cash

reserves, an amount projected to grow to nearly $260 million by the

end of 2003. Now that the District is building cash reserves and

will have an accumulated fund balance of over three-quarters of a
197

billion dollars by fiscal year 2005, we would like to revisit the requirement that the District have an annual budgeted reserve of

$150 million. This is prudent because the growing cash reserves

lessen the need for the budgeted reserve, and because removing the

budgeted reserve provides the elected leaders with greater flexibility to manage the city.

Existing District requirements, both budgeted and cash reserves,

total about 11 percent of local funds. By contrast, median State reserves are only about 3.5 percent of total expenditures and are generally held as fund balances, and a common benchmark reserve

rate for cities is about 5 percent of operating expenditures. Our

proposal would ultimately set the District’s combined cash reserves

at over 8 percent.

The proposal for your consideration is to phase out the budgeted

reserve beginning with a reduction of fiscal year 2002 and concluding, as already scheduled, in fiscal year 2004. At the same

time, we would establish a new $50 million operating cash reserve

in fiscal year 2004. The new cash reserve would be held at the $50

million level and be replenished as needed. Funds in this new reserve would be available as certified by the Chief Financial Officer.

We believe this new structure would provide the District with

much needed financial flexibility for the future, and we urge your

consideration of it.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Madam Chairwoman, Senator Hutchison, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request that this testimony be made part of the

record. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATWAR M. GANDHI

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Senator DeWine, Congresswoman Norton

and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer

for the District of Columbia, and I am here to testify about the District’s fiscal year

2002 budget. My remarks will briefly touch on the fiscal year 2001 supplemental,

the fiscal year 2002 budget request and process improvements in its formulation,

planned improvements for the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle, and two proposals that

would help improve the District’s overall financial picture.

OVERVIEW

When I was confirmed as the Chief Financial Officer just over a year ago, I noted

three overarching goals that had to be achieved for my office to be successful: (1)

obtaining a clean opinion on schedule from the District’s independent auditor for fiscal year 2000 and all subsequent years; (2) ensuring a balanced budget; and (3) providing effective, efficient financial systems and business methods to support the decision processes of District policymakers. Since then, we have met the first two goals

and made progress on the third, although additional improvements are needed and

possible. In addition, we have completed the securitization of the District’s tobacco

settlement funds and achieved a round of bond upgrades from all three rating agencies.

THE DISTRICT’S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL

Before I turn to the fiscal year 2002 budget, let me thank our House subcommittees and the House, and our Senate subcommittees and the Senate, for your positive

action on the District’s fiscal year 2001 supplemental.
198

THE DISTRICT’S FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET

Now I will turn to fiscal year 2002. In total, the District’s budget for fiscal year

2002 as amended is $5.3 billion from all funding sources, which represents an increase of about $439 million or 9 percent over approved fiscal year 2001 levels, or

an increase of about $283 million or 6 percent over revised fiscal year 2001 levels.

The total number of positions in fiscal year 2002 from all funding sources is 33,364,

which represents a decrease of 1,016 positions or 3 percent from approved fiscal

year 2001 levels.

The budget for the District projects positive net operating margins through fiscal

year 2005. This projection appears to show a positive financial picture, and is based

on a revenue forecast built using realistic economic and demographic assumptions

generally accepted by the forecasting community and used by the federal government. We can safely say these estimates represent a professional consensus view.

But a closer examination suggests the District is operating on a much tighter financial margin. While we believe the costs of maintaining current services can be

kept within the amounts projected, it is unlikely the District will operate over the

next several years without program initiatives or finding a reason to tap its budget

reserves. Should either of these likely events occur, the District would be operating

on a very thin positive margin. This means the District needs to continue to build

financial diligence in managing its resources and looking for ways to contain costs,

while improving services through new business processes instead of additional

spending. It also suggests a long-term structural imbalance in the budget that needs

to be addressed, as I will discuss later.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET

The role of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) in the budget process

is to provide timely, quality analyses and alternatives built around the policy interests and directions of elected officials. The Office of Budget and Planning (OBP)

leads this effort, and was quite successful in assisting both the Mayor and the District Council in the formulation of the fiscal year 2002 budget now before the Subcommittee. This success was the result of many improvements, including the following:

—instituting structured, advance consultation and information-sharing with the

Mayor and the Council;

—estimating the effects of key budget drivers, such as salary increases, inflation,

and non-recurring items, more precisely;

—eliminating unspecified savings in favor of identified savings in particular agencies that were achievable and were included in those agencies’ baseline budgets;

and

—costing fully program initiatives and legislative changes.

In addition, and in a larger sense, the Office of Budget and Planning has made

great strides in working with the Mayor and the City Administrator to enhance

‘‘truth in budgeting,’’ so that the budgets presented to the Council and the Congress

are realistic and can be delivered for the District’s citizens.

IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET

We have already begun planning for additional improvements to the budget process for fiscal year 2003. We will devise a plan for Mayoral and Council approval that

will implement performance budgeting, while at the same time streamlining the reprogramming process. A new account structure will ensure that we capture accounting information at levels necessary to monitor spending effectively and build budgets more accurately. This will provide the kinds of information the recent GAO report on our financial management system noted are not now available.

On April 26, the City Administrator and I signed a memorandum to all agency

directors and agency CFOs officially beginning the transition to performance-based

budgeting. This multi-year effort will begin in the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle. We

believe this new approach, once implemented, will improve policy development, service delivery, and accountability for District programs.

STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE IN THE DISTRICT BUDGET

I believe there is a structural imbalance inherent in the city’s budget, which if

not addressed may eventually precipitate spending in excess of revenues or serious

cuts in city services. The sources of this imbalance are well known and documented:

—the District provides as much as $227 million in public services to support federal property, which comprises over 40 percent of District property by area;
199

—lacking a state or state-like support from the federal government, the District

spends as much as $486 million per year on state-like functions, even after accounting for the net contributions of the 1997 Revitalization Act;

—the District can tax only 34 percent of income earned in the city; and

—tax exemptions of federal commercial activity reduce District revenues by as

much as $193 million.

The federal assumption of certain pension and Medicaid liabilities, courts, and

prison functions was an important step in correcting this imbalance, but I believe

that even good government and fiscal prudence will not be enough in the event of

a serious or sustained economic downturn. The long-term solutions to this imbalance are matters to be addressed by District and congressional policy-makers, and

there are several options. Federal tax incentives may be part of the answer. Revising restrictions on the District’s local taxing power might be another. Congresswoman Norton sponsored legislation in the 106th Congress to enact a nonresident

wage tax with a corresponding federal tax credit. These funds could be used either

to equitably compensate the District for services provided to the federal government,

or to create an infrastructure fund for city improvements. Now is the time—while

the District is in good financial condition—to begin working on this issue and to put

a solution in place.

CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT’S RESERVE POLICY

Today, the District has $102 million in its cash reserves, an amount projected to

grow to nearly $260 million by the end of fiscal year 2003. Now that the District

is building cash reserves, and will have an accumulated fund balance (representing

an accumulated excess of revenues over expenditures) of over 3⁄4 of a billion dollars

by fiscal year 2005, we would like to revisit the requirement that the District have

an annual budgeted reserve of $150 million. This is prudent because the growing

cash reserves lessen the need for the budgeted reserve, and because removing the

budgeted reserve provides the elected leaders with greater flexibility to manage the

city.

Existing District reserve requirements—both budgeted and cash—total about 11

percent of local funds. By contrast, median state reserves are only 3.5 percent of

total expenditures and are generally held as fund balances, and a common benchmark reserve rate for cities is 5 percent of operating expenditures. Our proposal

would ultimately set the District’s combined cash reserves at over 8 percent.

The proposal for your consideration is to phase out the budgeted reserve, beginning with a reduction in fiscal year 2002 and concluding (as already scheduled) in

fiscal year 2004. At the same time, we would establish a new $50 million operating

cash reserve in fiscal year 2004. The new cash reserve would be held at the $50

million level, and be replenished as needed. Funds in this new reserve would be

available as certified by the CFO.

We believe this new structure would provide the District with much needed financial flexibility for the future, and we urge your consideration of it.

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request that this testimony be made part of the record. I will be pleased to answer any questions you

or the other Subcommittee Members may have.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. All of the statements

will be made part of the record, and I really appreciate you all

keeping within the time frame.

I would like to start with just a few questions. Senator, I do not

know what your time is. I will take about 5 or 6 minutes or so, and

then we will do a round of questioning. There may be some things

that you all want to add to your prepared testimony.

RESERVE FUND

Let me just start with the reserve fund, since there seems to be

a real consensus about what we need to do to be clear. I had, of

course, supported and been supportive of the creation of the reserve

fund under the Senator’s leadership. I would like to point out,

though, that the cash reserve that is required, although all of you
200

have testified that you were willing to not only live with it, but embrace it and welcome it, it most certainly is a good thing. I did

want to ask or just to get something on the record about the size

of it compared to other cities and States in the Nation. I think it

is a good thing that we have it. I think it has been one of the

things that has helped directly to improve the bond rating.

Both Senator Hutchison and I, as you said, have served as State

treasurer, and we have both taken our States from very tough circumstances with falling bond ratings higher and were engaged in

this in a very direct way.

But we have got a cash reserve of almost 7 percent or a goal of that, as well as a $150 million budgetary surplus. There any other

cities and States that have similar requirements. We have not been

able to find any that have such rigorous requirements. Have we

looked in the wrong places, or is that true? So, I just wanted to ask

any of you all. Because what we have found is they range anywhere from 3.5 to 5 percent in terms of cash reserves, and most

do not have any additional budget reserves.

That is not to say that we do not want to stay the course that

we have outlined here and generally pretty much all agreed to. But

I was asking, do you all know of any other city or State that has

this kind of requirement?

Dr. GANDHI. If I may answer. We have looked at the State budget requirements in terms of the reserves, and there are States like,

say, Michigan, which had about 12 percent and then a State like

Minnesota had about 14 percent of the reserve requirement. But

when you really look into the average, the median there is about

3.5 percent for all States. In some cities, they do not have anything; in some other cities, there are reserves of 6 or 7 percent. But

on average it is about 5 percent.

But again, I want to point out that given our past history, I

think the emphasis that Senator Hutchison had put on the requirement of a cash reserve is very well taken, very well received in the

financial markets. As the Mayor and Mrs. Cropp and Dr. Rivlin

pointed out, we welcome that. I think, as we pointed out, we have

already accumulated $102 million. We will have $260 million-plus

in 2003, which as the Senator pointed out herself, is about 4 years

ahead of time, and we are very proud of doing that.

But at some point you want to wonder that should we be accumulating cash or should we use our resources wisely to provide

services? I think by the year 2004, for example, with our adding

another $50 million, we will have $317 million all in cash. All in

cash. So, I think what this would do, the phasing out of the reserve, is basically harmonize the reserve requirement as it is currently imposed.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I just wanted to point that out for the

record. Again, I am supportive of this effort, but there is a proper

balance and we will work together to make sure that we keep that

balance. The Senator has gotten us off, I think, to a very good

start. As you all testified, we are 4 years ahead of schedule. We do

want to, as a philosophy, not necessarily require any more or expect any less than the averages or hopefully above the averages.

I was just wondering, because I know in Louisiana we would be

quite envious to have such a cash reserve.
201

Senator, go ahead.

Senator HUTCHISON. If I could just speak. When we were trying

to do something that would be more concrete than the budget reserve, we did call to AAA-rated cities and to bond rating agencies

and we found that the norm was 5 to 7. There were different ways.

Sometimes it was a strict 4 percent emergency fund and then the

contingency was structured a little differently. But when we did

this, it was never my intention to also keep the $150 million budget reserve on top of that. I think that may be unusual. That was

never my intention because I wanted to do away with the budget

reserve, although your operating cash reserve is a safety net and

very prudent. But what I wanted was to have real money in the

bank for emergencies so you would never be up a creek without a

paddle or you would never be judged by the rating agencies to be

in peril.

So, I think your plan of phasing down the budget reserve is fine.

My only request would be that you never go below $150 million in

real reserves. So, after you reach the $150 million, hopefully you

will keep moving as you have scheduled for the rest of the real reserves, emergency and contingency. But if you ever fall below it,

then I think you would want to be looking at that budget reserve

to be there. But I do not think you will, from everything that you

are doing, and it was never my intention to put that on top of the

7 percent.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that will be very helpful because that

will provide us some additional room. We will revisit this issue in

terms of the percentages. Dr. Gandhi, perhaps you could outline,

based on some of the things that we have said.

Ms. CROPP. Senator, may I just add one other issue that we hope

that we could look at in the future? That is the District’s lack of

ability to roll over additional funds into the next fiscal year. I do

not think you have too many businesses or governments that if, in

fact, at the end of the fiscal year they have dollars left over that

they cannot roll it over. In many instances, actually it encourages

individuals possibly not to spend as wisely as they would normally

if they could roll it over and know that they could use it for programs or to pay off debt, if that is what the decision is. So, that

is something else that is really unique in the District of Columbia

and I hope that we can look at that.

Senator LANDRIEU. I thank you for raising that. I have often

thought that was even a problem at the Federal level that sends

out grant money and requires people to spend it or lose it by x.

That process really sometimes not only does not encourage but prevents and really encourages unwise spending and quick decisions

because of that time limit. So, let us note that, and perhaps at another hearing we can get into more detail about that. I thank you

for raising it.

Dr. GANDHI. May I add a point to what Chairman Cropp is saying? Because of that—that is, everything that is left over goes to

the bottom line and keeps accumulated—we will have, as I pointed

out in the testimony, three-quarters of billion dollars of fund balance, in addition to a 7 percent reserve. So, we simply cannot touch

it once it goes to the bottom line and it just stays there. So, that
202

is why we are really piling up a lot of money, which is simply not

touchable. We are kind of a reserve-rich, cash-happy jurisdiction.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I really appreciate that. We want to address that because there is a fine balance between being fiscally

conservative and smart and then being, on the other side, too

stingy because they have got lots of needs in the District in terms

of education and transportation and health care. So, it is very important to strike that balance, and I thank you all for wanting to

do that. We will revisit.

Let me just recognize that Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has

just arrived. Congresswoman, where are you? There you are.

Thank you very much. Of course, if you have anything to add at

a later time, we will be happy to hear from you.

Let me ask another question, and then I will ask Senator

Hutchison for her questions.

ROLE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

One of the important fiscal reforms is this whole issue of the status of the Chief Financial Officer, as we move through this transition. This is a question I would imagine that every city and State

has to ask itself. The role of the Chief Financial Officer. I have got

the schematic here which is right under the jurisdiction of the Financial Responsibility Management Assistance Authority, which is

going out, Dr. Rivlin. And then the Chief Financial Officer. It is on

the schematic chart here independent, which I know we want it to

remain. But do you all want to comment relative to the way other

cities, just for the record, function with these financial officers and

what you all think the best model, if you wanted to each do a

minute, of how that would work? Because you are either going to

have an independent agency that is equally responsive to the executive or legislative branch, but the legislative branch has to sort

of have its own resources, the executive branch have its own resources. Then do we then also need the Chief Financial Officer?

And if so, those roles and responsibilities. And every jurisdiction

struggles with this, whether it is New Orleans or the State of Louisiana. We have gone through round for round, and every good government group has a new idea of how to set it up.

But what I think is important about it is some of the functions,

that you have true revenue estimates that are not bogus but real,

that you have real fiscal notes attached to what things will cost so

you know ahead of time what they will cost. And there are some

roles that kind of an independent financial officer that needs to

give in addition to what the executive branch has to rely on their

own budget information, budget force, and the council.

So, I do not know, Dr. Rivlin, if you wanted to give a minute of

opening on this, just to get into the record your particular

thoughts. I know some of this is in your testimony. But as we look

out to building in the future, I think this cornerstone is a very important cornerstone for the District to put down, the role of this financial officer, sort of the fiscal discipline of this, because everything else will rest on that, whether it is schools or transportation

or economic development, et cetera.

Dr. RIVLIN. Different cities do it different ways, and I think you

can get a whole list of options. Some have elected comptrollers.
203

Some separate the budget and the control function. Some have particular ways of doing the revenue estimates.

I think the District has, out of its catastrophe of the mid-1990’s,

come to what seems to be a very workable solution: a Chief Financial Officer with the responsibility for revenue and for budgeting

and for the comptroller and treasurer functions. I guess my view

is we have got this working now, and we have an able Chief Financial Officer. The most constructive move I think at the moment is

to keep it going.

The legislation, which we all discussed, which has recently been

passed by the council, seems to me to preserve the strengths of the

existing system while moving the Financial Authority out of the

way and having a Chief Financial Officer who must report to the

Mayor and work closely with the Mayor and the council—otherwise, nothing good happens—but has a measure of independence in

that he or she cannot be removed arbitrarily. It takes a rather

elaborate process to remove the Chief Financial Officer. That provides a measure of independence.

As I said in my testimony, it is not the whole thing. Once you

get the law in place, it will only work if the Chief Financial Officer

is a very able person with a very good staff, and if the Mayor and

the council work well with that Chief Financial Officer and respect

the importance of good numbers.

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Mayor, would you care to add anything

or Mrs. Cropp to that?

Ms. CROPP. Let me say yesterday the council passed legislation

creating the independent CFO, and in that legislation, we are requesting that Congress repeal its current law so that it can be legislated locally. Actually that law is more enhanced than what had

been done initially by Congress. The law that was passed by the

council is legislation that was worked on by the Chief Financial Officer, the Financial Authority, the Mayor, and the Council. We all

worked together on that legislation, even though the chair of the

Finance Committee and I introduced it. It was a consensus piece.

And we think it is an excellent piece.

We all started with the premise and understanding that we believe that we needed to continue to have strong financial stability

in the District of Columbia, and in order to achieve that, we needed

to have a CFO that had some independence. We needed to make

sure that we could all believe, trust, and have valid revenue estimates. We also strongly believe that we needed to make sure that

the costs, upon which we were basing our budget, ought to be

based upon reliable figures. In fact, this legislation does that.

It goes beyond what Federal law had done in that we also have

the CFO creating standards and procedures by which what we call

the Deputy CFO’s in our agencies will operate under. We did not

have that in the past, and I think we have had sort of a loose

method of doing that recently. But this will make sure that our

agencies are not overspending, that the cost analysis that happened there is okay.

It also very clearly puts out that it is the CFO who deals with

those financial revenue estimates and gives us the appropriate

costs. But we also feel very strongly that it is the Mayor who sets
204

the policy and the legislative branch who sets the policy, and then

the CFO would give us the costs of it.

The independence that Dr. Rivlin talked about is there for the

CFO with the Mayor making a recommendation to the council. He

can only be removed by a two-thirds majority of the council. So, we

think that it is an extremely good piece of legislation. We will submit that to the committee for your records.

We also will submit an attachment of a table that I had that

shows the difference in what the congressional act had done and

what our legislation does to even strengthen the CFO so that we

will have more financial stability in the city.

[The information follows:]
205
206
207
208
209
210

Senator LANDRIEU. So, currently under the proposal—Mr. Mayor,

I would like to ask you to comment—the CFO can only be removed

by two-thirds vote of the council under this new——

Ms. CROPP. Recommendation by the Mayor.

Senator LANDRIEU. By the Mayor and with two-thirds.

Ms. CROPP. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. So, it has to take both.

Ms. CROPP. Yes. A recommendation by the Mayor and then twothirds of the council.

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Mayor, did you want to add anything?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, a couple of things. First of all,

the legislation that was passed by the council, underway at the

council, really represents the combined thinking of the council, the

Mayor, and the board. So, Alice and Linda and I are in joint agreement with Nat on what we need to do with the CFO office going

forward. I certainly believe in almost the sanctity of the revenue

estimate, on the importance of having the budget function with the

CFO function so you are reducing a lot of duplication. I support a

very, very strong, vigorous financial and budget function in the

council. All of those things are very important.

But when I was in Nat’s position, when I was CFO in the middle

of the mess back in 1996, whenever it was, my view of the whole

situation was that the District got where it was because we had an

underpowered, overloaded, badly driven car. Now, through better

management and people like John Koskinen, we are driving the car

better through the efforts of this council and the control board, certainly with Congresswoman Norton and the Revitalization Act, people like Frank Rains, President Clinton, needless to say, we have

reduced this tremendous overloading of the car. So, now we have

got a better driven car that is properly loaded.

But what Nat is saying and what Alice is saying is very, very important in their official jobs. Excuse me. In their official jobs, what

the chairman and the CFO is saying is very, very important because if we do not do anything to address the long-term structural

imbalance, we can have a perfect setup for the CFO, we can have

beautiful cash reserves, beautiful this and that kind of reserve, but

the long term is a long term. And long-term structural imbalance

means that sooner or later, if we do not do something about it, despite all the best intentions and best architecture and design, tragically we could end up right back where we started.

LONG-TERM STRUCTURAL REFORM

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that is a perfect segue into the third

question that I wanted to ask, and that has to do with the longterm structural reforms. I would like to ask your comments. I certainly would be willing to either conduct another hearing at an appropriate time where you all could suggest to me—yourselves and

other experts on this topic that could come in and we could spend

an afternoon kind of reviewing some of this information that I

think would be very helpful because, again, every city in the Nation struggles with this. I think the District has an even more intense, more difficult situation which makes it even more important

that we address it because the Mayor is absolutely right.
211

While the situation looks good now, I am mindful what President

Kennedy said and we say in Louisiana all the time: The time to

fix the roof is when the sun is shining. And the sun is shining now.

So, now is the time, not to wait until the storm clouds gather

again, to get some of this done. It is difficult because it requires

regional cooperation and all sorts of give and take. Back when the

model cities program was created many, many, many years ago

and all the difficult versions of that recognized that cities everywhere struggle with a shrinking tax base, rising expectations, rising costs, and the long-term future will look dim if it is not addressed.

So, do you all like the idea of another committee time, or would

you like to comment for the record now?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I personally think, Madam Chair, it is a level

of importance that I would welcome a separate session on the matter of long-term structural balance or viability of the finances of the

District.

Ms. CROPP. Madam Chair, if I could just make one comment. I

concur with the Mayor, but I must take this opportunity to make

one comment. Not unlike any other major city in this country, the

District’s population is older, sicker, and poorer. One big difference.

Usually the surrounding, more affluent suburban jurisdictions help

to offset the costs of that urban poor. In the District of Columbia,

we are totally different. We have a different State, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland. In fact, the citizens

of the District of Columbia help to offset their urban areas because

more than 60 percent of the folks who work for the District of Columbia, not the Federal Government, not the private sector, but

people who work for the District of Columbia, take the money outside of the District of Columbia to help pay for the urban problems

of Maryland and Virginia. It is an untenable position for us to be

in, in addition to the fact that 50 percent or more of our tax base

we cannot tax in the District for many reasons and we have revenue denied in the District for many reasons.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced legislation, that I hope the committee will look at and can support, that

would at least provide us an opportunity to address this issue

where we can get some of the money that we send outside of the

District back.

But, yes, I concur. We do need to have a separate hearing. It is

a very crucial issue that can send us belly up if we do not address

it.

Senator LANDRIEU. Go ahead, Dr. Rivlin.

Dr. RIVLIN. I think you have got a consensus here. It would make

a subject for a very good hearing and one at which I would be delighted to appear.

But I do think Ms. Cropp has an important point. The District

has in common with other cities some serious urban problems, but

we are different. There is not any other city that does not have a

State and there is not any other city that has the prohibition on

the taxation of non-resident income that we have.

Dr. GANDHI. I strongly endorse this idea. The only thing that I

would suggest here is that, as was pointed out earlier, that practically every major city generally is subsidized by its own State, in
212

the case of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland. The

question is, who is going to subsidize the District? As Mrs. Cropp

has pointed out, the subsidy here is in the reverse fashion.

The other thing we want to keep in mind here is that because

of the limited tax base that we have, our expenditures are rising

faster than our revenues. That is a fundamental fact, and we will

not be able to get away from it. The Mayor is exactly right. You

can have as much cash reserve as you want to have, and we would

always try to maintain our expenditures with lower revenues because we never want to generate a deficit and have a control board

again.

The point here is, though, is that a good government? Is that a

good government?

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Well, we will work with you all

and perhaps use the Congresswoman’s bill as a basis for some sort

of hearing and hopefully we can do that.

EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT

Let me move to education, if I could, just for a moment. I am

particularly interested, Mr. Mayor, from your perspective, and because the Superintendent is here, he may want to address this, and

he is welcome to. How is the city positioning itself—maybe the top

two or three issues—regarding education reform? I use that term

broadly because reform can mean different things to different communities.

But generally, as you know, there is a great move across this Nation, and it expressed itself in congressional action just recently for

cities everywhere, led in many cases by the mayors of those cities.

Mayor Morial is leading this effort in New Orleans, Mayor Daley

in Chicago. You have got former Governor Romer even taking over

the L.A. situation in Los Angeles, trying to be part of this effort

to try to bring our urban schools that are, in many instances, lacking a lot of the resources—but sometimes it can be often management difficulties—to a level so that every child really gets a quality

education in a quality facility in ways that the city and the parents

can have some knowledge about the accountability, how well the

schools are doing, identifying schools that are not doing well, making the changes necessary, really focusing on the results and performance, believing every child can learn and not just saying it, but

actually having it happen.

Teachers all over the Nation are complaining. Obviously, they do

not get enough pay. They do not get enough support. They have difficulty with discipline in their classrooms because of maybe local or

Federal regulations.

So, with that, would you like to just comment about the one or

two things or steps you are taking, particularly on the accountability issue? How are we stepping forward to assure people here

in the District? In your budget you start by indicating more support, which is good, a substantial increase in funding. But, as you

know, some critics will say you just cannot throw money at a problem. Money without reform can be a waste of time. Reform without

resources can be a futile effort. So, you need both the reform and

the resources. So, could you comment about that and then maybe

the others might want to for the record on education?
213

Mayor WILLIAMS. Yes, Senator. If I could just answer very, very

briefly and introduce Superintendent Vance and let him really answer the substance of the question.

I really consider it my most important role as Mayor. I want to

say, incidentally, that I am proud of our city for voting to change

our school board, even where we do not have full representation.

The vote to actually reduce the number of elected positions took a

lot of courage by our citizens because we believe very, very strongly

that we need to have a first-rate school board that supports our Superintendent.

I consider it our first order of business. The schools are going to

be coming out with a business plan in July. We really consider it

our first order of business to work with the schools and support the

schools and their facilities plans, support the schools where it

comes to, for example, what we are doing with our parks and recreation, with what we are doing with our libraries, with what they

are doing with schools.

I will give you another statistic. Support the schools in the following sense. In a normal city, you may have 4 or 5 percent of your

youth in mental health. In the District, we have .5 percent of our

youth in the mental health system.

Senator LANDRIEU. I am sorry. I did not hear it. How much?

Mayor WILLIAMS. .5 percent are in the mental health system

here, whereas it tends to be 4 or 5 percent in a normal city, a normal place.

What that means is this is feeding and driving this huge, exorbitant increase in folks into special ed at very, very high cost for the

school system. That is an area where we need to combine. So, I

consider it our highest priority to work with the superintendent in

the business plan that he is creating to see that he is successful.

Let me cede the rest of my time, to the extent I have it, to him,

if I could.

Senator LANDRIEU. Go right ahead.

Mr. VANCE. Thank you, Mayor Williams, and good afternoon,

Senator.

Very briefly, the major focus, as you have indicated, has to be on

low performing schools. This year we have identified 19 such

schools, and 9 of the schools will undergo what we call a complete

transformation; that is, the administrative teams and the entire

staffs will be replaced. There will be those staff members who are

eligible who will be able to reapply for their positions. The principal and the divisional superintendent will be able to select those

whom they care to. Those schools will receive a complete overhaul,

both with an imposed curriculum and other appropriate activities.

Working with the departments of the city, we are developing

plans for what we call wraparound activities, which will provide

opportunities for preschool, starting at 6:30 and 7 o’clock in the

morning, going through after school activities, 6:30 and 7 o’clock in

the evening for the youngsters.

We are establishing these schools with a set curriculum and we

are imposing high standards on them over a period of 3 years. We

have established marks for each school to achieve during the first,

second, and third years.
214

There are 10 other schools where we have decided that, in spite

of considerable support, both monetary and personnel, they have

not progressed, but the failure to progress was primarily the fault

of the administrative leadership. In 10 of those schools, we are replacing those administrative teams.

We have recruited both internally throughout the metropolitan

area and nationally. Thanks to the Lead Principal initiative and

the additional funds in the budget, we have been able to create a

salary scale, again based on performance, that we feel is competitive, at least with those administrative positions in this metropolitan area.

Here again, we have established standards. All of these schools,

of course, will have new models for parent and community involvement, and there will be a movement to improve the physical facilities in those schools.

On the broader range, as the Mayor has indicated, we have had

the good fortune for the past 4 months to have, pro bono, four associates from McKenzie and Company working with us in the school

system on the creation of what we have decided to call a business

plan. That business plan is, in effect, a 3- to 5-year educational reform plan for the school system which will touch every aspect and

component of our school system before we are finished, particularly

in multi-year budgeting, greatly related to those aspects of student

achievement and the complete transformation of our central office

and its operations.

Finally, our major input also, as the Mayor has indicated, is in

the area of special education. Special education for the District is

costly. It is more costly than normally what it is in urban and suburban areas in the school district. We are working with the Federal

court system and the appointed court masters to exit from two very

costly class action suits that we have been in for the past 6 years:

the Pettys and the Blackman-Jones. We are within 8 to 10 months

of exiting from Pettys and Blackman.

At the point that we are able to do that, we will be able again

to redirect much of the money spent for transportation and placement of those youngsters in private settings in three States outside

of the District because we will be able to provide for them within

our school district. Those youngsters have a right, as well as any

youngsters, to attend schools in their community in programs that

are appropriately designed and perfected for them.

If there are other questions, I certainly will be glad to respond

to them.

Built into all this, I would just like to say, which closely corresponds with the national thrust in assessments, we have expanded our curriculum. Up to this point, we had what was known

as a content standards approach. We will inaugurate this September a pre-K through 12 curriculum which subsumes the content

standards, but also expands into enrichment in other activities.

That will be highly directive. So, in our assessment of schools in

the future, we will not only look at results from the norm of reference, SAT–9 test, but increasingly we will be looking at what we

call criterion reference testing and their results, which in effect

evaluate and test student progress based on the curriculum which

has been designed for the school system.
215

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I thank you for that. The reason I ask

is it is not just because it is an important issue for education, but

given that we have agreed now to have this follow-up meeting

about the long-term stability and economic development expanding

the tax base of the city, I would submit that having a first-class

education system is one of the most important steps to encourage

people to stay in this District, have their children educated in the

District, to really put forward our best efforts. You all are seemingly moving inthe right direction.

But this whole issue, even cities that are not of this mind are

going to be of this mind if this Federal legislation passes because

I was very vigorous in my support of it. But there are some pretty

tough time lines about the kinds of tests that have to be given,

about the consequences, about requirements for certified teachers.

Just to give you a reference point, if Kathleen will tell me, in

Louisiana what is our—we have 30,000 teachers in Louisiana. We

have got a population, just to give you a reference, of 4.5 million

people. We have 30,000 teachers that are not certified in the traditional certification.

Under the bill that we just passed, every district in the city, in

the State, including the District of Columbia, will have to have

teachers fully certified by 2005. I say every district. Actually the

compromise was the schools with 50 percent of poverty or greater

have to have certified teachers by 2005.

So, this is going to be a tough hurdle for everyone in the Nation,

one that we need to try to reach this goal. But it is going to take

a lot of effort and a lot of resources and a lot of innovative moving

teachers in from non-traditional roles, looking at alternative certifications, because you want to have really qualified teachers in the

classroom. Maybe we need to revisit how specifically they are certified. But it is going to be a challenge. But I hope and think that

we are all up to it because it is important to make sure that we

provide students with regular teachers who are certified, the opportunity to have discipline in those classrooms so learning can actually take place.

Does anybody want to add anything on education? I was going

to move to the child welfare.

Mr. VANCE. Just one closing comment on your last comments. I

do not want to come across as seeming overly optimistic or disregarding what the national statistics show us on teacher recruitment. But this past year, we have had a very aggressive national

recruitment program. We are very pleased with the results of that.

As the Mayor mentioned earlier, we also initiated the teaching fellows program this year where we got close to 1,200 applicants. It

was a pleasure to narrow that list down to the 137 vacancies which

we knew we were going to have.

We worked closely with American and George Washington Universities, and initially they were telling us we just do not think you

are going to get candidates for your more eclectic and esoteric

areas. Well, we got some of the finest candidates possible in math,

science, microbiology, physics, English speaking for other languages, and special education. We have a 2-year program at an institute which will be conducting for these teaching candidates with

American and George Washington and our own institute to better
216

train them in terms of the pedagogy and the methodology of teaching.

We recently, as the papers indicated, released 531 provisional

teachers who had up to 3 years, some 4 years to become certified.

They had not become certified, and because we were so confident

in our recruitment and the quality of the persons we were bringing

in the school system, we felt able to release them.

Our goal is by July 17 to have every classroom in our school system filled. In talking with our Director of Human Resources last

night, we are currently at the 217 mark, but we had 217 vacancies

to fill with over 800 positions and applicants to choose from. So, we

are moving right along.

Senator LANDRIEU. That is truly quite encouraging. I can say, as

a person who has been actively engaged in this debate here, that

those statistics are better than most communities that I have heard

about and know about and been privileged really to work with on

this issue. That really is extraordinary. But it is a testimony to, if

you have the right kind of administration, there are people that not

only want to do this work, you have got to pay them a decent wage.

But people do not teach for the money. They would be doing something else, but to join with an effort, you will have any number of

qualified individuals, and I really commend you for that.

Let me move on to the next question. Really, after this, if there

are other things that you want to add—as I said, I was hoping we

could finish by 4:00.

CHILD WELFARE

On the child reform issue, Mr. Mayor, this has been in the headlines, and in many years, some really tough cases that have come

to the public’s eye on this child abuse and neglect and the need to

really streamline our system and have a better management here.

This budget reflects your commitment and the council’s commitment in terms of additional resources to that effort.

Mayor, you yourself have been an outstanding role model, as a

person who began in foster care and then to come into the wonderful family that you are in now, and have been quite wonderful

about sharing your time as a role model for people all over this

country in foster care and for policy makers in terms of what is

possible.

So, would you just comment for the record about some of the

things in this budget that you have put as a priority? I would ask

the City Council perhaps to do the same, any comments on the proposal the judges have made. Judge King was here just yesterday

giving remarks about their restructuring because it is complicated

to streamline. Some of it is under the jurisdiction of the city. Some

of it is the courts. It is not just the judges and the magistrates, but

the case workers, the whole system.

Can you give us just a brief, maybe 2 or 3 minutes, on how you

feel this is working, some of the challenges that are still out there?

And is there anything that we can do or that I can do to facilitate

this reform and expedite these changes?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Let us see. Two minutes on child welfare.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, go ahead and take 5.
217

Mayor WILLIAMS. One thing, Senator, I am very, very proud that

we are now in the process and will be shortly completing and will

be getting results from a commission that I established on juvenile

justice in the city. It is headed up by Judge Gene Hamilton who,

you will be pleased to know, was with me at the White House a

couple of years ago at that adoption ceremony. Judge Hamilton I

think has either fostered or adopted something like what? Fifteen

children? Forty? Good Lord, 40-something children. When you talk

about role models, he is a tremendous role model.

We put together a first-rate group of citizens with funding from

the Casey Foundation to do a study of where we are with juvenile

justice with the expectation that they are going to find that we are

nowhere near where we need to be, and a body of recommendations

of what we need to put in place to set ourselves right both in terms

of operations and also in terms of capital dollars because if you go

out to Oxon Hill where we have our juvenile justice facilities—and

I invite you to go out there with me—it would break your heart.

It is a sad situation not because of the lack of effort by our employees, but just another one of these stories of just years and years

and years of capital neglect. And now our children are suffering for

it.

Another area that I am pleased to say—in all humility, I will put

it this way. The illumination I was able to give to the issue as an

adopted son myself, we have increased adoptions in this city now

over the last year period around 60 percent and are still climbing

to greater effort in bringing more families into the realm of adoption by everything, by cooperating with other jurisdictions better,

removing regulatory barriers, supporting our court counsel to support this effort better. That is moving along.

Our child receivership has recently come back into the District.

Not only has it come into the District—and I want to thank Carolyn Graham, our Deputy Mayor, and Grace Lopes, who is a special

counsel to the Mayor for receiverships and other stuff, to have

worked to bring this back in—but we have now working with us

as the head of our Child and Family Services Agency, Olivia Golden who has a tremendous background in this area. Olivia Golden

was head of children and family services for the Children’s Defense

Fund. She did the same thing with Donna Shalala. Secretary

Shalala, at HHS, ended up being Assistant Secretary. She is now

bringing that wealth of skill and ability to setting things right and

really getting our program for Child and Family Services going in

the right way.

Finally, we insisted for a long, long time in open information,

freedom of information, when it comes to getting our records out

and information out, insisted for a long, long time in coordinating

all of the different areas of government, including our Police Department when it involves the investigation of child abuse and neglect. While we have had some challenges there and some problems

there, I believe that we are making headway in that effort.

To wrap up, in terms of coordination when it comes to the family

court, my philosophy I think is consistent with the philosophy of

Congresswoman Norton and the leadership of the city, and that is

to create in practice and to create in practical effect for families

and children all the benefits of a family court without necessarily
218

creating legally and every other way with all the associated costs

of a family court itself, which means putting the right kinds of resources, to reducing the backlog, making sure that judges who are

overseeing these cases have the right kind of expertise and continuity to make sure that cases are not falling through the cracks.

Despite some controversy, I believe that that effort is taking shape,

and I believe that there are only some small areas of disagreement

that remain. I believe that we are going to get to our joint goal

both up here in the Congress and down in the District and over in

the Superior Court to see that the court is serving our children.

Senator LANDRIEU. Maybe Mrs. Graham would like to come forward and just make a brief statement, if you want to add anything

to that because of your good work.

I would welcome any comments in writing about that specific

proposal. As you know, there have been several bills filed about the

establishment of a court. Senator DeWine and I are right in the

middle of those negotiations now with Congresswoman Holmes

Norton that is here and Congressman DeLay who is primary sponsor on the House side. So, any comments from the city or the council would be very welcome as to what your views are on the specifics because the devil is in the details here. While we all have this

general idea, there are some conflicts about how this is going to be

tackled. But it is very important again that we get this piece right.

I do not know if you all are aware, Mayor, and you would be particularly happy to know that the Congress just passed an international treaty on adoption that for the first time establishes in the

world, which is not an easy feat for countries of different cultures

and different backgrounds to come together on the basic notion

that every child deserves a family to call their own, preferably two

parents, but at least one caring, loving adult—the children cannot

raise themselves—that every child has a right, the treaty says, to

remain in the family to which they were born, unless there are extenuating circumstances. In many cases there are terrible circumstances. And in that, the treaty goes on to say, the children

will then be placed with the closest kin, responsible relative; if not,

in the community then to which they were born; and if not, to find

someplace in the world for them to be.

This is an extraordinary treaty, if you think about it, because

there are countries that say we do not care if our children grow up

on the street. They are not going to go anywhere but here. There

are States that say we do not care if children literally die in an institution. We do not believe that. But taking this step of faith and

belief that every child deserves a family is no small accomplishment. We just passed that last year. So, literally every city and

town and hamlet and village around this world is going to be, hopefully, in the next few years, working on this simple but profound

notion.

It is kind of like Habitat for Humanity has this idea. Every family deserves shelter. Every family deserves a home. Well, every

child deserves a family, and we have lived for a long, long time in

this world without thinking. They can grow up in orphanages. They

can live on the street. Well, that is not the way God created this

world.
219

So, I am very excited about this and think it will have long-term,

profound effects in many positive ways for our whole community

and our Nation.

So, I thank you for the part that you are playing in that here,

but to know that every city and community is struggling with this.

If you wanted to add anything to that, Mrs. Graham.

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you so much for this opportunity. At the

local level, Senator Landrieu, one of the issues I think for us in this

metropolitan area is to work out the kind of arrangements with

Maryland and Virginia that will allow ease of access for our children across these borders. I know that in discussions with Mrs.

Norton, she certainly supports that, and we are going to be looking

at some of the border agreements that are in place in various parts

of this country right now that allow for this very thing. We will be

working with her staff to design such an agreement that may be

addressed in the family court legislation. So, we would ask that you

be on the lookout for that when the legislation moves forward, as

we move it into final form.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. In conclusion, this area is so important as we get this idea of one judge, one family so that families

do not get lost in the system, that children do not get lost in the

system, that parents and relatives are not frustrated, that we create a seamless, efficient way to help families deal with some of

these very difficult issues. But even though the issues are difficult,

there needs to be a definitive resolution not just going on and on

and on and on because no one wants to make a decision because

these decisions are tough. Well, they are tough, but some tough decisions have to be made in these cases or you have the tragedies

that result when the system is not built in a way that can make

not quick and not untimely, but timely, deliberative, but tough decisions so that children can be raised in the most nurturing environment possible because, over the long run, it is probably the

most significant thing a government can do to ensure its own longterm health, for its children to be nurtured well. And they cannot

do that by themselves. That is why we have prisons that are full

and budgets that are overrun and a great deal of pain and suffering.

So, while a lot of people do not like to focus on this issue or think

it is soft, I think it is a very hard issue. It is a hard-cutting issue,

and it needs a lot more attention than it gets in these walls. I

hopefully can continue to try to stay focused on this for all of us,

and we will help you to do that.

Ms. CROPP. Senator?

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. CROPP. The council yesterday passed a resolution with regard to the family court and we will forward it to your office.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much.

We are about to wrap up. Does anybody have anything for the

record?

Let me just ask the staff if there is anything I need to put in

the record.

The record will be open until the 20th, if anybody wants to add

anything to this record.

Any closing comments?
220

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Mr. Mayor, thank you all. It has been a good hearing and the

meeting is concluded.

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Wednesday, July 11, the hearings

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.]
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Page

Clark, John L., Corrections Trustee, Courts, District of Columbia ..................... 129

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 160

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 158

Cropp, Linda M., Chairman, Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, District of Columbia ............................................................ 173

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 188

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 185

DeLay, Hon. Tom, Majority Whip, U.S. Representative from Texas, statement

of ............................................................................................................................ 9

DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:

Opening statements ........................................................................................... 1, 77

Questions submitted by ................................................................. 51, 68, 121, 123

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 136

Gahdhi, Dr. Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia .............. 173

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 197

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 195

Graham, Carolyn, Deputy Mayor for Children and Youth Services, District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 173

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 49

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 10

Grossman, Hon. David E., Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division,

Cincinnati, Ohio ................................................................................................... 77

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 121

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 94

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of ................. 177

Jackson, Sondra, Acting Chief, Child and Family Services Agency, District

of Columbia:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 51

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 16

Jones, Cynthia, Director, Public Defender Services, Courts, District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 129

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 149

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 148

King, Hon. Rufus G. III, Chief Judge, D.C. Superior Court, District of Columbia:

Prepared statements...................................................................................... 84, 146

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 123

Statements of.................................................................................. 77, 82, 129, 144

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:

Opening statements of................................................................................. 129, 173

Prepared statements........................................................................................ 7, 133

Questions submitted by ............................................................ 49, 67, 70, 71, 123

Statements of...................................................................................................... 6, 80
Page

ii

Meltzer, Judith, Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Social Policy:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 71

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 21

Ormond, Jasper, Interim Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency, Courts, District of Columbia ................................................................. 129

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 154

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 152

Rivlin, Dr. Alice M., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 173

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 193

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 192

Roberts, James, President, Family Division Trial Lawyers Association, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 100

Sinowitz, Betty E., Co-Vice President, Family Division Trial Lawyers Association, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 100

Strauss, Paul, statement of ..................................................................................... 99

Thompson, Eric, Staff Attorney, Children’s Rights, Inc.:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 68

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 28

Vance, Paul, Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools, District of Columbia ........... 173

Wagner, Annice M., Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Administration,

Courts, District of Columbia ............................................................................... 129

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 140

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 138

Walton, Hon. Reggie, Presiding Judge, Family Division, D.C. Superior Court,

District of Columbia ............................................................................................. 77

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 92

Williams, Hon. Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia ......................................... 173

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 182

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 178
(iii)

SUBJECT INDEX

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES RECEIVERSHIP

Page

Abuse and neglect, consolidating ............................................................................ 31

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 48

Adequate:

Funding ............................................................................................................. 30

Legal counsel .................................................................................................... 31

Adoption and Safe Families Act................................................................................. 4, 9

At-risk children ........................................................................................................ 2

Authority over agency-related functions ................................................................ 30

Caseworkers/social workers .................................................................................... 55

CFSA:

Accomplishments .............................................................................................. 18

Information management system .................................................................... 12

Update on role in the transition ...................................................................... 20

Challenges ................................................................................................................ 16

Children in the system ............................................................................................ 53

Child welfare:

Steps to regaining administration of .............................................................. 28

System ............................................................................................................... 21

D.C. Child Welfare System ..................................................................................... 1

Faces ......................................................................................................................... 12

Fiscal year 2001 highlights ..................................................................................... 19

GAO report ............................................................................................................... 2

LaShawn:

Decree ................................................................................................................ 21

Order ................................................................................................................. 23, 29

Mayor’s reform plan ................................................................................................ 11

Progress report on implementation of October 23, 2000 consent order governing transition of the LaShawn receivership ................................................. 25

Receivership............................................................................................................... 2, 11

Reforming the system ............................................................................................... 5, 10

Reporting and investigation .................................................................................... 57

Sexual abuse, reports of .......................................................................................... 5

Structure of the agency ........................................................................................... 30

Transition:

Order ................................................................................................................. 22

Out of receivership ........................................................................................... 28

Prerequisite for ................................................................................................. 22

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Anacostia River initiative ....................................................................................... 180

Chief Financial Officer, role of the ......................................................................... 202

Child welfare ............................................................................................................ 216

Council period XIV .................................................................................................. 188

Council-Mayor budget process, the ........................................................................ 189

Budget:

Development of the fiscal year 2002 ............................................................... 198

District’s fiscal year 2001 budget supplemental, the ..................................... 197

District’s fiscal year 2002 ................................................................................. 198

Highlights of the fiscal year 2002 ................................................................... 189

Improvements for the fiscal year 2003 ........................................................... 198

Structural imbalance in the District ............................................................... 198
Page

iv

District’s reserve policy, change in the .................................................................. 199

Education in the District ......................................................................................... 212

Federal contribution ................................................................................................ 189

Fiscal responsibility ................................................................................................. 181

Investing in critical priorities ................................................................................. 183

One government, good government, and self-government ................................... 185

Local funds budget ................................................................................................... 186

Long-term structural reform ................................................................................... 210

Maintaining fiscal responsibility ............................................................................ 184

School budget ........................................................................................................... 178

Reserve fund ............................................................................................................ 199

COURTS

Background .............................................................................................................. 160

Cases handled by agency, increase in number of .................................................. 150

Courthouse facility renovation ................................................................................ 168

Courts:

And the community .......................................................................................... 142

Improving defender services operations at the .............................................. 142

Performance measurement at the ................................................................... 143

Criminal Justice Act, assistance to the court in administering the .................... 150

Criminal justice process, initiatives to improve the within the District of

Columbia ............................................................................................................... 163

Enhancing management practices .......................................................................... 141

Family court reform ................................................................................................. 165

Fiscal year:

2000 initiative: parole revocation .................................................................... 151

2002 budget:

Priorities of the courts .............................................................................. 143

Request:

Community re-entry ........................................................................... 153

Of the corrections trustee .................................................................. 164

Implementation of the act and the Lorton closure process .................................. 161

Lorton Correctional Facility closing ....................................................................... 170

Mental health treatment program, creation of a .................................................. 151

Progress and new initiatives ................................................................................... 155

Progress on agency functions and fiscal year 2000 initiatives ............................. 150

Space needs .............................................................................................................. 147

Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 147

Perspectives on current operations ........................................................................ 162

Strengthening financial management at the Courts ............................................ 140

Training .................................................................................................................... 147

D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

79

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 121

Assignments ............................................................................................................. 86

Backlog ..................................................................................................................... 117

Case backlogs ........................................................................................................... 98

Cases currently under review ................................................................................. 126

Child protection mediation ...................................................................................... 87

Court-based data information system .................................................................... 98

Family division reform plan .................................................................................... 84

Filled as a family court ........................................................................................... 105

4,500 cases currently under review by judges ....................................................... 87

Judicial:

Officers/magistrates .......................................................................................... 97

Tenure ............................................................................................................... 97

Facilities ................................................................................................................... 98

Magistrate judges .................................................................................................... 87

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges ...................................... 95

Permanency Branch ................................................................................................ 123

Planning ................................................................................................................... 126

Reduction in caseload and length of stay for children .......................................... 121

Resources .................................................................................................................. 98

Specialization ....................................................................................................... 86, 125
Page

v

Superior Court of the District of Columbia Family Court Reform Plan

(DRAFT).............................................................................................................. 86, 87

System accountability .............................................................................................. 87

Training ....................................................................................................................87, 98

Unified family court ................................................................................................ 86

Æ