U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

99–010

" ! SENATE 107TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

2002

107–145

Calendar No. 362

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL

RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2001

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 2305

TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICIALS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO SERVE ON AND

PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL 29, 2002.—Ordered to be printed

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel

CYNTHIA GOOEN LESSER, Counsel

MARIANNE CLIFFORD UPTON, Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee

RICHARD A. HERTLING, Minority Staff Director

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Minority Counsel

MASON C. ALINGER, Minority Professional Staff Member, Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

Calendar No. 362

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 107–145

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL

RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2001

APRIL 29, 2002.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 2305]

The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was referred

the bill (H.R. 2305) to authorize certain Federal officials with responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system of

the District of Columbia to serve on and participate in the activities of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 5

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 6

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 6

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 7

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 2305, the Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council Restructuring Act of 2001, is to authorize the heads of six

Federal agencies, specifically, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, the United States Attorney for the

District of Columbia, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United

States Parole Commission, and the United States Marshals Service, to meet regularly with District law enforcement officials as the

‘‘Criminal Justice Coordinating Council’’ (CJCC). H.R. 2305

2

strengthens the CJCC by authorizing Federal participation and

funds. H.R. 2305 requires the CJCC to submit to the President,

Congress, and appropriate Federal and local agencies an annual report detailing its activities.

II. BACKGROUND

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia (CJCC) is the primary venue in which District of Columbia

criminal justice agencies can identify and address interagency coordination issues. The CJCC for the District of Columbia was originally established pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement entered into on May 28, 1998 by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, the Chair of

the Council of the District of Columbia, the Chair of the Judiciary

Committee of the Council of the District of Columbia, the Chief

Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the United

States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, the Chief Management Officer, the

Corrections Trustee of the District of Columbia, the Offender Supervision Trustee of the District of Columbia, and three members

of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (also known as the ‘‘Control Board.’’). It

has operated as an independent working group to foster cooperation among the 13 governmental agencies which have law enforcement responsibility in our Nation’s capital.

CJCC’s mission is to address coordination difficulties among District of Columbia criminal justice agencies. CJCC members have

typically met every four to six weeks and have formed numerous

teams to address criminal justice issues, such as drugs, juvenile

justice, halfway houses, information technology, and identification

of arrestees. CJCC staff have coordinated meetings, provided data

and statistics, summarized workgroup findings, performed best

practices reviews, and provided other information and support to

District of Columbia criminal justice agencies.

Establishment as a local agency

As part of a local enactment in August 2001, the Fiscal Year

2002 Budget Support Emergency Act of 2001 (District of Columbia

Laws Act 14–124, Title XV), the CJCC was established as an independent agency within the District of Columbia.

Under this local law, the Mayor of the District of Columbia is

designated as the Chair of the CJCC. Other members include the

Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia; the Chairman

of the Judiciary Committee of the Council of the District of Columbia; the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department; the Director

of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections; the Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia; the Director of the Department of Human Services’ Youth Services Administration; the

Director of the Public Defender Service; the Director of the Pretrial

Services Agency; the Director of the Court Services and Offender

Supervision Agency; the United States Attorney for the District of

Columbia; the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee; the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the chair of the United

States Parole Commission.

3

1 ‘‘D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed Among Participating Agencies,’’

GAO–01–187, March 30, 2001 (210 page report); see also ‘‘D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better

Coordination Needed Among Participating Agencies,’’ GAO–01–708T May 11, 2001 (GAO prepared testimony before House Subcommittee).

The 2001 local law enumerates eight specific duties of the CJCC.

Among them are the responsibility to: make recommendations concerning the coordination of the activities and the mobilization of

the resources of the member agencies in improving public safety in,

and the criminal justice system of, the District of Columbia; define

and analyze issues and procedures in the criminal justice system,

identify alternative solutions, and make recommendations for improvements and changes in the programs of the criminal justice

system; receive information from, and give assistance to, other District of Columbia agencies concerned with, or affected by, issues of

public safety and the criminal justice system; make recommendations regarding systematic operational and infrastructural matters

as are believed necessary to improve public safety in the District

of Columbia and Federal criminal justice agencies; and establish

measurable goals and objectives for reform initiatives.

Federal funding

The FY 2002 appropriations for the District of Columbia (P.L.

107–96, 115 Stat. 923 at 925) provides for a Federal payment of $300,000 to the City Administrator for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia.

GAO assessment of criminal justice coordination challenges in the

District of Columbia

In March 2001 the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a

report, ‘‘D.C. Criminal Justice System,’’ 1 on the effectiveness of coordination among the District’s various criminal justice entities. As

explained by GAO, the criminal justice process—from arrest

through correctional supervision—in any jurisdiction is generally

complex and typically involves a number of participants including

police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, courts, and corrections agencies. Because of the large number of agencies involved, coordination

among agencies is necessary for the process to function as efficiently as possible within the requirements of due process.

GAO emphasized that the unique structure and funding of the

District of Columbia’s criminal justice system, in which Federal

and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries and dollars are

blended, creates additional coordination challenges. The District of

Columbia criminal justice system consists of four District of Columbia agencies principally funded through local funds, six Federal

agencies, and three District of Columbia agencies principally funded through Federal appropriations. Seven of the ten stages of the

District of Columbia’s criminal justice system require coordination

among agencies funded by different sources.

Because of the different sources of funding, reporting structures,

and organizational perspectives of the various agencies involved in

the District of Columbia criminal justice system, GAO stressed that

it has been difficult in the District of Columbia to coordinate systemwide activities, reach agreement on the nature of systemwide

problems, and take a coordinated approach to addressing problem

areas that balances competing institutional interests. CJCC’s abilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:04 May 01, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR145.XXX pfrm01 PsN: SR145
4

2Letter of July 31, 2001 to Representative Connie Morella from Assistant Attorney General

Daniel J. Bryant.

ity to effect cooperation among the various agencies has been limited because it has no formal authority or power over any member

agency.

According to GAO, without a requirement to report successes and

areas of continuing discussion and disagreement to each agency’s

funding source, CJCC’s activities, achievements, and areas of disagreement have generally been known only to its participating

agencies. GAO observed that this has created little incentive to coordinate for the common good, and all too often agencies have simply ‘‘agreed to disagree’’ without taking action. Further, without a

meaningful role in the establishment of multi-agency initiatives,

CJCC has been unable to ensure that criminal justice initiatives

are designed to identify the potential for joint improvements, and

that they are carefully coordinated among all affected agencies.

GAO found that while there has been notable success in areas

where agencies share a common interest, there is a general lack of

coordination among participating agencies. According to GAO, poor

coordination of numerous projects, such as case processing, information technology, correctional supervision, and the sharing of responsibilities among agencies, have led to inefficient operations and

poor program performance. GAO also stated that funding is a problem for CJCC because the Control Board disbanded in 2001 and because funding of CJCC through any individual participating agency

potentially diminishes its stature as an independent entity in the

eyes of several CJCC member agencies, reducing their willingness

to participate.

GAO offered several recommendations to address the deficiencies

identified. Among them, GAO recommended that Congress consider

funding CJCC; require CJCC to report annually to Congress, the

Attorney General, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia; and

require all District of Columbia criminal justice agencies to report

multi-agency activities to the CJCC, which would serve as a ‘‘clearinghouse’’ for these initiatives.

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 2305 was introduced on June 25, 2001 by Representative

Connie Morella (R–MD) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D–

DC). It was referred to the House Government Reform Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on July 9, 2001. H.R. 2305

was amended in the subcommittee to address concerns raised by

the Department of Justice that requiring participation by the Federal entities designated in the bill in this locally-constituted body

could be read to authorize the local agencies comprising a majority

of the CJCC to make decisions with binding authority on the Federal agency participants.2 The amendment allays the concern by

making clear that Federal agency involvement is merely authorized, but not required, thereby making clear that the bill does not

impose on the Federal agencies any obligation to accede to CJCC

decisions. H.R. 2305, as amended, was reported to the full House

Committee on Government Reform by voice vote on September 21,

2001.

5

On December 4, 2001, H.R. 2305, as amended, was considered by

the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules, and

passed by voice vote. H.R. 2305, as passed in the House, was received in the Senate on December 5, 2001, and referred to the

Committee on Governmental Affairs. On December 17, 2001, the

bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia.

On March 14, 2002, H.R. 2305 was favorably polled out of the

Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia. H.R.

2305 was considered by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on

March 21, 2002, approved by voice vote, and ordered to be reported,

with no Members present dissenting.

Present were Senators Akaka, Bennett, Cleland, Cochran, Levin,

Lieberman, Stevens, Thompson, and Voinovich.

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 entitles the Act as the ‘‘Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council Restructuring Act of 2001.’’

Section 2 authorizes the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, the Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, the United

States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Director of the

Bureau of Prisons, the chair of the United States Parole Commission, and the Director of the United States Marshals Service to

serve on the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council, participate in the Council’s activities, and take such other

actions as may be necessary to carry out the individual’s duties as

a member of the Council.

Section 3 requires that not later than 60 days after the end of

each calendar year, the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council shall prepare and submit to the President, Congress, and each of the entities of the District of Columbia government and Federal government whose representatives serve on the

Council a report describing the activities carried out by the Council

during the year.

Section 4 authorizes such sums to be appropriated for fiscal year

2002 and each succeeding fiscal year as may be necessary for a

Federal contribution to the District of Columbia to cover the costs

incurred by the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council.

Section 5 defines the ‘District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council’ as the entity established by the Council of the

District of Columbia under the Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council for the District of Columbia Establishment Act of 2001.

6

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, April 3, 2002.

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2305, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2002.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew Pickford (for

federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the state and local impact.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 2305—Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring

Act of 2002

H.R. 2305 would authorize certain federal officials involved in

the criminal justice system of the District of Columbia to serve on

and participate in the activities of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The act would authorize the appropriation of the necessary sums to cover the costs incurred by the

council.

Assuming the appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO esti- mates that implementing H.R. 2305 would cost about $500,000 annually. That estimate assumes that the council would hire a staff

of five individuals. Because the act would not affect direct spending

or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

H.R. 2305 would require the District of Columbia Justice Coordinating Council to prepare an annual report describing the activities

carried out by the council during the year. This requirement would

be an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the cost to the

District of Columbia in complying with this mandate would not be

significant and thus would fall well below the threshold established

by UMRA ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).

Further, the bill would authorize funding to cover the costs incurred by the council. The act contains no private-sector mandates

as defined in UMRA.

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford

(for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the state and

local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analyst.

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill evaluate the

‘‘regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out this

bill.’’ Carrying out H.R. 2305 would have no regulatory impact. In

addition, as explained in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

7

letter, H.R. 2305 would require the District of Columbia Coordinating Council to prepare annual report describing the activities

carried out by the Council during the year. This requirement would

be an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO has estimated that the cost to

the District of Columbia to comply with this mandate would not be

significant and thus would fall well below the threshold established

by UMRA. Further, the bill would authorize funding to cover the

costs incurred by the Council. H.R. 2305 contains no private-sector

mandates as defined in UMRA.

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that H.R. 2305, as reported, makes no changes in existing law.

Æ