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

85–917 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–304

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2004

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2765/S. 1583

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, 2004, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Courts

Foster Care System

Nondepartmental Witnesses

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

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

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

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

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

TERENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio, Chairman

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

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 DIETRICH

KATE ELTRICH (Minority)
(III)

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

Page

District of Columbia:

Courts ................................................................................................................ 1

Superior Court .................................................................................................. 13

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ......................................... 27

Public Defender Services ................................................................................. 32

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003

Foster Care System ................................................................................................. 53

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

District of Columbia: Courts ................................................................................... 133

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

Nondepartmental Witnesses ................................................................................... 153

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003

District of Columbia ................................................................................................ 209

(1)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen

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

Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COURTS

STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

ACCOMPANIED BY ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE D.C.

COURTS

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.

Today I am convening the first fiscal year 2004 budget hearing

for the District of Columbia. Just 3 weeks ago, the President signed

the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill into law. That bill

contained, of course, the fiscal year 2003 District of Columbia appropriations bill along with the other ten remaining appropriations

bills.

Senator Stevens deserves high praise for completing these bills

after taking the Chairman’s gavel on January 15. He has recently

expressed his desire and his intent to complete Senate action on all

13 appropriations bills by the August recess.

With that charge, we are forging ahead in this subcommittee to

review the fiscal year 2004 budget submissions of each Federal

agency, as well as Mayor Williams’ budget priorities. I want to take

this opportunity to commend Senator Landrieu, who will be joining

us in just a moment, our subcommittee’s Ranking Member and the

former chairman of this subcommittee, for her past leadership as

the Chairman of the committee, and to recognize her very hard

work to make life better for the residents of the District of Columbia.

Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together to

do many things on this subcommittee, but particularly to try to

protect the interests of children in this city. And I am sure that we
2

will continue to reach across the aisle in that endeavor. It is a real

pleasure to work with Senator Landrieu. We have operated this

subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. She did that when she was the

Chairman; and I intend to continue to do that during the time that

I am chairman.

Today, as we begin our fiscal year 2004 hearings, I would like

to share some Federal funding priorities that I currently see for our

Nation’s Capital. First, I intend to ensure that the requirements of

the Family Court Act, which Senator Landrieu and I sponsored,

continue to be aggressively pursued. In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal

year 2003, we appropriated a total of $48 million to support the

Family Court. Today we are anxious to hear how the Court has

used its fiscal year 2002 funds and how it is planning to use its

recently appropriated fiscal year 2003 funds.

Having focused for the past 2 years on the Family Court, this

year we intend to turn our attention to an agency with which the

Family Court frequently interacts, the Child and Family Services

Agency. This is the agency, of course, that is responsible for helping children in the District obtain permanent homes. We plan to

hold a series of hearings over the next few months to determine the

status of the foster care system in the city and to explore ways to

improve adoption opportunities for youngsters in this system.

And let me just say that we have a series of hearings that are

planned. We will take whatever time that is necessary during the

next several years to fully understand and explore what is going

on in this system. This will be the No. 1 priority of the subcommittee for the next 2 years. And we will take the time, and we

will put the energy into it, whatever is necessary.

In addition to pursuing the Family Court’s objectives and improving the foster care system, I want to ensure that efforts to construct the biodecontamination and quarantine facilities at Children’s Hospital and Washington Hospital Center continue to proceed. In last year’s budget, Senator Landrieu and I prioritized this

and set aside money to work in this area.

In the event of a biological, chemical, or high-yield explosive attack, these two hospitals will provide critical care to children and

adults living in and visiting our Nation’s Capital. They must be

equipped to deal with the consequences of terrorist attacks. We

provide resources to begin this activity. We provided resources to

begin this activity in fiscal year 2003. And we must make sure that

we continue this work.

We also would like to build on the $50 million fiscal year 2003

Federal investment in the city’s combined sewer overflow project.

This multi-year project will revamp a system that was constructed

at the end of the 19th Century, and which overflows 50 to 60 times

every year, dumping raw sewage into the Anacostia River. Given

the demands the Federal Government places on this system, we

clearly have a responsibility to contribute to its much-needed renovations. If we can share the cost of this project with the city, we

would shorten the completion time from 40 to 15 years.

By cleaning up the river, we would expedite the city’s proposed

waterfront development initiative. This development would ultimately provide recreational and commercial opportunities for D.C.

residents and visitors.
3

Clearly, there are many worthy activities which will place demands on the always limited resources in the D.C. appropriations

bill. So today we will begin to discuss those funding needs by listening to testimony from the District of Columbia Courts and the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Under the Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997,

of course, the Federal Government is required to finance the District of Columbia Courts and CSOSA.

As I mentioned earlier today, I want to hear how the Family

Court has used its fiscal 2002 funds and how it is planning to use

its recently appropriated fiscal year 2003 funds. And as we discussed, these have been two very top priorities for both Senator

Landrieu and myself.

We would also like to learn what progress the Court is making

in meeting its objectives of: (1) implementing one family, one judge;

(2) hiring experienced and qualified judicial officers; (3) providing

training for judges and all staff; (4) ensuring accountability of attorneys, judges, and staff; (5) providing better technology to cases;

(6) initiating alternate dispute resolution; and (7) providing better

facilities to provide a safe, family-friendly environment.

The Courts have requested $193 million for fiscal year 2004. This

is $32 million more than fiscal 2003 enacted levels and $30 million

more than President Bush’s budget request. I would like to hear

from our witnesses how the Courts plan to use these additional resources and how this increase will contribute to the success of the

Family Court, as well as the operations of the Superior Court and

the Court of Appeals.

We are particularly interested to learn how the Courts’ facilities

plan will be implemented and the time line, the time line for completion of these important Capital projects. These Capital projects

will play a key role in providing a safe, family-friendly environment, as required by the Family Courts Act.

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency has requested $166.5 million for fiscal year 2004, which is an increase of

$11 million over fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the

President’s budget request. Again, we would like to hear how these

additional resources will be used to further the agencies’ mission

and goals.

Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks.

Copies of your written statements will be placed in the record in

their entirety.

Let me now turn to the Ranking Member of the committee, a

person who I have enjoyed serving with and the former chairman

of this committee, Senator Landrieu.

Senator Landrieu.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to working with you and starting out this year. And I welcome our witnesses this morning from our Federal agencies, particular the D.C. Courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. You all represent the core of the District’s appropriations bill and the center of our attention this morning.
4

As you all know, the subcommittee and the whole Congress exercises a distinct function given the unique position of the District,

not being a State and having a special designation as a district. We

take that responsibility very seriously. And even with our limited

resources, we are going to do our very best in that regard.

I would just like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, if I could, to

briefly review some of the accomplishments of last year and then

talk about one or two specific areas of promise that I see in the

year ahead.

First of all, I think the Chairman and I worked very well together to help the District to secure emergency preparedness funding in this very difficult time. Every study we have shown and both

of our experiences on other committees, particularly my experience

as the former chair of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee of

Armed Services, leads me to believe that the District is, unfortunately, the No. 1 target in the United States for terrorism. The District of Columbia and New York continue, unfortunately, to hold

that designation. And so this committee takes very seriously our

responsibility in terms of continuing to try to support the District

in its defenses against terrorism and standing up its emergency

preparedness.

Strengthening public schools and working with the District to

promote more school choice through charters is something I believe

that we made a major step and accomplishment in last year, particularly with the Chairman’s help supporting our children and

families and standing up this Family Court, as we now engage to

see where we stand in that effort. That was truly an accomplishment, one we are proud of and one we look forward to continuing

to work on as we strengthen the child welfare system in the District as it experiences great challenges, as does almost every major

city, and in many communities in the United States.

I also think, as the Chairman just mentioned, of our efforts, as

much as we can be supportive, of revitalizing neighborhoods, particularly the Anacostia region with the revitalization of the river.

And it is going to take a strong Federal commitment to help the

District in that endeavor. But as the Chairman outlined, the economic benefits to this region are pretty substantial and quite exciting.

So I am happy to be working in those four areas. I want to say

publicly that I share the Mayor’s goal of trying to increase this

city’s population. I would imagine that every mayor in the country

would like to achieve the same, to have every city growing in its

population, as opposed to decreasing. And I share his view that one

of the keys to growth of a city is the strength and dynamic nature

of a school system. And I look forward to working with him

through this committee, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, piloting some real

creative opportunities to encourage middle-class families to stay in

the District. We can use the schools as a real centerpiece to neighborhood revitalization and economic development, as I think is appropriate and, along those lines, continuing to strive for excellence

in all of our schools, and really want to commend the school board

for their work in beginning their attempts at reforming special education.
5

I mentioned our support of the Family Court. That commitment

remains strong. And I would just like to say, though, on a more

pointed note that I was concerned about—and I think the Chairman shares this concern—about the difference in the originally requested amount for the Courts and then the amount that we are

considering today. The request for Capital construction was twothirds less funding from the first documents that we saw until the

hearing today.

I think that in order for us to continue to build confidence in the

Congress about the Courts’ ability to go through this reform plan,

to stand up these new buildings, that we have to be very careful.

I am committed to working with you, as I have in the past as

the Chairman of this committee, to ensure that every child in the

District has access to justice before the court, and families are

strengthened, not made more fragile by the system. I am committed to addressing the resources and management issues of the

Family Court, so that we can continue to build confidence in our

reform efforts.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest of my remarks for the record and thank you for conducting this hearing

and I think that we have made quite a few accomplishments in the

areas that I outlined and look forward to a very promising year to

come.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

I would like to welcome the witness from our Federal agencies, the D.C. Courts

and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). You are really

the core of the D.C. Appropriations bill and the center of our attention. This Subcommittee exercises the ‘‘State’’ oversight function for the District, similar to how

other cities and States interact.

The D.C. Appropriations bill, under my chairmanship last year and continuing

with Mr. DeWine, has charted a course to support targeted investments in the District. Congress is partnering with the District by enhancing security and emergency

preparedness; strengthening schools and education standards; supporting Family

Court and child welfare; revitalizing neighborhoods. These three areas support the

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams’ goal to increase the population of the city by 100,000

people in the next 10 years. People want good schools and dynamic, safe neighborhoods.

ENHANCING SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 the Federal Government committed over

$250 million to equipping and training D.C. first responders, creating a first-rate

emergency response plan, and effective evacuation plan. Last year, Senator DeWine

initiated an effort to preparing area hospitals to respond to bioterrorism, and I look

forward to continuing this year.

STRENGTHENING SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION STANDARDS

The first accomplishment from fiscal year 2003, and most important in my mind,

is the Federal investment in strengthening successful charter schools in the District

and supporting school choice ($17 million). The District is now increasing access to

critical financing to help create great facilities. Now we must look to reforming management of schools and providing more technical assistance for facilities and best

practices.

This year I would like to explore with Chairman DeWine a partnership with the

District to create ‘‘community building charter schools’’. These schools would be a
6

model for educational advancements and really be a community center for the

neighborhood.

SUPPORTING THE FAMILY COURT IN THE DISTRICT AND REFORMING CHILD WELFARE

I am proud that this Committee ensured that the District received sufficient funding for the new Family Court. In fiscal year 2002 $23.3 million was appropriated

and fiscal year 2003 followed up with $29.6 million for new staff and capital improvements. I do have some questions as to how the Courts have implemented the

Family Court Act with these funds, but it is clear Congress has vigorously supported this new court.

This year, I understand Chairman DeWine is interested in working on child welfare. I support this endeavor and believe we can use the District as a model for reforming the broken systems in so many other States (e.g. California, New Jersey).

Recently, I was discussing how States are adhering to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and the District of Columbia was mentioned as a model for an excellent plan. Now, we must work on implementation and adequate resources.

REVITALIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS

In fiscal year 2003 we invested in clean-up of the Anacostia River and development of parks and recreation ($55 million). The development of the waterfront spurs

economic development and revitalizes neighborhoods, like SW Waterfront and

former D.C. General Hospital campus. I will continue to make a priority of cleaning

the river, creating beautiful parks and recreation opportunities, and revitalizing

communities.

In this hearing we will discuss the budget requests of the D.C. Courts and

CSOSA. I am very concerned about the Courts’ ability to budget and manage its resources. The Courts originally requested $293.2 million for fiscal year 2004; then 2

days before the hearing, the Courts and GSA determined that two-thirds less funding than originally requested for Capital Construction would be necessary. The

Courts’ revised request reduced the Capital Construction request from $145.6 million to $46.9 million. The total revised request is $194.5 million. The Senate has

fought for additional funding for the Courts, especially to improve facilities. I am

concerned that the Courts do not know what they need and don’t know how to support the request. This approach is not helpful.

I am committed to working hand-in-hand with the Courts and the City to ensure

that every child currently in the system benefits from Family Court Reform and

does not suffer the fate of too many children that have been failed. Committed to

addressing resource and management issues of the Family Court and ensure funding is expended well.

The mission of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency is varied, but

the purpose is to ensure public safety while also helping District residents re-enter

their community. CSOSA supervises approximately 15,900 offenders, 8,000 defendants at any given time. I commend CSOSA for reducing caseloads from over 100,

before the Revitalization Act, to current levels of 56 cases under general supervision. Additionally, I encourage the investment to reduce caseloads further to 50

cases per officer in fiscal year 2004. I am also interested in the specific steps the

agency is taking to minimizing recidivism, such as the drug treatment options and

the Faith-based Initiative.

I am particularly happy to see that the Public Defender Service is continuing your

rigorous training program for court-appointed attorneys. I look forward to hearing

about representation your agency provides to juveniles with disabilities in the delinquency system. We would appreciate your views on how the special education system serves delinquent juveniles.

I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to your testimony. Thank

you.

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much.

Let me introduce very briefly our first panel. Judge Wagner is

the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and

Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. Accompanying Chief Judge Wagner for questions is Ms. Anne Wicks, Executive Officer of the D.C. Courts. We welcome both of you today.

Thank you very much.

The Honorable Rufus King is the Chief Judge of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia. Accompanying Chief Judge King
7

for questions today is the Honorable Lee Satterfield, presiding

judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia. We welcome both of you.

We have received your written testimony. We would ask you just

to summarize. And we would ask both of you to confine your opening statement to 5 minutes and just summarize what you think is

the most important thing for us to know. As I have said, we do

have your written statement, and we will take that into consideration. And then we will go to questions.

Thank you very much.

Judge Wagner.

STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER

Judge WAGNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.

I want to first of all thank you for allowing us the opportunity to

discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request of the District of Columbia Courts. I am appearing as Chair of the Joint Committee on

Judicial Administration which submits the budget and is responsible for that by statute.

Of course, I can only highlight what it is that we want to do. But

I think a backdrop is important. Unquestionably, we live in a new

environment facing new challenges to our Nation, our Nation’s

Capital, and our court system. But whatever challenges we face,

the fair and effective administration of justice remains crucial to

our way of life in America.

The District of Columbia Courts are committed to meeting these

new challenges. We have been steadfast in our mission, which is

to administer justice fairly, promptly, and effectively. At the same

time, we have been enhancing our security systems and emergency

preparedness activities in order to protect all people who come in

our courts and to ensure continuity of operations in a challenging

environment.

We are undergoing significant changes to meet the challenges of

new technologies and working to provide the Courts of the jurisdiction with a sound infrastructure. The Courts are committed to continued fiscal prudence and sound fiscal management. Through our

strategic goals, the Courts do strive to provide fair, swift, and accessible justice, enhance public safety, and ensure public trust and

confidence in our justice system.

I wish to mention that we do appreciate the support that this

subcommittee has given us, which makes possible the achievements of our goals for this community.

To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2004, the D.C. Courts submitted a request for $293 million for Court operations and Capital improvements. I hasten to add that we have

alerted you that there may be a need to revise the Capital improvements request because of new developments with the General Services Administration.

The original amount of our capital budget included the estimated

full project costs, because we were originally informed by our partners, GSA, that full funding was required at the beginning of the

projects. It is our understanding that this has been altered, the acquisition approach has been altered, thereby changing the cash

flow requirements for the next fiscal year.
8

It was only this past Monday that we were informed that we

may no longer require full construction funding in fiscal year 2004.

Therefore, it is important for the Courts to have an opportunity to

confer with GSA officials and determine the impact of these

changes on the cost and the schedule of these projects in order to

provide this subcommittee with the best information available. It

would be helpful if you would permit us a very brief period to do

that and then to get back to you on this particular aspect of our

budget request.

To build on past accomplishments and to support essential services to the public in the Nation’s Capital, investment in technology,

security, infrastructure, and strategic management are essential

priorities in 2004. Only by investing in these critical areas will we

be in a position to ensure that information technology is capable of

meeting today’s demands and that the type of security necessary

to protect our citizens and our institution are in place and that our

facilities are safe, healthy, and reasonably up to date.

The D.C. Courts operate within four separate buildings in Judiciary Square. Maintenance and modernization to these buildings is

quite costly. And the Courts’ capital budget has not been adequate

to meet these needs in the past. Fundamental costs to bring these

facilities up to par have been quantified in a recently completed

building evaluation report prepared for the Courts by the General

Services Administration. The capital budget request would include

funds to meet these needs.

The capital budget request does reflect the significant research,

analysis, and planning incorporated in the D.C. Courts’ first-ever

master plan for the D.C. Courts’ facilities. In the master plan process, GSA analyzed the Courts’ current and future space needs, particularly in light of the significantly increased space needs of the

Family Court.

The key element for meeting the Courts’ space needs is the restoration of the Old Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals,

which would move out of the Moultrie Building, thereby making

additional space available in the Moultrie Courthouse for the Superior Court to accommodate the Family Court and other operations.

I will only mention, and I will not even develop it, but just to

say that in addition to our master space plan, on which we are prepared to answer questions, I should mention that our funding is directed toward enhancing public safety, investing in information

technology, and investing in accurate and complete trial records.

And you have the exact amounts that we are requesting for this.

In addition, we have requested funding for attorneys who provide

legal services to the indigents to increase their hourly rate to $90.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I will conclude now, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu. We

have long enjoyed, at the District of Columbia Courts, a national

reputation for excellence. We are proud of the Courts’ record of administering justice fairly, accessibly, and in a cost-efficient manner.

Adequate funding for the Courts’ critical priorities in 2004 is essential if we are to continue to provide high-quality service to the community in the future.
9

We do look forward to working with you throughout the appropriations process. And thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. We will be prepared to answer your questions on

the items that you mentioned.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER

Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the

fiscal year 2004 budget request of the District of Columbia Courts. I am Annice

Wagner, and I am appearing in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee

on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia and Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. As you know, the Joint Committee is the policymaking body for the District of Columbia Courts. By statute, its responsibilities include, among others, general personnel policies, accounts and auditing, procurement

and disbursement, management of information systems and reports and submission

of the annual budget request to the President and Congress for our court system.

We are a two-tier system comprised of the D.C. Court of Appeals, our court of last

resort, and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court of general

jurisdiction, which includes our Family Court. Administrative support functions for

our Courts is provided by what has come to be known as the Court System.

On behalf of the D.C. Courts, the Joint Committee has submitted a detailed request for the budgetary resources essential to the administration of justice in fiscal

year 2004. My remarks this morning will summarize the request and highlight our

most critical priorities. With me this morning are Chief Judge Rufus King III, the

chief judge of our trial court and a member of the Joint Committee, and Ms. Anne

Wicks, the Executive Officer for the Courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee.

We are prepared to answer questions concerning the budget request for the courts,

along with Judge Lee Satterfield, the presiding judge of our new Family Court.

INTRODUCTION

Unquestionably, we live in a new environment, facing new challenges to our Nation, our Nation’s capital and our court system. Whatever challenges we face, the

fair and effective administration of justice remains crucial to our way of life. The

District of Columbia Courts are committed to meeting these new challenges. We

have been steadfast in our mission, which is to administer justice fairly, promptly,

and effectively. At the same time, we have been enhancing our security systems and

emergency preparedness activities in order to protect all of the people who come to

our courts and to ensure continuity of operations in a challenging environment. We

are undergoing significant changes to meet the challenges of new technologies and

working to provide for the courts of this jurisdiction a sound infrastructure. The

Courts are committed to continued fiscal prudence and sound fiscal management.

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. We appreciate the support that this Subcommittee has given us that makes

possible the achievement of these goals for this community.

To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2004, the D.C. Courts submitted a request of $293 million for court operations and capital improvements.

In addition, the Courts request $44,701,000 for the Defender Services account. The

operating budget request includes: $9,271,000 for the Court of Appeals; $85,800,000

for the Superior Court; and $52,520,760 for the Court System. Our original submission for capital improvements was in the amount of $145,621,000. This amount included the estimated full project costs because we had been advised by the General

Services Administration (GSA), our partner for capital projects, that full funding

was required at the beginning of the projects. It is our understanding that the GSA

has altered its construction acquisition approach, thereby changing the cash flow requirements for the next fiscal year. It was only this past Monday that we were informed that GSA may no longer require full construction funding in fiscal year 2004.

Therefore, it important for the Courts to confer with GSA officials and determine

the impact of these changes on the cost and schedule of these projects in order to

provide the Subcommittee with the best information available. It would be helpful

if you would permit us a brief period for that purpose.

The demands on the D.C. Courts require additional resources in fiscal year 2004.

To build on past accomplishments and to support essential services to the public in

the nation’s capital, investment in technology, security, infrastructure, and strategic

management are essential priorities. Only by investing in these critical areas will

the Courts be in a position to ensure that information technology is capable of meet-
10

ing today’s demands; that the type of security necessary to protect our citizens and

our institution are in place; and that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably up-to-date. Focus on these capital areas is particularly critical

now to meet each of these needs and to ensure that the quality of justice is not compromised.

The Courts’ fiscal year 2004 request is a fiscally responsible budget that continues

to build on our achievements. We are particularly proud of our progress with a number of initiatives. These include:

—Implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of fiscal year 2001

(enacted in January 2002). To date, the Courts have developed a detailed implementation plan, hired nine new magistrate judges, initiated space improvements, and transferred the cases of more than 3,000 children to Family Court

judges committed to achieving permanent family placements;

—Initiation of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) project, a major

capital investment, which will ensure coordinated and efficient case processing

and enhance court operations. The IJIS project received a favorable GAO review

which included several useful recommendations currently being implemented by

the Courts;

—Increased access to justice through community-based initiatives, including the

Criminal Division’s Community Court and the Domestic Violence Unit’s satellite

intake office in Southeast Washington. I believe Chief Judge King will be providing more information on these very important court community efforts.

—Development of the first Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, which outlines

the Courts’ space requirements and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization, both short-term and long-term;

—Recognition of sound fiscal management practices, by receiving from an independent audit firm, an ‘‘unqualified’’ opinion for the third year in a row in accordance with OMB Circular No. A–133 (Audits of States, Local Governments

and Non-Profit Organizations);

—Continued enhancements to the Courts’ management of the Defender Services

account, through expeditious processing of payments to attorneys representing

indigent defendants, major revision of the Courts’ plan for the provision of indigent defense, and assumption of responsibility for issuing payment vouchers to

CJA attorneys from the Public Defender Service to enable accurate estimation

of the Courts’ future fiscal obligations;

—Conclusion of an independent study of staffing levels by Booz, Allen and Hamilton that provides data to facilitate the most effective deployment of limited

staff as well as a software tool to assist in the determination of necessary staffing levels; and

—Expansion of court-wide strategic planning, business process re-engineering,

and implementation of key aspects of the Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA) to ensure that the Courts address critical priorities and issues in

a strategic manner to achieve specific and measurable results.

CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET PRIORITIES

To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community and the

demands confronting the District’s judicial branch, adequate resources are essential.

The most critical issue facing the D.C. Courts is sufficient capital funding to address

the Courts’ critical space shortage and deteriorating infrastructure. Unless addressed, the functional capability of the Courts will decline and the quality of justice

in the District of Columbia will be compromised. The Courts’ fiscal year 2004 request addresses these requirements by:

Investing in Infrastructure.—The D.C. Courts operate within four separate buildings in Judiciary Square. Maintenance and modernization to buildings of this age

are quite costly, and the Courts’ capital budget has not been adequate to meet these

needs. Fundamental costs to bring these facilities up to par have been quantified

in a recently completed Building Evaluation Report prepared for the Courts by GSA.

The capital budget request of the Courts includes funds to meet these needs.

The Courts’ capital budget also reflects the significant research, analysis, and

planning incorporated in the D.C. Courts’ first-ever Master Plan for D.C. Courts’ Facilities. In the master plan process, GSA analyzed the Courts’ current and future

space needs, particularly in light of the significantly increased space needs of the

Family Court. A key element to meeting the Courts’ space needs is the restoration

of the Old Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals, thereby making additional space available in the Moultrie Courthouse for the Superior Court to accommodate the Family Court and other court operations.
11

The restoration of the Old Courthouse is projected to total $84 million. The centerpiece of the historic Judiciary Square area, the Old Courthouse is one of the oldest buildings in the District of Columbia. Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster

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

assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The architectural and historical significance of the Old Courthouse, built from 1821 to 1881, led to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its designation as an official project of Save

America’s Treasures. The structure is uninhabitable in its current condition and requires extensive work to meet health and safety building codes. Restoring this historic landmark will meet the urgent space needs of the Courts and preserve its rich

history for future generations. The Courts’ capital budget also includes a total of $52.3 million for the Moultrie

Courthouse Expansion, additions planned for the south side (C Street) and Indiana

Avenue entrance of the courthouse. The C Street addition will complete the facilities

for the Family Court, providing a separate courthouse entrance for the Family

Court, child protection mediation space, increased Child Care Center space, and safe

and comfortable family-friendly waiting areas. The addition also will permit the consolidation of Family Court related operations, to include the Social Services Division

(the District’s juvenile probation operation) and District government social service

agencies that provide needed services to families and children in crisis. A portion

of the addition will meet critical space needs for Superior Court operations.

Enhancing Public Security.—The main courthouse, the Moultrie Building, is one

of the busiest in this city. It is reported that as many as 10,000 people come into

this building daily. In order to address issues affecting the security of these thousands of individuals in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Courts request

$1,025,413 to finance additional operational security measures, and $6,500,000 in

capital funding to finance facility security improvements.

Investing in Information Technology (IT).—To achieve the Courts’ goal of a case

management system that provides accurate, reliable case data across every operating area and of making available appropriate data to the judiciary, the District’s

child welfare and criminal justice communities and the public, the Courts request

$4,163,347 in operating funds in fiscal year 2004 for IT infrastructure enhancements and operational upgrades and implementation of the disciplined processes

GAO recommends for the IJIS project. In addition, the Courts’ capital budget request includes an additional $11 million to continue implementation of IJIS

courtwide.

Expanding Strategic Planning and Management.—To support long-range strategic

planning and targeted organizational performance measurement and assessment at

the Courts, $615,000 is requested for an Office of Strategic Management. This request would enable the Courts to build on the current strategic planning effort by

coordinating enterprise-wide projects and enhancing the performance measurement

capability of the Courts. The funds would finance performance management software, training of personnel, and staff to collect and analyze performance data, prepare reports, and perform strategic planning, and coordination function.

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

highly qualified employees and address the projected retirement of a large proportion of our most experienced personnel (25 percent of the Courts’ workforce, and 50

percent of those in top management positions, are eligible to retire within the next

5 years), $675,000 is requested for succession planning, leadership development, and

additional employee benefits.

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

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

$1,212,000 is requested for staff and space to establish a self-representation service

center. This initiative would use best practices and build on plans for informational

kiosks, funded in fiscal year 2003, and very limited pro bono services currently

available.

Investing in Accurate and Complete Trial Records.—The Courts’ fiscal year 2004

request includes $1,624,000 to improve the production of the record of court proceedings. Accurate and complete court records are critical to ensure a fair trial and

to preserve a record essential for appeal to the highest level. The request includes

$880,000 to enhance the Courts’ digital recording capabilities in the Courts’ 80∂

courtrooms and $744,000 for 12 additional court reporters.

Strengthening Defender Services.—In recent years, the Courts have devoted particular attention to improving the financial management and reforming the administration of the Defender Services accounts. For example, the Courts significantly revised the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Plan for representation of indigent defendants

and issued Administrative Orders to ensure that CJA claims are accompanied by

adequate documentation and that highly qualified attorneys participate in the pro-
12

gram. The Courts have assumed from the Public Defender Service responsibility for

issuing vouchers to attorneys. This will enable the Courts to estimate more accurately program obligations and project budgetary requirements. The Courts request

$88,000 in the fiscal year 2004 operating budget to build on these initiatives and

exert greater management control over Defender Services.

In the Defender Services account, the Courts have requested additional funds to

increase the hourly rate for attorneys who provide legal services to the indigent. The

first rate increase for attorneys in nearly 10 years, to $65/hour, was implemented

in March 2002. In fiscal year 2004 the Courts request an increase from $65 to $90

an hour, to keep pace with the rate paid court-appointed attorneys at the Federal

courthouse across the street from the D.C. Courts.

Slightly over $16 million of the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for Defender Services was financed from the account’s unobligated balance. Accordingly, the Courts

request restoration of the base appropriations, as well as additional funding to finance the attorney compensation increase in fiscal year 2004.

APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE CHANGES

In the fiscal year 2004 budget submission, the Courts request two language provisions to enhance their ability to serve the public in the Nation’s Capital. First, the

Courts request limited authority to transfer funds among our four appropriations

to enhance financial management of the Federal Payment appropriation. This language is similar to the provision in the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2002, Sec. 109(b)

authorizing the District government to transfer local funds. Second, the request includes language to permit the Courts to appoint and compensate counsel in adoption

cases to protect the rights of parents and children, to facilitate a careful examination of factors designed to ascertain the best interests of the child, and to ensure

the finality and permanency of the adoption.

CONCLUSION

Mister Chairman, 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. Adequate funding for

the Courts’ fiscal year 2004 priorities is critical to our success, both in the next year

and as we implement plans to continue to provide high quality service to the community in the future. We look forward to working with you throughout the appropriations process, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004

budget request of the Courts.

Chief Judge King, Judge Satterfield, Anne Wicks, and I would be pleased to address any questions.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. We will hold our questions until

Judge King has a chance to give his statement.

Judge King.
(13)

D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

STATEMENT OF RUFUS KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ACCOMPANIED BY LEE SATTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY

COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Judge KING. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman DeWine and

Senator Landrieu. I appreciate the opportunity to join Chief Judge

Wagner in presenting the D.C. Courts’ 2004 budget request to the

subcommittee and to review some of the Courts’ accomplishments

in the last year. At the outset, let me thank both of you and the

subcommittee as a whole for your generosity with your time, your

consideration, and the necessary funding for a number of shared

objectives. It is a pleasure to have such a positive working relationship with the committee.

I want to underscore all that Chief Judge Wagner said about the

Courts’ needs, especially regarding capital. To function effectively,

and especially to implement the Family Court Act in a manner

both timely and consistent with its highest purposes, the Court

needs to have adequate facilities and a level of information technology that supports its efforts.

I will review just very briefly a couple of things the Court has

done. And then I will be happy to answer questions.

On October 30, the Superior Court officially opened the first satellite Domestic Violence Intake Center in the Nation. This center

allows domestic violence victims to seek protection in their own

neighborhood without saddling us with the crippling cost of operating a duplicate court, by use of video technology. We can video

transmit the appearance to the courthouse where the judge can act

on the petition for a temporary protective order.

Having reviewed with Court officials the very promising community courts in Manhattan and in Red Hook, New York, we have

opened two such courts in the Superior Court, the first for minor

misdemeanors and traffic cases. It takes all of those cases and

seeks to resolve them at a first court appearance, reducing drastically the need for indigent defense funds for additional court resources and police overtime due to excessive court appearances.

The other community court is one that is based in the Sixth Police District in Anacostia. It serves to address all of the misdemeanors arising in that jurisdiction with some very few exceptions. The Court has partnered with the D.C. Department of Employment Services, the Pretrial Services Agency, and others to

fashion remedies which, again, address the causes, the underlying

issues and causes, that bring people before a criminal court. That

project, which is operating now on a pilot basis, is showing early

promise of being very successful.
14

In the Family Court, the Court has hired all of the new magistrate judges that were specified in the act. We have sought appointment of the three additional judges. They are now pending before the Senate. Judge Satterfield, working with Court officials and

stakeholders, has overseen the transfer of more than 3,000 neglect

and abuse cases back to judges within that court. He has established new rules, procedures, and attorney practice standards,

which I signed into effect several weeks ago. He set up attorney

panels for abuse and neglect cases, so that that bar will now be

regulated and reviewed more carefully, held numerous training sessions for judges and magistrate judges, and a cross-training for

judges, attorneys, social workers, and others involved in the Family

Court operations.

We have opened the Mayor’s Services Liaison Center to increase

coordination of services to children and families and make them

more readily available. We have trained new judges and will continue to train new judges. And we have met all deadlines for reporting to Congress which are required under the act.

We have begun implementing a policy of one family, one judge.

A Family Court judge handling a neglect or abuse case of one family member also handles all cases involving that family relating to

abuse, neglect, custody, guardianship, termination of parental

rights, civil/domestic violence, post-adjudication juvenile cases, and

adoption cases filed after June 2002. All other family matters involving that family will be heard by the same judge or team at the

conclusion of the second phase of implementation, which is now in

progress.

The conversion to an integrated justice information system has

advanced on schedule. We now are working with a contractor with

the first segment set to go live in the Family Court in July of this

year. That system will be compatible with all of the other city

agencies, so that we can operate effectively with them. I have with

me today Mr. Ken Foor, our IT director, in case there are any questions that go beyond my competence.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The Family Court Act presents the Court with a rare opportunity

to bring about better results for children and families in the District of Columbia, an opportunity that we at the Court enthusiastically welcome.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you both for the opportunity to testify here today. We will be happy to answer questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUFUS KING, III

Good afternoon Chairman DeWine and Senator Landrieu. I appreciate the opportunity to join Chief Judge Wagner in presenting the D.C. Courts’ 2004 budget request to the subcommittee and to review some of the Superior Court’s accomplishments over the past year. At the outset, let me thank the subcommittee as a whole,

and especially the Chairman and the Ranking Member, for their support of the

Courts, our employees, and those we serve. You have been generous with your time,

your consideration and the necessary funding for a number of shared objectives. It

is a pleasure to have such a positive working relationship.

I want to underscore all that Chief Judge Wagner said about the Courts’ needs,

especially regarding capital. To function effectively, and especially to implement the

Family Court Act in a manner consistent with its highest purposes, the court needs
15

to have adequate facilities and a level of information technology that supports its

efforts.

I would like to review some of the accomplishments of the Superior Court over

the past year. We established a first-of-its-kind satellite domestic violence intake

center; set up a community court to handle all minor misdemeanor and traffic cases;

established a pilot community court for the Sixth Police District to address a broader range of crimes in a more holistic manner; and moved ahead aggressively to implement the Family Court Act. There is still a lot to be done in all these areas, but

we have made great strides in making the Superior Court a more open, responsive,

effective organization.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTAKE CENTER

On October 30, the Superior Court officially opened the first satellite Domestic Violence Intake Center in the Nation, in partnership with police, prosecutors, defense

attorneys and victim advocates. The Center allows domestic violence victims to petition for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) via web-camera to a judge in the courthouse; the judge then issues the TPO by fax. The Center is located in Southeast,

where more than 60 percent of those alleging domestic violence reside. Victims are

thus able to take the initial step towards protecting themselves—obtaining a TPO—

in a location that is close and convenient. We hope that by encouraging more victims to come forward more quickly it will help prevent further violence.

COMMUNITY COURT FOR MINOR MISDEMEANORS AND TRAFFIC CASES

One of the goals of the Court’s Criminal Division has been to address certain

types of cases more comprehensively with less focus on processing of cases. Along

with other court leaders, I visited and was impressed with New York’s Manhattan

and Red Hook Community courts. There and elsewhere across the country courts

have modified criminal proceedings to see that services were provided, that community service was done in an effort to see the community ‘‘paid back’’ for the damage

done to it, and to engage the court in an effort to reduce recidivist behavior. Criminal Division Presiding Judge Noel Kramer spearheaded this effort, working with

prosecutors, police, defense attorneys, service providers, and the Downtown Business Improvement District. Together these groups established a courtroom in which

defendants charged with ‘‘quality of life crimes,’’ such as panhandling or possessing

an open container of alcohol, are given very real diversion opportunities on the first

day—alcohol education, for instance—and possibly some community service, in exchange for which their case is dropped. This approach has sharply reduced the need

for police appearances in the courtroom, more efficiently used indigent defense resources, and resulted in many fewer continuances of cases. The result: in our first

year we saw a drop in the number of abscondances (no shows at court hearings,

which lead to bench warrants) of over 50 percent in traffic cases and nearly 45 percent in minor misdemeanors.

THE 6D COMMUNITY COURT

In addition to her work with the D.C./Traffic Community Court, Judge Noel Kramer has also established on a pilot basis a community court. In consultation with

the Metropolitan Police Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Court established a community court where Judge Kramer hears all phases—from arraignment

to disposition—of all misdemeanors arising in the Sixth Police District. Judge Kramer and I as well other court officials have been to numerous crime-prevention and

neighborhood meetings in the community to learn more about the concerns residents

have, get ideas for how best to address the crime problems, and make them aware

of what the court is doing. Judge Kramer has partnered with the D.C. Department

of Employment Services, the PreTrial Services Agency and others to fashion diversion opportunities that provide an accused with alternatives to a life of crime and

drugs. So far her work has received much praise—from all those involved in the

criminal justice system and from the residents of 6D.

FAMILY COURT IMPLEMENTATION

Judge Satterfield has led the Family Court through significant changes and overcome some significant obstacles in implementing the Family Court Act of 2001. The

Family Court has overseen the transfer of more than 3,000 neglect and abuse cases

back to judges within that court; establish new rules, procedures, and attorney practice standards; set up attorney panels for abuse and neglect cases; held numerous

training sessions for judges and magistrate judges and a cross-training for judges,

attorneys, social workers and others; received input from relevant stakeholders;
16

opened the Mayor’s Liaison Center to increase coordination of services to children

and families; trained new judges; and met all deadlines in reporting to Congress as

required by the Act.

We have transferred substantially all the neglect and abuse cases that were in

review status with judges outside the Family Court to judicial teams in the Family

Court. All other cases will be transferred in time to meet the Act’s guidelines. We

have begun implementing a policy of ‘‘one family/one judge’’. Phase I is fully implemented, so that the Family Court judge handling a neglect case of one family member also handles all cases involving that family relating to abuse, neglect, custody,

guardianship, termination of parental rights, civil domestic violence, post-adjudication juvenile cases, and adoption cases later than June 2002. The next phase will

be to consolidate all other Family Court cases involving a family before that same

judge, including divorce, mental health, pre-adjudication juvenile, and paternity and

child support before the neglect judge or judicial team.

The Family Court Act presents the Court with a rare opportunity to bring about

better results for children and families in the District of Columbia. We at the court

welcome this opportunity and are doing our best to implement the Act according to

its letter and its spirit.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you both for the opportunity to testify

before you today. I am joined by my colleague Judge Lee Satterfield and we would

both be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Senator DEWINE. Judge King, thank you very much.

Judge Wagner, your news about the capital expenditure in the

request is certainly disturbing. That is quite a shock. The progress

in regard to the Family Court has always been predicated on several things, and one has been the capital restructuring and additional space. And we have always been told that, and everyone has

always understood that. And now you are telling us that there is

going to be apparently a major delay in that. So I am quite shocked

by this, frankly, and very, very deeply disappointed. Maybe you can

clarify what is going on. I am not sure that I fully understand what

in the world is going on here.

Judge WAGNER. Senator, there is——

Senator DEWINE. This is like a bomb that was just dropped. I

mean, do we have to bring in GSA and you and have a hearing together?

Judge WAGNER. Senator, first of all, let me say that there are

two plans. One is an interim plan, which is essential because the

major construction projects are multi-year projects. Secondly, the

interim plan is on schedule. I think that Chief Judge King has photographs of the space as it is planned on an interim basis; and so

that the Family Court is separate, as you had envisioned it.

Long term, we had to go through a master plan phasing schedule. We are, as you know, working with a partner, which is the

General Services Administration, which does these Federal buildings. That master plan phasing schedule is subject to a number of

things that have to be done, including, I guess, the procurement

processes to secure, first of all, the design, negotiate the award,

plan a construction schedule, go through your National Capital

Planning Commission.

Now on Monday, it was just this past Monday that we learned

that the approach to securing funding for the project might be different. That is, that you would not have to secure all of the funds

in advance in order to go forward with alerting the public that you

are interested in procuring services. And we were told that they

would first want to get the design.
17

But neither Judge King nor I have had an opportunity to sit

down and talk with the officials at GSA to get a better understanding of how this will impact the long-term plan, which, by its

very nature, is necessarily long term, because it does involve moving parts of our court which presently exist to other buildings on

a temporary basis or on a long-term basis while they work on the

various buildings in Judiciary Square.

Chief Judge King might like to add something.

Senator DEWINE. Judge.

Judge KING. Two things: One, we are not going to delay implementation of the family bill. What will be determined by the outcome of our discussions with GSA and ultimately this committee is

whether we do it in the facilities that I think all of us had in mind,

or whether we are going to be operating in borrowed courtrooms

and even temporary space somewhere that we have to do it. We

will keep on schedule in implementing the substantive provisions

of the act.

That being said, we do have a longer-term plan. And if it would

be of interest to you, I could step to the drawings and show you

some things, just to show you how we plan to try to move the

project along. That is at your pleasure. If not, I would be happy to

just——

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu said she would like to see

that. That would be fine.

Judge KING. I would be happy to do that.

Senator DEWINE. Now let me just tell everyone, as far as our

total time, we have a lot of ground to cover. We need to be out of

this room by 10 minutes after 11:00. So we have 1 hour and 5 minutes.

Judge KING. I will take that as an indication to spend at least

45 seconds.

Let me first—you are all, no doubt, by this time, familiar with

the general map of the justice campus. You have it right there. If

I might approach, that might——

Senator DEWINE. That will be fine.

Judge KING. I do not know if that is ever done. That is the way

we do it in court.

Senator DEWINE. That will be fine.

Judge KING. I would ask to approach.

Senator LANDRIEU. Approach the bench.

Senator DEWINE. Keep in mind you have an audience out there

who might like to see some things as well though.

Judge KING. I will make it—if I can show you on your map there.

The current facilities are in the Moultrie Building. Perhaps you

could maybe even track it there. We are moving part of our operations, the landlord-tenant and small claims operation, to Building

B. That is underway now. They are now doing the demolition there

and beginning the construction. I think that will be occupied by October of this year.

When that is done, the space that is vacated in the Moultrie

Building will then be used to add three additional courtrooms and

four hearing rooms to round out what we need in the Family Court.

Although we do not have any detailed designs at this point, the architects have given us a sort of suggestion of the type of building
18

we might look for for that. Again, at the end of the long corridor

on the JM level in the Moultrie Building will be an entrance way,

sort of a pavilion and an information center, which you can see

across here, where all the clerks who would address any issue in

Family Court will be located. So there will be one place that people

come to do that. This is another view from that clerk station, looking back across to the one we just saw here.

I will put these up on the outside over here.

This is another here which shows the children’s wing there,

which will provide a children-friendly area, a whole host of things.

And then over on the other side here will be the referral center

where people can go for a referral for services.

Farther along, the additions in space to the Moultrie Building

that you heard about in Judge Wagner’s testimony, this is a—

again, it may not look exactly like this, because this is not a published diagram. They have not designed it this way. This is a quick

computer mock-up of how it might look, the kind of things they are

talking about doing with the building.

So those are in the interim—the schedule is to have the construction on the Moultrie levels done and occupy them by October of

2004. And that will allow us to begin operating. The final construction of this, which will bring all of the functions back together, it

is going to take a little longer. It is estimated at 2005 or early

2006.

We are now operating in courtrooms outside the facility. As it is

now, we have to operate in courtrooms in different buildings in

order to——

Senator DEWINE. Well, I wonder if we could get back to—and I

appreciate that, Judge. I wonder if we could get back, though, to

the 2004 capital request, and what does this new information do

to your capital request? It is my understanding that this is going

to push it back; this new information is going to push back your

construction date. And it is going to change, dramatically change,

your numbers.

Judge WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, what I am informed is that the

change that was mentioned on Monday will change the dollars,

when the dollars are needed. It does not actually change the construction schedule. This is what I am informed. But again, neither

of us have had an opportunity to sit down with the GSA officials.

And that is what we would like you to give us an opportunity to

do.

The second thing I want to make sure that is clear is that, as

Chief Judge King said, the Family Court construction is fully on

schedule. And major renovation on the JM level will be completed

by the fall of 2004. So if we get an opportunity to sit with GSA,

we are going to provide you with a full and complete presentation

on the impact that the change in the funding stream——

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Well, I am hearing two things. I am

hearing one thing is that you need to get back to us, which is fine.

And we need that, you know, sooner rather than later, because we

need the dollar figures as far as what your request is.

Judge WAGNER. Exactly.

Senator DEWINE. But I am also hearing from Judge King that

this will change your plan with the Family Court. I thought I
19

heard Judge King say that we will stay on the same schedule with

the Family Court. Basically, we will move in a different direction.

We will fulfill the obligation of the Family Court. Instead of doing

it the way we wanted to do it with basically a more permanent

long-term plan, we are going to go in another direction.

Now is that not what I heard, Judge King?

Judge KING. No. If I gave that impression, I perhaps misspoke.

We will keep schedule by doing temporary arrangements that will

allow us to continue to move. We do not plan to change the ultimate direction.

Senator DEWINE. Well, but temporary arrangements always cost

money.

Judge KING. That is exactly true.

Senator DEWINE. That is always a waste of money.

Judge KING. That is exactly true.

Senator DEWINE. And we do not have—you do not have the

money to waste is the problem.

Judge KING. That we have, of course, no control over. The two

sources of——

Senator DEWINE. Well, maybe we do.

Judge KING. The two sources of difficulty that we see is: If we

delay the access to funds, it can have—it can lead to two sources

of delay. First, the—putting out the bids for the actual construction

has to be done when it is known that there is money available.

Otherwise you cannot really work the market, as I am told. And

you cannot really—you cannot have a solid bidding process.

The other thing is that a lump sum that seems unpalatable now

is going to get worse if, by not putting funds into the project this

year, you wait until next year when other parts come due. So it is

sort of like if you have a gas bill due today and you do not pay it

and you wait until next month, now you have two gas bills to pay.

And it is just a bigger lump.

So we are watchful about those processes. But what I wanted to

assure you is that we will do the best we can however this funding

issue is resolved. We will keep the schedule to operate the Court.

Obviously, I would like to have all the money on schedule and be

able to do exactly what——

Senator DEWINE. Well, I am going to turn this over to Senator

Landrieu at this point. It seems to me that, out of necessity, we

are going to have to have another hearing on the capital issues.

So, Senator Landrieu.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There seems to be some confusion, and maybe it is warranted.

But let me just review what was my understanding. And maybe

there was a different view by the Chairman or maybe by the panel.

But I thought that we were in the beginning of engaging on a master construction plan, one that would use the current building that

everyone is in for the Family Court and move some of the judges

to the Old Courthouse, the other judges to that building because

it is empty, and it is a beautiful building and most certainly worthy

of being preserved. But it takes a long time. And so we were always going to have some sort of temporary transition time.

The problem is that there were some dollar figures associated

with that, and they have seemed to change. And there is some con-
20

fusion. And maybe that is because the GSA decided recently that

not all the money was necessary up front, which actually, Mr.

Chairman, is good news, if we can spread it out over several years

instead of having to come up with such a large chunk in the beginning.

Now I had expressed a year ago the concern that I did not think

that the Chairman and I, after putting so much effort with you and

with your help and your full cooperation and your great skill, having to reform the Family Court, we did not want it to basically be

the last to come on line. We wanted to make sure that the reforms

that we had helped to implement would go into effect as soon as

possible, whether in temporary quarters or whether in the current

quarters while construction was ongoing. In other words, we did

not want the Family Court to be last on the totem pole.

Am I hearing that what I have outlined is still pretty much the

direction that we are going in, right, or has that changed? Because

if that has changed, then I am as confused as the Chairman is.

Judge WAGNER. Well, I think that that is the direction we are

going in. And secondly, the interim plan is designed to mesh with

the long-term plan and minimize waste. On the time schedule for

the overall, the long-term plan, the Moultrie Court expansion

would be the first—well, would be nearly the first online in terms

of the permanent planning. There is a chart over there; and I am

not sure if you can see it.

Senator LANDRIEU. We have it. We have it here.

Judge WAGNER. But we——

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. And it indicates that the modernization of the Old Courthouse with the garage would be first

and then the interim building plan for the Moultrie you said,

maybe then the traffic piece will be completed, then the Moultrie

Building comes on. And it will be maybe substantially completed

by 2007.

Judge WAGNER. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. Now, of course, we would all like to see that

pushed up, if possible. But I understand the complications of dealing with permitting and sites and designs and selection of architect.

Judge WAGNER. That is correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. It just takes a very long time. But while that

is all going on, I think what Senator DeWine and I are saying is:

Let us make sure the reforms of the operations of the Court, the

cases, the intensive case management is happening in whatever

space Judge Satterfield has available. And I think we would like

to help you, you know, along that route, realizing it’s complicated.

The final point I want to make on this is: if that is our understanding, then I think that nothing substantially has changed, except the good news that we do not need all the money up front, and

we can spread it out, which I think is very, very good.

But the other point is—and I realize that the designs that you

showed us are not final. But I will express this once more publicly,

how important I think it is for this Family Court to take the opportunity that is not quite afforded to other Family Courts, whether

it is in Cleveland, Ohio, or New Orleans, Louisiana, where we are

both familiar with this current state of our Family Courts; but to
21

take the opportunities of the advantage that is just inherent in

being the Family Court of the District, to become a real showplace

for the Nation. Why? Because almost every lawyer in the country

comes to the District once a year. Why? Because almost every judge

in the country comes here. Almost every judge comes here, for various reasons.

Almost all the case workers come here, either for conferences or

on the course of their career several times. I would like this Family

Court, and I think the Chairman shares this view, to be a real

showcase of what a state-of-the-art Family Court should look like.

Now the pictures shown to me, and I do not mean to micro-manage this, but I want it, in my vision, to be a place where, first of

all, families feel welcomed, and families feel safe, and families do

not feel intimidated; to think about the customers that we are serving.

I do not think it necessarily should look like a college campus or

a Supreme Court or a cold vision. I think it should be as warm and

as inviting and as unintimidating and as empowering to the families that enter it as possible. That is all I am going to say about

it. I am going to leave it up to the professionals to do it.

But since we are the ones supporting the funding for it, I think

that, having talked to some of the judges around the country and

some of the caseworkers, et cetera, they would want me to express

how strongly they feel about a place where children do not feel intimidated and where they get the immediate idea that ‘‘The Government is on our side to try to make the best decisions for this

child.’’ And that is what I would like the architecture to communicate.

I am finished.

Senator DEWINE. Let me just say this, because I want GSA to

clarify exactly what they are going to do and what they are going

to require and what they are not going to require, because I am

not aware that GSA has changed their policy in regard to having

all the money up front. They have not told me that. They have not

told my staff that. Now maybe that is a change in plans and

change in policy.

But what they have told us is that they have to have all the

money up in 2005. So we will see. They told me that, God bless

them. And that would be good. But we will move on.

Judge KING. It does not change—and I think we should be very

clear, it does not change our goal or our plan to implement the bill

in the best way we know how and——

Senator DEWINE. Yes. Well, it makes it a lot easier for us if we

do not have to have all the money in 1 year, I can tell you that.

Judge KING. Right. Of course. And I would say that——

Senator DEWINE. But we will find out.

Judge KING [continuing]. What Senator Landrieu just said, as

well as any of us could say it, is what the goal is, what we consider

the goal to be. For example, we have initiated discussions with the

school system to set up a program for kids’ art to be available to

the courthouse so that we can decorate the family areas with art

from the D.C. schools. But we are going to be looking at all those

kinds of details to make it feel family-friendly.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Another hearing, capital.
22

CHILDREN ADOPTIONS

Let me move to another area. Lashawn v. Williams requires that

legal activity to free a child for adoption should be initiated within

30 days after the child’s permanency goal has been determined to

be adoption. However, in the September 2002 monitor’s report on

the progress of the District’s Child and Family Services Agency, the

performance standard of legal activity to free children for adoption

not only was not met, but the percentage of children who did receive timely initiation of legal activity decreased from 65 percent

in May 2001 to 59 percent in May 2002. Let me ask you what you

think is the source of this shortcoming.

And let me also ask, as judges, you are in the position to hold

child welfare workers in contempt for not doing their job. Let me

ask what your plans are to ensure these children can be offered up

for adoption in a timely manner. Where are we?

Judge SATTERFIELD. I think I can answer that.

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Let me answer that question for you regarding the adoptions. Part of the slowdown in adoptions last year was

due to the wonderful tax credit that is going to be provided to families this year. At the end of last year, we had a number of parties

who wanted us to slow the process down so that they can benefit

from an adoption agreed issue and the tax credit that will be provided.

Senator DEWINE. Now how are we doing this year then?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, I think we are going to be on target

to meet what we have met in the past. I am going to have—I do

not have the exact numbers from what we have done from January

to March. I can get that for you. But I know that the slowdown

from last year was partly due to that. I only say partly because

there are other problems that exist in that process, some of which

you are trying to address in the Family Court Act with the ICPC,

Interstate Compact Act, always presents a problem.

A lot of our cases are children who are placed with families in

Prince George’s County, Maryland. And we have substantial problems sometimes getting that process and getting those approvals.

We have instances where the city is going to provide adoption subsidies to families, but the determination as to whether they are in

ICPC status is based on the financial ability of the family to take

care of the child absent the adoption subsidy that was going to be

provided. And that slows those cases down.

We are working with the agencies so they can better locate parents who are missing, so that we can move the process along in

their diligent search. And then the FBI clearances—and I understand why the FBI is quite busy now—have presented a problem

with a slowdown. And that is what the agency is trying to work

on, to get better access to the FBI clearances and faster access. All

those contribute to that.

Senator DEWINE. I understand all that. But your first reason I

am not sure is valid, because the question is not how many adoptions. The question was whether legal activity to free a child for

adoption should be initiated within 30 days after the child’s perma-
23

nency goal has been determined. That is not something that the

parent does, the prospective parent, is it?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, no.

Senator DEWINE. The agency does that.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, to initiate the adoption proceeding has

to be done by the petitioner, the lawyer. The judges require that

they go forth with the adoption once the goal of adoption has been

made in the case. And then they monitor that process to make sure

that that is carried out by having frequent hearings to make sure

that is done.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I am not going to play lawyer with you,

but I am not satisfied with the answer. But all right.

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I just follow up?

Senator DEWINE. Go ahead.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me just add something that might clarify

it, because Senator DeWine will remember because he was such a

strong supporter of what we tried to fix in Congress which was the

unintentional, but serious, consequence of passing an adoption tax

credit that basically was available for infant adoptions, but not for

special needs adoptions.

And for 2 years in Congress, we struggled to make it clear that our intention was to provide the $10,000 tax credit for special

needs. And we worked very hard, I must say, in the Senate in a

bipartisan way. But that effort was stopped in the House.

So I share your pain, because I can most certainly understand

a family on the verge of adoption needing and being entitled to the

credit that we intended them to get. But because of our—I would

not say it was a mistake. It was unfortunately intentional on the

part of some members of Congress to not have those go into effect

at the same time. It put a—it caused that situation to exist.

Luckily since January of this year, it is finished because they are

all—now there are tax credits for all adoptions, not just for infant

adoptions, but for special needs adoptions, domestic, and international. So that problem should be erased.

The other problem I want to share your pain with—and, Senator

DeWine, some of this is the Court and under their control, but

some of it is the way the Federal law is, which I think needs to

be changed and actually, I am working on a bill right now to

change these laws, because the subsidies in the funding are not following the decisions of the Court as streamlined as is necessary.

The Federal funding structures are really inhibiting the faster

placement of children through adoption. And it would take me a

long time to actually explain that. But just trust me, because I

have studied it enough.

So part of it is our problem, and let me just admit that. And then

part of it, I think, is, you know, lack of resources and perhaps some

management, some management issues. But I will say for the

record that I am hoping to lead an effort—and I know that the Senator will be supportive—of trying to get these funding streams basically lined up. So if a judge makes a decision—and I will just finalize this: If a judge says in this country, ‘‘Reunification is what

we want for this child,’’ the funding follows that decision.

If the judge says temporary foster care, the money follows that.

If the judge says adoption is the permanency plan, then the Fed-
24

eral funding follows it. But we are a long way from getting to that

point to where we are today. It is going to take some time, but we

are working on it.

Senator DEWINE. Let me just say that Senator Landrieu is absolutely right. There is a lot that we have to do. I do not want to belabor the point, Mr. Satterfield. But all I was saying, and it is a

minor point, all I am saying is, the initiation to release a child to

be eligible for adoption is a different thing from the filing of the

adoption procedure. That is all I am saying. That is a responsibility

of the Court. It is not the responsibility of the parent. It is the action to make the child eligible for adoption.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Can I respond? As I understand your question, you are talking about the filing not of adoptions, but of terminations.

Senator DEWINE. That is correct. And your answer to me was,

‘‘We did not do that because the parents did not want us to move

ahead because they wanted to get this tax credit.’’ And I am saying

that is your responsibility to make the child eligible for adoption.

And that is not a correct answer.

Judge SATTERFIELD. I did not understand your question, and I

am sorry for that. But as I understand, your question now is: What

are you doing in terms of filing a termination——

Senator DEWINE. Why did you not file it?

Judge SATTERFIELD [continuing]. Of parental rights——

Senator DEWINE. Right.

Judge SATTERFIELD [continuing]. In order to do that? I thought

we were talking—so I did not understand the question. That is why

I gave the answer to a question I thought you asked, but obviously

you did not.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Okay.

Judge SATTERFIELD. But in terms of terminating parental rights,

there has been an increase in the Court in the filings of terminations of parental rights, because the Government agency, the Office of Corporation Counsel, now recognizes that it is their responsibility to do that in those cases that warrant it, and they are filing

those cases. We have consolidated those cases with a neglect judge

handling the case. We expect that number to go up. And we are

addressing that number.

We are monitoring the Office of Corporation Counsel to make

sure that they file those motions. And we are doing that in our review hearings with them.

Senator DEWINE. So the figures that I cited, of course, are old

figures in the sense that they were up to May of 2002.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, I think you cited some——

Senator DEWINE. What you are telling me is the figures are better now.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, they are going to be better because

they were not filing any of those motions in the past, and now they

are starting to file those motions. Part of the reason they did not

file those motions is that it was more efficient for us to do the terminations through the filing of the adoption case, because it avoided certain appellate circumstances and the delay in appeals. But

now they are complying with the statutory mandate and filing
25

those motions a lot more quickly than they used to, because they

were not being filed by the office at all.

Senator DEWINE. Okay.

Anything else you want to get into?

Senator LANDRIEU. I think I will pass on the questions. I have

gotten explanations for what I was concerned about. Well, maybe

just one. I wanted to go back, because I know we are short on time.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Judge King, you said something about a new intake system for

domestic violence. Would you take a minute to elaborate on that?

Because I think it is a very important issue. And so many of our

jurisdictions around the country are really making some great

strides in terms of reaching out to victims of domestic violence and

realizing that it itself is a core of many of the problems, in terms

of fragile families and child self-esteem. And of course, the abuse

experienced directly by the victim in most instances, in 99 percent

of the cases, is the woman.

So could you just give me a one minute explanation of exactly

what you are talking about, to make it easier for the victims to

show that they are truly victimized, give the courts expedited either video or testimony so that either restraining orders can be

issued or action taken against the abuser?

Judge KING. Yes, I would be happy to. Just very quickly, we are

in our sixth year of operating the domestic violence unit, which,

when it was organized, was a model in the Nation with two or

three others. It brings all of the cases that are related to a domestic violence issue in before one judge and in one branch of the

Court.

What we found at the time, was that it reduced the number of

places that a victim had to go to tell her story, usually hers, from

19 down to 1. So we made a major accomplishment in simplifying

that process. We have advocates and advisors available to them at

an intake center at the courthouse.

What we found was that a large number of the victims and those

complaining of domestic violence were in Anacostia, which meant

that they have to take a bus and a cab, and it is expensive and

difficult. And they have to make childcare arrangements and so on.

So we opened a satellite unit, which has some of the staff. It gets

prohibitively expensive unless you are in New York, where you

have a million people everywhere you look. But we have some of

the staff there to handle the intake, to do some of the advising, to

give them a sense of what they can and what they need to do.

And also, we have a teleconferencing set up so that they can go

to a studio in—it is actually located in the Greater Southeast Hospital facility. They go to a studio there, go on the television. A

judge sitting at the courthouse can confer with them just as we are

doing now, just with a camera, and can sign a temporary restraining order and fax it back to them. So they can go to their neighborhood location, pick up the order and leave and get it served.

We have even had the good fortune of having that turn out to

be a convenient place for police officers to get warrants signed. So

they are piggy-backing on the domestic violence operation, which

means that there is, without any expense to anybody, there is pret-
26

ty good security supplied there, because police officers are coming

and going to get warrants signed.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, let me just briefly commend you for

that. I just think it is just an extraordinary step, and will do what

I can. And I know that our committee will support your efforts, because it is a very serious epidemic in this society. And it is not just

limited to certain neighborhoods. It is throughout the city.

And as you noted, resources are limited. We could not do this everywhere. But I just cannot tell you how much I appreciate that

and look forward to learning more about it so that we can support

it.

It is one of the goals of my public career to get the legal system

in this country to support the victim and not the abuser from the

moment that it starts to the moment that it ends. And whether it

is helping the victim, you know, to stay in the home, to protect the

children, and have the abuser suffer the consequences of abuse—

and too often, our legal system and our court system puts the burden on the one who is abused, which makes no sense whatsoever.

The burden should be on the abuser.

So I will look forward to working with you. And also, counseling

the abusers for those who can be rehabilitated. Not in every case

are we successful, but we should, of course, try to reach out to the

abusers as well appropriately.

Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. Well, we thank you all very much. And we look

forward to continuing to work with you, particularly in regard to

the Family Court. And we will try to have a hearing sometime that

is convenient for you all, sometime within the next 2 weeks, where

we can bring GSA in and bring you in and see where we are.

Thank you very much.
(27)

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR

Senator DEWINE. Let me invite our second panel to come up.

And as you are coming up, I will introduce the second panel.

The Honorable Paul Quander is the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Mr. Ronald Sullivan is the

Director of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.

We welcome both of our witnesses and thank them for joining us

here today. We have received their written testimony. We would invite them both to summarize their testimony and spend maybe

about 5 minutes each, if you could. And we will start with whoever

wants to start and invite you to go ahead. And then we will have

the opportunity to have some questions. You can flip a coin or

whatever.

Mr. QUANDER. We just did.

Senator DEWINE. All right. Very good.

Mr. QUANDER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.

Senator DEWINE. I am not sure that is on. Push the button, and

if it lights up, it is on.

Mr. QUANDER. All right. We will try it again. It is on now.

Senator DEWINE. All right. Very good.

Mr. QUANDER. Good morning, Chairman DeWine. And good

morning, Senator Landrieu. I am Paul Quander, the Director of the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Thank you for

the opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal

year 2004 budget request of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, or CSOSA.

As you know, CSOSA includes the Pretrial Services Agency, PSA,

which provides supervision for pretrial defendants. The Community

Supervision Program supervises convicted offenders on probation,

parole, or supervised release. Our fiscal year 2004 request reflects

our desire to continue implementing the initiatives we have previously presented to you. We strive to allocate resources strategically and effectively so that we can achieve the greatest possible

benefit to public safety.

At any given time, CSP supervises approximately 15,000 offenders. PSA supervises or monitors approximately 8,000 defendants.

With both populations, our highest priority must be to close the revolving door that leads too many people through repeated incarcerations and periods of supervision. Through accountability, intermediate sanctions, treatment, education, and employment, we are

striving to increase the percentages more every year by reducing

re-arrest and recidivism among our population. In the 6 years since

CSOSA’s establishment as trustee and the 3 years since certification as an independent Federal agency, we have achieved a number of significant milestones. With fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
28

2004 resources, we expect to meet our target caseload of 50 general

supervision offenders per community supervision officer. We have

opened 6 field units to locate our offices in areas of the city with

high concentrations of offenders, including our newest office at 25

K Street, Northwest.

Since fiscal year 2000, we have increased by 116 percent the

number of offenders drug-tested every month. We have placed over

3,500 defendants and offenders in contract treatment in fiscal year

2002. Our multi-denominational faith community partnership embraces more than 25 member institutions. And our volunteer mentor program has matched more than 80 returning offenders with

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

Our fiscal year 2004 CSOSA requests direct budget authority of $166,525,000 and 1,357 full-time equivalent positions. Of this

amount, $103,904,000 is for community supervision programs.

$34,411,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency. And $25,210,000 is

for the Public Defender Service. The District of Columbia Public

Defender Service transmits it budget request with CSOSA’s.

CSOSA’s fiscal year 2004 budget request represents an 8 percent

increase over fiscal year 2003 funding. Most of that increase is attributable to adjustments to base that will enable the Community

Supervision Program to fully fund community supervision officer

positions to be filled in fiscal year 2003. These positions are essential to achieving our target caseload ratio. The Community Supervision Program increase also includes funding to implement our

Reentry and Sanctions Center Program, which is based on our current Assessment and Orientation Center, or AOC.

In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million and an authorization for 89 positions to expand the AOC located at Karrick Hall

on the grounds of D.C. General Hospital. In September 2002,

CSOSA signed a 10-year lease with the District of Columbia for the

continued use of Karrick Hall. The planning work is completed, but

renovation has been delayed pending approvals required by the

District Government.

The Assessment and Orientation Center provides a residential

placement for high-risk defendants and offenders with extensive

criminal histories and severe substance problems. Among offenders

who complete the program, re-arrest decreased by 74 percent in the

year following completion. Since its inception, almost 900 defendants and offenders have benefitted from this program. This program is targeted directly at the 30 percent of our population who

are most likely to recidivate. And so we believe it is essential to

achieving our public safety mission. We request $3,104,000 to expand the Assessment and Orientation Center to a full-fledged reentry and sanctions center bringing one additional unit online for

a total of 39 beds.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The Pretrial Services Agency also has one new initiative focusing

on enhanced supervision. Since the D.C. Department of Corrections

closed their Community Corrections Center Number 4, additional

defendants are being released to the community and are being

monitored by Pretrial Services officers. The impacts of this have

been considerable. To mitigate the stress this has placed on the
29

Pretrial Services general supervision staff, the Pretrial Services

Agency requests $224,000 to provide vendor management of the

agency’s electronic monitoring program.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today.

And I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have

at the appropriate time.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 2004 budget request of the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, or

CSOSA. As you know, CSOSA includes the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), which

provides supervision for pretrial defendants. Convicted offenders released into the

community on probation, parole, or supervised release are supervised by the Community Supervision Program (CSP).

Today marks my first appearance before you as CSOSA’s appointed Director. In

my first 6 months with the Agency, I have come to appreciate both the complexity

of what we are trying to accomplish and the level of support we have received from

Congress as we build our capabilities. We greatly appreciate the increased resources

we have received since the Revitalization Act was passed in 1997. Our fiscal year

2004 request reflects our desire to continue using those resources effectively and

strategically to fully implement the initiatives we have previously presented to you.

At any given time, CSP supervises approximately 15,000 offenders; PSA supervises or monitors approximately 8,000 defendants. To CSOSA, these individuals

present the dual challenges of community corrections: reducing risk to public safety

while, at the same time, helping thousands of our city’s residents to turn their lives

around through drug treatment, educational services, and job placement. We believe

these challenges complement each other; we strive not only to hold offenders and

defendants accountable for their actions, but to provide opportunities that assist

them in developing a different, more successful way of life.

While more than 85 percent of arrests in the District of Columbia did not involve

offenders under our supervision, our highest priority must be to close the ‘‘revolving

door’’ that leads too many people through repeated incarcerations and periods of supervision. To achieve that priority, CSOSA allocates resources to four strategic objectives, or Critical Success Factors: Risk and Needs Assessment, Close Supervision,

Treatment and Support Services, and Partnerships. Slightly less than one quarter

of our budget is allocated to Risk and Needs Assessment, about one quarter to

Treatment activities, and half to our front line Close Supervision activities. Partnership activities receive 5 percent of funding. We believe that success in these four

areas will enable us to achieve our mission of public safety and service to criminal

justice decision makers.

In the 6 years since CSOSA’s establishment as a trusteeship, and the 3 years

since certification as an independent Federal agency, we have achieved significant

progress toward realizing these objectives. Our milestone achievements include the

following:

—Both the Community Supervision Program and the Pretrial Services Agency

have implemented automated case management systems that will greatly improve data quality and officer effectiveness.

—We have implemented comprehensive risk assessment for offenders and are now

expanding our case planning protocol to include uniform needs assessment.

—With fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 resources, we expect to meet our target caseload of 50 general supervision offenders per officer.

—We have opened six field units to locate our officers in areas of the city with

high concentrations of offenders, including our newest office at 25 K Street. A

seventh field location at 800 North Capitol Street will come on line in the next

few months.

—Since fiscal year 2000, we have increased by 116 percent the number of offenders drug tested every month.

—We have placed over 3,500 defendants and offenders in contract treatment in

fiscal year 2002.

—We are particularly pleased that our partnership activities have expanded to include the city’s faith institutions. Our multi-denominational Faith Community

Partnership embraces more than 25 member institutions, and our volunteer
30

mentor program has matched more than 80 returning offenders with individuals who are committed to helping them stay out of prison.

—We continue to explore ways to partner with the Metropolitan Police Department so that offenders are known to the police and our Community Supervision

Officers are a visible public safety presence in the city’s Police Service Areas.

We are particularly proud of joint supervision by MPD and CSOSA officers who

together make visits to offenders at their homes and workplaces. These ‘‘accountability tours’’ demonstrate to the community, the offender, and the offender’s significant others that the police and CSOSA are collaborating to enforce

supervision and prevent criminal activity.

—We are also exploring ways in which offender and defendant accountability can

be enforced through technology, such as using Global Positioning System-based

electronic monitoring, to maintain ongoing knowledge of the offender’s location

in order to improve the enforcement of stay-away orders.

For fiscal year 2004, CSOSA requests direct budget authority of $166,525,000 and

1,357 FTE. Of this amount, $103,904,000 is for the Community Supervision Program; $37,411,000 is for the Pretrial Services Agency, and $25,210,000 is for the

Public Defender Service. The District of Columbia Public Defender Service transmits

its budget request with CSOSA’s. The Director of PDS, Ronald Sullivan, will present

it in a separate statement.

CSOSA’s fiscal year 2004 budget request represents an 8 percent increase over

fiscal year 2003 funding. Most of that increase is attributable to Adjustments to

Base that will enable the Community Supervision Program to fully fund Community

Supervision Officer positions to be filled in fiscal year 2003. These positions are essential to achieving our target caseload ratio.

The Community Supervision Program increase also includes funding to expand

our Close Supervision capabilities. In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million

and an authorization for 89 positions to expand the Assessment and Orientation

Center into a full Reentry and Sanctions Center. Located at Karrick Hall on the

grounds of D.C. General Hospital, the Assessment and Orientation Center provides

a residential placement for high-risk defendants and offenders with extensive criminal histories and severe substance abuse problems. The program has proven very

effective in increasing the likelihood that these individuals will go on to complete

supervision successfully. Among offenders who complete the program, rearrests decreased by 74 percent in the year following treatment. Since its inception, almost

900 defendants and offenders have successfully completed the program.

The Reentry and Sanctions Center will increase the availability of this successful

program for the offenders most likely to commit new crimes. We believe that

through strategic intervention with this high-risk population, we can achieve a significant decrease in recidivism. The Reentry and Sanctions Center will also increase

CSOSA’s capacity to implement intermediate sanctions for offenders and defendants

who abuse drugs while under supervision, and for whom less intensive options

might not be effective. Meaningful intermediate sanctions and increased availability

of sanction-based treatment are among our most potent weapons in the fight to reduce recidivism.

In September 2002, CSOSA signed a 10-year lease with the District of Columbia

for the continued use of Karrick Hall. Although renovation work has been delayed

pending approvals required by the District government, we request $3,104,000 to expand the Reentry and Sanctions Center to operate one additional unit, for a total

of 40 beds. We will also continue to request funding for the program from the Office

of National Drug Control Policy’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area initiative,

which has provided $1.3 million per year.

The Pretrial Services Agency also has one new initiative focusing on enhanced supervision. Since the D.C. Department of Corrections’ closure of Community Correctional Center No. 4 in 2002, more high-risk defendants are being released to the

community and must be monitored by Pretrial Service Officers. The impact of this

has been considerable. Officers must devote more time to every aspect of these cases

and must increase the number of face-to-face contacts with these defendants. This

increased contact is difficult to maintain with caseloads at their current levels. To

mitigate the stress this has placed on the General Supervision staff, the Pretrial

Services Agency requests $224,000 to provide vendor management of the agency’s

electronic monitoring program.

We at CSOSA are proud of our progress as a Federal agency. We believe that our

program model, which applies national best practices to the unique needs of the District of Columbia, will improve the safety of our city and increase the resources

available to the offenders and defendants who live here. As we mature as an Agency, I have every confidence that we will be able to present an impressive record of
31

accomplishments. I believe our success will make CSOSA a national leader in the

field of community supervision and a unique model for other jurisdictions.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy

to answer any questions you may have.
(32)

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES

STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.

On behalf of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, or PDS, I thank you for the opportunity to address you in

support of PDS’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. As you know, the

Public Defender Services provides constitutionally mandated legal

representation to indigent people facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia.

PDS is the local defender in our Nation’s Capital. And it is also

a national standard-bearer. Throughout its 30-year history, PDS

has maintained its reputation as the best public defender office in

the country, local or Federal. We have been able to maintain this

reputation because of PDS’ innovative approaches that are applied

by some of the most talented lawyers and support staff in the country. PDS is an agency that this Congress, this committee, and this

community can be proud of.

PDS generally is assigned the most serious resource-intensive

and complex cases in the District. With the 100 lawyers on staff,

PDS typically represents about 60 percent of the most serious felony charges; and the majority of juveniles facing serious delinquency charges. And consistent with a 2003 initiative, we now represent nearly 100 percent of all people facing parole revocation.

The majority of people—we also represent the majority of people in

the mental health system who are facing involuntary civil commitment.

With this backdrop, I will address our fiscal year 2004 budget request. For fiscal year 2004, PDS requests $25,210,000 and 218.5

FTE and direct budget authority, which includes a request for .5

or only one-half new FTE and $100,000 to support our only new

initiative, the Appellate Assistance Response Initiative. The number of constitutionally mandated appellate cases opened by PDS

has increased by 50 percent since 1997, while the numbers of attorneys providing these services has remained constant. In order to

continue providing this constitutionally mandated service, PDS respectfully requests that this subcommittee approve its very modest

budget initiative.

Let me offer a brief example of how the work that we do makes

a difference in the lives of real people. Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals contacted PDS after affirming convictions

in a two-person appeal. The Court was concerned because the

briefs of one of the persons—and I will call her Jane to respect her

privacy—looked like it was a verbatim replica of the other appellant’s brief, even though the two had conflicting interests.

PDS’s Appellate Division accepted Jane’s case, convinced the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to reopen the case, wrote new
33

briefs for Jane, who all along maintained that the conviction was

wrong, and, through PDS’s advocacy, demonstrated that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction. Jane was acquitted. Justice was done.

In another important Appellate Court matter, PDS advanced the

position that it is improper and unconstitutional for the Government to exclude people from juries on the basis of religion alone,

as religious freedom, in our view, reaches the core of what it means

to be an American. Significantly, with the new Executive Branch

administration, the Government advised the DCCA that it has

changed its position and now agrees with PDS. Religion is an improper basis upon which to exclude jurors. We await the Court’s decision.

In other matters, PDS has recently increased the sophistication

of its practice. And in light of this subcommittee’s interest in and

commitment to the children of the District of Columbia, I am proud

to announce that we have added services at our organization, such

as the special education advocacy for our juvenile clients. We are

the only institutional provider, the District of Columbia Special

Education Services. And given the disturbing correlation between

educational deficiencies and delinquent behavior, this is a muchneeded service.

Utilizing the resources from our fiscal year 2003 DNA initiative,

we have just litigated an admissibility issue involving a novel and

complex DNA matter. Before ruling, the judge in this matter said—

and he was referring to PDS and the United States Attorney’s Office, and I quote, ‘‘I want to say at the outset that you are to be

highly commended. These are some of the most impressive pleadings I have seen in my years on the bench. It is a credit to both

your institutions that you have been able to marshal all of this in

a way that reminds me of two Wall Street firms going at it. I am

sure you all are making $500 an hour.’’

And for the record, I will not object if this committee decides to

compensate us thusly.

PREPARED STATEMENT

This judge’s recognition is consistent with PDS’ model that we

provide better services than money can buy. With your support of

our appellate initiative and our fiscal year 2004 budget request, I

can assure the members of this subcommittee that PDS will continue to look for new and inventive ways to make each tax dollar

we receive build a more fair and effective criminal justice system.

My time has expired. I would like to thank you for your time and

attention to these matters. And I will be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR.

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

is Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., and I am the Director of the Public Defender Service for

the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you today in support of the agency’s

fiscal year 2004 budget request. The agency thanks you for your support of our programs in previous years.

As a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the ‘‘Revitalization Act’’), PDS was established as a federally-
34

1 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

2 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400, et. seq.

funded, independent District of Columbia agency. In accordance with the Revitalization Act, PDS transmits its budget and receives its appropriation as a transfer

through the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) appropriation. PDS provides constitutionally-mandated legal representation to people facing

a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia who cannot afford a lawyer. In the District of Columbia, PDS and the District of Columbia Courts share the responsibility

for providing constitutionally-mandated legal representation to people who cannot

pay for their own attorney. Under the District of Columbia’s Criminal Justice Act

(CJA), the District of Columbia Courts appoint PDS generally to the more serious,

more complex, resourceintensive, and time-consuming criminal cases. The Courts

assign the remaining, less serious cases and the majority of the misdemeanor and

traffic cases to a panel of approximately 350 preselected private attorneys (‘‘CJA attorneys’’). Approximately 100 lawyers on staff at PDS are appointed to represent:

a significant percentage of people facing the most serious felony charges; the majority of the juveniles facing serious delinquency charges; nearly 100 percent of all people facing parole revocation; and the majority of people in the mental health system

who are facing involuntary civil commitment.

In less than 1 week, defense attorneys and others from around the country will

mark the 40th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright,1 the landmark Supreme Court

case that held that a fair trial in non-Federal criminal cases includes the right to

an attorney for those who cannot afford one. PDS, like so many other public defender offices, owes its existence to that case. PDS, however, is unique. It is the

local defender office for our Nation’s capital, and it is the national standard bearer;

throughout its history PDS has maintained its reputation as the best public defender office in the country—local or Federal. PDS is an agency this Congress and

the District of Columbia can be proud of.

That reputation is no accident. From its beginning in 1971 as the Legal Aid Society, PDS’ mission has been to serve as a model public defender organization in providing defense representation to the traditionally underserved indigent population.

That mission has led PDS over the past 30∂ years to enhance and improve the representation it offers to its clients. While much of our work is devoted to ensuring

that no innocent person is ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide

legal representation to people with mental illness who are facing involuntary civil

commitment, recovering substance abusers participating in the highly successful

Drug Court treatment program, and juveniles in the delinquency system who have

learning disabilities and require special educational accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. 2

PDS’ mission has also led the agency to expand the resources it provides to the

criminal justice community at large in the form of training for other District of Columbia defense attorneys and investigators who represent those who cannot afford

an attorney and in the form of support to the District of Columbia Courts. In addition, the mission has spurred PDS to develop innovative approaches to representation, from instituting measures to address the problems of clients returning to the

community who have been incarcerated to creating a one-of-a-kind electronic case

tracking system. As PDS’ recently chosen Director—one who previously had the

honor of serving as a staff attorney and later as general counsel at PDS—I intend

to maintain PDS’ tradition of fulfilling the promise of that landmark Supreme Court

case by ensuring qualified counsel for the accused in the Nation’s capital while continuing to prepare the agency for the challenges it faces in the 21st century.

Our sole fiscal year 2004 requested initiative, the Appellate Assistance Response

Initiative, is part of that effort. For fiscal year 2004, PDS requests $25,210,000 and

218.5 FTE in direct budget authority, which includes a request for .5 new FTE and

$100,000 to support this new initiative. This modest increase in personnel resources

and funding is requested in recognition of the President’s emphasis on spending for

national security.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 REQUEST

Appellate Assistance Response Initiative

PDS applies throughout the agency its innovative approach to providing defense

representation to individuals who are unable to pay for their own attorneys, including in its Appellate Division. PDS has become an established resource for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as the Court has increasingly relied on PDS’ Appellate Division for assistance in matters of unusual importance or complexity. PDS

renders this assistance through amicus curiae, or ‘‘friend of the court,’’ briefs while
35

3 Both of these Acts require that the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency collect

DNA samples from D.C. Code offenders for comparative analysis by the FBI in unsolved crimes.

it continues to provide constitutionally-mandated appellate representation to individuals. PDS not only serves the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in this way,

but also the District of Columbia Superior Court; PDS has even appeared as amicus

curiae in the United States Supreme Court. The Superior Court also turns to PDS

with requests for amicus curiae briefs on complex or unusual issues that arise in

collateral proceedings such as ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

In part due to the consistent demand for PDS expertise as amicus curiae to the

benefit of the criminal justice system, in the 5 years since the passage of the Revitalization Act, the number of constitutionally-mandated appellate cases opened by

PDS has increased by 50 percent while the number of attorneys providing these

services has remained unchanged. Furthermore, PDS appellate attorneys have additional responsibilities that place demands on their time. Attorneys in the Appellate

Division devote a significant amount of time to training both PDS and non-PDS lawyers. Appellate Division attorneys organize and present material for the ‘‘appellate

track’’ of the Criminal Practice Institute conference, they conduct several sessions

in the yearly summer training series for the CJA bar, and they organize internal

training sessions for PDS attorneys. The caseload increase, the requests for amicus

curiae briefs, and the training work combined have stretched the Appellate Division’s capacity, straining its ability to effectively meet the needs of PDS clients and

the Court of Appeals at current funding levels. In order to continue providing constitutionally-mandated appellate legal representation to individuals who cannot afford an attorney and to the District of Columbia Courts, PDS seeks .5 FTE and

$100,000 in increased support.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In fiscal year 2003, in addition to handling a variety of criminal, juvenile, parole,

mental health, and other legal matters, the agency was very successful in instituting changes to improve the overall quality of the District of Columbia justice system through new approaches to client service, through litigation, and through very

successful collaborations with other criminal justice and social service organizations.

PDS’ success in these areas was recently recognized by the Legal Aid Society of the

District of Columbia, an organization that exists to make pro bono legal representation available to those who can least afford the services of an attorney.

The Legal Aid Society selected PDS as one of its two honorees for 2003 ‘‘who have

demonstrated unswerving dedication and achievement in providing access to all persons, regardless of income, to representation before the District of Columbia courts

and agencies.’’ Almost all past honorees, who include Justice Thurgood Marshall,

the Honorable Eric Holder, Jr., and Charles Ruff, have been individual attorneys.

Significantly, this year the Legal Aid Society decided to select an agency for this

honor instead. This award pays tribute to PDS’ effort to ensure that each and every

client receives representation at the highest level of professional competence. This

goal has always been—and will continue to be—the lodestar that guides this agency.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 INITIATIVES

In fiscal year 2003, Congress passed as a bill, and the President signed into Law,

a new program increase for PDS totaling 6 positions, 6 FTE, and $874,000 in support of two new initiatives. PDS’ DNA Sample Collection Act initiative received 2

positions, 2 FTE, and $427,000. The agency’s Parole Revocation Defense Initiative

received 4 positions, 4 FTE, and $447,000. The enacted law was further amended

under H.J. Res. 2 to decrease the total funding available in fiscal year 2003 in support of these new initiatives by a rescission of .65 percent, or 2 positions, 1 FTE,

and $149,955.

DNA SAMPLE COLLECTION RESPONSE INITIATIVE

As anticipated when PDS submitted its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the District of Columbia Council passed the Innocence Protection Act, which requires the

government to retain all evidence containing DNA material to assist in establishing

or refuting post-conviction claims of actual innocence. This Act, along with the District of Columbia’s DNA Sample Collection Act and the Federal DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act,3 has led to an increased need within the District of Columbia

criminal justice system for expertise in the use of DNA as evidence. To implement

its fiscal year 2003 DNA Sample Collection Response Initiative, PDS is generating

the internal and external training necessary to develop attorneys with the knowl-
36

4For children, the Community Re-entry Project operates as PDS’ Juvenile Services Program.

edge and skills to engage in cutting edge litigation involving the ever-changing landscape of DNA evidence. A Superior Court judge deciding a PDS matter that involved

some of the most controversial and technically sophisticated scientific issues of this

type recently acknowledged the value to the criminal justice system of expert litigators. The judge thanked the agency for its extraordinary pleadings and the caliber

and stature of the expert witnesses who had been presented to the court. The judge

also noted that the quality of the parties’ advocacy and pleadings was on par with

that of Wall Street firms charging $500 per hour.

Our recent investment in this rapidly developing area, combined with the commitment of the team of PDS lawyers involved in this effort, has taken the agency to

the forefront of this field. We are already leveraging this expertise to share it with

our colleagues on the CJA attorney panel. Thanks to the added assistance of Federal grants, PDS has committed to planning and hosting a free forensic science conference for court-appointed defense attorneys in the District of Columbia in June of

this year. The conference will provide the most up-to-date knowledge concerning the

use of forensic evidence to conference participants. We have already obtained appearance commitments from a number of nationally recognized speakers.

As has been PDS’ custom, we will continue to develop the agency’s expertise in

new scientific methods and then seek to promptly disseminate and share that expertise to the benefit of all persons charged with offenses in the District of Columbia

who cannot afford an attorney.

PAROLE REVOCATION DEFENSE INITIATIVE

PDS’ Special Litigation Division has handled an average of 75 parole revocation

cases per month in the first 4 months of fiscal year 2003. This is consistent with

the estimate of 70 to 100 cases per month PDS estimated in its fiscal year 2003

budget request, and it represents a 50 percent increase in the number of the Division’s new case referrals from the same period last year. This underscores the need

for the additional resources provided by the fiscal year 2003 budget. The Division

continued to provide constitutionally-mandated parole representation in nearly 100

percent of all parole revocation cases involving D.C. Code offenders before the U.S.

Parole Commission, a service PDS assumed responsibility for providing after the Revitalization Act was passed. The Division has recruited students from local law

schools to represent District of Columbia parolees at their revocation hearings in

order to leverage the agency’s existing resources and provide litigation training to

the students. The students, whose work is supervised by PDS attorneys, have relieved some of the strain on the agency’s resources.

COMMUNITY RE-ENTRY INITIATIVE

In fiscal year 2002, PDS received 10 positions, 9 FTE, and $1,019,000 in support

of its Community Re-entry Initiative. PDS, ever exploring new, effective methods to

meet the needs of its clientele, has established a Community Re-entry Project to

help smooth the path that leads incarcerated individuals back into the community

and to support them upon their arrival. The Project, PDS’ sole fiscal year 2002 initiative, continues to make great strides toward becoming fully functional. In fiscal

year 2003, the Project 4 focused on addressing the needs of children involved in the

District of Columbia’s juvenile delinquency system. The Community Re-entry

Project developed a program to monitor the progress of children placed through the

juvenile delinquency system in residential facilities and to provide support to prepare them for returning to their home communities. The Project also developed a

‘‘Street Law’’ program for children placed in the District of Columbia’s juvenile detention facility to improve their decision-making; this program will be expanded to

include children placed in District of Columbia group homes. The Community Reentry Project is also working with local public and private school students to develop

peer mentor relationships between those students and children placed in the juvenile detention facility; the relationships will provide additional resources upon the

children’s return to their home communities.

Also, working with local Hispanic families, the Community Re-entry Project assists in making resources available in their own neighborhoods to children returning

from the District of Columbia’s juvenile detention facility. The Project creates links

between the returning children and a local neighborhood collaborative to identify

and provide community support resources. The Project will expand this program by

replicating it with other neighborhood collaboratives throughout the city to develop

a network of support resources for children being released from the facility. The

Project is developing an anti-truancy program in collaboration with the District of
37

Columbia public schools system, the D.C. Bar, and the District of Columbia Superior

Court to address truancy issues in recognition of their observed correlation with delinquent behavior.

PDS will continue to develop the Project this year by addressing the needs of

adults for re-entry services and support. The Project has established contact with

some social services organizations and is seeking others to assist in easing the transition from incarceration to release with educational, employment, training, counseling resources and other effective tools to increase opportunities for success and

decrease chances of recidivism.

GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Criminal Justice System Reforms

In accordance with PDS’ many efforts to find new, effective means of implementing its mission to provide representation to those in the District of Columbia

criminal justice system who cannot afford an attorney, PDS’ Appellate and Special

Litigation Divisions have litigated cases that have direct impact on services and

processes of other local and Federal Government entities within and outside of the

criminal justice system that affect our clients. PDS’ successful advocacy in such

cases has led to the equitable provision of public services to all recipients—not just

PDS clients—ensuring that the rights of all people are protected and that critical

support services necessary for incarcerated individuals’ successful transition back

into the community are available.

Ensuring adequate representation.—The District of Columbia Court of Appeals solicited PDS’ assistance after observing questionable behavior by a non-PDS appellate attorney in that Court. A woman and her codefendant had separately appealed

their convictions for unauthorized use of a vehicle, each arguing that the evidence

was insufficient to support the conviction. In reviewing the coappellants’ cases, the

Court noted that the woman’s brief, filed by the appellate attorney, was an almost

verbatim replica of the earlier filed brief of the woman’s coappellant. After affirming

both convictions, the Court contacted PDS and appointed the agency as the woman’s

new appellate counsel. The Court accepted PDS’ argument that the first appellate

attorney’s performance was so deficient and prejudicial as to be tantamount to the

complete absence of counsel on appeal, and allowed the woman to pursue her direct

appeal again. In briefing the direct appeal, PDS pursued the same sufficiency-of-theevidence argument advanced before. However, for the new brief, PDS was able to

distinguish legal and factual arguments applicable to the woman’s case that had

been obscured by the first appellate attorney’s approach of apparently copying the

coappellant’s brief. The Court held that the woman was entitled to a judgment of

acquittal, as a direct result of PDS’ involvement.

Support for the District of Columbia Family Court’s authority.—PDS has been at

the forefront of litigation designed to ensure that judges of the newly created Family

Court in the District of Columbia maintain the ability to exercise the responsibility

and power Congress envisioned when it created that Court and sought to guarantee

the existence of a cadre of judges with expertise in matters pertaining to children.

Specifically, PDS has been involved in extensive litigation, both in the Superior

Court and in the Court of Appeals, with the District of Columbia to resolve whether

the Department of Human Services (DHS), a District of Columbia executive branch

agency, or Family Court judges should have the power to determine what facility

is best suited to meet the needs of troubled youth. According to DHS, once a judge

determines that a delinquent child should be committed to DHS, the judge loses all

authority to determine what institution or facility best meets that child’s needs.

PDS’ position is that Congress has invested judges, in particular the specially

trained Family Court judges, with the power and responsibility to determine those

placements and not simply to hand the children to DHS and hope for the best.

Fairness in jury selection.—PDS has been advancing the position for several years

that striking a prospective juror on the basis of that juror’s religious affiliation is

unconstitutional in the same way that striking a juror on the basis of race or gender

violates the Constitution. In our view, striking a juror on the grounds of religious

affiliation alone—without a demonstrated basis that the juror’s religious affiliation

will interfere with the juror’s ability to be impartial—violates the Equal Protection

Clause and the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. Following the most recent

change in administration, the Federal Government switched its position and notified

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that it now agrees with PDS that it would

be unconstitutional to strike a juror on the basis of religious affiliation alone. If the

Court agrees, this will be an important step in protecting religious liberty.

Excessive detention.—PDS assisted a client who had been held at the District of

Columbia Jail for a parole hearing based on a new criminal charge that was subse-
38

5 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400, et seq.

quently dismissed. Because the jail failed to act on the U.S. Parole Commission’s

detainer after the dismissal, the client waited unnecessarily for over a year to be

brought before the Commission for his parole hearing. PDS’ Special Litigation Division sought relief in Federal court; shortly before a hearing in the case, the client’s

illegal detention was terminated, and he was released from the jail.

Rehabilitation of youthful offenders.—PDS challenged the failure of the Bureau of

Prisons to comply with a requirement of the District of Columbia’s Youth Rehabilitation Act that individuals sentenced under the Act be housed separate from adults.

One of the Bureau’s prison facilities placed each of 29 youthful offenders from the

District of Columbia with an adult cellmate. Shortly after the PDS challenge was

filed, each of the 29 was sharing a cell with another youthful offender.

Timely parole hearings.—PDS pursued a class action case challenging the United

States Parole Commission’s failure to provide timely preliminary and final parole

revocation hearings for District of Columbia parolees locally and throughout the

country. The parties recently negotiated and signed a consent decree that mandates

such timely hearings for the hundreds of affected individuals. The case was resolved

after a Federal court agreed that the U.S. Parole Commission’s procedures were unconstitutional and ordered the Commission to make critical reforms.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COLLABORATION PROJECT

Just as PDS explores new ways to ensure that it provides quality representation

to its clients, PDS explores new opportunities to collaborate with others who seek

to improve service to our clients or to the criminal justice system. An example, in

addition to the collaborative work engaged in by the Community Re-entry Project

as described above, is the OPTIONS Mental Health Treatment Program, developed

by PDS to assist individuals in the criminal justice system who can benefit from

the intervention of mental health professionals.

OPTIONS continues to serve people with mental illness in collaboration with the

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, the Pretrial Services Agency, the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health, and the District of Columbia Superior Court. The OPTIONS program

provides comprehensive treatment and social services to people with mental illness

who are charged with non-violent offenses in order to prevent recidivism and promote healthy rehabilitation. No similar service existed before PDS created this program, however, the need for it was significant.

During its year-and-a-half existence, the program has been incredibly successful,

assisting nearly 150 people with mental illness by providing counseling, medication,

housing, and other critical social services. The participants in the OPTIONS program are individuals who have traditionally been a high risk for successive re-arrests in the absence of effective treatment. Through the comprehensive services provided in the OPTIONS program, the re-arrest rate among program participants has

declined. In recognition of its positive impact, this pilot program has now been fully

incorporated into the Department of Mental Health and will be a permanent fixture

in the District of Columbia criminal justice system to better serve people with mental illness.

OTHER PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

PDS maintained its strong emphasis on providing representation in novel ways

to people who cannot afford attorneys by continuing to implement and build on effective strategies it has already developed. PDS’ special education work continues

to serve the children who become involved in the juvenile delinquency system, PDS’

long-standing mental health practice assumed new responsibilities, and PDS added

new topics to its existing training program.

Special Education Services.—One of the areas into which PDS has more recently

expanded in an effort to meet more of the needs of its clientele is special education

advocacy. PDS’ Civil Legal Services Unit was established to address issues facing

children in the delinquency system that often hinder the child’s successful re-integration into the community. The centerpiece of the Unit is the team of attorneys

who specialize in advocacy under the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA),5 which mandates special accommodations in public schools for

children who cannot be adequately educated in a traditional classroom setting due

to a learning disability or other challenge. The Unit’s attorneys ensure that children

receive an appropriate diagnostic assessment and work with the school system to

secure alternative educational programs.
39

6 Civil Commitment of Citizens with Mental Retardation Amendment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.

14–199 (2002).

Mental health representation.—Toward the beginning of fiscal year 2003, PDS’

Mental Health Division began providing representation in all cases brought under

a new District of Columbia statute providing for the involuntary civil commitment

of individuals found not competent to stand trial due to mental retardation.6 The

agency took on this responsibility while continuing to play a significant role in representing individuals with mental illness who are subject to civil commitment proceedings in the Superior Court. During the first few months of fiscal year 2003, the

Division has been assigned approximately 60 percent of the emergency hospitalization cases filed in the Superior Court.

Training.—PDS continues its tradition of providing in-depth training courses for

court-appointed CJA attorneys in order to ensure that all counsel are qualified to

handle the cases to which they are appointed and to promote the maximum economic efficiency in providing legal representation to people who cannot pay for an

attorney.

—PDS coordinated and presented ‘‘Hot Topics in Education and Community-based

Services for Children with Disabilities,’’ a training program for attorneys who

represent children in juvenile delinquency proceedings. PDS has developed an

expertise in this area, and is the only such resource in the District of Columbia.

—The Superior Court has adopted standards for selecting attorneys for membership on a panel the Court will look to for appointment to cases in the juvenile

justice system. This parallels the process put in place by the Court for adult

cases. PDS is developing training materials and programs to help attorneys obtain the requisite qualifications and skills.

—The Public Defender Service produced the Criminal Practice Institute Practice

Manual, a 1,800-page, comprehensive treatise on criminal law in the District of

Columbia. Over 600 copies of this manual have been distributed to the judges

on the District of Columbia Courts, the United States Attorney’s Office, the Bureau of Prisons, area law schools and the private bar.

—The Public Defender Service sponsored the 38th annual Criminal Practice Institute training conference, a 2-day event involving seminars by nationally-known

speakers, law professors, legal scholars, local judges and criminal justice practitioners. Approximately 100 participants attended the 2002 conference along

with PDS staff.

—As it has done for the past 3 years, PDS has already begun to plan for its annual Summer Series. This is a series of weekly evening seminars in May, June,

and July that are provided free of charge to CJA attorneys covering matters

specific to practice in the Criminal and Family Divisions of the Superior Court.

—After adopting an investigator training proposal from PDS, the Superior Court

implemented a mandatory training requirement for all CJA criminal investigators. Senior PDS investigators and PDS staff attorneys prepared the training

materials and coordinated the training sessions on all aspects of criminal investigation. As of the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003, over 120 investigators have

been trained and certified, and PDS has already planned training for an additional 20 investigators in the coming month. PDS will then turn its resources

toward providing the annual training required of investigators to maintain their

certification from year to year. This program is designed to ensure that now,

and in the future, there are sufficient qualified investigators to assist CJA attorneys.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

PDS’ emphasis on innovation is not limited to its program-related work. The agency continually reviews its practices and procedures to improve its operational functions. Particularly now that PDS is a federally-funded agency, it seeks to reach a

corresponding level of sophistication in the administration and execution of its responsibilities. Recent improvements made by PDS provide the necessary infrastructure to support our programs and our program staff and increase the potential for

greater efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out PDS’ mission.

Information Technology.—PDS is developing its own case tracking software that

provides comprehensive case management functionality for PDS attorneys, staff,

and management. PDS demonstrated the software at a conference for defense attorneys, and other public defender organizations across the country have contacted

PDS to express an interest in obtaining the software for their own use.

Government Performance and Results Act.—PDS made significant progress in developing a 5-year strategic plan similar to the plans required of Federal executive
40

agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act. The PDS management staff is reviewing the draft 5-year plan, the related 1-year performance plan

will follow shortly, and PDS expects to present a performance-based budget request

to Congress for fiscal year 2005.

Criminal Law Database.—PDS added to its website a criminal law database that

is the most comprehensive, publicly available research tool on District of Columbia

criminal law in the country. It allows local practitioners and members of the public

to find information about every existing D.C. Code offense, including the potential

sentence. The database also contains an explanation of the District of Columbia’s

preventive detention statute, information on the immigration consequences for noncitizens in the criminal justice system, a description of the possible parole consequences for a parolee charged with a new offense, a parole ‘‘salient factor score’’

calculator, information about juvenile practice in the District of Columbia, a list of

recently decided appellate cases, and a variety of important criminal justice links.

Investigative staff increases.—Since fiscal year 2001, PDS has more than tripled

the number of full-time staff investigators—including five who are fluent in Spanish

to serve the growing number of Spanish-speaking clients—and developed a comprehensive professional training program. Every PDS lawyer who handles felony

cases now has a full-time staff investigator to assist with case preparation. This allows attorneys to reduce their involvement in time-consuming tasks that could be

performed by non-attorneys and focus more on doing purely legal work.

Each of the above reforms and successful collaboration projects has contributed

to a better, more efficient criminal justice system and has improved the quality of

services provided to people who cannot afford an attorney in the District of Columbia justice system. They serve as examples of the manner in which PDS identifies

new ways of serving clients on its own and in successful collaboration with others,

all consistent with PDS’ goal of providing representation by qualified attorneys to

those it is dedicated to serve.

CONCLUSION

The right to a qualified attorney for people who cannot afford one is simple and

basic, so much so that it has easily woven itself into American culture and into the

public’s consciousness. PDS has been in the forefront of defining what it means to

satisfy the requirements of that right—not only defining it, but also meeting and

exceeding that standard. As PDS has matured as an agency, it has increased the

sophistication of its practice, adding services such as its special education advocacy

and its community re-entry programs, which have the additional benefit of potentially reducing recidivism. PDS has thereby helped to raise the level of practice of

the defense bar in the District of Columbia, ensuring that PDS can live up to one

accurate description of the agency’s work: ‘‘better representation than money can

buy.’’

I respectfully request your support of this initiative, and I would like to thank

the members of the Committee for your time and attention to these matters and

for your support of our work to date. I would be happy to answer any questions the

Committee members might have.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. Good. You both are right on time.

Thank you. Appreciate it very much.

Mr. Quander——

Mr. QUANDER. Yes, sir.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. Am I pronouncing your name close

enough?

Mr. QUANDER. You are. It is right on point.

Senator DEWINE. Right on point. Thank you.

You talked about a 50-to-1 ratio.

Mr. QUANDER. Yes.

OFFENDERS

Senator DEWINE. How does that compare with what is the national norm or the—I do not want to say the national average, because that is probably not what our goal should be. But what is

recommended in your field, in your profession?

Mr. QUANDER. In our field, I believe the——
41

Senator DEWINE. Excuse me. But considering the nature of the

offender that you are dealing with.

Mr. QUANDER. Well, the general population, general supervision,

the national recommended goal is essentially 50 to 1. We are very

close to reaching that goal. Right now, we are in the area of 56 to

1 for general supervision.

I had the opportunity recently to read an article from a newspaper in Annapolis, and the article spoke of the Maryland system.

And in their system for parole and probation, they are averaging

in excess of 116 cases per supervision officer. The article concluded

by saying that that is nearly impossible to supervise individuals

the way that the Court or that the citizens want.

We are trying to reach that goal. And we think we will be able

to reach that goal with the appropriations for 2004 so that we can

provide all the services that we need to provide. That is the general

population.

For specialized individuals, such as sex offenders, domestic violence, traffic and alcohol, mental health, that ratio needs to be

lower, needs to be in the area of 35 to 1.

Senator DEWINE. And where are you with the specialized population? I missed that in your testimony. I am sorry. I know you

said it.

Mr. QUANDER. In the specialized population, roughly we are

averaging about 44 to 1. It is a little closer to, I think, 35 to 1 or

37 to 1 in the sex offense area.

Senator DEWINE. And let me just say, as a former prosecutor

and also someone who, as lieutenant governor of the State of Ohio,

one of my responsibilities was to oversee our prison system, that

the special population worries me more than the other population.

And I guess I would be very interested in seeing what this committee could do to help you target that special population and work

with you, Senator Landrieu, to try to get those special population

numbers to where you want it to be.

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. I wonder if we could maybe dialogue with you

on that.

Mr. QUANDER. I would like to do that.

Senator DEWINE. I know you want to stay within the President’s

budget, and we do, too. But that worries me. And you are a little

off there. And maybe we could talk about what it would take over

the next couple years to move towards hitting that goal of 35 or

whatever you think is the right number. You are close to it in the

sex offenders, you say——

Mr. QUANDER. Yes.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. But maybe work towards the

other. And I would ask our staff to work and set that as a goal of

our committee. Because we are dealing with the safety of the people of the District of Columbia and the visitors to the District of

Columbia. And I think it is very important.

Mr. QUANDER. Yes. I would welcome that. One of the things that

I would like to share with you is that what we are doing with that

special population, and the reason their caseload is lower and why

it needs to be lower is that we spend more time actually moni-
42

toring, supervising, having them come in, testing, all of those

things. And actually, we are piloting a global positioning system.

Senator DEWINE. Really?

Mr. QUANDER. And we are going to pilot it for the sex offenders,

so that we will attach a bracelet, and we will be able to monitor

where that individual is. We will be able to know if he has gone

into a specific area where he is not allowed to be.

I have had an opportunity to go down and to take a look at the

system that is used by the Florida Department of Corrections,

along with our associate director, Tom Williams. And we have had

members of our staff actually utilizing it, wearing it, moving

throughout the city. So we are getting close to piloting it. And we

are looking at piloting it on a special group of the sex offender population.

Senator DEWINE. Well, you know, if there is a target population

that is likely to re-offend, it is your target population. And you are

the one who—you target them. You figure out who they are. You

do it based on your expertise. We do not do it; you do it. And it

seems to me that once you do that, that you need to have whatever

the assistance is that you need to try to monitor that population

and monitor them correctly. And we ought to try to give you the

assistance that you need. You are the professional. Your people are

the professionals. And we ought to try to give you the help that you

need to do that within budget constraints. But we ought to try to

bend over backwards to try to give you the help that you need. And

we are going to try to do that. So——

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you. We would greatly appreciate it.

Senator DEWINE. So our staff will work with you and maybe over

the next couple of years try to do some things that could be of help.

Thank you.

Mr. QUANDER. Very well. Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. First of all, let me thank both of

you for stepping up to the positions that you have been asked to

serve in with such enthusiasm. And I understand, Mr. Quander,

that you are the first official first-time director of this very new

Federal agency.

Mr. QUANDER. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. And we are joined today by the interim leader, Mr. Ormond. Are you here, Mr. Ormond?

Mr. QUANDER. Yes, he is.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for the work that you have done

over the last couple of years to get us to this point.

Mr. ORMOND. Thank you very much.

SUPERVISOR/PRETRIAL DEFENDANTS RATIO

Senator LANDRIEU. And of course, our committee takes very seriously this responsibility because we basically are a direct appropriator to these Federal agencies. And while, again, we do not have

the staff and do not ever intend to micro-manage it, we want you

to know that we want to be a good resource to both of you to accomplish the goals that you have outlined and to share with us, because we share with you much of your vision.
43

I understand that you all—Mr. Quander, you have a population

of about 16,000 convicted offenders who are released into this community on probation, parole, or supervised released. That would be

annually, 16,000 a year?

Mr. QUANDER. Yes, roughly about 15,000.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. And then you supervise on an annual

basis about 8,000 defendants pretrial.

Mr. QUANDER. That is correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. And you do that all for a budget request of

this year $166.5 million.

Mr. QUANDER. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. And Senator DeWine had asked, and I want

to just be clear for the record, what is our ratio that we are at

today in terms of probation supervisors to the convicted offenders?

What is the ratio between the supervisor and the pretrial defendants?

Mr. QUANDER. Certainly. It——

Senator LANDRIEU. And what are our goals?

Mr. QUANDER. The ratio as far as probation and parole and general supervision currently stands at 56 to 1. Our goal is 50 to 1.

In the specialized areas that I mentioned, the sex offense, mental

health, domestic violence, and traffic and alcohol, our current ratio,

I believe, is in the area of 44 to 1. And what we are trying to get

is to the area of 35 to 1.

In pretrial services, the Pretrial Service officers, I believe their

current caseloads are averaging in excess of 100, maybe 110. And

I believe they want to be in the area close to where we are, in the

area of like 50 or 60 to 1. Part of the 2004 appropriations request

will allow the Pretrial Services Agency to contract out for vendor

services for the electronic monitoring program, which will allow

them to use the staff that are currently doing that to bring down

the caseload.

Our agency, CSOSA, is also assisting with authority, reallocating

positions, 10, to help them as they try to reduce their caseload and

get it down to a much more manageable level.

Senator LANDRIEU. We would like to work with you on that. We

would like to keep these caseloads at a level where actually good

work can be done, and the people that are doing the work feel as

good about the work as they can, which is extremely difficult and

very challenging work. In order to accomplish that, it is not only

a reasonable ratio—and I am not sure that 50 to 1 or 56 to 1 or

40 to 1 or 30 to 1, if there is any magic number. But I would also

say that managing and minimizing the turnover of your employees

is also very important, so that you have trained and skilled people

not just moving in and out, but retraining staff.

Could you comment a moment about your turnover in your agency? And could you give us a snapshot? And if not today, maybe

present to this committee a snapshot of the turnover of your agency.

Mr. QUANDER. I will be able to provide the exact figures in a subsequent submission. But I can inform you of this: As a new director, I spend a lot of time in the field talking to the workers, the

people that actually do the work day in and day out. And the one
44

constant, as I walk through the agency, is that people, the employees, they still want to save the world.

Senator LANDRIEU. That is good.

Mr. QUANDER. And what they say is, you know, ‘‘Mr. Quander,

if you can do X, Y, and Z, if you can remove this impediment, I can

do even more.’’

As a director, I mean, I love to hear that because all they are

saying to me is ‘‘Remove some of these hurdles, make my job a little easier, I want to go out, I want to talk to people, I want to make

a difference.’’

So I do not believe the turnover rate is very high. I believe right

now we may have one or two vacancies in our supervision ranks.

We have a new class that is coming on board. So we have people,

for the most part, who are very involved. They are committed to

it. It is extremely difficult for them, because they go to bed at night

and they wake up in the morning and they open up the newspaper

to see if one of their offenders may have committed a new crime.

Senator LANDRIEU. Right.

Mr. QUANDER. So there is a lot of pressure. But when we talk

to them—and recently, Friday, we had our OMB budget analyst

and her supervisor to walk through our facilities. And we just laid

it out and gave them access to anyone they wanted.

So I think the attitude is still there. They want to work. They

just need me to provide a little support, to remove some of the impediments.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that is very, very, very encouraging.

And we want to be helpful.

And I know I have only a minute left. But, Mr. Sullivan, I want

to say that you bring to your job a tremendous background and accomplishments. And I am very impressed with your resume and

what you bring to the job and your vision for what you are doing.

And I hope that we will continue the good work in the history of

your agency and look forward to continued benefit to the community.

I am going to submit, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I have actually

a number of very good questions that we are prohibited from pursuing because of our time. But I would like to have answers to

these, so that we can get a better grasp of where you are now,

where we need to go, so that we can try to be helpful.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly.

Senator DEWINE. Very good. Well, let me thank both of you very

much. We appreciate your testimony, appreciate your written testimony, and look forward to working with both of you.

Mr. Quander, we will follow up with you. And we would invite

both of you, if you have specific concerns—I know you have submitted your request, but if you have specific concerns, to feel free

to contact our staff as we prepare our budget, if there is anything

in addition.

And Mr. Quander, we will reach out to you and see what specifically we can do to work on that particular area that I was talking

about.

Mr. QUANDER. Thank you.

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I just say one more thing?

Senator DEWINE. Yes, sure, Senator Landrieu.
45

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE

Senator LANDRIEU. I just wanted to mention that there is some

opportunity with this new faith-based initiative that is moving its

way through Congress in a very bipartisan way and with the President’s commitment to involve the District. I think there is a real

opportunity for the work that both of you all supervise to try to engage the power of the faith-based community in this community to

help and become a real vibrant, dynamic partner in this work.

Some churches are more inclined than others. Some have more

experience than others. Some have better success rates than others. But I really challenge you all to think about the way, Mr. Sullivan, you said about stretching those dollars to use the faith-based

and volunteer community to accomplish some of our goals.

So I will have a question for the record in that line and look forward to your responses.

Mr. QUANDER. If I can just say one thing: We are actually up and

running with that. We have 25 faith-based organizations, churches,

that are already signed up. We have in excess of—we have 80 offenders who have actually been matched with the faith-based institutions. So we have one of the few programs that has moved from

the drawing board to actual practice. We have mentors who are

coming in on a regular basis. So we are up and we are running.

We just celebrated our first anniversary in January. And we are

moving forward. So——

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that is great. We will see if these

churches really work, you know.

Mr. QUANDER. No doubt.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Similarly, PDS has done the same. Our community defender office has a relationship with a church that we send

our juvenile clients to.

Senator LANDRIEU. I think it is an untapped resource in many

ways. So I commend you all for that. Thank you.

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENT AND ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE

QUESTIONS

Senator DEWINE. Senator Strauss has submitted a prepared

statement. It will be included in the record.

[The information follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on this Subcommittee,

as the elected United States Senator for the District of Columbia, and an attorney

who practices in the family court division of our local courts I would like to state

for the record that I fully support the fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the District of Columbia Courts, Defender Services, and the Offender Supervision Agency.

As an elected Senator for the District of Columbia I stand by the Court System of

District of Columbia. It is vital that the District of Columbia Court System be fully

funded in the amount asked for today.

I respect the positions of all of the witnesses that are here today and know that

they and their staffs have worked hard on their budget proposals. I know that the

fiscal marks that they are testifying in support of today are what they need in order

for the D.C. Court System to continue to operate at full capacity. Since, as the District of Columbia Senator, I myself can not vote on this appropriation I am limited

to merely asking you to support their proposals.

The citizens of the District of Columbia deserve a judicial system of the highest

quality. Unlike citizens of any other jurisdiction, we lack the legal rights to make

these funding decisions internally. Unless the D.C. Courts are fully funded by the
46

1D.C. Ref.: Establishment of an office of the District Attorney for the District of Columbia.

On November 5th, 2002 85,742 or 82 percent voted in favor while 18,558 or 17 percent voted

against. Source: District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics.

Congress, they will not be fully funded. Our Judges should be selected locally, not

by the President. The D.C. voters recently expressed their preference for the principle of a locally elected prosecutor, instead of a Federal U.S. Attorney to prosecute

local crimes.1 This is not just an issue of simply providing funds but it is an issue

of justice. The District of Columbia should not have to look to Congress for the sole

financial support of its courts. This is just another limit on the District of Columbia’s ability to have self-government. I have made the case against these injustices

many times before many Committees of this body. I do not intend to belabor them

here today because the unfortunate truth is that while this status quo is maintained

it is absolutely essential that Congress fully fund the D.C. Court system.

In this regard, I wish to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. The political reality is that the voters of Ohio or Louisiana will not hold the

D.C. Court system high on their list of legislative priorities. For you to take the time

and effort to convene this hearing suggests that duty and principle, not politics, in

this regard motivate your efforts.

Just like in any other jurisdiction, fully funding the District of Columbia Courts

is a critical step in maintaining law, order, and justice. It is vital to our community

that our court system has adequate resources for the aforementioned reasons. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, in this day and age of heightened alerts due

to security risks.

The District of Columbia Courts’ fiscal year 2004 request is a fiscally responsible

budget that continues to build on past achievements to meet current and future

needs. Some of the needs that will be met by the budget proposal submitted by the

D.C. Courts are enhancing public security, investing in human resources, investing

in information technology, expanding strategic planning and management, and

strengthening services to families.

Moreover, having stated the importance of fully funding the District of Columbia

Court System, I would like to emphasize the importance of fully funding the Court’s

Defender Services line item. In order to provide adequate representation to families

in crisis we need to fully fund Defender Services. All of this Committees good work

on Family Court reform is in jeopardy with out the resources to back it up. 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 yet important,

legal functions common to every jurisdiction. The safety of children should not and

will not be compromised due to political agendas or simple lack of funding. Although

the budget provides training for new attorneys, experienced advocates best serve

these children. We are in danger of losing our most experienced child advocates due

to budget cuts.

Once again this year the D.C. Court System asked for an increase in the hourly

rate paid to attorneys that provide legal services to the indigent including those attorneys that work hard to represent abused and neglected children ad guardia and

ad litems in Family Court. The first fee increase in nearly a decade was implemented in March of 2002 when it was increased to the present rate of $65 per hour.

In the fiscal year 2004 request the Courts recommend an incremental increase from

the current $65 an hour to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per hour. The reason

that this adjustment is so important, is that the Federal court-appointed lawyers,

literally across the street already get paid $90 an hour to do very similar work.

Therefore, the disparity in pay between the two positions creates a disincentive

amongst the ‘‘experienced’’ attorneys to work for Defender Services in D.C. Court.

I call on this Subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive. It was unfortunate that the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill that came out of Conference and

was signed into law by the President did not include this raise that this Committee,

and full Senate rightly included into their mark up of the bill. I urge this Subcommittee to fully fund the requested increase in the defender services line item in

the bill for fiscal year 2004 just like they did for fiscal year 2003, and then fight

vigorously to defend that mark if a conference becomes necessary.

Senator Landrieu, you have stated that the District of Columbia Family Court

should be a ‘‘showcase’’ for the whole country. I firmly agree with that statement

and add that as an attorney who practices regularly in the D.C. Family Court, I

believe that it is, thankfully, on its way toward being that ‘‘showcase’’. However,

there is continued need for improvement. I know that this Subcommittee has been

firmly committed to the D.C. Family Court. On behalf of my constituents I thank

you for all your hard work and dedication and I look forward to your continued cooperation. There has been strong bipartisan support in this Subcommittee for the
47

D.C. Family Court. In particular, I commend Senators DeWine and Landrieu for all

the great work that they have done on this important issue. Both of them have

treated the D.C. Family Court as if it were a court in their own States.

As a District resident, I look forward to the day when the District of Columbia

does not have to look to Congress for the financial support of its courts. This is just

another limit on the District of Columbia’s ability to govern itself. However, if the

status quo remains then it is absolutely essential that Congress fully fund the D.C.

Court system.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this important

hearing. I urge this Subcommittee to take the budget proposals submitted today into

strong consideration. Finally, let me take this opportunity to thank Matt Helfant

of my staff for his assistance in preparing this statement. I look forward to further

hearings on this topic and I am happy to respond to any requests for additional information.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS MIKE DEWINE AND MARY L. LANDRIEU

CAPITAL QUESTIONS

Question. How much is allocated in fiscal year 2003 for the Old Courthouse?

Answer. For fiscal year 2003, $7 million is allocated for the Old Courthouse.

Question. For the underground garage?

Answer. Because NCPC required an urban design master plan for judiciary before

commencing work on the underground garage, the underground garage has been included in the overall Old Courthouse restoration project, as had been envisioned by

earlier studies for the project. GSA has advised the Courts that the advantage of

separating the garage, which was saving time by using a design-build contractor,

was negated by the master plan requirement.

Accordingly, the $7 million allocated for the Old Courthouse will finance design

for both the garage and the restoration. We expect the garage to be first in the construction phase of the overall project.

Question. How much was provided in the Fiscal Year 2003 Mil Con bill for the

Military Court’s share of the garage?

Answer. Our understanding from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

(CAAF), is that $2.5 million was appropriated for construction costs of the garage

in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the CAAF has paid GSA $850,000 for their share

of the design costs. The costs of the garage have been divided between the D.C.

Courts and the CAAF based on the share of parking spaces to be allocated to each.

Question. How much has been provided for what could be considered Family

Court improvements (in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003)? How much requested

in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for these purposes?

D.C. COURTS CAPITAL REQUEST TO SUPPORT FAMILY COURT ACT

Fiscal Year 2002 Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Request

Fiscal Year 2005 Request

Original Request ........................................................... $18,643,000 $16,068,000 $37,084,000 $2,830,000

Revised GSA figures ..................................................... 18,643,000 16,068,000 11,410,000 29,294,000

In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the costs reflect mainly (1) implementation of the Interim Plan (detailed in the April 5, 2002 Transition Plan) to provide

efficient, family-friendly facilities for the Family Court and (2) the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS).

For fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, the costs reflect (1) continuing IJIS

throughout the Courthouse (which will give judicial decision-makers the most complete information on which to base decisions in children’s cases) and (2) two-thirds

of the estimated cost of the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project, approximately

two-thirds of which will renovate or provide additional space for permanent, stateof-the-art, family-friendly facilities for the Family Court.
48

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION

AGENCY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS MIKE DEWINE AND MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. The funds to renovate Karrick Hall were appropriated in fiscal year

2002, but the renovation work has not yet begun. What are the circumstances surrounding the delay? What is your schedule for adding additional capacity?

Answer. The use of CSOSA’s renovation funds, as well as any District funds for

similar purposes, was predicated upon the Mayor’s submission to the of a Master

Plan for the future use of the DC General Hospital campus (known as Reservation

13) to the DC Council by March 31, 2002. Although the Mayor’s plan was submitted

by this deadline, it only provided for CSOSA’s Reentry and Sanctions program to

function in Karrick Hall for an ‘‘interim’’ period. The length of that period was not

defined, and there was no provision made for the program’s permanent location.

Therefore, in the spirit of public safety partnerships and collaborations, CSOSA

initiated another planning project with the City to identify alternatives to renovating Karrick Hall, including new construction, and make recommendations. That

additional planning effort concluded in October 2002 that the renovation of Karrick

Hall is the only viable alternative to provide a Re-entry and Sanctions program on

the grounds of D.C. General, within the funding provided by Congress. The time for

completing the renovation work is estimated at 12 months after construction begins.

Construction is expected to begin within 6 months of City approval to proceed with

the renovation. During construction, the current program must be relocated and also

allow for expansion of one additional 18 bed unit.

Despite the findings of the joint planning effort, the City’s planning staff is still

holding to the Master Plan’s long-term vision of tearing down Karrick Hall, and all

of the other existing buildings on and campus, and commercially developing much

of the property along a stretch identified as ‘‘Massachusetts Avenue extended.’’ However, the $13 million that has been provided to CSOSA is about $10 million short

of what is required for a new building. In addition, various land siting, planning

and construction issues would require approximately 36 months to build a new

building.

CSOSA is anxious to complete work on Karrick Hall and bring the Re-entry and

Sanctions program online because of its proven potential as a tool to reduce recidivism. A study by the University of Maryland, Institute for Behavior and Health

dated May 31, 2002 found that offenders who participated in the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA drug treatment program, currently operated in Karrick Hall, were less

likely to commit crimes. Overall the arrest rate for Washington/Baltimore HIDTA

treatment participants dropped 51.3 percent. The Washington AOC participants experienced a 75 percent decrease.

Question. CSOSA’s annual treatment funding has increased by 100 percent since

fiscal year 2000. Is this funding sufficient to meet the demand for treatment? What

is being done to ensure that these resources are used most effectively?

Answer. CSOSA’s increased treatment funding has enabled us to make more

placements and meet more demand. In fiscal year 2000, CSOSA (including PSA)

made 1,692 treatment placements. This increased to 1,875 placements in fiscal year

2001 and 3,510 placements in fiscal year 2002. (This includes substance abuse, sex

offender, and domestic violence programming.) As funding has increased, the number of placements has increased proportionately.

Even with the increased resources, however, CSOSA has not been able to place

all offenders and defendants who need treatment. Approximately 2,900 offenders received multiple positive drug tests in fiscal year 2002. During the same period,

CSOSA placed 1,665 offenders in substance abuse treatment. This means the Community Supervision Program can meet approximately 57 percent of the need for substance abuse treatment.

If treatment is a condition of probation or parole, the offender’s placement receives priority. For placements made by CSOSA, an assessment process determines

what type of treatment would be most beneficial to the offender. We have also developed in-house treatment readiness and sanctions groups that help the offender develop the commitment necessary to complete treatment. Approximately 600 offenders attend these groups at any given time.

Our Reentry and Sanction Center initiative is a critical element of our ability to

use treatment resources effectively. The Reentry and Sanctions Center will increase

the availability of intensive assessment and sanctions-based treatment for the highrisk substance-abusing offender.

We are also in the early stages of research that should help us refine our treatment assessment process to use resources more efficiently. We have worked with
49

vendors to develop a range of short- and longer-term residential programs, as well

as a transitional housing program. Research will enable us to tell which programs

have the greatest benefit and how much treatment an offender needs to complete

before a positive behavioral change can be sustained.

Question. You have repeatedly stated that your target caseload is 50 offenders per

officer in general supervision. Your testimony indicates that you feel that target can

be reached with the resources requested last year and this year. What about high

risk cases, such as sex offenders and mental health cases? What are you doing to

manage the offenders most likely to pose a risk to public safety or to need special

services?

Answer. CSOSA has implemented several strategies to manage high-risk cases.

First, we assess the risk of every offender entering supervision. This assessment

considers the current offense, criminal history, and community stability. Based on

the results, we assign a supervision level that determines how often the offender

will meet with his or her supervision officer. In addition, all offenders entering supervision for at least 30 days begin a program of drug testing that begins with very

intensive testing and gradually relaxes as the offender demonstrates abstinence.

Cases classified as needing ‘‘intensive’’ supervision are presented to the Metropolitan Police Department at a meeting in the Police Service Area where the offender

lives. This presentation includes a photo of the offender. These cases are also targeted for joint CSOSA/MPD site visits—called Accountability Tours—to raise the offender’s awareness of the need to comply with conditions of supervision.

In addition to these procedures applying to all offenders, some categories of offenders are assigned to specialized caseloads. Sex offenders, domestic violence cases,

and offenders with active mental health issues constitute special supervision categories. These caseloads are lower than the general supervision caseloads. At

present, the average special supervision caseload is 44 offenders per officer. Officers

managing specialized cases receive additional training in the needs and characteristics of this type of offender. In future years, CSOSA anticipates lowering these specialized caseloads further.

Finally, CSOSA is exploring ways in which technology can assist officers in managing high-risk offenders. We are researching Global Positioning System-based electronic monitoring that would enable us to track the offender’s exact location at any

time. We are looking at biometric technologies that will enable us to track the offender’s attendance at work, treatment, or other required activities.

Question. You have repeatedly stated that rearrests have decreased since your supervision officers began working with offenders in D.C. Halfway Houses. Where are

rearrests at this time?

Answer. Our latest statistics indicate that parole rearrests were fairly stable

throughout fiscal year 2002 (approximately 95 per month). While this is a slight increase from last year, it is still substantially below the level experienced in May

1998, when CSOSA began working with parolees in halfway houses. At that time,

the monthly parolee rearrest rate had reached 158.

As our ability to obtain and analyze data has increased, we have been able to develop more accurate rearrest statistics for the entire population, including probationers. In fiscal year 2002, 2,809 probationers were rearrested. Overall, 18 percent

of the total supervised population was arrested. This is a slight increase (2 percentage points) over fiscal year 2001.

It is important to view offender rearrest in the overall context of total arrests.

MPD arrested an average of 2,630 individuals per month in fiscal year 2002. Of

these, 328 were individuals under CSOSA supervision. CSOSA’s clients make up approximately 13 percent of MPD’s monthly arrests.

Question. How does the halfway house situation in the District affect your officers’

ability to work with offenders prior to the start of supervision?

Answer. Halfway house placement is an important element of successful parole

supervision. It provides a transitional environment in which the offender can begin

to cope with post-incarceration stress. He or she can obtain employment, finalize living arrangements, and formulate a plan to address the many issues that accompany

re-entry into the community.

Unfortunately, only about half of the parolees entering CSOSA supervision are

placed in halfway houses. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy limits the type of offender

who is recommended for placement; moreover, recently the BOP has moved toward

strict enforcement of sentencing rules that limit halfway house placement to no

more than 10 percent of the sentence. For many parole violators and short-term felons, this effectively eliminates halfway house placement as an option. CSOSA has

consistently recommended that the halfway house stay be at least 90, and preferably 120, days.
50

At this time, that length of stay is not being achieved for most placements. Shorter halfway house stays reduce CSOSA’s ability to work with the offender on an effective transition to community supervision.

Question. Offender reentry has received a lot of attention from the media recently.

How many offenders return to the District of Columbia? Do you anticipate that the

number of offenders returning to the District will increase over the next few years?

Answer. In fiscal year 2002, 2,148 offenders returned from prison to CSOSA supervision. This has held fairly constant over the past several years. CSOSA does not

project a significant increase in the 2 years for which projections have been completed. Overall, we expect an increase of about 2 percent in the parolee population

in the next 2 years.

Question. What is CSOSA doing in the area of offender reentry?

Answer. CSOSA’s reentry program begins in the halfway house, where supervision officers assess the offender and develop an interim supervision plan that remains in effect for the first 90 days post-release. For offenders who do not transition

through halfway houses, assessment and case planning occur at the start of supervision.

In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA engaged in significant efforts to begin linking returning offenders to community-based resources. We are working with Mayor Williams’

Reentry Steering Committee on implementation of a comprehensive city-wide reentry strategy. This strategy will increase the returning offender’s access to a wide

range of services—not just supervision and treatment, but health care, job training,

housing, official identification, and all the other services that a returning resident

would need.

Our Faith Community Partnership also connects returning offenders to the community. Research tells us that strong, positive relationships are essential to successful reentry, particularly during the initial stages of the process. We approached the

city’s faith institutions to provide this sort of guidance and role modeling through

volunteer mentoring. Since the initiative was first announced in January 2002, response has been overwhelming. Over a hundred volunteer mentors have come forward to be trained. Offenders are hearing about the program while in prison and

are asking to be part of it. We are currently working with the Bureau of Prisons

to extend the program to the Rivers Correctional Facility in North Carolina, which

houses about one thousand District of Columbia inmates.

To date, about 80 offenders have received mentors. While the program is still very

new, we have received strong anecdotal evidence that the participants are benefiting

from the support and involvement of mentors. We recently held a citywide assembly

to commemorate the program’s first anniversary. At this event, two participating offenders gave testimony to the positive difference their mentors have made.

In this second year of the Faith Community Partnership, we intend to continue

the mentoring component and also focus on bringing the services of the faith community to returning offenders. Many faith institutions provide job training, housing,

family counseling, and other resources which would greatly benefit our offenders.

We are working with our member institutions to develop referral protocols and locate resources that can be used to increase program capacity.

Question. You testified that 85 percent of arrests in the District do not involve

offenders under CSOSA supervision, yet most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. What is CSOSA doing to reduce recidivism? What level of success have you

achieved?

The reduction of recidivism is CSOSA’s most important priority. We recognize

that our involvement in an individual’s life is relatively brief. The average term of

probation lasts about 20 months; the average parole, 5 years. An offender’s criminal

career can last much longer than CSOSA’s window of opportunity to end that career.

That is the main reason why our program model combines accountability with opportunity. Accountability lasts as long as an officer is there to enforce it. Opportunity lasts long past CSOSA’s involvement. If we can help offenders develop positive ties to the community, they will be less likely to injure that community through

crime. If we can help offenders understand and overcome their substance abuse,

they will no longer commit crimes to support a drug habit.

The primary mechanism for enforcing accountability is sanctions. In fiscal year

2002, over 900 instances of sanctioning were entered into the Community Supervision Program’s case management system. We have put in place a sanctions matrix

that identifies specific consequences for non-compliant behaviors. Sanctions range

from verbal reprimand to short-term residential placement—called halfway back.

We believe that our sanctions system will contain and correct non-compliant behaviors before they develop into full-fledged criminal activity.
51

Our strategic plan identifies five intermediate outcomes that contribute to a reduction in recidivism: decreased rearrest, decreased drug use, decreased instance of

revocation, increased employment and job retention, and increased education levels.

We have begun tracking the results of each of these intermediate steps. We are confident these results will lead to a significant reduction in recidivism.

Question. In your testimony, you discussed CSOSA’s partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department. Does CSOSA partner with any other criminal justice

agencies?

Answer. CSOSA is an active member of the District of Columbia and Federal

criminal justice communities. We believe that collaboration is essential to our success, and we are constantly seeking new opportunities to work with our colleagues

in the field. CSOSA participates in the District’s Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council. We have conducted cross-training with the United States Parole Commission to improve staff communication between the agencies. We have developed a

Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to place our officers in BOP-operated halfway houses, and with the city’s Department of Employment Services to obtain targeted employment assistance. We are also collaborating

with the BOP in an effort to increase public understanding of the vital role of halfway houses in the criminal justice system. CSOSA works continually to improve our

coordination with our criminal justice partners and to provide a valuable public

safety presence in the District of Columbia.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., Wednesday, March 12, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(53)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

FOSTER CARE SYSTEM

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.

Today, on what fittingly is being recognized as the National Day

of Hope for Abused Children, we are convening the first of what

will be a series of hearings regarding the foster care system in our

Nation’s capital. I am honored to have, as our lead witness, Congressman Tom Davis, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform.

Chairman Davis and I share a long-standing concern and commitment to children in our home States, in the District, and across

our Nation, as of course has Senator Landrieu. Chairman Davis

has held several oversight hearings regarding the receivership of

Child and Family Services Agency, commonly referred to as CFSA.

In addition, Chairman Davis and I worked closely together to get

the D.C. Family Court Reform Act of 2001 signed into law.

As the new chairman of the House Committee on Government

Reform, Chairman Davis has elevated the oversight of the District

of Columbia to the full committee. He truly has demonstrated his

concern for and commitment to our Nation’s capital.

Chairman Davis requested that the GAO review CFSA’s performance and progress. And in our hearing today, we will examine and

discuss the preliminary findings of that review, some of which are

very disturbing. Our witnesses will describe the problems that have

led to the current crisis in the District’s foster care system and

what CFSA has been doing and is doing to protect the lives of the

District’s children.

Let me commend Congressman Davis for requesting this GAO review. It was a great step, something that is long overdue, and has

provided this committee and this Congress and the District of Columbia some very, very important information.

Candidly, this is not the first time that this Congress has looked

at this issue, nor the first time that this committee has looked at
54

this. This is not the first time that we, as a subcommittee, have

heard testimony from witnesses describing the sorry state of the

District’s child welfare system. This is not the first time we have

discussed the errors and the unbelievable lapses in judgment and

the unquestionable and inexcusable breakdowns in the system,

breakdowns that have led to the loss of at least 229 children’s lives

between 1993 and the year 2000.

In fact, in a hearing all too similar to this one today, a hearing

that we held in March 2001 about the state of foster care in the

District, a hearing that this subcommittee held, we listened to vivid

and tragic testimony detailing the complete collapse of the child

welfare system in the District of Columbia. And at that hearing, I

made it very clear that protecting the health and welfare of the

District’s children is our number one priority and how that, too,

should be the number one priority of the District of Columbia.

We put the CFSA on warning and said that enough was enough

and that we were not going to allow blatantly irresponsible acts of

incompetence to continue anymore. Further, we explained how this

subcommittee has a responsibility, an obligation, to review the District’s resource needs and budget proposals with close Congressional scrutiny. We have an obligation to ensure that any dollars

that flow into the child welfare system are used for the proper protection of the children involved.

So the question is: What has changed in these past 2 years? The

preliminary GAO findings would suggest that very little has in fact

changed. But before we get to the specifics of the GAO report, I

would like to make something very clear. Whether we are talking

about a child here in the District of Columbia or one in Cincinnati

or one in Richmond or New Orleans or anywhere in the United

States, I think we all would agree that every child in this country

deserves to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home with

loving and caring adults. Yet the reality is that tonight more than

half a million children in this country will go to bed in homes that

are not their own. And many of these children are tragically at

risk.

I first learned about this nearly 30 years ago in the early 1970’s,

when I was serving as an assistant county prosecutor in my home

county in Ohio, Green County, when I was a young county prosecuting attorney. One of my duties was to represent the 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 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 and years.

It would appear that children in this city, in our Nation’s capital,

are at even more risk because of the systemic dysfunction within

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. And they argued that the District was failing

to protect neglected and abused children.
55

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

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

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

Judge Thomas F. Hogan to install a receiver to oversee the system

and appoint a court monitor to review the District’s performance.

On June 15, 2001, the receivership ended. And responsibility was

transferred to a newly established Cabinet-level Child and Family

Services Agency. The order terminating the receivership created a

probationary period that would end when the District demonstrated progress on a series of performance indicators.

Today, the court monitor will present her findings and testify as

to whether or not to end the probationary period for CFSA. It is

my understanding that the court monitor will recommend ending

that probationary period. I will say bluntly that from reading the

GAO’s testimony, which will be presented shortly, I have some

grave concerns about CFSA’s abilities. I am curious to see how the

court monitor’s recommendations comports with the disturbing picture that GAO’s findings paint.

For example, the GAO has determined that CFSA is not, is not,

meeting the most crucial requirements of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act. This law, which I helped sponsor and which has been

in effect since November 1997, includes a number of very specific

provisions that require States to change policies and practices to

better promote children’s safety and adoption or other permanent

options, or other permanency options.

In fact, since this law has been in effect, adoptions have increased nearly by 40 percent nationwide. According to the GAO,

though, while some improvements have been made, the CFSA has

not adopted some key policies and procedures for ensuring the safety and permanent placement of children. Furthermore, caseworkers

have not consistently implemented or documented some of the policies and procedures that have been adopted. In fact, CFSA is not

meeting the Adoption and Safe Families Act standards in the following ways:

Number one, initiating proceedings to terminate parental rights

for children in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months;

number two, notifying parents of reviews and hearings; number

three, requiring mandatory annual permanency hearings every 12

months for a child in foster care.

Another troubling finding that the GAO will elaborate on further

is the District’s inability to track its children in foster care. In fact,

data is not even available for 70 percent of the District’s children

in foster care. This is true even though the District has invested

resources in a new automated information system that has been

operational for over 3 years. How can we track these children and

determine their well-being when they are not even entered into

this automated system? How can the court monitor be sure that

CFSA is meeting its standards if CFSA cannot even electronically

track the children in its own care?

I am very interested to hear the testimony of Anne Schneiders,

chairman of the National Association of Counsel for Children, who
56

has said that children wait for months, for weeks or months, before

foster care placement is available. Some older children wait at

group homes or even overnight at CFSA offices. They are often

placed in whatever home has a vacancy, irrespective of the needs

of the child or the preference of the family.

In addition to the new GAO findings, other studies and newspaper investigations paint equally disturbing pictures. For example, according to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, District children were in foster care an average of 65 months before they achieved a permanency plan. That is

over 5 years in foster care before a plan is even determined.

And, of course, none of us can forget the tragic and troubling accounts detailed in the September 2001 Washington Post’s Pulitzer

Prize winning investigative series on the state of the District’s

child welfare system. But even after that series ran, the Post identified additional cases of abuse and neglect. In a December 2001

story, the newspaper reported that at least 10 children under District protection died between June 2001 and December 2001, and

that in one case an infant died of starvation after a city social welfare worker failed to visit his family for 7 months.

Then, an August 2002 story reported that it took the CFSA nearly 3 months to remove an 11-year-old mentally retarded child from

a District group foster care home after he reported being sexually

abused by a 15-year-old fellow resident. In this particular case, the

District social worker learned of the incident on April 9, 2002, but

did not actually report it until July 2, 2002. And furthermore,

when police finally interviewed the 11-year-old boy, they found out

his 12-year-old roommate also had been sexually assaulted.

These kinds of reports make us all sick. And the CFSA needs to

understand we are not going anywhere, none of us are going anywhere. This committee is not backing off in any way until these

children are protected. We have made the welfare and safety of

these children our top priority.

And as chairman of this subcommittee, I am going to continue

to have hearings. And we are going to keep digging for facts and

findings. And we are going to do everything we possibly can to save

these children.

Now I recognize that the District’s child welfare system did not

collapse overnight. And we are well aware that it will not be fixed

overnight. However, 1 month, let alone 65 months, or 5 five years

is a very long time in a child’s life. It is an eternity for a child. How

many more months and years can we ask these children and teens

to wait until they have a safe and loving home?

PREPARED STATEMENT

When we look at the District’s child welfare system in its totality, we must not view its reform in a vacuum. The reform of this

system is about a lot of things. This is about, we know, resource

needs. This is about proper management of those resources and the

services provided. It is also, of course, about accountability. And ultimately, and most importantly, it is about putting the safety and

the health and well-being of thousands of children first, above all

else.
57

I know that Chairman Davis shares these concerns and is standing ready and willing to work together to make life better for these

children. I thank him for requesting the GAO report. And I look

forward to hearing his testimony.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today, on what fittingly is being

recognized as the National Day of Hope for Abused Children, I am convening the

first of what will be a series of hearings regarding the foster care system in the District of Columbia.

I am honored to have as our lead witness, Congressman Tom Davis, Chairman

of the House Committee on Government Reform. Chairman Davis and I share a

long-standing concern and commitment to children in our own home States, in the

District, and across the Nation. Chairman Davis has held several oversight hearings

regarding the receivership of the Child and Family Services Agency, commonly referred to as CFSA. In addition, Chairman Davis and I worked closely together to

get the DC Family Court Reform Act of 2001 signed into law.

As the new Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, Chairman

Davis has elevated the oversight of the District of Columbia to the full committee.

He truly has demonstrated his concern for and commitment to our Nation’s capital.

Chairman Davis requested that the GAO review CFSA’s performance and

progress, and in our hearing today, we will examine and discuss the preliminary

findings of that review—some of which are very disturbing. Our witnesses will describe the problems that have led to the current crisis in the District’s foster care

system and what CFSA has been and is doing to protect the lives of the District’s

children.

But candidly, this is not the first time we’ve done this. This is not the first time

that we, as a subcommittee, have heard testimony from witnesses describing the

sorry state of the District’s child welfare system. This is not the first time we’ve discussed the errors, and the unbelievable lapses in judgment, and the unquestionable

and inexcusable breakdowns in the system—breakdowns that have lead to the loss

of at least 229 children’s lives between 1993 and 2000.

In fact, in a hearing—all too similar to this one today—a hearing that we held

in March 2001 about the state of foster care in the District—we listened to vivid

and tragic testimony detailing the complete collapse of the child welfare system.

And at that hearing, I made it unequivocally clear that protecting the health and

welfare of the District’s children is my No. 1 priority—and how that, too, should be

the No. 1 priority of the District of Columbia. I put the CFSA on warning and said

that enough was enough—that we were not going to allow blatantly irresponsible

acts of incompetence to continue any more. Furthermore, I explained how this subcommittee has a responsibility—an obligation—to review the District’s resource

needs and budget proposals with close congressional scrutiny. We have an obligation

to ensure that any dollars that flow into the child welfare system are used for the

proper protection of the children involved.

So, what has changed in these past 2 years? The preliminary GAO findings would

suggest that very little has, in fact, changed. But, before we get to the specifics of

the GAO report, I want to make something very clear.

Whether we are talking about a child here in the District, or one in Cincinnati,

or in Richmond, or in New Orleans, or anywhere else in America—every child deserves to live in a safe, stable, loving, and permanent home, with loving and caring

adults.

Yet, the reality is that tonight, more than a half-million children in this country

will go to bed in homes that are not their own. Many of these children are at risk.

I first learned this nearly 30 years ago in the early 1970’s when I was serving as

an assistant county prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio. One of my duties was to

represent the Greene County Children 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 and years.

It would appear that children in this city—in our Nation’s capital—are at even

more risk because of the systemic dysfunction within 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
58

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 the District 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 to correct the vast

deficiencies in its child welfare system.

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

Hogan to install a Receiver to oversee the system and appoint a Court Monitor to

review the District’s performance.

On June 15, 2001, the Receivership ended and responsibility was transferred to

a newly-established Cabinet-level Child and Family Services Agency. The Order terminating the Receivership created a probationary period that would end when the

District demonstrated progress on a series of performance indicators.

Today, the Court Monitor will present her findings and testify as to whether or

not to end the probationary period for CFSA. It is my understanding that the Court

Monitor will recommend ending that probationary period. I will say, bluntly, that

from reading the GAO’s testimony, which will be presented shortly, I have some

grave concerns about CFSA’s abilities. I am curious to see how the Court Monitor’s

recommendation comports with the disturbing picture that GAO’s findings paint.

For example, the GAO has determined that CFSA is not meeting the most crucial

requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This law—which I sponsored

and which has been in effect since November 1997—includes a number of specific

provisions that require States to change policies and practices to better promote

children’s safety and adoption or other permanency options. In fact, since this law

has been in effect, adoptions have increased by nearly 40 percent!

According to the GAO, though, while some improvements have been made, the

CFSA has not adopted some key policies and procedures for ensuring the safety and

permanent placement of children.

Furthermore, caseworkers have not consistently implemented or documented

some of the policies and procedures that have been adopted. In fact, CFSA is not

meeting the Adoption and Safe Family Act standards in the following ways: (1) initiating proceedings to terminate parental rights for children in foster care for 15 of

the most recent 22 months; (2) notifying parties of reviews and hearings; and (3)

requiring mandatory annual permanency hearings every 12 months for a child in

foster care.

Another troubling finding that the GAO will elaborate on further is the District’s

inability to track its children in foster care. In fact, data is not even available for

70 percent of the District’s children in foster care. This is true even though the District has invested resources in a new automated information system that has been

operational for over 3 years! How can we track these children and determine their

well-being when they are not even entered into an automated system? How can the

Court Monitor be sure that CFSA is meeting its standards if CFSA cannot even

electronically track the children in its own care?

I am very interested to hear the testimony of Anne Schneiders, Chair of the National Association of Counsel for Children, who has said that children wait weeks

or months before a foster care placement is available. Some older children wait at

group homes or overnight at CFSA offices. They are often placed in whatever home

has a vacancy—irrespective of the needs of the child or the preference of the family.

In addition to the new GAO findings, other studies and newspaper investigations

paint equally disturbing pictures. For example, according to a recent study by the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, District children were in foster

care an average of 65 months before they achieved a permanency plan! That is over

5 years in foster care before a plan is even determined!

And, of course, none of us can forget the tragic and troubling accounts detailed

in the September 2001 Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winning investigative series

on the state of the District’s child welfare system. But, even after that series ran,

the Post identified additional cases of abuse and neglect.

In a December 2001 story, the newspaper reported that at least 10 children under

District protection died between June 2001 and December 2001, and that in one

case, an infant died of starvation after a City social worker failed to visit his family

for 7 months.

Then, an August 2002 story reported that it took the CFSA nearly 3 months to

remove an 11-year-old mentally retarded boy from a District group foster care home

after he reported being sexually abused by a 15-year-old fellow resident. In this particular case, the District social worker learned of the incident on April 9, 2002, but

didn’t actually report it until July 2, 2002! And furthermore, when police finally

interviewed the 11-year-old boy, they found out that his 12-year-old roommate also

had been sexually assaulted.
59

These kinds of reports make me sick. And, the CFSA needs to understand that

I am not going anywhere until these kids are protected.

I have made the welfare and safety of these children my top priority, and as

Chairman of this subcommittee, I’m going to keep having hearings, and we’re going

to keep digging for facts and findings, and we’re going to do everything we possibly

can to save these children.

I recognize that the District’s child welfare system did not collapse over night.

And, we are well aware that it will not be fixed over night. However, one month—

let alone 65 months or 5 years—is a very long time in a child’s life. How many more

months and years can we ask these infants and children and teens to wait until

they have a safe and loving home?

When we look at the District’s child welfare system in it’s totality, we must not

view its reform in a vacuum. The reform of this system is about a lot of things. This

is about resource needs. This is about proper management of those resources and

the services provided. This is about accountability. And ultimately and most importantly, this is about putting the safety and health and well-being of thousands of

children first—above all else.

I know that Chairman Davis shares these concerns and is standing ready and

willing to work together to help make life better for these children. I thank him for

requesting the GAO report and welcome now his testimony.

Senator DEWINE. Let me turn to the Ranking Member of this

committee, who has been a real partner in this effort and who

cares passionately about the children of the District of Columbia,

Senator Landrieu.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going

to be very brief and submit a statement for the record, because I

am anxious to hear from our partner in the House on this issue.

And I also have any number of questions that will follow up some

of the more disturbing findings in this report.

PREPARED STATEMENT

But let me just say that I appreciate this work. I want to associate myself with your remarks, Mr. Chairman, and understand

that we have made some progress. But according to this report,

there is a tremendous amount of work that is yet to be done. And

this work is extremely important. And there is an urgency about

this work. So I will submit the rest of my statement in writing.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

I would like to join Chairman DeWine in welcoming our witnesses from the District as well as Chairman Tom Davis from the House Government Reform Committee. I appreciate Chairman Davis taking the time to share his insight into the

District, as a representative from Virginia, and the GAO report which he initiated.

It has been two years since Chairman DeWine and I convened our first hearing

on this subcommittee to discuss child welfare in the District. At that time we met

with some of you and some of your predecessors. We are happy that Judith Meltzer

is on the panel again, and that her expertise has provided a thread of continuity

in the reform of child welfare in the District. However, over the two years that have

passed, we are still in the planning phase of reform.

The receivership of the Child and Family Services Agency ended in June of 2001

after certain criteria were achieved by the city, such as, protecting CFSA from agency budget or personnel reductions; reform of the Family Court and coordination; implementation of memoranda of understanding with the Department of Health and

the Commission on Mental Health Services for providing mental health and substance abuse services. These benchmarks have improved the direction of this agency, but not the results so far.
60

Now this subcommittee is meeting with the leaders on child welfare again and

we understand that the agency’s probationary period, which has seen child welfare

through the last 21 months, was terminated in January. I understand that the District has met 75 percent of 20 best practice benchmarks during probation. I would

be interested to learn more specifically about the benchmarks met and those where

the agency fell short.

The two main guidebooks to reform of CFSA are a court order (the implementation plan of the LaShawn Decree) and the Federal law (the Adoption and Safe Families Act). GAO has aptly reviewed the District’s strengths and weaknesses in these

areas. The federal court will maintain oversight of the agency as it implements the

standards set in the. Yet another component must be considered: the citizens of the

District; as identified in Judith Meltzer’s written testimony.

I remain concerned that there is a grave difference between checking the box of

criteria and impacting the lives of children. I have worked in this field for 20 years

as an advocate for children, and I know that there are small things that can be done

to make children safer, while the administrative arm of the agency is trying to

stand up their processes. I do not want the District to lose sight of this fact. We

must be achieving safety and permanency for every child on a day to day basis. We

cannot wait until the administration of the agency is strong enough to do its job

every day.

Each of your different perspectives (as an advocate of children; as an administrator of an agency; and as the monitor to ensure compliance with court mandates)

can provide insight.

This morning, I would like to know from each of you: How can we move beyond

‘‘we’re working on it’’? When is this agency going to remove the ‘‘Under Construction’’ sign and replace it with a sign reading, ‘‘Now Operating’’? We are not talking

about widgets. We are talking about the safety and future of children.

I hope that you all will be open with the subcommittee on the critical needs that

exist and how we can address the necessary resources in the city. I appreciate the

time of each of our witnesses and hope that we can begin a constructive dialogue

on the future of the Child and Family Services Agency.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you.

Congressman Davis, again, thank you for requesting this very revealing report. We are very grateful to you for doing this. And we

look forward to your testimony. Thank you. Please proceed, and

take as much time as you would like.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DAVIS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. And good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu. And let me thank you for your partnership and your leadership, both of you, in this as well. And thank

you for inviting me to testify today.

As you know, I have a longstanding interest in the Child and

Family Services Agency and all the reform efforts it is undertaking

to provide adequate services to vulnerable children and families in

the District.

When I served as chairman of the House Government Reform

Subcommittee on the District, we held numerous hearings to examine CFSA’s operations under Federal court-ordered receivership. At

the time, CFSA was plagued by deep-rooted management problems

that impacted the safety of children in its care and hindered the

agency’s delivery of services.

The systematic problems identified were widespread and included agency operations, staffing, budget, and fiscal management,

procurement, and quality assurance monitoring. The CFSA has

since worked to address many of these problems and fulfill the criteria for terminating the probationary period.

To complement the reforms in CFSA, Congress worked with the

D.C. Superior Court officials, Government, and community leaders
61

to craft the Family Court Act. The act established management

principles to better address the needs of the children in the system,

increased the number of Family Court judges, and created the position of magistrate judge to help eliminate the backlog of cases and

ensure that cases were managed in a timely manner. The Family

Court reforms emphasized the importance of communication between the Court and the CFSA, including the establishment of an

on-site liaison office in the Family Court to better inform judges of

the availability of social services in the city.

The occurrence of highly publicized incidents last year, including

the placement of underage children in group homes, reminded us

that many areas of CFSA’s operations had yet to be reformed and

that children were paying the price for agency mistakes. Therefore,

then-D.C. subcommittee Chairwoman Connie Morella and I requested a follow-up GAO study to examine CFSA’s performance

measures and compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act,

the implementation of key foster care policies, and the relationship

between the agency and the Family Court.

Based on GAO’s initial results, I am pleased that CFSA is showing some progress in a number of areas. Specifically, we are encouraged by CFSA’s efforts to develop written plans to help it comply with some of AFSA’s requirements and performance measures.

We are also pleased to note the agency’s development of numerous

foster care policies.

Furthermore, CFSA’s efforts to lower the number of underage

children who are placed in group homes is commendable. However,

I question why the number remains so high—GAO reports that 70

children were still in group homes at the end of February 2003—

and whether the District has an adequate number of foster families.

The relationship between CFSA and the Family Court is improving. And the two entities are working collaboratively. But I understand that hearing conflicts and staffing problems remain.

While the agency’s progress is encouraging, I admit that GAO’s

findings leave me with more questions than answers. I still have

concerns about the many challenges that lay ahead. For instance,

there are remaining AFSA requirements that the agency has not

met regarding the termination of parental rights and permanency

hearings. I understand that many of the delays in these areas are

likely due to staffing shortages. I know that social service agencies

nationwide face a shortage of social workers.

So what has to be done to attract a larger number of qualified

and competent social workers to CFSA? Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are examining this issue and looking for potential

ways to provide a financial incentive to qualified applicants, including loan forgiveness and scholarships. Our counterpart, the House

Committee on Government Reform, stands ready to provide the

necessary support for innovative recruitment and retention efforts.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the incidents that prompted me to

request the GAO report occurred in group homes. One of several

issues that emerged included the delayed reporting of abuse allegations. I remain concerned that CFSA has been slow to improve staff

training and clarify the incident reporting requirements so that

employees understand their responsibilities.
62

GAO also found that critical data about children’s cases are not

always entered into the FACES automatic case management system in a timely fashion. This limits a social worker’s ability to provide the Family Court with the most accurate, relevant, and timely

information so that the judge may make an educated decision to

ensure the safety and well-being of the child. All components of the

child welfare system need to work together to provide children with

safe homes and any social and medical services that they may require. Since the information stored in the FACES system serves a

variety of purposes within the agency, it is imperative that it is updated as quickly as possible. I hope that CFSA will discuss their

IT improvement plans this morning.

Furthermore, the data in the FACES system should ideally keep

track of a child’s assignment to a foster family, including those in

Maryland. I continue to be concerned that the District of Columbia

may not have an accurate tally of the number of children currently

placed in Maryland foster homes. I have also received reports that

the computers are often down, further exacerbating the database

challenges.

So what needs to happen in order to address the critical shortfalls identified by GAO? Does the answer lie in more staff, better

management, better IT services, more money? How successful has

CFSA been at targeting their resources to resolve management,

staffing, and other operational challenges? These are questions that

our committees must continue to ask as we pursue our respective

roles. And I certainly hope that today’s hearing will identify

CFSA’s advances and pinpoints its needs as it continues to institute reform.

I understand that the process is slow. If only the system could

be fixed overnight for the benefit of the children it serves. Unfortunately, the reality is that a comprehensive overhaul of an agency’s

infrastructure and the implementation of new polices and procedure, it takes time, it takes money and some patience.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The House committee will hold an oversight hearing in May to

further examine these issues. As we move forward with our oversight responsibility, I look forward to working together, as we examine the progress of the agency’s reforms, determine what assistance Congress can provide as CFSA completes the development

and improvement of its policies and procedures.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate

the leadership of both of you on this issue.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM DAVIS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for

inviting me to testify today about the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). As you know, I have a longstanding interest in CFSA and the

reform efforts it is undertaking to provide adequate services to vulnerable children

and families in the District.

When I served as Chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on

the District of Columbia, we held numerous hearings to examine CFSA’s operations

under Federal court-ordered receivership. At the time, CFSA was plagued by deeprooted management problems that impacted the safety of children in its care and

hindered the agency’s delivery of services. The systemic problems identified at CFSA
63

were widespread and included agency operations, staffing, budget and fiscal management, procurement, and quality assurance monitoring. The CFSA has since

worked to address many of these problems and fulfill the criteria for terminating

the probationary period.

To complement the reforms in CFSA, Congress worked with D.C. Superior Court

officials, government, and community leaders to craft the Family Court Act. The Act

established management principles to better address the needs of the children in the

system, increased the number of Family Court judges, and created the position of

magistrate judge to help eliminate the backlog of cases and ensure that cases are

managed in a timely manner. The Family Court reforms emphasized the importance

of communication between the Court and CFSA, including the establishment of an

on-site liaison office in the Family Court to better inform judges of the availability

of social services in the city.

The occurrence of highly publicized incidents last year, including the placement

of underage children in group homes, reminded us that many areas of CFSA’s operations had yet to be reformed and that children were paying the price for agency

mistakes. Therefore, then-D.C. Subcommittee Chairwomen Connie Morella and I requested a follow-up GAO study to examine CFSA’s performance measures and compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the implementation of key

foster care policies, and the relationship between the agency and the Family Court.

Based on GAO’s initial results, I am pleased that CFSA is showing progress in

a number of areas. Specifically, I am encouraged by CFSA’s efforts to develop written plans to help it comply with some of the ASFA requirements and performance

measures. I am also pleased to note the agency’s development of numerous foster

care policies. Furthermore, CFSA’s efforts to lower the number of underage children

who are placed in group homes is commendable. However, I question why that number remains so high (GAO reports that 70 children were still in group homes at the

end of February 2003), and whether the District has an adequate number of foster

families. The relationship between CFSA and the Family Court is improving and

the two entities are working collaboratively, but I understand that hearing conflicts

and staffing remain problems.

While the agency’s progress is encouraging, I must admit that GAO’s findings

leave me with more questions than answers. I still have concerns about the many

challenges that lay ahead. For instance, there are remaining ASFA requirements

that the agency has not met regarding the termination of parental rights and permanency hearings. I understand that many of the delays in these areas are likely

due to staffing shortages. I know that social services agencies nationwide face a

shortage of social workers. So, what must be done to attract a larger number of

qualified and competent social workers to CFSA? Mr. Chairman, I understand that

you are examining this issue and looking for potential ways to provide a financial

incentive to qualified applicants, including loan forgiveness and scholarships. The

House Committee on Government Reform stands ready to provide the necessary

support for innovative recruitment and retention efforts.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the incidents that prompted me to request the GAO

report occurred in group homes. One of several issues that emerged included the

delayed reporting of abuse allegations. I remain concerned that CFSA has been slow

to improve staff training and clarify the incident reporting requirement so that employees understand their responsibilities.

GAO also found that critical data about children’s cases are not always entered

into the FACES automated case management system in a timely fashion. This limits a social worker’s ability to provide the Family Court with the most accurate and

relevant information so that the judge may make an educated decision to ensure the

safety and well-being of the child. All components of the child welfare system need

to work together to provide children with safe homes and any social and medical

services they may require. Since the information stored in the FACES system serves

a variety of purposes within the agency, it is imperative that it is updated as quickly as possible. I hope that CFSA will discuss their IT improvement plans this morning.

Furthermore, the data in the FACES system should ideally keep track of a child’s

assignment to a foster family, including those in Maryland. I continue to be concerned that the District of Columbia may not have an accurate tally of the number

of children currently placed in Maryland foster homes. I have also received reports

that the computers are often down, further exacerbating the database challenges.

So what needs to happen in order to address the critical shortfalls identified by

GAO? Does the answer lie in more staff, better management, better IT services,

more money? How successful has CFSA been at targeting their resources to resolve

management, staffing, and other operational challenges? These are questions that

our committees must continue to ask as we pursue our respective roles. And I cer-
64

tainly hope that today’s hearing will identify CFSA’s advances and pinpoint its

needs as it continues to institute reform.

I understand that the process is slow. If only the system could be fixed overnight

for the benefit of the children it serves. The unfortunate reality is that a comprehensive overhaul of an agency’s infrastructure, and the implementation of new policies

and procedures take time, money, and patience.

The House Committee on Government Reform will hold an oversight hearing in

May to further examine these issues. As we move forward with our oversight responsibility, I look forward to working together as we examine the progress of the

agency’s reforms, and determine what assistance Congress can provide as CFSA

completes the development and improvement of its policies and procedures.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I am available to answer any questions you may have.

Senator DEWINE. Well, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you. We just appreciate your interest and again thank you

for requesting this GAO report. And I think it is going to provide

us, both of us, with a great deal of information to help the District

improve and work together on our common goal, to really help the

children of the District of Columbia.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu?

Senator LANDRIEU. I just want to thank you for your testimony

and acknowledge that these problems are quite severe in the District. And we have every intention of continuing to work with you

to improve and to find workable solutions. I will note that the District, of course, which I always feel compelled to point out, is not

the only place in the United States where these problems exist. But

they exist in a more acute way here—the numbers just seem overwhelming to some of us who do this work all throughout the country. The District of Columbia is not alone, but it does seem to have

some persistent problems that are just very tough to address.

So I thank you for your effort and look forward to working with

you.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much.

I would invite our second panel now to come forward.

Dr. Olivia Golden is the Director of the District of Columbia’s

Child and Family Services Agency. Ms. Judith Meltzer is the courtappointed monitor for the Child and Family Service Agency. Ms.

Cornelia Ashby is the Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at the General Accounting Office. And Anne

Schneiders is the chair and founder of the Washington Chapter of

the National Association of Counsel for Children.

I think we will start with you, Dr. Golden. And we will take just

a brief 5-minute opening statement, if you would like to make one.

And then we will just go right down. And then we will have questions.

STATEMENT OF DR. OLIVIA A. GOLDEN, DIRECTOR, CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. GOLDEN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, District of Columbia Subcommittee. I am Olivia

Golden, the Director of the Child and Family Services Agency for

the District of Columbia. And I appreciate your deep commitment

to the District and to children.

Less than 2 years ago, in June of 2001, Federal Court receivership of CFSA terminated. And I had the opportunity to become the
65

first director of CFSA in its new form as a cabinet-level agency of

the District of Columbia. The legislation that created this new

agency laid out for CFSA a whole set of responsibilities and authorities that had never been unified in one place in the District

before, creating for the first time the opportunity for true reform.

The pace of change since then has been extraordinary. It has

only been 18 months since October of 2001 that the District has

had a unified child abuse and neglect agency at all. Before then,

CFSA investigated reports of neglect only, while the Metropolitan

Police Department investigated reports of abuse and services to

children who had experienced abuse were split between court social

services and CFSA.

In this fragmented system, the obstacles to such basic elements

of child welfare services as prompt and high-quality investigation

and timely movement to permanence were overwhelming. Both our

own sense of urgency and the Federal Court’s framework required

us to create real change for children at the same time we were reengineering the whole legal and institutional framework for child

welfare in the District, building the District’s first real safety net

for children.

After our first year, as Senator DeWine mentioned, the court

monitor in the LaShawn lawsuit reported that we had met 75 percent of 20 exacting performance goals, measuring progress from the

end of the receivership. As a result, Federal Judge Hogan signed

the order ending the probationary period in January of 2002.

Among the probationary period accomplishments that have the

most direct impact on children are the dramatic reduction in the

backlog of investigations open more than 30 days, sharp reductions

in the use of group care for young children, a sharp reduction in

the number of children in residential care more than 100 miles

from the District, and a 20 percent increase in finalized adoptions.

This is a critical juncture for reform and for the LaShawn lawsuit. The District has demonstrated its capacity to mobilize and

maintain momentum for change. Yet the end of CFSA’s probation

does not mean the end of the lawsuit. We are now committed to

several years of hard work to meet the ambitious goals we have set

for ourselves and the requirements of the Court’s modified final

order. We have been closely working with the court monitor and

plaintiffs in developing the implementation plan that will set out

benchmarks for this process.

CFSA’s multi-year timetable for reform is consistent with the national experience. Our national advisory panel, which includes

leaders who have transformed child welfare in other jurisdictions,

such as William Bell from New York, Judge Ernestine Gray from

New Orleans, and Judith Goodhand from Cleveland, Ohio, has suggested that we think of change in a major urban child welfare system as a 5- to 10-year process. As William Bell wrote of New York’s

ambitious child welfare reform, ‘‘Everyone involved had to accept

that real reform was a multi-year, multi-faceted undertaking.’’

In my written testimony, I describe in detail how far we have

come and the reform that still lies ahead in staff recruitment, retention, and training, in licensing, in contract reform, in foster care

and adoptive parent recruitment, in information systems, and in
66

partnerships with other agencies. In this oral summary, I would

like to highlight just three additional accomplishments.

First, because manageable social worker caseloads are key to

quality services for children, we have brought the average ongoing

caseload down from about the mid-30’s last year at this time to 23

as of last week.

Second, our substantial progress in building a reliable and timely

automated data system has been key to our accomplishments for

children. I would love to talk about that more during questions.

This month FACES, our system, will receive an award from Computer World Magazine for being a national leader in automating

child welfare case management. And I would like to correct some

of the comments made earlier, if we have time in the question period, because we do have a very complete and timely automated

system. But there is old data from 1998 and 1999 that GAO found,

because of the state of the system then, the old data was not all

on it.

Third, just 1 year ago, we began reforming legal support by colocating a dramatically expanded team of attorneys with CFSA.

Today, social workers have legal representation in 97 percent of all

hearings. Our legal staff has been reorganized to work with Family

Court judicial teams. And each lawyer is shifting to vertical prosecution, which means seeing a case through from initial hearing to

permanence.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, we are at an extraordinary moment in the District’s child welfare system, a moment of early accomplishment, of

great hope, and yet of fragility. I am deeply grateful for the subcommittee’s past support and leadership and for both Senator

Landrieu and Senator DeWine’s work at a national level where I

had the chance to work with you as well.

My written testimony suggests several areas for the subcommittee’s continued involvement, which I look forward to discussing

today or in the future.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OLIVIA A. GOLDEN

Good morning Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, and Members of the District

of Columbia Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I am Olivia

Golden, the Director of the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) for the District of Columbia, and I am grateful for the opportunity to testify today regarding

the progress of child welfare reform in the District of Columbia. I appreciate the

deep commitment of Senator DeWine, Senator Landrieu, and other Subcommittee

members to the District’s well-being and to the child welfare agenda of safety, permanence, and well-being.

Less than 2 years ago, in June 2001, Federal Court Receivership of CFSA terminated, and I had the opportunity to become the first Director of CFSA in its new

form as a cabinet-level agency of the District of Columbia. The legislation that created this new cabinet-level agency laid out for CFSA a whole set of responsibilities

and authorities that had never been unified in one place in the District before, creating for the first time the opportunity for true reform. The pace of change since

then has been extraordinary. For example, it has only been about 18 months, since

October of 2001, that the District has had a unified child abuse and neglect agency.

Before then, CFSA investigated reports of neglect only, while the Metropolitan Police Department investigated reports of abuse, and services to children who had experienced abuse were split between Court Social Services at the Superior Court and
67

CFSA. In this fragmented system, the obstacles to such basic elements of child welfare services as prompt and high-quality investigation and timely movement to permanence were overwhelming. To take another example, after 15 years when the

District’s statute regarding licensing of foster homes, group homes, and independent

living facilities had never been implemented, this authority was given to CFSA in

the April 2001 legislation and was implemented through regulations in 2001 and

early 2002. Just weeks ago, we accomplished the District’s first-ever licensing of

these facilities, meeting the regulatory deadline of January 1, 2003.

But there was no time to wait for this dramatic institutional change to be complete: both our own sense of urgency and the Federal Court’s framework for measuring progress required us to create real change for children at the very same time

we were re-engineering the whole statutory and institutional framework for child

welfare in the District. After our first year, the Court Monitor in the LaShawn lawsuit reported that we had met 75 percent of 20 exacting performance goals measuring progress from the baseline at the end of Receivership, thus ending the probationary period under LaShawn. Judge Hogan signed the order ending the probationary period in January 2002.

Among the probationary period accomplishments that have the most direct impact

on children are:

—reduction in the backlog of investigations open more than 30 days from over 800

in May of 2001 to under 300 in May of 2002 (and under 100 today);

—sharp reductions in the use of congregate care for young children—for example,

a reduction in the number of children under 6 in group care from 99 in May

of 2001 to 47 in May of 2002 and under 40 as of February 28, 2003;

—a sharp reduction in the number of children in residential care more than 100

miles from the District to 56 as of February 2003. This is a sharp decline from

a total of 83 in May of 2001 and 65 in May of 2002;

—a 20 percent increase in finalized adoptions from the year ending in May of

2001 to the year ending in May of 2002; and

—improvements in the proportion of cases with current case plans, the building

block for permanence for children.

I want to acknowledge the leadership and commitment demonstrated by Mayor

Williams, Deputy Mayor Graham, the Council of the District of Columbia and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, in making such dramatic change possible in less than

2 years.

It has been an extraordinary personal opportunity for me to be part of these 2

years of fundamental reform in the District. In my previous role as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Federal level, I had the opportunity to work

on both the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Federal Child and Family Service Reviews, in order to better align the Nation’s child welfare system with three

critical goals: keeping children safe, enabling every child to grow up in a permanent

family, and supporting the well-being of the most vulnerable children and most fragile families. It is these same three goals that have shaped our work for the past

2 years in the District.

In today’s testimony, I would like to give you a sense of how far we have come

in this very brief but very intense period of reform and of the continued, major reform that still lies ahead. Four key themes summarize where we have been and

where we are going:

—1. After less than 2 years out of receivership, we are at a critical juncture for

reform and for the LaShawn lawsuit.—We have accomplished major milestones,

by completing the statutory reform sketched above and achieving the milestones

that ended the probationary period; at the same time, we have ahead of us a

several-year plan to accomplish the vision for reform laid out in the LaShawn

Modified Final Order.

—2. This timetable for reform is consistent with the national experience about reform of major urban child welfare systems, an experience we draw on through

our National Advisory Panel and a wide variety of other expertise.—We are

about 2 years into a reform process that the national experience suggests will

take 5 to 10 years of sustained, committed effort.

—3. CFSA’s progress has required both major institutional changes—such as new

legislation, new regulations, and new intergovernmental agreements—and improvements in basic, day-to-day practice leading to better results for children.—

In the first year we transformed the statutory and institutional framework and

tore down barriers to reform at the same time that we achieved early results

for children, including the achievement of 75 percent of the performance standards to end the probationary period. In the second year, we are continuing the

rapid pace of change, accelerating the improvements for children and the development of core processes, and strengthening emerging partnerships.
68

—4. We have ahead of us an ambitious multi-year program to build in quality and

transform results.—We expect that the road map to this ambitious reform agenda will be the Implementation Plan currently being completed by the Federal

Court Monitor after intensive discussions with the District and the LaShawn

plaintiffs. We believe that the support of the whole community will be necessary

to achieve this ambitious agenda, and we are grateful for the continuing support of the Subcommittee and the opportunity to suggest how the Subcommittee

can help from here on.

Before turning to these specific themes, I would like to illustrate the impact of

reform on children’s lives with one real example: 17-year-old Anna has experienced

at least 15 psychiatric hospitalizations since becoming involved with CFSA at age

12. Her father and grandmother love Anna, but they are worn out from dealing with

her bi-polar and behavioral disorders, seizures, verbal and physical violence, substance abuse, and running away. They wanted Anna placed in a residential treatment facility. Anna’s CFSA caseworker hoped to keep Anna in the community and

in contact with her family, so she referred Anna’s case to Multi-Agency Placement

Team (MAPT). Through MAPT, Anna has been able to stay in the community with

intensive, coordinated, multi-agency support. These services include: placement in

a foster home that can meet her needs, intensive case management, referral to a

local psychiatrist, involvement with a mentor, enrollment in an education-based day

treatment program, and a part-time job. The difference for Anna is that her family

and the agencies worked together to coordinate services for her. This is very different than hasty assembly of fragmented services in the past. Anna’s difficulties

are severe, and she may or may not be able to remain in the community. But for

now, MAPT has provided access to intensive, coordinated local services; Anna has

been diverted from a restrictive residential placement; and she is engaged in school

and with the providers and not running away.

STATUS OF THE LASHAWN LAWSUIT

We are now at a very important point in the LaShawn lawsuit. The Receivership

and the probationary period that followed it have terminated, as a result of the District’s successful enactment of key legislative reforms as well as the accomplishment

of 75 percent of the 20 performance goals. In January, Federal Judge Hogan of the

U.S. District Court certified CFSA’s completion of probation, which successfully

demonstrates the District’s capacity to mobilize and maintain momentum for

change.

At the same time, the end of CFSA’s probation does not mean the end of the lawsuit. We are now facing several years of hard work to meet the ambitious goals we

have set for ourselves and the requirements of the Modified Final Order, which is

the original consent decree the District signed in 1993, and other remedial orders.

Now, the District must substantially comply with requirements in these orders to

end Federal Court involvement.

The vision of reform laid out in the Modified Final Order not only has legal force

but offers a compelling vision of safety, permanence, and well-being for abused and

neglected children. It envisions a District where:

—prompt, thorough, quality investigations protect children at risk and screen

them appropriately for health and mental health issues;

—a broad range of services in the community help children remain at or return

home safely—or, when those options are not possible, grow up in nurturing

adoptive families;

—support is readily available to help foster, kinship, and adoptive parents meet

children’s health, mental health, and other needs;

—children almost always live with families and only rarely in group settings;

—foster children have as much continuity and stability as possible, including opportunities to live with their brothers and sisters, to bond with one foster or

kinship family rather than move among many placements, and to see their parents often as long as reunification is the goal; and

—social worker caseloads are low enough that both CFSA and private-partner social workers routinely provide quality case management while expanding their

skills through pre-service and in-service training.

For several months, the District, Federal Court Monitor, and plaintiffs have been

negotiating an Implementation Plan designed to improve the key areas of local child

welfare in keeping with this vision. As you will hear today from the Court Monitor,

we are optimistic that the final Implementation Plan will be submitted to the Court

very soon. This final Implementation Plan will mandate and direct continued reform

of CFSA over the next several years. It will mean meeting measurable benchmarks

within specific time frames. And it will mean achieving substantial compliance of
69

the Modified Final Order, so that Federal court oversight will terminate and further

legal action will be avoided.

I expect the final Implementation Plan will challenge us to move beyond our

achievements to date to develop a well functioning urban child welfare system. I

also expect that CFSA will need to continue, and perhaps even increase, the fastpaced rate of change we have struggled to establish over the past 2 years. However,

with continued reform inside our agency and sustained support from outside, the

District now has two unprecedented opportunities: first, to establish the strong public child protection program local children and families deserve and second, to end

the LaShawn lawsuit. The challenge will be great, the demands high, and the time

frame extended over several years. But the time is right to continue our momentum

and achieve significant positive outcomes for children, families, and the city. This

payoff is clearly well worth all our best efforts and support.

THE NATIONAL CONTEXT FOR CHILD WELFARE REFORM

To inform and sustain this dramatic pace of reform at CFSA, we have drawn on

a range of national expertise in the reform of urban child welfare systems. The October 2000 consent order that led to the end of the Receivership envisioned a National Advisory Panel, to be supported by private funding and to provide expertise

and advice to the Director of CFSA. With support from the Annie Casey Foundation,

we have established this National Panel, which includes academic experts as well

as leaders who have transformed child welfare systems in other jurisdictions—such

as William Bell, current Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services

in New York, Judge Ernestine Gray from New Orleans who is the Immediate Past

President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and Judith

Goodhand who formerly led child welfare in Cleveland, Ohio.

These national leaders have provided us with a range of advice, support, and technical assistance, ranging from informal training activities to an on-site team review

of all of CFSA’s placement functions, with a report to follow shortly. One common

theme to all of their advice, however, has been to think of change in a major urban

child welfare system as a 5- to 10-year process. As William Bell, Commissioner of

New York City’s child welfare agency, wrote of New York’s ambitious child welfare

reform (New York Times Op-ed dated January 21, 2003), ‘‘a desire for quick fixes

had to be resisted. Everyone involved had to accept that real reform was a multiyear, multi-faceted undertaking.’’

CFSA: A SNAPSHOT OF PROGRESS

Before moving on to the details of our reform process, I would now like to take

a moment to provide a snapshot of our progress for children. Our goal is to achieve

safety, permanence, and well being not just for one, or a dozen, or a hundred but

for the thousands of children who need the District’s protection every year. To provide a context for the scale of the task ahead, in fiscal year 2002, our 24-hour line

for reporting child abuse and neglect received an average of 640 calls monthly.

About 440—or 69 percent—of those calls met the criteria for abuse or neglect and

were referred for investigation. In an average month, CFSA served some 3,119 children in paid placements, and about 2,301 families with children at home. At the

end of fiscal year 2002, we had 1,803 children adopted from our foster care program

and living in adoptive homes, with support from the District’s subsidized adoptions

program.

In every area where we are assessing progress, we see a balance of important

positive changes yet a great deal left to do. Key highlights include:

—Improved staffing and reduced caseloads per social worker, yet more to do to

reach our goals.—Because manageable caseloads are key to high quality services for children, we have placed a top priority on bringing down and equalizing

caseloads, to reduce both the average caseload and the caseloads carried by our

most over burdened workers. As a result of our aggressive recruitment (described below) as well as a focus on assigning and managing cases more equitably, we have brought the average ongoing caseload down from about the mid30’s last year at this time to 23 as of last week. At the top end, we have gone

from 18 workers carrying more than 50 cases last August to none at that level

now, and we expect to bring all caseloads below 40 within the next few weeks.

However, we have much more to do: under the MFO, we will need to bring all

ongoing caseloads below 20, with some targeted for 17 and 12 cases depending

on the child and family circumstances. At the front end of the system, our investigators are very close to the MFO caseload levels: at the end of February,

45 of 55 investigators had caseloads below the MFO level of 12 investigations.

We intend to meet the MFO level in investigations by the end of the fiscal year.
70

Recruitment and retention of child welfare staff are national challenges and

not unique to the District of Columbia. The Child Welfare League of America

and the American Public Human Services Association, among others have reported on the problem and proposed remedies. With support from the Annie E.

Casey Foundation, we are hoping to build on this knowledge and add new lessons from our experience that may assist other jurisdictions.

—Timely investigations.—As indicated above, we have made important progress

in reducing the backlog of investigations open more than 30 days, from a backlog of more than 800 in May of 2001 to under 300 in May of 2002 to under 139

today. The proportion of open investigations that have been open 30 days or less

is currently 70 percent. We have been able to accomplish these improvements

even while adding new responsibilities, such as the new area of institutional investigations—investigations of settings such as group homes, foster homes, and

day care centers—which in many States are seen as more complex and timeconsuming than individual abuse and neglect investigations. Our next steps in

investigations will require us to focus intensively on quality, in order to meet

the ambitious standards in the MFO.

—Continued reductions in reliance on congregate care.—Sadly, the District’s history involves far too great a reliance on group care rather than families for children who cannot live safely at home. We have already made important changes

in this historic practice and anticipate further progress over the coming years.

In addition to the dramatic reduction in the number of very young children—

under age 6—in congregate care highlighted above, we have also focused on reducing the number of children age 12 and under in congregate care. This number has dropped from 130 as of May 31, 2002 to 70 as of February 28, 2003

of whom approximately 40 are under the age of 6.

Understanding the stories of the young children who have moved from group

care to families helps make clear how much difference this change can make

to their lives. Just to take one example: In CFSA’s drive to replace group homes

with family settings, especially for children age 6 and under, Michael posed several challenges. He has been blind and mute from birth, with his father as his

primary caretaker. When a family crisis temporarily overwhelmed his father,

Michael entered a group home at age 4. Two years later, Father was stable, but

Michael remained in group care. Everyone, including Father, recognized that

Michael had made progress through specialized services while in the group

home—for example, enrollment in a school for blind children. So the challenge

was to connect Father to services that would support him in meeting Michael’s

special needs. Among services CFSA located and put in place are: a home

health aide to provide respite for Father, an introduction to Michael’s pediatrician of 2 years, a visiting nurse, individual and family therapy to help Father

learn how to interact with Michael more fully, and referrals to local sources of

Braille materials and special toys. Last month, Michael went home with his father. For now, he continues to attend the school for blind children. Someday,

with accommodations, he may be able to attend a mainstream classroom.

—Improving the timeliness of adoption and guardianship for children who cannot

return to their birth homes.—In fiscal year 2002, CFSA finalized 313 adoptions,

representing approximately a 20 percent increase from last year. Key elements

of this accomplishment were close collaboration with the Superior Court, improved legal support for CFSA, and emphasis on tracking progress. In fiscal

year 2003, we anticipate improving further our process for ensuring that children who cannot live with their birth parents are able to grow up with a loving

family. Next steps include holding immediate permanency staffings as soon as

the court determines a child cannot go home, further improvements in legal

support and filings to terminate parental rights, and award of a contract for an

Adoption Resource Center to support adoptive parents.

In addition, there are currently 60 relatives in the process of obtaining subsidized guardianship. Thirty relatives have completed the process awaiting

judge’s order, as did two last year. The subsidized guardianship program is an

effective approach to achieving permanence for a child when a relative is prepared to make a lifetime commitment but not to terminate parental rights.

THE FIRST YEAR OF REFORM

A key first step in achieving these changes for children was the tremendously ambitious set of institutional reforms that the District accomplished in the months just

before and just after CFSA’s June 2001 return from Receivership, reforms that were

focused on dismantling the structural and legal barriers that for so long stood in

the way of safety, permanence, and well-being for the District’s abused and ne-
71

glected children. The consent order provided a framework for the structural reforms

to achieve a major overhaul of child welfare in the District of Columbia, including

the following elements:

—enabling legislation that established CFSA as a Cabinet level agency under the

Mayor with independent personnel and procurement authority, licensing 13 authority for foster homes and group homes, and responsibility for the Interstate

Compact on the Placement of Children;

—unification under CFSA of the responsibility for abuse and neglect investigation

and services, a provision of the enabling legislation which was implemented effective October 1, 2001, thus ending the fragmentation that had been a key barrier to serving families effectively;

—promulgation of the District’s first licensing regulations for group homes (September 21, 2001) and foster homes (July 28, 2001); and publication of the first

regulations to govern independent living facilities, (February 22, 2002); and

—reform of the legal support provided to CFSA social workers, including almost

tripling the number of attorneys so social workers can always be represented

in court, and restructuring legal services to enable much closer coordination between attorneys and social workers and provide for an attorney-client relationship with CFSA.

Each of these institutional changes has required many hours of work to implement, requiring fundamental change in the nature of work, training, staffing assignments, and policies. At the same time, the benefits have been far-reaching. For example, the extraordinary partnership between the Corporation Counsel and CFSA

has reformed legal support for our agency. A little less than 1 year ago, we co-located a dramatically expanded team of attorneys with CFSA and began reforming

attorney support of social workers. Today, social workers have legal representation

in 97 percent of all hearings. Our legal staff has been reorganized to work in teams

with Superior Court judicial teams. Each lawyer is currently shifting to ‘‘vertical

prosecution,’’ which means seeing a case through from initial hearing all the way

to permanency, with the goal of more timely and better decision-making on behalf

of children.

A final key element of structural reform was the Family Court legislation passed

by the Congress in 2001, with important contributions by members of this Subcommittee, and signed by the President in January 2002. We have already seen

major improvements in the relationships among the key systems and in the processes for managing children’s cases as a result of this legislation, and early indicators are promising in terms of the results for children. In the past, poor relationships among CFSA, Superior Court, and the Corporation Counsel had created problems for children and families in the system. But today, as the Council for Court

Excellence reported last October, we are working together towards the same goals:

‘‘The major public stakeholders in the DC child welfare system—the DC Superior

Court, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), and the Office of the Corporation Counsel (OCC)—are working collaboratively to make major structural changes

that will position the city to achieve dramatically improved outcomes for children.’’

Our goal is to continue working closely with the Family Court to achieve better

outcomes for children through teamwork among the legal and social work professionals involved with a child’s case, through scheduling that allows social workers

to be out in the field visiting children and families, through clear accountability and

outcome measures, and through shared knowledge and professional development. I

meet regularly with Presiding Judge Lee Satterfield to identify issues that we need

to tackle jointly to benefit children. Last fall, CFSA participated actively in the design and implementation of the first cross-training, hosted by the Family Court, on

systems of care. Also in the fall, CFSA worked closely with the Court to design the

best way to transfer cases to the new teams of magistrate and associate judges in

the Family Court. This activity for the last 1,200 cases, is happening in a phased

in manner over several months to guard against the disruption of the casework continuity with a social worker. We provided automated systems support so that cases

from one of CFSA’s administrations would be assigned to just two or three teams

of judges. This would enable judges, attorneys, and CFSA social workers to develop

shared expectations and to work together more closely. In partnership with the

Courts, we have successfully designed a schedule that will ensure social workers

some time without court appearances, freeing them to make visits and conduct other

work. Finally, we are collaborating closely with the Court in the area of information

systems. We have just initiated a project to scan court orders into our automated

system so that everyone involved at CFSA has complete and accurate information.

Our most recent success in the field of automation is that we have developed the

functionality in FACES that enables us to interface with the Court’s Information
72

System and are now able to show by social worker and supervisor the court hearing

dates, times and locations for all children who are in our custody. This is an enormous achievement because it greatly improves our ability to manage social worker

and attorney time more efficiently and improve the court experiences of children

and families.

These institutional changes were critical, because they positioned us to achieve

dramatically improved outcomes for children and families: to keep children safe, ensure that children grow up in permanent families, and promote the well-being of the

most vulnerable children and most fragile families.

THE SECOND YEAR OF REFORM

Building on these institutional changes and the early results reflected by the probationary period standards, CFSA is moving ahead on a range of improvements in

practice, in the systems that support our work, and in our partnerships with public

and private agencies. The goal of all of these changes is to accelerate even further

the improvements in children’s lives. Yet we know that in many areas, we have a

great deal still to do. This section offers only a sampling of the many major reforms

now underway.

Staff Recruitment/Retention

Recruitment and retention of a full complement of qualified social workers are essential to reducing individual caseloads, which, as suggested above, will vastly improve child protection. Currently, CFSA has approximately 270 licensed mastersand bachelors-level social workers. This represents a net increase of 30 social workers over the past year and falls slightly short of our goal of 300 social workers, total,

in fiscal year 2002. (If we had counted both licensed social workers and social work

graduates in trainee positions pending licensure, we would have exceeded the goal,

with a total of 304 social workers at the end of fiscal year 2002. However, since District law does not allow unlicensed social workers to carry cases, we do not count

our unlicensed trainees until they pass the licensing exam.)

In fiscal year 2003, our goal is to end the year with a total of 310 licensed social

workers. While we have made important progress towards this goal and believe we

can meet it, it will not be easy, nor will it be easy to continue progress into fiscal

year 2004 and future years, in order to meet and maintain the MFO caseload standards. To achieve the goal of 310 total licensed social workers, even with a retention

rate that is a little better than the national average, we anticipate having to hire

more than 160 social workers and trainees during the course of this year to achieve

our targeted increase of 40–50 licensed social workers on board at the end of the

year. We have an aggressive recruiting strategy—including outreach to both local

and selected distant colleges and universities with schools of social work, participation in major conferences in the social work field, increased advertising, and targeting bi-lingual candidates—and our retention of social workers is consistent with

the experience of other child welfare agencies nationwide. For all licensed social

workers at CFSA, the turnover rate was 17 percent—or slightly below the annual

average of 20 percent for State child welfare agencies. We continue to work on improving retention through strategies such as reducing caseloads, upgrading training,

and providing more support for doing a tough job. We are very appreciative of the

Committee’s interest in the broad issue of social worker recruitment and retention

and would like to highlight the District’s interest in participating as a pilot site in

your work in areas such as scholarships, stipends, and loan forgiveness for social

workers.

Training

CFSA’s major improvements in training are key to both recruitment and retention, as well as being an important underpinning to the quality of services. We are

proud to report that our recruiters have heard from candidates that word has

spread about our new training units, which enable new workers to learn how to

handle the pace and intensity of CFSA’s work with close guidance. These new units

are a drawing card for CFSA compared to other organizations.

We now coordinate our training through an in-house Training Academy that is

set up to offer pre-service and in-service training to our staff. Under the requirements of the Modified Final Order, Pre-Service Training is a competency-based, 4-

month program of classroom and on-the-job training designed to prepare new social

workers and supervisors for effective delivery of child welfare services. It includes

theoretical, skill building, and practical learning experiences. In addition, trainees

receive intensive supervision in a training unit. They learn about CFSA’s structure,

goals, and mission and about legal aspects of child welfare.
73

During the past year, the CFSA Training Academy has offered the following

courses for the first time: joint training of foster parents and social workers, orientation for non-social work staff, and training for the magistrate judges of the Family

Court in conjunction with the Corporation Counsel. In the year ahead, we will continue to strengthen and expand the design of the training office to ensure that our

efforts impact the quality of practice and staff development critical to improving outcomes for children in care.

Improved Service Quality

Ensuring children’s safety, providing opportunities for them to grow up in stable

families, and supporting well-being of both children and families require quality

services. We are working to raise the bar for services provided by our contracted

and community partners through two different but complementary strategies:

—implementation of the new licensing authority assigned to CFSA in 2001, and

—an aggressive and proactive program of contract reform.

Licensing and Monitoring

Licensing of Youth Residential Facilities has been in the making for 15 years following passage of the Youth Residential Licensure Act of 1986. The group home regulations became final in September, 2001; the foster home regulations became final

in July, 2001; and the Independent Living Program regulations became final in February, 2002.

Last spring and summer, the Office of Licensing and Monitoring within CFSA

began the process of licensing providers who operate group homes and independent

living facilities. Throughout the process, CFSA provided technical assistance to help

facilities get licensed and inspected all facilities. CFSA met the deadlines for licensing of all 26 independent living and group home providers. The standards have already made a significant difference in the quality of facilities where our young people live, including repairs, renovations, and in some cases a shift to new space.

Contract Reform

Our contract reform is a bold initiative designed to ensure that CFSA’s performance-based posture and best practices in modern child welfare are reflected in the

services we buy. It is a vehicle for stimulating increased availability of communitybased services in the District, reducing reliance on group homes, making providers

accountable for delivering positive outcomes for children and families, offering incentives for outstanding results, and ensuring good use of public funds to meet community needs.

Last August, CFSA met with providers to announce the contract reform initiative

and involve them in the process. During the fall, we gathered provider input

through focus groups. In January, we circulated draft Requests for Information. The

deadline for comments just passed about a month ago. We appreciate the extensive,

valuable feedback we received from providers, Superior Court, the Federal Court

Monitor and plaintiffs, and community members, and we are now reviewing all comments with care. The next step will involve drafting three new global Requests for

Proposals that will seek an expanded range of quality offerings in the areas of Congregate Care, Family-based Care, and Community-based Care and Preventive Services. We expect to put these RFP’s out for bid this spring and to launch the new

contracts in late summer.

Foster, Adoptive, and Kin Parent Recruitment

Our vision is to increase our numbers of resource family homes in the District of

Columbia of foster, adoptive, or kin homes. Currently we have 150 traditional foster

homes, 350 kin homes and 4 proctor homes within the District. We are committed

to placing children in the neighborhoods and communities from which they are removed to minimize the trauma and the significant losses that children experience

as a result of placement in foster care. We are focusing therefore on geographically

sensitive recruitment to increase numbers of resource parents in those wards from

which more children are being removed, as well as child specific recruitment activities. We are also expanding our Proctor Parent program and building capacity for

them to meet the needs of the behaviorally challenged children and the medically

fragile population, and we have successfully negotiated a contractual arrangement

with the Foster Parent Association of D.C. to offer several key services to our resource families, including identifying members to co-facilitate training and facilitate

support groups. We anticipate that foster parents themselves are an excellent resource for recruitment as we can move towards ensuring that the needs of current

parents are met.
74

Information Systems and Data Collection and Tracking

Our substantial progress in building a reliable and timely automated data system

has been key to our accomplishments for children. In the last year and a half, we

have built a collaboration between staff from FACES (our automated information

system), top management from all parts of the agency, and our line social work and

supervisory staff that has dramatically improved the quality and timeliness of data

entry and the user-friendliness and relevance of the automated FACES reports and

screens. As a result, staff at all levels from social workers to supervisors and top

managers are now able to count on FACES as a tool for their work, to rely on

FACES reports as a means of tracking performance and results for children, and

to use FACES information for planning—whether planning for one child or for the

agency as a whole. In the key area of safety, a close collaboration between FACES

and our intake and investigations staff has yielded not only full and timely data but

reporting screens that enable supervisors to manage investigations better. For ongoing supervisors, a key piece of information for ensuring safety is social worker visitation, which supervisors can now track through CFSA’s automated system. For example, each supervisor can access reports that track social worker visits to children

in the last month. These management reports are updated daily and available to

supervisors through a few clicks of the mouse.

Similarly, there have been major improvements in the key data needed to achieve

permanence:

—Case plan information is now much more complete on the automated system,

in part because of major improvements in the case plan automated format implemented as a result of social worker feedback.

—Court reports can now be completed and reviewed by supervisors and program

managers as part of FACES.

—Information from the Court regarding permanency hearings, while still incomplete, is just at the point of major improvement as a result of the new automated feed to our system from the Court’s data.

—Automated linkages to other agencies are supporting our work in both safety

and permanence. For example, access to the District’s criminal justice information system helps our investigators locate missing parents quickly—a critical

step in the adoption process.

We are proud that the improvements in our FACES system have begun to receive

national recognition. Last fall, the Court Monitor noted improvements in the quality

of FACES in her report. This month, FACES will receive an award from

Computerworld magazine for being a leader in automating child welfare case management. Our Chief Information Officer, Harold Beebout, was one of the first five

CIO’s in the District to receive certification from the District’s Office of the Chief

Technology Officer through a rigorous process where senior information technology

officials from several jurisdictions probed the technical and strategic preparedness

of the District’s top information managers.

Partnerships

Almost all the performance achievements I’ve been describing are the result of

partnerships: with foster and adoptive parents, providers, Family Court, other agencies, and many others. The strong local safety net children and families deserve will

ultimately be woven through partnerships. The child welfare function is essential,

but it is only one component among a vast array of services that abused and neglected children need to overcome their difficulties and thrive. Other public and private agencies and community members have important roles to play. CFSA’s status

as a cabinet-level agency has opened the door to improved working relationships

with other District agencies. On behalf of those we serve, we are working to exploit

this wonderful opportunity.

A prime example is CFSA’s developing links with the Department of Mental

Health. As we conduct clinical staffings and review cases at CFSA, over and over

we see mental health needs that must be met if children are to be safe, grow up

in stable families, and thrive. Children need counseling to rise above abuse and neglect. Parents need mental health services to overcome their own crises and keep

their children safe. Foster parents need access to emergency help when a foster

child has a crisis in the middle of the night. Social workers need expert mental

health consultation to assess the risks of a child’s return home.

To access more and better mental health services for those we serve, CFSA is developing a strong collaboration with the District’s Department of Mental Health.

The timing is perfect because DMH is under its own court deadlines and is just as

intent as CFSA on strengthening the local safety net for children and families. Senior members of our two agencies met for a day-long retreat a few weeks ago and
75

developed a detailed work plan that focuses on access to services, development of

provider capacity, service definition, Medicaid reimbursement, and other issues.

CFSA’s partnership with the Healthy Families/Thriving Communities

Collaboratives continues to provide services that strengthen, provide support to children in foster care in the communities where they live and support efforts to reunite

children in foster care with their families. During the past year, CFSA and the

Collaboratives built upon its partnership by taking a more targeted approach in examining ways to strengthen service delivery for children and families in the District.

As a result of this concentrated effort, in 2002 two Collaboratives have instituted

Emergency Assessment programs, providing intensive preventive services to families in their own communities and diverting families from ongoing involvement with

the child welfare system. In addition, we have entered into new partnership agreements with the Collaboratives in three distinct areas—preventative, supportive and

aftercare. Services offered within these targeted areas include case management;

visitation; housing assistance; parent, caregiver, and foster parent support; support

for family visitation; and information and referral. Our partnership throughout the

years with the Collaboratives has shown that family-centered, culturally competent

practice that provides integrated community based services truly makes a difference

in the lives of children and families entering and exiting the child welfare system.

NEXT STEPS

While we have made an important and vigorous beginning on the agenda of safety, permanence, and well-being for the District’s children, we have ahead of us an

ambitious multi-year program to build in quality and transform results. We expect

that the road map to this ambitious reform will be the Implementation Plan currently being completed by the Federal Court Monitor after intensive discussions

with the District and the LaShawn plaintiffs. In order to accomplish the goals of

the plan, we know that we will be continuing the intense pace of change. And because of the District’s unique role as both a local and a State child welfare agency,

we will be continuing this intense pace of change both in our daily services to the

children who come through our doors and in our reforms of policy, institutions, and

infrastructure. That is, at one and the same time, we will be:

—improving our services to the hundreds of children who come to our attention

each month through new investigations;

—providing strong clinical support and staffing to ensure that the thousands of

children now on our caseload achieve the permanent families they deserve, either through reunification, guardianship, or adoption;

—building new services and resources for children and new supports for foster,

kin, and adoptive families, both through our own contract reforms and through

new and strengthened partnerships with agencies across District government;

—strengthening prevention and neighborhood-based services for families;

—under-girding the services we provide both internally and through our partners

with the critical infrastructure to support quality, such as training, quality assurance, policy development, licensing and monitoring;

—recruiting and retaining high quality, well-trained social workers;

—recruiting and retaining foster, kin, and adoptive parents who can meet the

needs of the District’s children and providing those resource parents with the

training and supports they need; and

—continuing our efforts to build in stronger partnerships with the metropolitan

jurisdictions and with the Superior Court, in order to promote children’s safety,

permanence, and well-being.

Achieving these goals will require continued commitment from the whole community. The District’s financial investments in CFSA, even through difficult financial

times, have been critical to achieving the progress so far, and stabilizing this commitment into the future will be essential to continuing progress from here. We very

much appreciate the support of the Subcommittee, for a key next step in maintaining this momentum: the District’s proposal to correct an inequity in the current

statutory framework for Federal reimbursement for Title IVE, by raising the Title

IVE Federal reimbursement rate to 70 percent, which would make it the same as

Medicaid, as it is in all other jurisdictions. We also very much appreciate the leadership of the Subcommittee in ensuring that the District, Maryland, and Virginia continue collaborating to develop metropolitan agreements that will benefit children,

and in promoting the continued close collaboration of CFSA and the Superior Court,

and we urge a continued focus in both of these very promising areas.

Beyond these critical areas for the Subcommittee’s continued leadership, we appreciate the invitation to identify additional areas for potential investment. We offer

the following ideas for further discussion, because they link closely to the next steps
76

in the Federal Court’s Implementation Plan and the needs of the District’s children.

We are eager to provide additional information in any of these areas that interest

the Committee:

—Prevention and Integrated Services for Families.—A major issue for the District’s children and families is the availability of early and integrated services

that could prevent placement or make reunification possible. We are working

closely with our community-based collaborative partners in this area, as well as

developing expanded partnerships with other District agencies such as the Department of Mental Health, Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration,

and the Department of Housing and Community Development. These are issues

across the country yet they are particularly difficult to address in the District,

with the intensive needs that children and families may have and the gaps in

resources. We believe that there are opportunities here for the Federal Government to pilot ideas of great interest nationally as well as to make a major difference for the District’s children.

—Adoption.—Because of the intensive work that we are currently doing to identify the specific needs of children who are awaiting placement, we would be very

interested in collaborating with the Subcommittee on a project that focuses on

recruitment for these children. In general, our children who are awaiting adoption are ages 7–13 and part of sibling groups; in addition, we would like to focus

on a number of children who are medically fragile and will need adoptive homes

prepared to meet those needs.

—Piloting of National Initiatives Regarding Social Worker Recruitment, Retention,

and Training.—We are interested in working closely with the Subcommittee on

piloting in the District key initiatives to recruit and retain social workers to do

public child welfare work that could be valuable for national policy. We are interested in discussing strategies such as loan forgiveness, stipends and scholarships for bachelors-level social workers interested in continuing their education,

and scholarships for paraprofessionals interested in becoming social workers.

—Joint Initiatives with the Court, such as Training and Information Systems.—

We are currently engaged in a range of activities with the Superior Court and

see ambitious next steps ahead, particularly as the Court’s new information system is implemented. The District’s side of these joint activities could be enhanced through further support.

CONCLUSION

We are at an extraordinary moment in the District’s child welfare system: a moment of early accomplishment, of great hope, and yet of fragility. If we maintain

our commitment and our investment for several more years, building on the major

institutional reforms, promising partnerships, and early results for children that we

have already seen, we will achieve the vision of safety, permanence, and well-being

that our children deserve. On the other hand, if we are unable to maintain this level

of continued commitment to change, we risk failing our community and our children. I am deeply grateful for the Subcommittee’s past support and leadership on

behalf of the District and our most vulnerable children, and I know the District can

count on your continued support and leadership in the future. Thank you, and I look

forward to any questions.

Senator DEWINE. Ms. Ashby.

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, I am pleased

to be here today to discuss the preliminary findings from our study

of the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, done at the request

of Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the House Committee

on Government Reform. We will issue our final report next month.

My comments are based primarily on our analysis of data in the

District’s automated child welfare information system, known as

FACES. We verified the accuracy of the data. But for some of the

data elements we needed, CFSA had not entered into FACES information for about two-thirds of its active cases. Consequently, we

obtained and analyzed information from paper case files to supple-
77

ment FACES information for some cases. Most, but not all, of the

cases with incomplete data originated prior to FACES going online

in October 1999. Top CFSA managers told us that including data

in FACES for active cases that originated prior to FACES is not

an agency priority. In my full statement, we discuss the importance

of having accurate, timely, and complete automated case management data for all cases.

In summary, CFSA has addressed various AFSA requirements

and met several of the selected performance criteria, adopted child

protection and foster care policies, and enhanced its working relationship with the D.C. Family Court. However, much remains to be

done.

CFSA addressed six of the nine AFSA requirements and met or

exceeded four of the eight performance criteria. For example, CFSA

signed a border agreement to achieve timelier placement of District

children in Maryland, which addresses the AFSA requirement to

use cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely permanent

placements of children. However, CFSA did not meet AFSA requirements involving proceedings to terminate the rights of parents

in certain situations, annual permanency review hearings or notice

of reviews and hearings. One of the selected performance criteria

requires 60 percent of children in foster care to be placed with one

or more of their siblings. As of November 2002, 63 percent of children had such placements.

The criteria for which CFSA’s performance fell short included social worker visitation with children in foster care, placement of

children in foster homes with valid licenses, progress toward permanency, and parental visits with children in foster care who have

a goal of returning home. For example, none of the 144 children

placed in foster care during the 2-month period prior to November

30, 2002, received required weekly visits by a CFSA caseworker.

CFSA has written plans to address 2 of the 3 unmet AFSA requirements and 3 of the 4 unmet performance criteria.

CFSA has adopted child protection and foster care placement

policies that are comparable to most, but not all of those recommended by organizations that develop standards for child welfare programs. However, caseworkers did not consistently implement the six policies we examined.

CFSA has policies for investigating allegations of child abuse, developing plans, and estimating permanency goals for foster children. In addition, it has policies for managing cases. CFSA has, in

addition to its policies for managing cases, policies for licensing and

monitoring group homes, plans for training staff in group homes,

and a goal to reduce the number of young children in group homes.

However, CFSA lacks some recommended policies, namely written

time frames for arranging needed services for children and families, limits on the number of cases assigned to a caseworker, and

procedures for providing information about planned services for

children.

For three of the six policies we examined, FACES data indicated

that the percentage of foster care cases for which a policy was implemented ranged from 13 to 73. This variation is due in part to

the incomplete data in FACES. In addition, information related to
78

the other three policies was not routinely recorded in FACES, and

we had to review case files to assess their implementation.

One policy requires caseworkers to complete a case plan within

30 days of a child’s entry into foster care. However, case plans were

not routinely completed within 30 days. Another policy requires administrative review hearings every 6 months. But such hearings

were rescheduled often. The third policy requires caseworkers to

arrange for services. It was difficult to determine whether services

were actually provided. CFSA officials told us that they recently

made changes to help improve the implementation of some of these

policies.

PREPARED STATEMENT

CFSA has improved its working relationship with the Family

Court with its commitment to promoting improved communication

and by expanding the support services it provides for court activities. However, CFSA officials and Family Court judges noted several hindrances that constrained their working relationships. The

hindrances they noted included scheduling conflicts between court

and CFSA, the insufficient number of caseworkers, caseworkers

who were unfamiliar with cases that had been transferred to them,

and the unclear roles and responsibilities of attorneys, judges, and

CFSA caseworkers.

This concludes my statement. I would be glad to answer any

questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY’S PERFORMANCE

AND POLICIES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today

to discuss preliminary findings from our study of the District of Columbia’s Child

and Family Services Agency (CFSA), done at the request of Representative Tom

Davis, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. My testimony

will focus on the extent to which CFSA has (1) taken actions to address the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) and met selected performance criteria, (2) adopted and implemented child protection and foster care

placement policies that are comparable to those generally accepted in the child welfare community, and (3) enhanced its working relationship with the D.C. Family

Court.

My comments today are based primarily on our analysis of the information in the

District’s automated child welfare information system, known as FACES, which

CFSA is to use to manage child welfare cases and report child abuse and neglect,

foster care, and adoption information to the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS). We analyzed cases in FACES that were at least 6 months old as

of November 2002 and verified the accuracy of its data. However, CFSA had not entered into FACES detailed information on the data elements we needed for our analysis with respect to about two-thirds of the District’s active foster care cases—mostly cases that originated prior to FACES going on-line in October 1999. Consequently, we also obtained and analyzed information from paper case files to supplement FACES information for some cases. We also interviewed District officials,

CFSA managers, judges, and child welfare experts, and we analyzed Federal and

District laws and regulations, related court documents, and child welfare policies.

Our final report will be issued in May 2003. We conducted our work between September 2002 and March 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
79

1These performance criteria were among those included in the performance standards that

CFSA had to meet in order to end the probationary period following the general receivership.

We selected those performance criteria that in our judgment most directly relate to the safety

and permanent placement of children. 2The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, established the Family Court as part of the D.C. Superior Court. The Family Court replaced the D.C. Superior Court’s former Family Division. Among

other responsibilities, the Family Court handles child abuse and neglect cases and court hearings and other proceedings for the District’s foster children and their families. OCC provides

legal support for CFSA caseworkers during their appearances before the Family Court.

In summary, CFSA has taken actions to address various ASFA requirements and

met several selected performance criteria,1 enacted child protection and foster care

placement policies and procedures, and enhanced its working relationship with the

D.C. Family Court; however, much remains to be done. CFSA met two-thirds of the

ASFA requirements and half of the selected foster care performance criteria we

used, and developed written plans to address two of the three unmet ASFA requirements and three of the four unmet performance criteria. In addition, CFSA has

adopted child protection and foster care placement policies and procedures that are

comparable to most, but not all, of those recommended by organizations that develop

standards applicable to child welfare programs. However, CFSA has not adopted

some key policies and procedures for ensuring the safety and permanent placement

of children, and caseworkers have not consistently implemented or documented

some of the policies and procedures that have been adopted. For example, CFSA has

developed an automated child welfare data system to help manage its caseload, but

detailed information for the data elements related to the policies reviewed had not

been entered into the system for about 70 percent of its foster care cases. Further,

CFSA has improved its working relationship with the Family Court through improved communication and top management support; however, both CFSA and the

Family Court still need to overcome barriers that continue to constrain this relationship.

BACKGROUND

CFSA is responsible for protecting thousands of foster care children who have

been at risk of abuse and neglect and ensuring that critical services are provided

for them and their families. However, many children in CFSA’s care languished for

extended periods of time due to managerial shortcomings and long-standing organizational divisiveness. As a result of these deficiencies, the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia issued a remedial order in 1991 to improve the performance

of the agency. In 1995, lacking sufficient evidence of program improvement, the

agency was removed from the District’s Department of Human Services and placed

in general receivership. Under a modified final order (MFO) established by the

court, CFSA was directed to comply with more than 100 policy and procedural requirements. The efforts CFSA made during the receivership to improve its performance included establishing an automated system, FACES, to manage its caseload.

The U.S. District Court ended the receivership in 2000, established a probationary

period, and identified performance standards CFSA had to meet in order to end the

probationary period. The court appointed the Center for the Study of Social Policy

as an independent monitor to assess CFSA’s performance and gave them the discretion to modify the performance standards. However, in the summer of 2002, abuses

of two children placed in group homes were reported, indicating that CFSA’s operations and policies, especially those regarding foster care cases, may still need improvement.

Additionally, several Federal laws, local laws, and regulations established goals

and processes under which CFSA must operate. ASFA, with its goal to place children in permanent homes in a timelier manner, placed new responsibilities on all

child welfare agencies nationwide. AFSA introduced new time periods for moving

children toward permanent, stable care arrangements and established penalties for

noncompliance. For example, it requires States to hold a permanency planning hearing—during which the court determines the future plans for a child, such as whether the State should continue to pursue reunification with the child’s family or some

other permanency goal—not later than 12 months after the child enters foster care.

The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, established the District’s Family Court and

placed several requirements on the District’s Mayor and various District agencies,

including CFSA and the Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC).2 The Family Court

Act requires the Mayor, in consultation with the Chief Judge of the Superior Court,

to ensure that D.C. government offices that provide social services and other related
80

3We issued several GAO reports that addressed CFSA operations and program plans. For

more information see related GAO products. 4 Child and Family Services Reviews, conducted by HHS, cover a range of child and family

service programs funded by the Federal Government, including child protective services, foster

care, adoption, independent living, and family support and preservation services. The 2001 review evaluated seven specific safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for services delivered

to children and families served by CFSA.

services to individuals served by the Family Court, including CFSA, provide referrals to such services on site at the Family Court.

CFSA operates in a complex child welfare system.3 The agency relies on services

provided by other District government agencies. For example, both the Fire Department and the Health Department inspect facilities where children are placed, and

D.C. Public Schools prepare individual education plans for children in care. In addition, CFSA works with agencies in Maryland, Virginia, and other States to arrange

the placement of District children in those States and also works with private agencies to place children in foster and adoptive homes.

The management of foster care cases involves several critical steps. Typically,

these cases begin with an allegation of abuse or neglect reported to the CFSA child

abuse hot line. CFSA staff are required to investigate the allegation through direct

contact with the reported victim. If required, the child may be removed from his or

her home, necessitating various court proceedings handled by the District’s Family

Court. CFSA case workers are responsible for managing foster care cases by developing case plans, visiting the children, participating in administrative hearings, attending court hearings, and working with other District government agencies. CFSA

case workers are also responsible for documenting the steps taken and decisions

made related to a child’s safety, well-being, and proper placement. In addition,

CFSA is responsible for licensing and monitoring organizations with which it contracts, including group homes that house foster care children.

HHS is responsible for setting standards and monitoring the Nation’s child welfare programs. The monitoring efforts include periodic reviews of the operations,

known as Child and Family Services Reviews,4 and of the automated systems,

known as Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) Reviews, in the States and the District of Columbia. HHS last reviewed CFSA’s child

welfare information system in 2000 and its overall program in 2001.

CFSA UNDERTOOK ACTIONS TO ADDRESS MOST ASFA REQUIREMENTS REVIEWED AND

MET HALF OF THE SELECTED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

CFSA took actions to address six of the nine ASFA requirements and met or exceeded four of the eight performance criteria we included in our study. Although

ASFA includes other requirements, we only included those directly related to the

safety and well-being of children. The performance criteria were among those performance standards that CFSA had to meet in order to end the probationary period

following the general receivership. We selected those that, in our judgment, most

directly relate to the safety and permanent placement of children in foster care. For

example, CFSA signed a border agreement to achieve timelier placement of District

children in Maryland, which addresses the ASFA requirement to use cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting

children. However, CFSA did not meet three requirements involving (1) proceedings

to terminate the rights of parents whose children are in foster care, (2) annual hearings to review permanency goals for children and (3) notice of reviews and hearings.

Table 1 summarizes the ASFA requirements directly related to the safety and wellbeing of children and identifies whether CFSA met them.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF ASFA REQUIREMENTS RELATING DIRECTLY TO THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN

ASFA Requirements Met ASFA Requirements Not Met

1. Include the safety of the child in State case planning and

in a case review system.

1. Initiate or join proceedings to terminate parental rights

for certain children in foster care—such as those who

have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22

months of care.

2. Comply with requirements for criminal background clearances and have procedures for criminal record checks.2. Provide family members a notice of reviews and hearings

and an opportunity to be heard.

3. Develop a case plan for a child for whom the State’s goal

is adoption or other permanent living arrangement.

3. Conduct mandatory annual permanency hearings every 12

months for a child in foster care.
81

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF ASFA REQUIREMENTS RELATING DIRECTLY TO THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN—Continued

ASFA Requirements Met ASFA Requirements Not Met

4. Develop plans for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional

resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent

placements for waiting children.

5. Provide for health insurance coverage for children with

special needs in State plans for foster care and adoption

assistance.

6. Incorporate standards to ensure quality services for children in foster care in State plans.

Source: ASFA and HHS’ CSFR and GAO analysis.

We analyzed automated data related to eight selected performance criteria and

found that CFSA met or exceeded four of them. For example, one of the criteria requires 60 percent of children in foster care to be placed with one or more of their

siblings; we found that as of November 30, 2002, 63 percent of children were placed

with one or more siblings. The areas in which CFSA’s performance fell short included criteria related to (1) social worker visitation with children in foster care, (2)

placement of children in foster homes with valid licenses, and (3) progress toward

permanency for children in foster care and (4) parental visits with children in foster

care who had a goal of returning home. For example, none of the 144 children

placed in foster care during the 2-month period prior to November 30, 2002, received

required weekly visits by a CFSA caseworker. In addition, 52 of 183 foster care children (32 percent), for whom CFSA had not met the progress towards permanency

goal, had been in foster care without returning home for 36 months or more. Twenty-two of these children had been in foster care 5 or more years without returning

home. A complete list of the performance criteria and our analysis is shown in appendix I.

CFSA has written plans to address two of the three unmet ASFA requirements

and three of the four unmet performance criteria we selected for our study. One of

CFSA’s plans includes actions to address one criterion for which the agency fell

short—parental visits. This plan, the Interim Implementation Plan, includes measures that were developed to show the agency’s plans for meeting the requirements

of the MFO issued by the court. The plan states that, for new contracts, CFSA will

require its contactors to identify sites in the community for parental visits to help

facilitate visits between parents and their children. However, CFSA does not have

written plans that address other unmet criteria, such as reducing the number of

children in foster care who, for 18 months or more, have had a permanency goal

to return home. CFSA has also not implemented the ASFA requirement to provide

foster parents, relative caregivers, and pre-adoptive parents the opportunity to be

heard in any review or hearing held with respect to the child. Without complete

plans for improving on all measures, CFSA’s ability to comply with the ASFA requirements and meet the selected performance criteria may be difficult. Furthermore, unless these requirements and criteria are met the child’s safety may be jeopardized, the time a child spends in foster care may be prolonged, or the best decisions regarding a child’s future well-being may not be reached.

Agency officials cited external demands, including court-imposed requirements,

staffing shortages, and high caseloads, as factors that hindered CFSA’s ability to

fully meet the ASFA requirements and the selected performance criteria. For example, program managers and supervisors said that the new court-imposed mediation

process intended to address family issues without formal court hearings places considerable demands on caseworkers’ time. The time spent in court for mediation proceedings, which can be as much as 1 day, reduces the time available for caseworkers

to respond to other case management duties, such as visiting with children in foster

care. Furthermore, managers and supervisors reported that staffing shortages have

contributed to delays in performing critical case management activities, such as filing for the termination of parental rights. Staffing shortages are not a unique problem to CFSA. We recently reported that caseworkers in other States said that staffing shortages and high caseloads had detrimental effects on their abilities to make

well-supported and timely decisions regarding children’s safety. We also reported

that as a result of these shortages, caseworkers have less time to establish relationships with children and their families, conduct frequent and meaningful home visits,
82

5 U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping

Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO–03–357 (Washington, DC: Mar. 31,

2003). 6 U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges

in Ensuring Children’s Well-Being, GAO–01–191 (Washington, DC: Dec. 29, 2000), and U.S.

General Accounting Office, Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia’s Child Welfare System Reform Efforts, GAO/HEHS–00–109 (Washington, DC: May 5, 2000).

and make thoughtful and well-supported decisions regarding safe and stable permanent placements.5

CFSA HAS ESTABLISHED MANY FOSTER CARE POLICIES BUT LACKS OTHERS, AND THE

EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DOCUMENTATION VARIES

CSFA has established many foster care policies but, caseworkers did not consistently implement the six we examined. In addition, CFSA’s automated system lacked

data on policy implementation for 70 percent of its foster care cases. When CFSA’s

caseworkers are not consistently implementing the policies essential steps are not

always being taken for all children in a timely manner. As a result, children may

be subject to continued abuse and neglect or efforts to achieve permanent and safe

placements may be delayed. Furthermore, without information on all cases, caseworkers do not have a readily available summary of the child’s history needed to

make future decisions and managers do not have information needed to assess and

improve program operations.

CSFA HAS ESTABLISHED MANY FOSTER CARE POLICIES BUT CASEWORKERS DID NOT

CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENT THEM

While we previously reported in 2000 6 that CFSA lacked some important child

protection and foster care placement policies, CFSA has now established many such

policies and most are comparable to those recommended by organizations that develop standards applicable to child welfare programs. For example, CFSA has policies for investigating allegations of child abuse, developing case plans, and establishing permanency goals for foster children. In addition, one policy is more rigorous

than suggested standards. Specifically, CFSA’s policy requires an initial face-to-face

meeting with children within 24 hours of reported abuse or neglect, while the suggested standard is 48 hours or longer in cases that are not high risk. However,

CFSA still lacks some that are recommended, namely (1) written time frames for

arranging needed services for children and families (e.g., tutoring and drug treatment for family members); (2) limits on the number of cases assigned to a caseworker, based on case complexity and worker experience; and (3) procedures for providing advance notice to each person involved in a case about the benefits and risks

of services planned for a child and alternatives to those services.

CFSA did not consistently implement the six policies we examined. We selected

policies that covered the range of activities involved in a foster care case, but did

not duplicate those examined in our review of the AFSA requirements or the selected performance criteria. For three of the six policies, data in FACES on all foster

care cases indicate that the extent to which caseworkers implemented them varied

considerably. Table 2 summarizes these three policies and the percentage of cases

for which the data indicated the policy was implemented.

TABLE 2.—THE EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED FOSTER CARE POLICIES

Policy

Percent of Foster

Care Cases for

Which the Policy

Was Implemented (N=943)

Initiate face-to-face investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect within 24 hours of receiving an allegation on CFSA’s child abuse hotline ................................................................................................................. 26

Complete a safety assessment within 24 hours of face-to-face contact with the child .................................. 13

Complete a risk assessment within 30 days of receiving an allegation on the hotline ................................... 73

Source: FACES data and GAO analysis.

In some cases, it took CFSA caseworkers considerably longer than the required

time to initiate an investigation or complete safety and risk assessments. In 93

cases, CFSA caseworkers took more than 10 days to initiate the investigation and

in 78 cases, it took caseworkers longer than 100 days to complete a risk assessment,

more than three times longer than the 30-day requirement.
83

For the other three policies, we reviewed case files and examined related data

from FACES for 30 cases, because officials told us that the information related to

these policies was not routinely recorded in FACES. One policy requires caseworkers to complete a case plan within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care.

Our analysis and file review found that case plans were not routinely completed

within 30 days. Another policy requires conducting administrative review hearings

every 6 months. These reviews ensure that key stakeholders are involved in permanency planning for the child. We found that administrative review hearings were

rescheduled for a variety of reasons, such as the caseworker had to appear at a

hearing for another case or the attorney was not available. The third policy requires

caseworkers to identify and arrange for services for children and their families. It

was difficult to determine whether services recommended by caseworkers were approved by supervisors or if needed services were provided. Managers said that sometimes services are arranged by telephone and the results not entered into FACES.

Officials said that several factors affected the implementation of some of the policies we reviewed. Agency officials explained that, in part, the data on implementation of the initial investigations and safety assessment reflected that the District’s

Metropolitan Police Department was responsible for the initial investigation of child

abuse cases until October 2001 and that data was not entered into FACES. CFSA

now has responsibility for both child abuse and neglect investigations. Further, program managers and supervisors said that several factors contribute to the time

frames required to initiate face-to-face investigations, including difficulty in finding

the child’s correct home address, contacting the child if the family tries to hide the

child from investigators, and even obtaining vehicles to get to the location. Caseworkers’ supervisors and managers explained that generally, the policies were not

always implemented because of limited staff and competing demands and the policies were not documented because some caseworkers did not find FACES to be user

friendly.

CFSA officials said they recently made changes to help improve the implementation of some of the policies we reviewed. CFSA has focused on reducing its backlog

of investigations and reduced the number of investigations open more than 30 days

from 807 in May 2001 to 263 in May 2002. CFSA officials said that they anticipate

a reduction in the number of administrative review hearings that are rescheduled.

The responsibility for notifying administrative review hearing participants when a

hearing is scheduled was transferred from caseworkers to the staff in the administrative review unit, and notification will be automatically generated well in advance

of the hearings. Additionally, another official said that CFSA has begun testing a

process to ensure that all needed services are in place within 45 days.

However, without consistently implementing policies for timely investigations and

safety and risk assessments, a child may be subject to continued abuse and neglect.

Delaying case plans and rescheduling administrative review hearings delay efforts

to place children in permanent homes or reunite them with their families. Further,

without knowing whether children or families received needed services, CFSA cannot determine whether steps have been taken to resolve problems or improve conditions, which also delays moving children toward their permanency goals.

In addition to its policies for managing cases, CFSA has policies for licensing and

monitoring group homes, plans for training staff in group homes, and a goal to reduce the number of young children in group homes. CFSA’s policies for group homes

are based primarily on District regulations that went into effect July 1, 2002. According to a CFSA official, the agency was precluded from placing children in an

unlicensed group home as of January 1, 2003. As of March 2003, all CFSA group

homes were licensed, except one, and CFSA was in the process of removing children

from that home. In the future, CFSA plans to use requirements for licensing group

homes as well as contractual provisions as criteria for monitoring them. CFSA also

plans to provide training to group home staff to make it clear that, as District regulations require, any staff member who observes or receives information indicating

that a child in the group home has been abused must report it. Further, CFSA has

a goal to reduce the number of children under 13 who are placed in group homes.

CFSA has reduced the number of children under 13 in group homes from 128 in

August 2002, to 70 as of February 2003; and, has plans to reduce that number even

further by requiring providers of group home care to link with agencies that seek

foster care and adoptive families.

CFSA’S AUTOMATED SYSTEM LACKED DATA ON MANY FOSTER CARE CASES

While CFSA’s policies with regard to is automated child welfare information system—FACES—were not among the six policies we initially selected for examination,

in our efforts to assess CFSA’s implementation of the selected foster care policies,
84

7 HHS completed its SACWIS assessment review of FACES in June 2000. The purpose of this

review is to assess whether the child welfare information system performs functions that are

important to meeting the minimal requirements.

we determined that FACES lacked such data for about 70 percent of its active foster

care cases. Of the population of foster care cases at least 6 months old as of November 30, 2002—2,510 cases—data on the initial investigation and safety and risk assessment policies were not available for 1,763 of them. CFSA officials explained that

all of these cases predated FACES and the previous system was used primarily to

capture information for accounting and payroll purposes, not for case management.

Top agency managers said that CFSA does not currently plan to make it an agency

priority to include data in FACES for these pre-FACES cases. Additionally, FACES

reports showed that data was not available on many of the more recent foster care

cases. For example, complete data on the initiation of investigations and safety assessments were not available for about half of the 943 cases that entered the foster

care system after FACES came on line. Officials explained that their plans are to

focus on improving a few data elements at a time for current and future actions.

Complete and accurate data is an important aspect of effective child welfare systems. HHS requires all States and the District of Columbia to have an automated

child welfare information system. These systems, known as Statewide Automated

Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS), must be able to record key child welfare functions, such as intake management, case management, and resource management. However, it its review of FACES, HHS found the system to be in noncompliance with several requirements, including the requirements to prepare and

document service/case plans and to conduct and record the results of case reviews.7

In addition to the standards and requirements established by HHS for all child welfare systems, the MFO requirements stress the importance of an automated system

for CFSA. Many of the requirements the MFO imposed on CFSA direct CFSA to

produce management data. For example, the MFO requires that CFSA be able to

produce management data showing (1) how many children who need medical reports

received them within 48 hours after the report of neglect or abuse was supported,

(2) the caseload figures by worker for all workers conducting investigations of reports of abuse or neglect, and (3) the number of supervisors with at least 3 years

of social work experience in child welfare.

It is very important to have accurate and timely automated case management

data for all cases. An expert from a child welfare organization stated that there is

a great need to transfer information from old case records to new automated systems in a systematic way. Without such a transfer, paper records with important

information may be lost. She said that records of older teens have been lost, and,

with them, valuable information such as the identity of the child’s father, has also

been lost. Without data in FACES, if caseworkers need missing data they will have

to look for paper records in the case files, some of which are voluminous. This file

review effort is much more time consuming than reviewing an automated report and

requires more time for caseworkers to become familiar with cases when cases are

transferred to new caseworkers. Complete, accurate, and timely case management

data enables caseworkers to quickly learn about new cases, supervisors to know the

extent that caseworkers are completing their tasks, and managers to know whether

any aspects of the agency’s operations are in need of improvement.

CFSA HAS ENHANCED ITS WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE D.C. FAMILY COURT BY

WORKING COLLABORATIVELY, BUT HINDRANCES REMAIN

CFSA has enhanced its working relationship with the Family Court through its

commitment to promoting improved communication and by expanding its legal support services for court activities. CFSA participates in various planning committees

with the Family Court, such as the Implementation Planning Committee, and assists in providing service referrals on site at the Family Court. Since 2002, attorneys

from the OCC have been located at CFSA and work closely with caseworkers. This

co-location has improved the working relationship between CFSA and the Family

Court because CFSA caseworkers and the attorneys are better prepared for court

appearances. Additionally, training sessions have been held that included CFSA

caseworkers, OCC attorneys, and Family Court judges. Furthermore, frequent dialogue between top management at CFSA and the Family Court and top management support have been key factors in improving these relationships.

However, CFSA officials and Family Court judges noted several hindrances that

constrain their working relationships. These hindrances include scheduling conflicts

between the court and CFSA, an insufficient number of caseworkers, caseworkers

who are unfamiliar with cases that have been transferred to them, and the unclear
85

roles and responsibilities of CFSA caseworkers, attorneys, and judges. For example,

CFSA officials said that Family Court judges often override caseworker recommendations that affect children and families. Family Court judges told us that

they believe caseworkers do not always recommend appropriate services for children

and their families. As a result of these conflicting perspectives, court officials said

that appropriate decisions affecting children and families might not be reached in

a timely manner.

CONCLUSIONS

While CFSA has met several procedural ASFA requirements and other performance criteria, developed essential policies, and enhanced its working relationship

with the Family Court, it needs to make further improvement in order to ensure

the protection and proper and timely placement of all of the District’s children. To

improve outcomes for foster care children, CFSA needs a comprehensive set of policies; effective implementation of all policies; complete, accurate, and timely automated data on which to base its program management; and an effective working relationship with the D.C. Family Court. However, gaps in its foster care policies, inconsistent policy implementation, and incomplete automated data may hinder

CFSA’s ability to protect and improve the outcomes for the District’s children. We

expect to have recommendations in our final report that will address these issues

and strengthen CFSA’s operations. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions that you or other Subcommittee

Members may have.

APPENDIX I.—GAO’S ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Performance Criteria GAO Analysis

1. Current case plans for foster care cases:

Forty-five percent of foster care cases have

current case plans.

Met .............. As of September 30, 2002, 46 percent of foster care

cases had current case plans.

2. Visitation between children in foster care and

their parents:

Thirty-five percent of cases in which children

have a goal of returning home have parental visits at least every 2 weeks.

Not met ....... As of November 30, 2002, 1 percent of children with

a return home goal had parental visits at least

every 2 weeks.

3. Social worker visitation with children in foster

care:

Twenty-five percent of children in foster care

have weekly visits with caseworkers in their

first 8 weeks of care; 35 percent of all children in foster care have at least monthly

visits with a social worker.

Not met ....... As of November 30, 2002, no children had weekly

visits; 0.3 percent had at least monthly visits

with a social worker.

4. Appropriate legal status for children in foster

care:

No child in emergency care (legal status) for

more than 90 days.

Met .............. As of November 30, 2002, no children in emergency

care more than 90 days.

5. Current and valid foster home licenses:

Seventy-five percent of children are placed in

foster home with valid licenses.

Not met ....... As of November 30, 2002, 47 percent of children

were in foster homes with valid licenses.

6. Progress toward permanency:

No more than 10 percent of children in foster

care have a permanency goal of return

home for more than 18 months.

Not met ....... As of November 30, 2002, 30 percent of children

had a permanency goal of return home for more

than 18 months.

7. Foster care placement with siblings:

Sixty percent of children in foster care are

placed with one or more of their siblings.

Met .............. As of November 30, 2002, 63 percent of children

were placed with one or more siblings.

8. Placement stability:

No more than 25 percent of children in foster

care as of May 31, 2002, have had three or

more placements.

Met .............. As of November 30, 2002, 21 percent of children in

care since August 1, 2001, had three or more

placements.

Source: GAO analysis.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. Ms. Schneiders.
86

STATEMENT OF ANNE E. SCHNEIDERS, CHAIR AND FOUNDER, WASHINGTON CHAPTER, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

FOR CHILDREN

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Good morning, Senator DeWine and Senator

Landrieu. I come before you as the Chair of the Washington Chapter of the National Association of Counsel for Children, which is a

national advocacy organization for children.

Senator DEWINE. You might want to pull that mike close. Thank

you.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. I am a practicing attorney and a clinical social

worker, licensed in D.C., Maryland, and New York, and practiced

child welfare/foster care for 25 years before going to law school. I

am pleased to have this opportunity to address this committee on

the status of Child and Family Services from the perspective of one

who must interface with this agency on behalf of abused and neglected children as guardian ad litem for almost 200 children over

the years.

The rise and fall of statistics does not interest me, as numbers

can say whatever you want them to to make a point. My concern

is the impact of policy decisions on children, as too many children

who have been cared for by CFSA leave the system angry, resentful, and no better off than when they entered. Let me cite such a

few policies.

First is placement. Children brought into the system are too

often made to wait weeks or months before a placement is available. Children 14 and older are made to wait in group home facilities until a placement is identified. Many are then placed in whatever home has a vacancy, regardless of the needs of the child or

the expressed preference of a family. There is little matching of a

child to the family.

The result is a negative experience for both and the ultimate removal of the child. Some children are moved two, three, and four

times before finding an appropriate placement. This is true of both

CFSA foster homes and the private agencies with whom CFSA contracts. Some children abscond from the group homes before a foster

home is located. Some act up to the point of requiring psychiatric

hospitalization. Thus the trauma of the abuse, coupled with the

trauma of removal from the birth parents, are compounded three

and fourfold by the actions of Child and Family Services.

CFSA needs to invest in active and aggressive recruitment of

therapeutic foster homes so that it has a pool of families with

whom to place children. Children should be matched with families,

so that there is at least a reasonable expectation that the placement will be effective. It should not take 4 to 6 weeks to put a child

in a foster home.

Secondly, the lack of adequate support services. There is a disturbing punitive climate emerging in the agency that seems to view

the child as the culprit in the abuse and neglect cases. Services are

not readily available to counter the effects of abuse and neglect.

Tutors are limited to 1 month of service with repeated requests for

renewal. Little can be done in 1 month. Mentors are only available

for 3 months at a time, with a need to justify renewal. The purpose

of a mentor is to afford the child a meaningful relationship. To ter-
87

minate such a relationship in 3 months only serves to have the

child experience yet another loss.

Teenagers are denied admission to independent living programs

until they are 18, regardless of the need and the child’s readiness

at 16 or 17. Specialized evaluations and therapy are limited to

whatever Medicaid will pay, regardless of the child’s need or the

availability of competent clinicians. GALs are frequently told by social workers to request a court order or the service will not be provided, thus making the court manage the case. There is no similar

policy restricting services to parents, who immediately get referrals

for therapy, parenting, anger management, drug treatment, and

whatever else they may need.

CFSA needs to have a police that guarantees every child the

services which the Court identifies as needed to counter the effects

of abuse and neglect and prepare them more quickly for permanency or emancipation.

The preparation for emancipation. Most of the children who age

out of foster care are young people whose problems or age have

precluded adoption or whose family failed to improve sufficiently

for them to return home. They have serious academic deficits, emotional problems, mental limitations, none of which are their fault.

They lack self-confidence and self-help skills. They are immature

and vulnerable. They are ill-prepared to jump into the mainstream

of life.

CFSA discharges the children without secure housing, employment, or healthcare. This month alone I have had two children I

represent age out at 21. One mildly retarded, emotionally disturbed

youngster is currently homeless. The other, a teen mother of two,

was given a list of city shelters to which to apply the day after her

21st birthday. There is no farewell, no emancipation celebration, no

assurance that if you get stuck, you can come back for help, just

a message that your case has been closed.

CFSA receives an allocation of Section 8 housing vouchers from

the Federal Government that are carefully doled out to selected

parents who have abused and neglected their children and who are

seeking reunification. At the same time, CFSA sends its own young

people, the victims of the abuse and neglect, out of the system at

age 21 telling them where to find the nearest shelter. None of the

vouchers in the hands of CFSA can be given to its own children for

whom it has served as surrogate parent.

To make matters worse, CFSA is now proposing to reduce the

age of emancipation of 18 instead of the current 21, because they

claim that children do not appreciate the services offered. Very few

children even of stable families are ready to leave home at 18. Intact, stable families send their children to college in the hopes that

they will mature during those years. It is incredible to think that

CFSA expects abused and neglected children, who have had very

little nurturing and stability and who have too often bounced

around the foster care system, are mature enough to manage on

their own at age 18. All that is available to them is the street or

a city shelter. Discharging these children at age 18 will force them

to survive on the street, selling drugs or their bodies for enough

money to buy food. This is not the way the District of Columbia

should handle its children.
88

Current legislation which provides that these very vulnerable

young people remain in care until age 21 is both humane and responsible and should not be altered as a means of balancing the

budget. The decision as to whether a child is prepared for independent living prior to age 21 should continue to be left with the

Family Court who has oversight of the case and should not be

made as the result of an arbitrary and capricious policy based on

finances.

CFSA needs to develop a policy and method of providing appropriate housing for children that emancipate from the system each

year and not just send them to the city shelters to apply for TANF

and food stamps. None of us would treat our own children that

way. CFSA needs to design an integrated program of services

staffed with persons who can engage young adults in meaningful

activities and in which the young people are active participants in

their own development. CFSA should create an after-care department to assist youngsters who spent their childhood in foster care

and need a home to return to for occasional assistance during

stressful times, especially as they try to get started on their own.

Finally, it is intriguing to hear CFSA boast about the reduction

in staff turnover when workers continue to leave, cases remain uncovered or covered by a supervisor. Social workers continue to complain about high case loads, routinely put in for transfers to noncase carrying positions, or work late into the night to get reports

to the Court on time. I spoke to a social worker yesterday at midnight who was still trying to finish a report for the Court today.

Cases are still counted as families without regard to the number

of children in that family. Social workers are often responsible for

up to 50 children at a time because of the way cases are counted,

making it impossible to get to IEP meetings, treatment team meetings, or other significant events in the child’s life. Cases have as

many as three or more workers at a time and far more during the

life of the case. A worker is assigned to the case on one day, the

goal is changed to adoption, and the case is transferred to a recruitment worker. A family is recruited, and the case is transferred

to an adoption worker. At the same time, a sibling goes to independent living and is assigned a teen services worker. Another sibling is placed with a contract agency and is given a different worker. I represent a set of twins, who each have different workers.

Such a practice precludes the formation of beneficial relationships.

Senator DEWINE. Twins who have different workers?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Pardon?

Senator DEWINE. Twins who have different workers?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Yes. One happens to be in residential treatment, and therefore gets a worker through that unit. And the other

is in a foster home and has a worker with that unit. And no one

knows who has case responsibility for that.

CFSA needs to develop a one case-one worker policy similar to

the Court’s one family-one judge system, with a maximum of 15 to

20 children per worker, regardless of the number of families. Social

workers need to get to know the case so that services are not duplicated, facts are not lost, progress is not overlooked, goals are not
89

changed. And the continual reorganization of the agency is counterproductive in pursuit of this goal.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Success should be measured when children in the care of Child

and Family Services Agency feel safe and protected, loved and

cared for, and achieve permanence early or are prepared to face the

world on their own at age 21, not when the statistics prove that

numbers have gone up or down.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE E. SCHNEIDERS, ESQ., LISW

Good morning, Senator DeWine, and all members of the Appropriations Committee.

My name is Anne Schneiders, and I come before you as the Chair and Founder

of the Washington Chapter of the National Association of Counsel for Children, a

national advocacy organization for children. I am a proud resident of the District

of Columbia; a practicing attorney at D.C. Superior Court; and a clinical social

worker licensed in the District of Columbia, Maryland and New York. I spent 25

years as a social worker and administrator in foster care before going to law school.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this Committee on the status

of Child and Family Services from the perspective of one who must interface with

this agency on behalf of abused and neglected children as a Guardian ad litem for

almost 200 children over the years.

Dr. Olivia Golden has certainly brought an element of professionalism to the

table, and her reports to you and other bodies reflect considerable progress and improvement. The reality, however, from my perspective, as an advocate for the children entrusted to CFSA and their families, is that while Dr. Golden is masterful

at conceptualizing programs and services, policies and procedures, structures and

organizations, she is so far removed from the daily delivery of services to the children and their families, that she is unaware that the concepts she espouses are not

effectuated on the front lines. In this testimony I will address specific issues and

provide some concrete examples of the difficulties those of us trying to represent

children and families encounter in working with CFSA. This agency is still in dire

need of improvement, and in spite of all the rhetoric about progress and improvement, much of it remains on paper and has not made it to the level of practice on

a daily basis.

The rise and fall of statistics does not interest me, as numbers can say whatever

you want them to say to make a point. My concern is the impact of policy decisions

on children as too many children who have been ‘‘cared for’’ by CFSA leave the system angry, resentful and no better off than when they entered. Let me cite a few

such policies:

DIVERSION OF REPORTS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Advocates for children and families are very concerned with the apparent diversion of neglect and abuse cases away from the Superior Court’s Family Court. Children must be represented by counsel to be adequately protected. During the year

(2002), only about 900 neglect and abuse cases were petitioned, while in previous

years between 1,700–1,900 per year were petitioned. We are under no illusion that

community based services are this effective!! Children are being placed with D.C.

family members in what are called ‘‘third party placements’’ in order to avoid the

ICPC difficulties of placing children over State lines, without ascertaining the criminal and child abuse histories of these potential caretakers. While obtaining criminal

and abuse clearances is sometimes a cumbersome process, it is essential to protect

children from further abuse. In these cases, we welcome what CFSA refers to as

‘‘bureaucratic barriers’’ that serve to protect children.

Recommendation

—There should be an outside review of the reports of abuse and neglect that get

diverted to community based services to determine the appropriateness of these

referrals, and to see how many of them eventually come before the court in a

more severe state than at the initial identification.
90

LACK OF PROSECUTION

We are also very concerned that perpetrators of sexual abuse and physical abuse

of children are not prosecuted in the District of Columbia. Most attorneys will tell

you that none of the perpetrators of the abuse of children before the court have been

prosecuted, yet we continue to make reunification the primary goal in abuse cases.

While CFSA has taken all of the Corporation Counsel attorneys under its umbrella—and even into its building—there has been no significant improvement in

the government’s pursuit of justice for children. Recently, the mother in a case petitioned in 1999 for physical abuse was arrested. The children had already been removed, reunified, and have recently had to be removed again for repeated physical

and emotional abuse. Had proper steps been taken to prosecute the initial criminal

child abuse case, these children would not have been re-abused. Another severely

retarded, cerebral palsy child was abused at home; brought into care; abused physically and sexually in group homes prior to placement in a foster home. None of

these instances were pursued because he was deemed not a reliable witness. Again,

over a 3-year period 3 children were removed from one parent. One child had been

burned and shot; the third child was scalped at the age of 6 weeks. No one was

ever prosecuted for these crimes because the victims were young! If these 3 cases

are on my caseload, I am sure there are hundreds of others throughout the system.

Recommendation

—CFSA must be required to pursue justice for children and criminal prosecution

of those who physically and sexually abuse children.

PLACEMENT POLICIES

Children brought into the system are too often made to wait weeks or months before a placement is available. Young children still are retained at 400 6th Street

overnight or until a placement is available. Children 14 and older are made to wait

in group home facilities until a placement is identified. Many are then placed in

whatever home has a vacancy regardless of the needs of the child or the expressed

preference of the family. There is little matching of child to family. The result is

a negative experience for both and the ultimate removal of the child. Some children

are moved 2, 3, 4 times before finding an appropriate placement. This is true of both

CFSA foster homes and the private agencies with whom CFSA contracts for services. Some children abscond from the group home before a foster home is located.

Some act up to the point of requiring psychiatric hospitalization. Thus, the trauma

of the abuse coupled with the trauma of removal from the birth parents are compounded 3- and 4-fold by the actions of Child and Family Services Agency.

As recently as last week a 15-year-old child who had spent a year in a group home

requested a foster home in January, and the Judge ordered CFSA to identify a home

for him. In March the matter was brought back to court because no referral had

yet been made. When the Judge asked for an explanation, CFSA came up with a

home—reportedly the only home available in the system. No match was made; the

child never met the foster family. He was just placed in the home. It lasted less

than a week before the child ran away. The child remains in the group home being

told there is no other foster home in the system. He must just wait!

The same is true of the process for placing children in residential treatment programs. Last year I represented two 14-year-old children who spent extended periods

of time in the Psychiatric Institute of Washington waiting for the process of identifying a residential treatment program to progress. These children wasted 2–3

months of their childhood sitting in a hospital waiting for meetings to be scheduled;

papers to be exchanged; and transportation to be arranged before they could begin

the treatment process.

Recommendation

—CFSA needs to invest in active and aggressive recruitment of therapeutic foster

homes so that it has a pool of families with whom to place children. Children

should be matched with families so that there is at least a reasonable expectation that the placement will be effective. It should not take 4–6 weeks to place

a child in a foster home, nor 6–8 weeks for admission to a residential setting.

LACK OF ADEQUATE SUPPORT SERVICES

There is a disturbing punitive climate emerging in the agency that seems to view

the child as the culprit in abuse and neglect cases. Services are not readily available

to counter the effects of abuse and neglect.

—Tutors are limited to 1 month of service with repeated requests for renewal. Little tutoring can be effective in 1 month. The request for renewal on a monthly
91

basis is a serious waste of time on the part of social workers. Judges need to

order such simple services as tutoring to be sure that this service is not interrupted, and re-started with a new tutor. Children cannot adjust that readily to

new faces and styles of teaching.

—Mentors are only available for 3 months at a time with the need to justify renewal for longer periods. The purpose of a mentor is to afford the child a meaningful relationship. To terminate such a relationship in 3 months only serves

to have the child experience yet another loss. CFSA has contracts with various

firms who pay the mentors for the time invested in the child. Because of this

expense, they limit the time given to any child to 12 hours/month with the maximum amount, if justified, to 24 hours/month. This time includes transportation

to and from the child’s place of residence. Volunteers for Abused and Neglected

Children (formerly CASA) have trained volunteers who do not get paid. All

CFSA has to do is enter into a contract for administrative services, but has

failed to do so. It is difficult to understand the rationale for this decision.

—Teenagers are denied admission to independent living programs until they are

18 regardless of the need and the child’s readiness at 16 or 17. This leaves some

children in inappropriate settings waiting for the magical age of 18 for admission to an appropriate program. No one has yet explained the rationale for this

decision.

—Specialized evaluations and therapy are limited to whatever medicaid will pay

for regardless of the child’s need or the availability of competent clinicians.

Every child removed from the birth parent is traumatized by this event, or

those leading up to removal. Too often the multiple moves of CFSA from shelter

care to multiple foster homes only compounds the emotional stress these children experience. The inability to secure specialized forms of therapy is serious.

Young children require therapy to deal with sexual trauma, physical abuse, attachment disorders, and depression, while adolescents become angry, defiant,

aggressive and act out sexually or use drugs. Identifying quality mental health

care for these children is extremely difficult given CFSA’s policy that only providers who take medicaid can be used unless there is a court order for a specific

type of therapy or therapist. This process is lengthy and delays by weeks or

months the initiation of therapy for very troubled children and often puts both

home and school in jeopardy. Payment to vendors, while better than previously,

continues to be problematic and keeps the pool of available clinicians limited.

This is one of the most serious shortcomings of CFSA given the fact that virtually every child in care needs therapy.

GAL’s are frequently told by social workers to request a court order or the service

will not be provided, thus making the court manage the case. There is no similar

policy restricting services to parents who immediately get referrals for therapy, parenting, anger management programs, drug treatment, and whatever else they need,

regardless of whether they take advantage of it or not.

The same problem exists for other evaluations and therapies ordered by the

court—i.e. psychiatric and psychological evaluations of both children and parents.

The one place where it was possible to get top quality, comprehensive evaluations

of children and their parents was the Youth Forensic Services. This agency, however, has been virtually dismantled by the Commission on Mental Health so that

Youth Forensics now has no psychiatrist, 2 psychologists one of whom is unlicensed,

and 3 social workers.

Recommendations

—CFSA needs to have a policy that guarantees every child the services which the

court identifies as needed to counter the effects of abuse and neglect, and prepare them more quickly for permanency or emancipation. There needs to be an

identified roster of qualified clinicians who can be accessed readily so as not to

delay the initiation of therapy for traumatized children. Adoption is often delayed because a child has not been provided therapy, mentoring, tutoring or

other needed services to counter the negative effects of prior physical/sexual

abuse or severe neglect.

—Some oversight committee needs to revisit the logic of dismantling Youth Forensic Services which was one of the best resources available to CFSA. There is

no comparable service available in the District of Columbia which understands

the needs of the court; the type of comprehensive evaluations needed; and the

impact of court decisions on children and families.

PREPARATION FOR EMANCIPATION

Most of the children who ‘‘age out’’ of foster care are young people whose problems

or age have precluded adoption, or whose family failed to improve sufficiently for
92

them to return home. They have serious academic deficits, emotional problems,

mental limitations, none of which are their fault. They lack self confidence and selfhelp skills. They are immature and very vulnerable. They are ill prepared to jump

into the mainstream of life.

CFSA discharges these children without secure housing, employment, or health

care. This month alone I have had two children I represent age out at 21. One mildly retarded, emotionally disturbed youngster is currently homeless; the other, a teen

mother of two was given a list of city shelters to which to apply the day after her

21st birthday. There is no farewell; no emancipation celebration; no assurance that

if you get stuck you can come ask for help; just a message that ‘‘Your case is now

closed.’’ Adoptive families are assured of post-adoption services; teens are given no

such assurance.

CFSA receives an allocation of Section 8 vouchers from the Federal Government

that are carefully doled out to selected parents who have abused or neglected their

children and who are seeking reunification. At the same time, CFSA sends its own

young people, the victims of the abuse or neglect, out of the system at age 21 by

telling them where to find the nearest shelter. None of the vouchers in the hands

of CFSA can be given to its own children for whom it has served as surrogate parent.

To make matters worse, CFSA is now proposing to reduce the age of emancipation

to 18 instead of the current age of 21 because they claim the children don’t appreciate the services offered. Very few children even of stable families are ready to

leave home at age 18. Intact, stable families send their children to college in the

hopes that they will mature during those 4 years. It is incredible to think that

CFSA expects abused and neglected children, who have had very little nurturance

and stability, and who have too often bounced around the foster care system are mature enough to manage on their own at age 18. All that is available to them is the

street or a city shelter. Discharging these children at age 18 will force them to ‘‘survive’’ on the street selling drugs or their bodies for enough money to buy food. This

is not the way the District of Columbia should handle its children.

Recommendations

—Current D.C. legislation which provides that these very vulnerable young people

remain in care until age 21 is both humane and responsible and should not be

altered as a means of balancing the budget. The decision as to whether a child

is prepared for independent living prior to age 21 should continue to be left with

the Family Court judge who has oversight of the case, and should not be made

as the result of an arbitrary and capricious policy based on finances.

—CFSA needs to develop a policy and method of providing appropriate housing

for the children that emancipate from the system each year, and not just send

them to city shelters, and to apply for TANF and food stamps. None of us would

treat our own children in this manner!

—CFSA needs to design an integrated program of services, staffed with persons

who can engage young adults in meaningful activities and in which the young

people are active participants in their own development.

—CFSA should create an after-care department to assist youngsters who spent

their childhood in foster care and need a ‘‘home’’ to return to for occasional assistance during stressful times, especially as they try to get started on their

own.

STAFF RETENTION AND ASSIGNMENT

It is intriguing to hear CFSA boast about the reduction in staff turnover, when

workers continue to leave; cases remain uncovered or ‘‘covered’’ by a supervisor. Social workers continue to complain about the high caseloads; routinely put in for

transfers to non-case carrying positions; or work late into the night to get reports

to the court on time. Cases are still counted as ‘‘families’’ without regard for the

number of children in that family. Social workers are often responsible for up to 50

children at a time, making it impossible to get to IEP meetings, treatment team

meetings, or other significant events in a child’s life.

Cases have as many as 3 or more workers at a time and far more during the life

of the case. A worker is assigned to a case on one day; then the goal is changed

to adoption and the case is transferred to a ‘‘recruitment’’ worker; a family is recruited and the case is transferred to an ‘‘adoption’’ worker. At the same time a sibling goes to independent living and is assigned a ‘‘teen services’’ worker; another sibling is placed in a contract agency and is given a different worker. I represent a

set of twins who each have different workers. Such a practice precludes the formation of beneficial relationships that support the family and children—and delay

progress.
93

Recommendation

—CFSA needs to develop a ‘‘one case/one worker’’ policy similar to the court’s ‘‘one

family/one judge’’ system, with a maximum of 15–20 children per worker regardless of the number of families. Social workers need to get to know the case

so that services are not duplicated, facts lost, progress overlooked. The continual ‘‘re-organizing’’ of the agency is counter productive.

Success should be measured when children in the care of Child and Family Services Agency feel safe and protected, loved and cared for, and achieve permanence

early or are prepared to face the world on their own at age 21.

I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to improved relationships between CFSA and the community.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. Very interesting.

Ms. Meltzer.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH W. MELTZER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER

FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY, AND COURT-APPOINTED

MONITOR, CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY

Ms. MELTZER. Thank you. Good morning, Senator DeWine, Senator Landrieu. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for

your continuing leadership.

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

of Social Policy, which is the court-appointed monitor to U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan for the LaShawn A. v. Williams

lawsuit.

The LaShawn modified order is a comprehensive decree dating

to 1994, mandating comprehensive reform of the District’s child

welfare system. The Center is the monitor with responsibility for

development of implementation plans and for ongoing assessment

of the District’s progress.

The recent history of LaShawn begins with the termination of

the receivership in June 2001 and the launching of a probationary

period. The probationary period was to end only when the District

demonstrated sufficient progress on a series of very incremental

benchmarked performance standards. The District did that. Attached to this testimony is a copy of our report of September 30,

2002, which was based on an independent review last summer of

over 1,000 CFSA case records.

In doing that review, we looked at both the automated records

on the FACES information system, as well as paper records for

every case, because you could not rely on the automated system to

get complete information. We did find that the District met 75 percent of the targets, which was the basis for recommending a termination of the probationary period.

This is an accomplishment, and a significant one for the District.

And I do not want to underestimate it. But I also want you to know

that it does not mean that the District’s child welfare system is

consistently functioning at an acceptable level of performance or

that the District achieved compliance with the LaShawn Order.

I want to emphasize this in response to your earlier remarks,

Chairman DeWine. The probationary standards were set as very

incremental markers to demonstrate that the city had the capacity

to administer this agency. In other words, the end of probation

gives the responsibility for administration back to the District of

Columbia from the U.S. District Court. And that was really the

question that was resolved by the termination of the probationary

period. We are now at a point of developing the implementation
94

plan for going forward, because the Court has determined that the

administration can continue to make progress on these standards.

As Court Monitor, I am currently responsible for the development of this implementation plan in collaboration with the parties.

The Implementation Plan is designed to address the deficiencies we

found, the deficiencies found by GAO, and the deficiencies identified by the field and by advocates such as Ms. Schneiders.

Since January, Dr. Golden and her staff, the Office of Corporation Counsel of the Mayor’s office, plaintiffs and I have been working intensively to reach consensus on a plan. That discussion is

near completion—and I will be submitting a plan to the Court by

mid-April. The implementation will set ambitious yet, I believe,

feasible targets between now and December 2006 for District performance. Among the most important are continued improvement

in the timeliness and quality of investigations of child abuse and

neglect; high-quality social work and supervisory practice related to

assessment, case planning and supervision of placement; wider

availability of community-based supports; enhanced service provision; increased visits by social workers; an expanded range of highquality family placement options in the District; reliable and accessible supports for foster parents; consistent access to mental health

services, substance abuse services, and comprehensive medical,

psychological and educational services; and permanent homes for

the 1,110 children currently in the foster care system with a permanency goal of adoption.

The implementation plan also requires steady and measurable

improvement in several key infrastructure areas, including aggressive hiring of social workers. This job cannot be done unless there

are enough social workers who are well trained to do it. The Plan

also requires implementation of a high-quality training program for

CFSA staff and for private agency workers; revamping contract

policies and procedures to establish clear and enforceable performance expectations; full implementation and enforcement of the new

licensing standards for foster homes, group homes, and independent living facilities; revamping the agency’s administrative

case review system; continued work with the new Family Court to

achieve AFSA timelines and outcomes, and completion of work on

the automated information system, FACES, so that the agency has

access to timely, accurate, and complete data on the children and

families it serves.

I believe that the Implementation Plan, with its ambitious yet

sequenced targets, can be successfully completed. And my optimism

is in part based on the excellent leadership that has been provided

in the last 2 years by the Mayor, Dr. Golden, and her staff.

In addition to a degree that far exceeds anything that I witnessed in the prior history of LaShawn, the child welfare agency

is finally working constructively with other agencies in the District

Government, including the Mental Health Agency. Also Superior

Court, under the leadership of Judge Rufus King and presiding

Judge Lee Satterfield, is working collaboratively and constructively

with the child welfare agency.

There are five actions that the subcommittee can take to help accelerate positive change. I will list them only now, although my

written testimony provides some additional detail.
95

First, I think the Congress can provide incentives for the creation

of a qualified and stable workforce, either through educational stipends or loan forgiveness programs and through expanding the applicability of Title IV–E training reimbursement to private agency

workers, court staff, and other public agency partners.

Second, I think there can be additional financial support for targeted prevention efforts that will allow the District to expand the

provision of comprehensive neighborhood-based services to families

at risk of entering the child welfare system.

Third, I believe there should be targeted efforts to achieve permanency for the 1,110 children in the foster care system who have

a permanency goal of adoption. This is one-third of the current

caseload.

Fourth, I think there can be assistance for the development of

additional foster and adoptive families within the District of Columbia, including foster families for children who are entering the

system without exceptional needs, as well as those who have severe

behavioral and therapeutic needs.

Fifth, there needs to be intensive efforts to create assets and supports for those leaving the foster care system, as Ms. Schneiders

has just testified to. There are currently 1,028 youths over the age

of 14 in the foster care system. Again, that is almost a third of the

caseload. And it is a higher proportion of older children than other

systems. This reflects, I think, the many years in which the system

did not move children to permanency in a timely fashion. But much

more has to be done to provide these children with the supports

they need, so that when they exit the foster care system, they can

lead healthy and independent lives.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Members of the subcommittee, I want to conclude by emphasizing the importance of continuing support for the work of the District’s child welfare system. I know it is frustrating. It has been extremely frustrating for me. It is frustrating for everybody that this

reform has taken so long. But this is a multi-year effort. The Implementation Plan that the Court will order will chart ambitious

steps for finally bringing the District’s child welfare agency to an

acceptable level of performance. This requires changes in practice,

policy, and structure, as well as additional resources.

With our continued efforts and shared commitment, I look forward to a day in the not-too-distant future when we can celebrate

full compliance with LaShawn order and the end of Federal Court

oversight of the system.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH W. MELTZER

Senator DeWine and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank

you for the opportunity to testify this morning about the progress of the District of

Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). I am Judith Meltzer, Deputy

Director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy. I serve as the Court-appointed

Monitor to U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan for the LaShawn A. v. Williams lawsuit. The LaShawn Modified Order is a comprehensive decree, dating to

1994. The Order includes expectations for child welfare performance in the District

across the full range of programmatic and administrative functions that are necessary to achieve the safety, permanency and well-being of children who are at risk
96

of and experience child abuse and neglect. The LaShawn Order appointed the Center for the Study of Social Policy as the independent Court Monitor with responsibility for the development of implementation plans and for the ongoing assessment

of the District’s progress in complying with the Federal court orders.

The recent history of LaShawn begins with the leadership of Mayor Anthony Williams and the establishment of the Child and Family Services Agency in June 2001,

with Dr. Olivia Golden as its Director. On that date, the Federal court terminated

the Receivership of the District’s child welfare system and launched a probationary

period, which would end only when the District demonstrated sufficient progress on

a series of 20 benchmarked performance standards. The District was to achieve

agreed-upon performance targets for 75 percent of the standards by October 31,

2001, which was later extended to May 31, 2002. The standards were designed as

incremental measures of progress and covered, among other things, the timeliness

of investigations of abuse and neglect; the development of current case plans for

family services cases and children in foster care; reducing the number of children

in emergency and congregate care; increasing the numbers of children adopted; and

improving the appropriateness and stability of foster care placement for children in

the District’s custody. Attached to this testimony is a copy of my report to the Court

dated September 30, 2002, on the District’s progress in meeting the Probationary

Period Performance Standards based on our review last summer of over 1,000 case

records. The District met performance targets for 75 percent of the standards and,

based on those results, I was able to recommend that the probationary period be

terminated. On January 7, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Hogan formally terminated the probationary period, thus ending the Federal court Receivership of the

District’s child welfare agency, although Federal court oversight under LaShawn re- mains in place.

The ending of the Receivership reflects real improvement in the system and is a

significant and positive accomplishment for the District of Columbia. It does not,

however, mean that the District’s child welfare system is consistently functioning

at an acceptable performance level or that the District has achieved compliance with

the LaShawn Order. This Subcommittee hearing comes at a very important time

for the Child and Family Services Agency as it works to create a child welfare system that meets not only the Court’s expectations for performance, but more importantly a system that meets the expectations of the citizens of the District of Columbia.

As Court Monitor, I am currently responsible for the development, in collaboration

with the parties, of a binding Implementation Plan that identifies the steps and

tasks necessary to achieve compliance, the timelines for task accomplishment and

the resources (including staff, personnel, contracts and other resources) necessary

for implementation. This Implementation Plan is to be submitted to the Court and

will become an enforceable order of the Federal court under the LaShawn Order.

The expectations of the LaShawn Order and the Implementation Plan are consistent with the District’s efforts to comply with the Federal and District Adoption

and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and with community and professional standards of

acceptable child welfare practice.

Since January, I have been working intensively and constructively with Dr. Golden and her staff, the Office of Corporation Counsel, Grace Lopes from the Mayor’s

Office and representatives from plaintiffs (Children’s Rights, Inc.), to reach consensus on an Implementation Plan. Our negotiations ended last week and I expect

to make final decisions and submit an Implementation Plan to the Court by no later

than April 15th. At that time, I will be glad to submit the proposed Plan to this

Subcommittee for inclusion in the record of this hearing.

The Implementation Plan will set ambitious, yet I believe, feasible targets between now and December 2006 for District performance across the spectrum of child

welfare practices and services. Among the most important are:

—Continued improvement in the timeliness and quality of investigations of child

abuse and neglect.

—High quality social work and supervisory practice with children and families in

the areas of assessment case planning, and supervision of placement.

—Wider availability of community-based supports for families to prevent children

and families from entering the child welfare system.

—Enhanced services provision so that children will enter foster care placement

only when their own families cannot be assisted to provide them with safe and

stable homes.

—Increased visits by social workers to children in placement and to families with

children at home with current child protective services cases.

—Development of an expanded range of high quality family placement options in

the District of Columbia to continue progress to reduce the numbers of children,
97

especially young children, who are cared for in group settings. The Implementation Plan will most likely include a provision that requires the District to end

any overnight placement in its in-house Intake Center by June 2003 and to

have fewer than 50 children under age 12 in congregate settings by December

31, 2004.

—Providing reliable and accessible foster parent supports so that placement disruptions decline and children experience fewer placement moves while they are

in foster care.

—Consistent access to resources that children and families need, especially mental health services, substance abuse services and comprehensive medical, psychological and educational services.

—Locating adoptive families or permanent kinship families for the 1,100 children

in foster care with a permanency goal of adoption, and completing the necessary

adoption subsidy/guardianship agreements and other legal actions to provide

these children permanent homes.

In order to achieve the programmatic and practice goals that I listed, the Implementation Plan also requires steady and measurable improvement in several key infrastructure areas, including:

—Aggressive hiring of social workers through improved recruitment and retention

strategies leading to rapidly declining caseloads for all workers. The Implementation Plan is anticipated to require complete achievement of LaShawn caseload

standards for workers and supervisors by the end of 2004.

—Implementation of a high quality training program for CFSA staff and private

agency workers that is geared to improving practice skills and achieving defined

practice competencies.

—Revamping the contract policies and procedures to establish clear and enforceable expectations for performance by private agencies related to achieving safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children.

—Full implementation of new licensing standards for foster homes, group homes

and independent living facilities and consistent and effective enforcement of licensing standards.

—Revamping the Agency’s administrative case review system to provide consistent and meaningful review of case progress and achievement of permanency

goals.

—Continued work with the new Family Court to make sure that the entire system

works together to achieve ASFA permanency expectations and timelines.

—Implementation of comprehensive quality assurance processes, including routine

case and supervisory reviews, special incident reviews, external fatality reviews

and quantitative/qualitative assessment of case process and outcomes.

—Completion of work on CFSA’s automated management information system

(FACES) so that the Agency has access to timely, accurate and complete data

on the children and families it serves.

In making decisions about the Implementation Plan, I have worked with the District and the plaintiffs to achieve a balance between the urgent needs of children

and families and the desire to quickly produce results, with the District government’s appropriate concern about successfully sequencing and managing multiple

and demanding requirements for change. I believe that the Implementation Plan,

with its ambitious yet sequenced performance targets, can be successfully completed. My optimism is, in part, based on the excellent leadership provided by Dr.

Golden and the hard working CFSA staff. Dr. Golden has assembled an enthusiastic

team of competent child welfare professionals and has mobilized the diverse talents

of many staff within the Agency and from a broad range of private agency and community partners. In addition, to a degree that far exceeds anything I have witnessed

in the prior history of LaShawn, the child welfare agency is working constructively

with other agencies in the District government, most importantly, the Department

of Mental Health, the Office of Corporation Counsel, and the Metropolitan Police

Department. This collaborative effort is greatly enhanced by the support of the

Mayor. Finally, the Superior Court, under the leadership of Chief Judge Rufus King

and Presiding Judge Lee Satterfield, is working with the child welfare agency to ensure children’s safety and to provide meaningful and timely judicial review of children’s progress toward permanency. The serious difficulties of providing appropriate

services, supports and stable living situations for children remain, but I believe

there is an improved level of trust and commitment from the various parts of the

system to work together in new ways to solve these complex problems.

There are five actions that the Subcommittee can take to help accelerate positive

change. They include:

—1. Provide incentives for the creation of a qualified and stable workforce.—This

can be done in two ways: first, provide financial incentives for recruitment and
98

retention of social workers through loan forgiveness, new stipends or loans for

education in return for defined, time-limited commitments to child welfare work

in the District; and second, by provide additional funding, either through extending the applicability of Title IV–E training reimbursement or through other

means, to provide intensive skill building and family-centered practice training

for workers in the public child welfare agency and for staff in private provider

agencies and partner agencies, such as mental health, substance abuse, and the

Courts. —2. Provide additional financial support for targeted prevention efforts that would

allow the District to expand the provision of comprehensive neighborhood-based

services to families at risk of entering the child welfare system.—For the past

2 years, the District was able to use TANF funds to support services provided

by the eight Healthy Families, Thriving Communities Collaboratives, including

their innovative use of Family Team Decision Making, which bring family, extended family and community supports together with public agency workers to

develop and implement plans of care to ensure safety and permanency for children. In fiscal year 2004, the District will have to use local funds to replace the

TANF resources for this work and currently does not have additional funding

available for any expansion of these important efforts. —3. Support targeted efforts to achieve permanency for the 1,100 children in foster

care who have a permanency goal of adoption.—This can be done in one of several ways: first, providing fiscal incentives for achieving permanency through

adoption or subsidized guardianship for children currently in foster care. Bonus

funds could be available for specialized recruitment for sibling groups, young

teens and/or children with individualized needs, or to pay for additional services

and supports to allow a foster family or kin provider to securely commit to adoption or permanent guardianship. Second, funds could be provided to allow the

District child welfare agency to enter into contracts with private child placing

agencies to engage in child-specific recruitment and placement with families for

currently waiting children.

—4. Assist with the development of foster and adoptive families within the District

of Columbia.—One of the barriers to District families wishing to become licensed foster parents is the presence of lead paint in much of the District’s

older housing stock. Some potential families cannot be approved as foster parents or kin providers until they secure lead paint abatement, which is frequently beyond their financial means. Funding to pay for lead paint abatement

for these District families, who are otherwise qualified to be licensed foster or

kinship homes or approved adoptive families, could be made available.

—5. Support intensive efforts to create assets and supports for youth leaving foster

care.—As of December 31, 2002, one-third of the children in foster care (1,028

children) were age 14 and over. The District has a higher percentage of older

children in its foster care system than nationally, in part reflecting the many

years in which the District failed to make timely decisions on permanency for

children. Despite current efforts, many of these older children will not achieve

permanency before they leave the foster care system, and much more needs to

be done to ensure that they are equipped to survive as independent adults when

they do leave. Congress could help by providing additional support for educational stipends, work experience and career coaching for these children; for

additional mental health and substance abuse services; for assistance with

housing when they leave foster care and for the creation of Individual Development Accounts (IDA’s) that would allow teens in foster care to build assets.

Members of the Subcommittee, I conclude by emphasizing the importance of continuing support for the work of the District’s child welfare agency. The Implementation Plan that the Court will order will chart ambitious steps for finally bringing

the District’s child welfare agency to an acceptable level of performance. This will

require changes in practice, policy and structure as well as additional resources.

Achieving the desired results also will require clarity and tenacity about accountability and consistent review of performance data to measure progress and take corrective action. As external Monitor, the Center for the Study of Social Policy will

prepare periodic progress reports for the Court, the District government, the Congress and the public, and we will work with the Agency to improve their internal

quality assurance and results monitoring. With our continued efforts and shared

commitment, I look forward to a day, in the not too distant future, when we will

celebrate full compliance with the LaShawn Order and the end of Federal court

oversight of the District of Columbia child welfare system.

Thank you and I will be pleased to take questions.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you all very much.
99

Let me start, Dr. Golden, I saw sometimes you nodding your

head yes and sometimes you nodding your head no. And so maybe

we should start with clarifying for the record how much of the GAO

report you agree with and what you do not agree with.

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, we have talked at great length. And I really

appreciate——

Senator DEWINE. I want to get that on the record, though, so we

all know here——

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. How much of the GAO report is in

dispute. And I know we do not have the final report.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. But I would like to know, at least going into

the report, how much do you think is not correct——

Dr. GOLDEN. I really——

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. And which is correct.

Dr. GOLDEN. Sure.

Senator DEWINE. And then we can go and argue about what it

means.

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, I have not seen a late draft. It sounds to me

as though most of the issues about which we discussed, the methodology, have been addressed. I think that the one set of things

that would be worth our talking about more is that some of the

GAO information is historical information; that is, in a number of

areas, because they looked at a sample of cases in the fall of 2002,

that entered the system anywhere from 1998 on, some of the information is historical. And that is very valuable to us, because it tells

us where we came from. But it is different currently. And as we

have been working it through with GAO, we have been discussing

that.

Senator DEWINE. I do not know what you mean.

Dr. GOLDEN. Excuse me?

Senator DEWINE. I do not know what you are talking about.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay. Shall I give you what——

Senator DEWINE. Yes.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay.

Senator DEWINE. Explain it to a lay person who is not in the system.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay.

Senator DEWINE. I do not do this every day. What does it mean?

Dr. GOLDEN. Sure. Sure.

Senator DEWINE. What do you mean, historical?

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, remember that FACES was created in 2000.

The receivership ended in 2001. And the system was unified, meaning that CFSA had responsibility for all cases in about October of

2001. So the system changed very dramatically over those years.

Senator DEWINE. All right.

Dr. GOLDEN. What—for a number of GAO’s findings, for example,

case plans submitted in the first 30 days, which is an area where

we know we need to do lots of work——

Senator DEWINE. All right.

Dr. GOLDEN [continuing]. As I understand it, the methodology

was to look at cases in the fall of 2002, and then go back and look

at whenever they came into the system, whether many years ago
100

or recently. And for me, as I think about—I am very eager to use

all the information GAO has in our reform plans. For me, that is

a different piece of information, because that is about how cases

were investigated versus the information they have provided me

that is more current.

So when I am providing you and the Court with information, I

am focusing a lot on the change, where things were in 2001, when

we had a deeply fragmented system, and what has changed. And

some of GAO’s information is about that, and some of it is longer

ago.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. But these kids are still in the system,

though.

Dr. GOLDEN. That is right.

Senator DEWINE. These are not kids that are gone.

Dr. GOLDEN. That is right.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, let us make sure we understand. When

I think historic, when I heard you say historic, I thought you

meant a kid that was gone, in other words, a kid that was, you

know, 22 and out of the system and we are not worried about anymore. But we are still worrying about these kids.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. And we are still trying to improve our practices.

Senator DEWINE. Okay.

Dr. GOLDEN. And so some of the GAO information tells me about

my caseworkers’ practices now.

Senator DEWINE. So this is not ancient history.

Dr. GOLDEN. That is right.

Senator DEWINE. These are still kids. And we are still worrying

about them. And we still have a responsibility for them.

Dr. GOLDEN. And we are focusing really intently on changing

how we serve those children.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. And the fact is, what about the statistic

that 70 percent of the current cases are not in the system? Now

what about that statistic?

Dr. GOLDEN. I believe——

Senator DEWINE. That kind of grabs you.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. And that——

Senator DEWINE. Is that right or wrong?

Dr. GOLDEN. It is wrong stated as you stated it. I do not think

GAO would state it that way.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. State it correctly then. I am wrong. Tell

me how I should state it.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay. Right now we know where all of our children

are and who they are. We know a whole lot of other information

about them. For those children currently in our caseload who came

into care before FACES or who came into care through the Metropolitan Police Department before we were doing it, there is information about their early months that exists in a hard copy case file

but is not in our system.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. GAO——

Dr. GOLDEN. Is that right?

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. How would you say it? I want to

get it right now.
101

Ms. ASHBY. Okay. I think that is true. And I think perhaps the

issue is the significance of that. It is true that in some of the analyses we did, we—in fact, what we did is look at active cases in November of 2002, because that is at the point we were doing our

field work. And we took cases that were at least 6 months old at

that point. And we tried to determine certain things about those

cases.

In some instances, the particular things we were looking at, particularly with regard to initial investigations, safety assessments

and so forth, we could not get that information consistently from

the automated system, although it should have been there. And

even in some cases where these cases were initiated after FACES

went online, the information was missing.

Senator DEWINE. Which is pretty shocking.

Ms. ASHBY. It is surprising. And in not just a few——

Senator DEWINE. I mean, that is surprising.

Ms. ASHBY. Not just a few cases.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, if the case started after the system

started, you really do not have any excuse for not having it in then,

it seems to me.

Ms. ASHBY. Right. About half, in some cases. In some instances,

for specific pieces of information, specific data elements or fields,

the information was missing for up to half of the cases.

Dr. GOLDEN. If it would be helpful to offer some examples of

those fields and the timing, because one of the things that I know,

Senator DeWine, it may be important to you to know is how do we

compare to other operational information systems around the country, and what is it that means that we are getting an award or we

are in the top half, giving that we are missing some fields.

And just to give you a couple of examples, because with an information system it always takes time over the years, some of the big

changes, when I came in 2 years ago, even though FACES was

operational, we did not have good data entry. We did not know

which cases went with which workers. We did not know how to

count worker caseloads. We did not know which homes were licensed. We were not easily tracking worker visitation. And we did

not have good information on court hearings.

Today we have good information on all those things currently.

Some of them are really recent. The court hearing information, we

just got our automated feed from the Court 3 weeks ago. So over

this 2-year period what we have been doing is improving the implementation bit by bit. And I think the reason our FACES system is

getting that national award is partly about where we have gotten

to now.

I absolutely agree that if you look at where we were a couple of

years ago, there is a lot of improvement that we have had to do.

Ms. ASHBY. Well, I would agree there has been improvement.

And I would also suspect that if you only looked at the last year,

for example, the numbers would look better. But of course, what

we were asked to do was, for current cases, to look to see what the

status of things were. And to only look at the last year where there

have been improvements would not be a correct picture either.

With respect to the data itself and the data, or elements within

the data, for children who entered the system prior to October 1999
102

when FACES went online, much of that information could still be

relevant. These are active cases. And if you do not know the history, or you cannot readily obtain the history—I will not say you

cannot know it, because there are case files, although we and perhaps others would like to address this as well. We found problems

with the case files as well. Those are not complete either.

But much of the data, or some of the data, with respect to currently active cases, if that information is not readily available to

the current caseworker, then that worker does not necessarily

know what has gone on in terms of prior services to that child or

that family. Perhaps there has been medical interventions that

may be lost. It is much more—it is much more difficult to use

paper case files than it is to use an automated system. I mean, that

is the difference between the first half of the 20th century and the

21st century. Certainly an automated system is what you need.

With an automated system you can do various analyses that you

cannot do otherwise.

For example, it was mentioned the possibility of not knowing

where a child is, if a child might be in Maryland, in a foster home

in Maryland, and the system might not know it. Well, unless you

have a name or an I.D. number to go to a case file, you really could

not find that out. In an automated system, perhaps you could do

a search, and you could locate the child. So I think it is the significance that we are disagreeing on in terms of that earlier data.

Dr. GOLDEN. And I think it is a challenge in all the systems

around the country. Because all the SACWIS systems have been—

I mean, ours is one of the newer ones, so we are pleased about

where are, given when it was implemented. But only 21 States

have them operational. We are one of those.

So for all the States that either are as new as we are or even

newer, they do—everybody faces that challenge of whether, when

you are looking at something several years back, that social worker

is going to work from the hard copy record and focus their data

entry on current or look back.

Senator DEWINE. Let me just ask a simple question. And again,

I am kind of an outsider here. Obviously, I am an outsider. But

how long would it take to enter all just the current data? You do

not have any intention of entering the current data. I mean, that

is what you are telling me.

Dr. GOLDEN. I am sorry, Senator. I think we do have the current

data. I am not understanding.

Senator DEWINE. Well, that is not—I am sorry. That is not what

Ms. Ashby just told me. She said she has found cases where you

do not have the current data in there.

Dr. GOLDEN. Well——

Senator DEWINE. She said she found a case where you did not

have the current data in there.

Ms. ASHBY. And I think we need to define current.

Senator DEWINE. Well, current, what you told me is after the

system came up——

Ms. ASHBY. That is correct.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. Online, you found cases where all

the data was not in there.

Ms. ASHBY. That is correct.
103

Senator DEWINE. That is current to me.

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, we——

Senator DEWINE. I draw the line when the system came into effect.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. Well, let me give you a couple of examples.

And they would probably be ones we would work on. One example

of data that would not be in there even for a few months ago would

be full and complete data from the Court about hearings. Because

we are very excited. We worked out with the Court how to get that

feed from them. And so that automated data we would not have

been complete until we got it started.

In some cases, we do go back. In other cases, we work from paper

records and focus on current.

Another example would be visits, where we have done a huge

amount of work in the past few months, because we are managing

visits very much every week. We are focusing on that. And there

it is a matter, both with our social workers internally and with our

contracted agencies, focusing a lot of training on getting that into

the system.

There is a tradeoff for those social workers, both in our agency

and in the contracted agencies, about being up to date versus going

back and trying to transfer information from their paper records

for the past. We usually focus on what we think is most urgent for

improving our practice for children. But there is often a tradeoff.

And I think, again, other jurisdictions that have SACWIS systems may not have as many elements as we do current or some

may have more, some may have fewer. Everybody is making a

judgment call on how much you can effectively use the automated

system.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. I think I have beat this enough. I am

going to turn to Senator Landrieu. I am going to come back. I have

a lot of questions.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can sense your

frustration. And I share some of that, because we do want to just

try to be as clear as we can, so that we can push forward these

reforms and continue to try to be supportive.

Let me start with a bigger picture. Could somebody, maybe Ms.

Golden, clarify for us the universe of children we are talking about

today? I have read your statement, and it is just not clear to me.

And maybe I am not reading it correctly. But we are talking about

3,119 children currently in placement, plus 2,301 children in families.

Dr. GOLDEN. Those are end of 2002 point-in-time numbers. They

are pretty—they have been pretty stable. That is right.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I just want to clarify that if I add those

two numbers, that is all the children we are talking about. That

is it, the total?

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, the other—that is the number at any given

point. It is the number of children in placement and the number

of families we are supervising in their homes. That is right. Every

month we get about——

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. So just—I do not——

Dr. GOLDEN. I apologize.
104

Senator LANDRIEU. I just need a number. What is the number?

It is 31 plus 23 is 54, approximately 5,400.

Dr. GOLDEN. The number of cases. That is right.

Senator LANDRIEU. 5,400 cases.

Dr. GOLDEN. That is right.

Senator LANDRIEU. Now that would be multiple children per

case?

Dr. GOLDEN. The way that——

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes or no?

Dr. GOLDEN. In the families, family cases, we count the family,

when children are at home. But when children are in placement,

we count every child.

Senator LANDRIEU. I am just trying to get a number. I am just

trying to get a number of the children that we are talking about.

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU. So give me an estimate, or a real number. If

it is 5,400 cases, how many children would you say that we are

monitoring, either monitoring because they are in an out-of-home

paid placement or monitoring children that are still in their

families——

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. But are being monitored because

of abuse and neglect allegations?

Dr. GOLDEN. As you said, Senator, it is about——

Senator LANDRIEU. So would I raise this number to 6,500? Would

it be that many?

Dr. GOLDEN. The number—the children in the families, as I said,

we count the children in placement, as do most States. In families,

I actually can get you the exact number.

Senator LANDRIEU. Could I get that?

Dr. GOLDEN. I would say look at an average of about two to three

children per family. I think our total—those are children who are

all in the home. If any child is in placement, we count that child

separately.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. The reason I am pressing for this number is because I am then going to ask you how many social workers

you have on staff. And I am going to divide the number of social

workers and children and come up with the actual caseload that we

are talking about.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay.

Senator LANDRIEU. Because there are ways that you can determine the caseload, you know, say the caseload is X or say the caseload is Y. But the way that I would think would be the best way

is to take the number of children and divide by the current payroll

of social workers. So first of all, we know whether we are talking

about a caseload of 15 to 1, 25 to 1, 50 to 1, or 75 to 1.

Dr. GOLDEN. I can tell you that approximately, and then we can

follow up with a division, if that would be useful.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. What is it?

Dr. GOLDEN. The caseload, which does include families for children at home—that is the way the modified final order counts it,

and most places do—and children in placement is about 23.

The——
105

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Then I am going to take that number,

23 to 1. But I am going to do the division this other way and see

if there is a discrepancy.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator LANDRIEU. The reason I push this number is that I do

not think we can get much other reform done unless you get that

caseload down. Because we are depending on the social workers, I

would imagine——

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. To execute the imputing of the

data, the visitation, the permanency plans. And so it is very important, I would suggest to the chairman, that our committee

focus——

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. On the funding and recruitment,

or funding necessary and then recruitment, for the caseworkers, so

that the caseworkers remain, hopefully, permanent and not turnover, get a handle on their cases, both the back log of the historical

cases, as you have talked about, and the current, and then try to,

you know, manage the reform that way.

Dr. GOLDEN. If it would be helpful—I agree completely with that.

I think that that is a key area for us. In working with the Federal

Court on the implementation plan, we have some standards that

frame our work and a workload study coming up to refine those

standards. So I would be glad either now or after to share with

you, we have standards for children in placement, we have standards for families in the home, and we have standards for investigators, which we are very close to, about 12 investigations a month.

And we have—we have a plan, and we have a workload study plan

to fine tune that. So that would be a wonderful fit with the strategies of the committee.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I look forward to working with you.

Now following that up just a moment, because I appreciate Ms.

Schneiders’s testimony so much and was pleased that last year this

committee actually appropriated $1.5 million for the guardian ad

litem program, which supports a lot of the work that you and some

of the other attorneys in the area do. And we are very proud of

that, because we want to step up the advocacy as an independent

voice, you know, helping us all to really stay focused on the reforms. And we really appreciate the contribution that advocates are

making.

But based on the testimony given, are you in a position to change

the policy that we were talking about, so that it turns out to be

one child per caseworker, and that children are not moved from one

type of caseworker to another? Could you comment on that? And

are you committed to the one child-one worker system? And if so,

when will it be implemented? And if not, why not?

Dr. GOLDEN. Let me tell you about all the work we have been

doing that, because that is key. And I just want to note that Ms.

Schneiders is on our local advisory board. And we had a bit of this

conversation the other night. And I was hoping we would follow up

with the names of some of the workers, so I could work on the specific cases. So that is still ahead for us.
106

But let me tell you a little bit about where we stared and what

we have done in terms of the one worker-one child.

Senator LANDRIEU. That would be fine, except my time is just so

short.

Dr. GOLDEN. I apologize.

Senator LANDRIEU. I just want you, Dr. Golden, if you could——

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes.

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. To say do you agree with the policy of one social worker per child? And if so, when is that going to

be implemented for the—have we gotten a number? Are we talking

about 5,000 children, the 5,000 approximately? I will just say 5,000

children under care.

Dr. GOLDEN. I think that the—I agree not only with a worker for

a child. But I think Ms. Schneiders’ point was also to try to make

sure that, where possible, siblings have the same worker. And so

we are focusing on both those things. We do—and we have made

changes in our structure to make that happen. Children used to

move back and forth when they went from a family to out-of-home

care. And we have put together in-home and reunification units

with a goal of addressing that.

We do still anticipate that when the child’s goal becomes adoption, it often will be better to have that child’s case moved to an

adoption worker. Jurisdictions around the country do that different

ways. But I think the experience suggests that that really works

well, because that way you move the child towards placement more

fully. But that is one of the very specific examples.

Senator LANDRIEU. I am not—I just want to say that I am not

sure that I agree with that.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay.

Senator LANDRIEU. That is why I want to press this point. I am

just looking for a time line. As the manager of this agency, what

is the time line that you have in mind for making sure that each

of the 5,000 children under your care have one worker per child or

one worker per sibling group? Do you think you will reach that goal

in 12 months or 24 months or do you have a time line in mind?

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, each child having one worker, I actually do

want to find out where the problems are now, because that should

be consistent now. Sibling groups, I think——

Senator LANDRIEU. But you are testifying that currently today it

should be a policy of a child having the same worker, today?

Dr. GOLDEN. From the point where their case is—where their investigation is completed, because we have separate investigators

who would handle that child’s case, who would do that the first 30

days, and then hand that child’s case to an ongoing worker. From

that point either until permanence or until adoption—now there

are lots of reasons why that does not happen in terms of turnover

of that individual worker. But I think, as I understand the question, you are asking if our policy is to have a child develop bonds

with a social worker over that whole period, from investigation

until the point of adoption.

Senator LANDRIEU. Until either reunification or adoption.

Ms. Schneiders, maybe you could comment about what your experiences are. Is that happening? Or do you find—you testified that

you have a set of twins that each have a different worker.
107

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. Siblings we have to work on.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The problem, as I see it, is that every time the

child makes a move, there is a—because of the way the agency is

configured—there is a teen unit, there is an adoption unit, there

is a reunification unit, there is a this unit and that unit. So if one

child is moving through these units, so they have a worker, the

goal is adoption. Immediately we refer to the adoption unit. The

adoption unit then has a recruiter. So then the child interacts with

the recruiter and goes on Wednesday’s Child and all that.

Once the family is found, the recruiter is gone, and the child gets

an adoption worker. And then—but the siblings can be doing another thing. The sibling can be in a teen unit. The sibling can be

in residential.

So what we are proposing is that the family be given a worker,

who can work with that family, so that——

Senator LANDRIEU. Absolutely.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS [continuing]. Around these different issues there

can be sibling visitation, the parent knows who to call, and they

are not calling five different workers because this child is here and

another child is there. And that when a child makes some progress,

the worker knows the progress and the struggles to that progress

and can benefit from that and move the child to the next level.

Every time a worker changes, they go back to square one, to try

to learn the case and learn the facts. And they come to court and

say: I have only had the case for 3 months. I do not know anything

about it.

Senator LANDRIEU. That is what we are determined to end. Let

me just state that now. I know the chairman has additional goals—

we are going to end that system in the District and, as much as

we can, throughout the child welfare agencies around the country.

We are going to move to a system where there is one worker either

per child or one worker per family, that knows the child, knows the

family, knows the history, and stays with it, creating that kind of

system.

I am going to end with this. We are going to minimize the number of group homes that exist, maximize the number of real families, not to underestimate the contribution that foster families

make, but to make therapeutic real families for children to move

into temporarily. And they are either going to move back to the

family that they came from or move into an adoptive family.

So the business of foster care is going to be eliminated over a

short period of time. Children will be in real families. And the case

work has to get down to a manageable level for the caseworkers

with consistency.

So I will end on that. Let us continue to pursue with this GAO

report, Mr. Chairman. It is very disturbing in the sense that I

know we have made a lot of progress, but this outlines a tremendous amount of work that has to be done.

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator LANDRIEU. This committee is prepared to provide resources and guidance and assistance. What I am not prepared to

do is to wait another 5 years for some of these changes to take

place. They are too important, and they are too critical. And there

are children’s lives that are in the balance.
108

So thank you very much.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you.

Ms. Ashby, you state in your testimony that many caseworkers

find the FACES database difficult to use. In your research, did you

find that this was due to the system actually being difficult to navigate, or what was the problem?

Ms. ASHBY. I do not——

Senator DEWINE. Or was it a lack of training for the caseworkers

or—you know, look, the only reason you go to a system like this—

I am stating the obvious. But the only reason you go to a system

like this and put the money into it is so that your caseworkers

have more time to be caseworkers.

Ms. ASHBY. Right.

Senator DEWINE. And, you know, the same with policemen. You

have technology so a policeman can be a policeman. And you want

the caseworker to be a caseworker. And you want him or her to

have more information at his or her fingertips about the client,

about the child and about the child’s family and get that information so you can serve that child better.

Ms. ASHBY. Correct.

Senator DEWINE. Now if the system is getting in the way of that

or if the caseworker cannot use the system or if the caseworker is

working around the system, we have a problem. And I get the impression we have a problem. So what is the deal here?

Ms. ASHBY. All right. I cannot give you a definitive answer. I suspect that it is all of the above, that in some cases, perhaps, a caseworker is intimidated by an automated system. That is not unusual.

Senator DEWINE. Yes. I get that. I understand.

Ms. ASHBY. There is training available, as I understand it. And

there is actually, I think, up to 3 days training. So I find it hard

to believe the training is an issue. Time may be, the time it takes

to gather the information and put it in the system. I do not know

if access to computers—and I do not know if every caseworker has

a desktop computer or not. Dr. Golden is indicating that that is the

case. So access to the computer is probably not the problem.

Maybe it is culture. I do not know. If you have an organization

that is saying that historical data is not important because that

was last year or 2 years ago or 3 years ago, maybe that is interpreted to mean, well, maybe today’s data is not that important either, because a year from now, 2 years from now, that will be historical. I do not know. We did not look at FACES in terms of the

technical aspects of it or inputting data, per se.

Senator DEWINE. Well, let me ask this, and let me again be more

provocative here, Dr. Golden: When you are—is that a problem

when your organization is not putting a premium on historical information, because you are not putting it in? And you are not putting a premium on it, and, therefore, the caseworker says: My organization is not paying the money to put it in or is not mandating

it be put in, and therefore maybe it is not important to be put in.

Dr. GOLDEN. Senator, what——

Senator DEWINE. You are looking me in the eye, and you are basically telling me it is never going to go get put in. That is the im-
109

pression, because you have never answered me whether it is ever

going to be put in.

Dr. GOLDEN. Senator, let me——

Senator DEWINE. Now have you, Doctor?

Dr. GOLDEN. I think what I focused on, and it sounds as

though——

Senator DEWINE. Doctor?

Dr. GOLDEN [continuing]. I am giving you the wrong answer, sir.

Senator DEWINE. Have you ever told me it is going to be put in?

Please give me a yes or no.

Dr. GOLDEN. I——

Senator DEWINE. No. I take it as a no.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. I mean, I think——

Senator DEWINE. It is never going to be put in.

Dr. GOLDEN [continuing]. Data from 1998 hard copy records, you

are——

Senator DEWINE. It is never going to be put in. So that caseworker is never going to have that information about this child.

Dr. GOLDEN. The caseworker has the information in a hard copy

record.

Senator DEWINE. Has to go get the hard copy, which——

Dr. GOLDEN. Senator, I am glad to go back and talk to staff

about this issue. But I wonder—what I want to tell you is what we

have learned, because we have hugely changed social workers’ use

of FACES. And I actually, in my management meeting the other

day preparing for this hearing, asked people why they thought

there had been a huge transformation and culture change. Because

we are—and we are doing that not only with our own workers, but

with the private agency workers. Because it is right, that in the

past people did not use it.

What has transformed that is that not only are we now managing it every week, but we have made it easier for social workers.

We have had a group that meet regularly, that seeks to change, for

example, the investigations screens, the case plan screens, so they

are useful to the worker. So we have just transformed people’s use

of it currently.

I hear, Senator, your concern about whether in our intense focus

on having people use this system in an up-to-date way so it is helpful to them, we have neglected something that we should have gone

back and done. And I will go back and ask that question. But what

I really want you to know is that the current culture of using the

system and of the focus on data at every level is just transformed.

And our private agencies, we have cases managed by our private

agencies, when we started managing the data, they were looking

behind. And they did not like to look behind. They think of themselves as doing a good job. They discovered that they had big

FACES training issues. And we went out and did all of that work.

So I think we have transformed that. And I will certainly go back

and find out whether, in our haste to really reform the current,

there is something we should have done differently in the past.

Senator DEWINE. Well, if your answer to me would have been,

Senator, it just costs too darn much money to do it, I might understand it. I might not agree with you. But I do not even hear that.

Dr. GOLDEN. I do not think it ever——
110

Senator DEWINE. I mean, I am not even sure I understand what

you are even telling me. I am not—I did get a good night’s sleep

last night. I mean, I just do not get.

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, perhaps I am just hearing wrong somehow. I

think——

Senator DEWINE. Here is what I am hearing, and take me

through this. And, look, this is only part of the problem. And we

have about another hour here.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. Of course.

Senator DEWINE. So everybody just relax. We are going to have

a long time.

Dr. GOLDEN. Of course.

Senator DEWINE. What I am hearing you tell me is, we have a

new system. It is a Cadillac system. And it is going to give our

caseworkers the information they need, which is part of what is

going to make my caseworkers do their job.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. It helps them do their job better and help us

hold them accountable.

Senator DEWINE. And there is training. And there is a lot of

things that will make caseworkers do their job better. One is training. One is ratio. So that, as Senator Landrieu talked about——

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. So we do not—the casework ratio.

Supervision. There are a lot of things that would go into it. But one

would be a computer system that gives me the—I can download the

information.

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. So we are only talking about one thing,

but it is important, one thing. And what I am hearing you say is

that I have a new system, but I am only going to use part of the

system. Each child is only—I am only going to retrieve part of the

information about that child. And then the rest of the information

will not be available to me. Now it will be available to me, if I go

back and look at the file. It just seems so inefficient. I do not quite

get it.

Dr. GOLDEN. Well——

Senator DEWINE. And I am not hearing any answer to why you

are doing it that way. And I would really like to move on. I would

just like to give you an answer.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. I mean I can give you the best answer I can.

Then I will go back and look. I do not think that it ever—as with

any system implementation, I do not think it ever occurred to us

that—we have the basic information about 1998, for example, that

lets us check past reports. I do not think, because I do not think

it typically happens when you implement a system, that going

back, collecting those hard copy records, and, if they have information about things like whether there was a—how soon the person

contacted the child, which may or may not be in there. It may or

may not be in there systematically. We do now know the quality.

I do not think it occurred to us to try to collect all those records

and fill in that specific information——

Senator DEWINE. How about if the child——

Dr. GOLDEN [continuing]. Because we are so——
111

Senator DEWINE. How about if the child had more—how about

more basic things? How about more significant—not procedural

things, but how about basic facts about the child?

Dr. GOLDEN. Those should be there. Everything about—I should

not say anything, because, again, it depends on the quality——

Senator DEWINE. Would those be the system?

Dr. GOLDEN. Those should be in the system, yes. I mean,

again——

Senator DEWINE. Where the child was physically.

Dr. GOLDEN. That should be there, if it was accurately kept at

that time. We do not know the quality of work in 1998 or 1999. So

if that is anywhere—but yes, where the child was, the age.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I mean, if it is in your hard file.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. That should be there.

Senator DEWINE. That is there.

Dr. GOLDEN. That should be there, unless it was——

Senator DEWINE. That would be in your computer system.

Dr. GOLDEN. That should be there, if it was in the hard copy.

Senator DEWINE. If the child received some sort of treatment,

that would be in there?

Dr. GOLDEN. I do not think treatment information would be likely to have been very well collected——

Senator DEWINE. Whoa.

Dr. GOLDEN [continuing]. In 1998 or 1999.

Senator DEWINE. Whoa. Is that not important? I mean, I can

see——

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. Notification being important. That

is procedure.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. But if the child—let us say the child has been

sexually abused.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. And the child went to see a psychiatrist.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Would that not be important?

Dr. GOLDEN. It would be important. It may or may not be in the

hard copy record.

Senator DEWINE. Oh, my lord.

Dr. GOLDEN. It may or may not have been done in 1998.

Senator DEWINE. You are kidding me.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. That is an area where we have had to make

huge reforms, the whole area of mental health services and the

way——

Senator DEWINE. You are telling me that is not even in the hard

copy.

Dr. GOLDEN. It would depend on the quality of the work. At that

point, sexual abuse investigation——

Senator DEWINE. If it was in the hard copy, would it have been

transferred to the computer?

Dr. GOLDEN. I do not know if service information as well transferred to the computer, probably not.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Now that is what I find shocking. Now

here, let us get to what I find shocking.
112

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. If it is in a hard copy and it is in a file about

Jim Smith, a little boy who has been sexually abused, I would expect a caseworker to be able to pull that up on a computer and to

know that the child has been sexually abused and has had a psychiatrist talk to him, or whoever the counselor was or whatever it

was.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. That to me is important. It is not important

that historically 3 years ago, there was a court notification, et

cetera.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right, which is the kind of information that we are

not updating.

Senator DEWINE. Right. I am not worried about that, historically.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. Okay? What I am worried about is that that

caseworker, who is dealing with that child, knows that that child

has been sexually abused and knows that that child went through

a treatment with Dr. So-and-So, so he could pick up the phone and

call Dr. So-and-So and find out about this child, if he needed to do

that.

Now would we agree that that is important?

Dr. GOLDEN. I would agree that that is important.

Senator DEWINE. And would we agree that that all be in that

computer?

Dr. GOLDEN. I agree that if we had that information, it should

be in the computer. The concern I am expressing is that that is an

area where I think that the problems back in 1998 and 1999 went

way deeper than the computer system.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. But what you just told me——

Dr. GOLDEN. I agree.

Senator DEWINE [continuing]. It might be, might be, in the hard

copy. But what you just also told me is, even if it was in the hard

copy, it might not have been transferred to the computer. That is

what I find offensive and alarming. And I think you ought to fix

it.

Dr. GOLDEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. We are going to—and I apologize to everyone on the panel. We are going to have to stop. We are going

to have to recess this for about 10 minutes.

I have a press conference on missing and exploited children in

this same building. I am going to try to get to the press conference,

get back from the press conference. We are going to stop this panel.

We are going to come back here in about 10 minutes, as soon as

I can get back. And I apologize for that. And I will come right back.

But it will be at least 10 minutes. You can take a break, whatever

you want to do.

Thank you very much. One of the GAO conclusions that I have

listed here shows only 1 percent of children with the goal of reunification had a parental visit at least every 2 weeks. Now I find that

to be a shocking statistic. Only 1 percent of children who had a

goal of reunification had a parental visit at least every 2 weeks. So

that means we have a child, all these children, who have a goal of
113

reunification. And yet only 1 percent of them are seeing a parent

every 2 weeks.

How could that be? How can you reunify a child with a parent,

and only 1 percent of them are seeing the parent every 2 weeks?

Dr. Golden?

Dr. GOLDEN. That is a huge issue for us. The number that we

have from the court monitor’s report is about 12 percent. So that

is the court monitor’s finding from her review. It was an improvement for the year before, but it is clearly completely untenable. I

agree with you completely.

What we are doing about it is three or four different strategies.

One big obstacle was a history in the agency of not having community sites for visitation and the logistics of parents coming into

town and into our building. We have put in our contracts with all

our community-based partners to facilitate and supervise visitation. So we are working a lot on community-based sites.

A second piece of it is engaging the family early. Because one of

the things that can happen, in the agency’s past, we did not reach

out to family members early on. And that made it much harder to

engage them later. We are moving towards, though we have a long

way to go, early case conferences.

And we are focusing much more in our—both in our work with

our community partners and with our own social workers on building on—once you have all the family members involved, then you

have to do the visitation. I expect we are also going to learn a lot

about scheduling, what we need to do to accommodate parents’

work schedules. I think there is a whole set of things. I agree completely that that is an area where we have to keep working very

hard.

Senator DEWINE. Anybody else on the panel want to discuss that

issue?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. From a practitioner’s point of view, when a

case comes in, there is an automatic goal of reunification for the

child for a period of time until, you know, we work through that.

And in those cases where there is an automatic goal, not a plan

goal, but just because it is a new case, it is a goal of reunification,

sometimes the parents simply do not show up. They are still very

heavily involved in drugs. So you may schedule a visit, but it does

not occur. So it constitutes as no visit.

Senator DEWINE. Sure. Although—I understand why—you know,

you have many cases. But 1 percent is an unbelievable figure, or

even 12. I mean——

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Right. I was——

Senator DEWINE. Even if it is only 12 percent. I mean, it is still

unbelievably low to me. But——

Ms. MELTZER. In our study, 66 percent of the children actually

had no visit over the period, the first 8 weeks in foster care, that

we looked at that. So it is a critically important issue. It is critically important that the family get involved right away with the

agency on the development of the case plan. And in your own

State, Ohio, there is really good experience, particularly I know in

Cleveland, where they have implemented Family-to-Family. For

any child coming into placement, the agency convenes a family

team meeting, with the family and the extended family, within 24
114

hours of that decision or before the decision is made. They have

found that that is a very helpful strategy, because you use that

meeting to make sure that the placement is one that is the best

match to the child’s needs. You sometimes can avert the placement

by working with family members to identify family resources. And

then you set up, at that early point, the visitation schedule with

the family.

It is one of the things that we have been talking to the District

about, either implementing something like that or at least convening a family meeting within the first 7 days of a child entering

foster care, which is the requirement under the LaShawn order.

Senator DEWINE. Now I have another statistic here that says

that 46 percent of foster children have current case plans. Could

that be right? It is from the GAO report, 46 percent of foster children have current case plans. What does that mean?

Dr. GOLDEN. The court monitor study shows approximately doubling on that number over the year, from—to reach a number of

about half from May 31 of 2001, when 25 percent of foster care

children and 9 percent of kinship and family services children had

current case plans, to about 50 percent May 31, 2002. That is an

enormous issue for us which we are working on in several different

ways.

One way is the improvements in automation. So both with our

own staff and with the social workers in our contracted agencies,

we have really improved the case plan screens so that they are

very user friendly.

A second piece of that is the work we are doing to bring down

the caseload ratios that we discussed with Senator Landrieu. A key

part of that is not just addressing the average, but addressing the

issues of the workers who are most overwhelmed that Ms. Schneiders described. And so we focused on having no one at the top end.

And the third issue is with the Court in terms of our scheduling

and work with them. So that sounds about accurate, about where

we are. We have raised our quality standards at the same time.

And that is one that we have very ambitious goals for ourselves for

improving over the next year.

Senator DEWINE. I would like to go through, if we could, Ms.

Schneiders’s recommendations. And the way I would like to do it

is for her to take about 30 seconds on each one of them. She has

already done it, but I would like to get us back into it. And then

I would like Dr. Golden, if you could respond to each one of them.

Ms. Schneiders, you want to do that? I have your written testimony. I could read them, but I think it would probably be more effective if you just explained each one of them from your written

testimony. You have nine recommendations. I would like to go

through each one them.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The first one refers to the need for active and

aggressive recruitment of therapeutic foster homes so that there is

a pool of families with whom to place children. And the children

need to be matched with the family.

I can give an example. Just recently, I have a child who requested of the judge in January for a family. The judge ordered

that a family be found for this child, who was 15 years old. Nothing

happened until——
115

Senator DEWINE. Excuse me. I want to make sure I have——

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. It is on page 3 in italics.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. I am looking at a different——

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. I think——

Senator DEWINE. I am looking at your apparently original—I do

not care how you proceed. But I have your original one. And actually, it starts with outside review of reports of abuse and neglect

that get diverted to community-based services. So I do not care

which one you go from, but——

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Okay. I was going from the oral one. And the

one that I think is in circulation——

Senator DEWINE. Okay. How many do you have in your oral one?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Pardon?

Senator DEWINE. How many recommendations do you have in

your oral one? Are they the same?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. They are the same. There are a few more in the

full——

Senator DEWINE. All right. You do it however you want to do it.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. All right.

Senator DEWINE. You proceed however you——

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. I will take the ones that are in the report that

everybody has, just so it will make it easier.

Senator DEWINE. It does not matter. You do it however you

want. I just want to make sure we are literally on the same page

here.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Well, in the full report there was reference to

the number of diversion of reports, which I did not address orally.

So that is problematic.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Let us do it.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. That is on page 4 of the full report. The concern that those of us who are advocating for children is the number

of abuse and neglect reports that come into the agency that get diverted to the community. They do not go directly to the court. They

are not papered, as they say in the court system. They go back to

the community for community service and then very frequently will

come back to the court at a later date when there is a more severe

incident of abuse, where the community services were inadequate

to address that.

And we are recommending that somebody look at a 6-month period or 12-month period and find out, of those abuse and neglect

reports that came in, that got diverted to the community, how

many of those came in in worse shape than they were originally

when the first report was made. And that if the community agencies are not able to really respond to and support these families at

that level, and the children are getting re-abused or more severely

abused, then we need to look at that diversion strategy to—it is an

effort to keep children in their families. And I understand the rationale for it. But it——

Senator DEWINE. I am not sure I understand. Give me an example. What happens?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. 10:30 at night, a call comes in, a child who has

been, you know, abused, sexually abused, physically abused, whatever. The case, which normally would have been brought to the

court the next morning and papered or petitioned as a neglect case,
116

brought into the system and followed the normal route. The decisions that are being made at the front end that a collaborative, a

community-based, service agency could handle that case. So the

case then gets sent the following morning back to the community,

to a community collaborative, a community-based program, to say

we have a report of abuse, go see this family, look into it and see,

you know, can you provide family services or can you provide, you

know, something else.

The decision making as to how serious the report was and how

serious the—or how much service is needed is left at the front end

of the referral process. So the case goes back. It may stay in the

community for another 3, 4, 5, 6 months. And then we get it back

again with a more severe incident of abuse. And then it gets put

into the court system and into the foster care system.

Senator DEWINE. So your recommendation is what?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. My recommendation is that there be, whether

the GAO or somebody look at all of the referrals that are coming

in and being diverted back to the community before they are

brought to court, to see if in fact this is an effective strategy to divert them to the community or are children suffering greater harm

than is necessary, if they had been brought in to the court, looked

at it, monitored it for a few months, and reunified.

And that that effort that we are doing right now of bring it in,

petition it for the court, let a judge take a look at it and have, you

know, some advocacy there, and reunify the family quickly through

the strategies that we have, may be safer for the child than one

worker in the intake department making that decision on his or

her own, sending it to the community, and we——

Senator DEWINE. So the current system is—my background is a

criminal justice background. The current system is what, sort of a

diversion system?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. It is a front end diversion.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, it diverts it out and never gets into the

system.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. That is right. That is right. It keeps it at the

community. So maybe some of those families that are being counted where there are services being provided in the community to the

family, which is a good thing—I am not saying we should not provide services to families at the community level.

Senator DEWINE. Right.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. But there needs—we need to look at who is

making the decision about the safety of the child in determining

that the case does not need to go to court.

Senator DEWINE. Well, who is the best person to monitor that,

though?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Well, I do not know. I do not know who is monitoring it now. I mean, I know the authority to make the diversion

is at the point of intake. I do not know if there is a case review

or a strategy. I know that the cases are not——

Senator DEWINE. Dr. Golden, how do we know that is working?

Dr. GOLDEN. I guess two things. The first——

Senator DEWINE. Who monitors that?

Dr. GOLDEN. Who monitors how we do our intake and investigation and those choices would, I think, be two or three different
117

places. One would be the supervisory chain. That is, the intake

worker making that decision with their supervisor and their program manager. In many cases, there is a—they have a risk assessment. And they are also trying—this goes to what the court monitor said a moment ago about actually, I think, probably our problem in the District compared to other jurisdictions is that we do

less of that than many places, rather than more.

So we are trying to draw in the community and the family. In

many cases, though, rather than divert right away, we would have

that community, we would have that meeting with the community

and the family. And then our worker has to make the judgment

about the seriousness. They are making it within ACC, typically

with a corporation counsel. So there is that piece.

In addition, we are doing a variety of outside reviews. We obviously have our court monitor, who looks at our practice. We have

just had a look at our placement practice in general by some of the

national experts, including Judith Goodhand from Cleveland. So I

actually—I think that their overall advice is actually going to be

that the District has been behind on getting support in early. But

I will note that concern and make sure we look at both sides of it.

Ms. MELTZER. I am not sure that I actually agree with the description of what is happening that Ms. Schneiders has presented.

My understanding of the emergency assessment program that is in

place is that the only cases that are being diverted are cases that

do not rise to the level of substantiated abuse and neglect. They

are diverting cases that are the borderline cases, trying to get some

community services in place to support the family to prevent some

of these cases which otherwise might have come into the system.

Senator DEWINE. Oh, okay.

Ms. MELTZER. Now the bigger question, I think, that is raised,

is the importance of looking over time at repeat reports. These include cases that have been served by the system and then are

closed and then you have a repeat incidence of maltreatment, as

well as cases where that was never substantiated and you have a

repeat maltreatment report. Looking at repeat reports and cases is

work that the agency has to do through its own quality assurance

process. And it is a part of the work that we will do in monitoring

the quality of investigative practice.

Senator DEWINE. Well, would you agree with that, Dr. Golden?

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes. And I think that we are in fact, as Ms. Meltzer

has highlighted, we divert without our involvement where we think

it does not meet the threshold. We also are trying to get community supports in, even if we are going to keep going with it, because

we might, for example, identify a family member who could be a

caretaker for that child. And I agree with those ways of monitoring.

Senator DEWINE. What is your system to go back and figure out

how many of those cases that you made a mistake on? And you are

bound to make mistakes. I mean, everybody makes mistakes. I

mean, this is an art. This is not an exact science.

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, you make a judgment call that this is

not a—that it does not rise to an abuse case. This is not an abuse

case. This was not an abuse case. And you go back and look and

you say, well, obviously it was.
118

Dr. GOLDEN. Let me tell you about——

Senator DEWINE. We missed that one.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. I think there are several pieces to that process. And some of them are not finished yet, which is why in all of

these I am telling about a work in progress. Because, remember,

up until 18 months ago, we did not even do the abuse investigations. Those were with the police. And now we do.

The first thing is that in any abuse case where there is a concern

that it might rise to also having a criminal side, we would be jointly investigating with the police. So that is important to note. But

second, in a case where, in terms of how we are doing and are we

making mistakes, the initial review is the supervisor signing off

and the program manager and the work with the attorney. Then

there has to be the quality assurance look and review, where we

are both looking at data and going back and looking at a sample

of cases. We are in the process of picking across everything we do

in the agency, where are the most important places to focus that.

I think the other key safety net is that for those cases were

someone in the community is involved, we are also constantly talking with them in terms of if they see something that is getting

worse, that they need to bring back to us. So I think you always

having to be looking at both sides in order to make it better.

Senator DEWINE. Do you want to proceed to No. 2 of the recommendations?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The second recommendation refers to the need

for CFSA to pursue justice for children through criminal prosecution of those children who are physically and sexually abused. I can

speak to any number of children that I represent where the child

has been physically abused in the home. I have one case where

there are three children in the home. One was sexually, was

burned and shot. The third child was scalped. And there had been

no criminal prosecution of those cases at all.

There was another retarded child that was sexually abused in

one foster home, sexually abused in a group home. And we finally

got him into a therapeutic foster home. There has been no prosecution of that case. And the rationale is they are young, they are retarded. And so—and it is difficult to do.

But that CFSA has all of these corporation counsel within their

building even under their control, I think injustice to children,

there needs to be more prosecution of these cases and more aggressive, you know, digging for the facts that can actually prove that

this child was in fact harmed. The staff get fired, and they go off

into the sunset, and nothing is done to prosecute any of the people

who are responsible for these abuses.

Senator DEWINE. Dr. Golden?

Dr. GOLDEN. I would very much like to see those examples, because it is very distressing to me if the police or the U.S. Attorney’s

Office were not proceeding to prosecute. We, I think, would be comfortable advocating with them. I really feel our relationship with

both the police and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which does prosecutions, is quite strong now. So I would like to see those examples.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Because in the 10 years that I have been practicing with this system, I have never had a case of physical or sexual abuse prosecution by corporation counsel.
119

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, the prosecution is not by the corporation counsel. It is by the U.S. attorney. But I have been in—because now

with the stronger relationships that exist, DCAC, the Joint Advocacy Center exists to go to address all of those cases where prosecution is potential. I actually, from my experience of observing that,

had the sense that the issues that there might have been with the

police and the U.S. attorney, in terms of making sure we coordinated well, were better. So I need to know about those cases. And

we will find out if we need to advocate for them.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Well, the two cases that I cited were both seen

by the Children’s Advocacy Center. The children were interviewed.

And the case was closed.

Senator DEWINE. Are these current?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. Pardon?

Senator DEWINE. How long ago were these cases?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. These are still active cases. These are——

Senator DEWINE. I mean, how long ago did the criminal act

occur?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. In the child that was scalped, she is now 3. It

happened when she was 6 weeks old. So it is within a 2- to 3-year

period.

Senator DEWINE. Okay.

Dr. GOLDEN. So it would be useful to know——

Senator DEWINE. But what Dr. Golden is—what I am hearing

her say is that she believes that the relationship between her office

and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is better.

Is that what you are telling me, Dr. Golden?

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes. So I would want the information, to understand why they did not choose to prosecute or what the issues

were. It would help us to have that information.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The third recommendation is that CFSA needs

to invest in active and aggressive recruitment of therapeutic foster

homes. And I started to give the example of the youngster in January who asked for a foster home. The Court ordered the foster

home in January. In March, we were told that there were no homes

in the system that this child could go to. The judge issued a show

cause. CFSA came to court and said, ‘‘We have one home with one

bed in it. And we’re going to put him there.’’

And I raised the question as to whether this was a good match,

should this child be in this home, did they even want a 15-yearold. In looking at it, they didn’t want a 15-year-old, but they were

kind of pressured to take the child because they had the only available bed. The child ran away within 4 days and is currently back

in a group home facility in April. And there is no home available.

And, you know, with the number of children coming into care, I

think we really need to have a pool of homes available so that we

can find the right home for the right child and hope that one placement will be all that is needed and not two or three bounces before

we get to a match.

Senator DEWINE. Doctor?

Dr. GOLDEN. I agree that recruitment of foster homes that can

meet the needs of our children and support of those homes is really

critical. My testimony has an example where that has made a big

difference for a child, because we have been really focusing on fos-
120

ter homes, rather than group care, which is the past history for

many years at the agency.

And the example in my testimony was a child who had been in

many residential and psych hospital placements. And through a

new process that draws in the Department of Mental Health we

were able to stabilize her in a foster home. And you and I have

talked about following up on this case.

But I agree completely. And I think that the successes we have

had in sharply reducing the number of young children in group

care come in part from supporting foster homes better, though I

think they also come for identifying kin support. So this is a very

important area for us to keep working on.

Senator DEWINE. How many foster families do you need?

Dr. GOLDEN. We actually are working this year on a target with

the District—this is just in the District. We also have a lot of children in homes in Maryland—by the end of this fiscal year between

50 and 100 additional families in traditional. That is not counting

the therapeutic we are talking about here. And we will learn, as

we go through that process, we probably need more than that over

time. We now have——

Senator DEWINE. Well, that many more or how many do you

have altogether?

Dr. GOLDEN. Our total right now—the numbers in my testimony

are in the District. And then I can give you broader ones. The District numbers are about 150 traditional foster homes, more than

300 kin homes. And just as a side point, the other point in my testimony, the other story, is about having greater success as we work

with families earlier at identifying kin who will care for children.

But if you look totally in the District and Maryland, both within

our agency and contracted, it is 900 to 1,000 foster homes, including all the kinds.

Senator DEWINE. And how would that breakout be between the

District and Maryland?

Dr. GOLDEN. Let us see. It is about half and half, a little bit—

I am looking at which of these are active, but roughly half and half

between the District and Maryland in terms of our number of foster homes. We are working very hard to recruit in the District.

That is why I told you our target for increases in the District, because we think it is generally better for children to be in homes in

their community. But we have also, as I think you heard in the

GAO’s testimony, signed an interim agreement with Maryland,

which actually helps both the jurisdictions. It is about both making

sure that we are able to have them do what we need them to do

in terms of support in Maryland about meeting their needs and the

children’s needs while children are in Maryland.

Senator DEWINE. And you have no agreement with Virginia?

Dr. GOLDEN. We actually had a terrific meeting with Virginia in

the fall. And for a variety of reasons, in terms of their timetable,

our next meeting is now set up for several weeks from now. We

have a meeting scheduled for later this month. And with Virginia,

they are interested in expanding the interim agreement with Maryland, which focuses on foster care placement, on criminal record

checks of potential foster and kin placements, and on an abuse and
121

neglect investigation. I think with Virginia we are also interested

in talking about some adoption-related issues.

Senator DEWINE. Ms. Schneiders, do you want to continue?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The fourth recommendation refers to the need

for services for children. Children coming into foster care as abused

and neglected children are almost universally in need of therapy to

deal with the loss of the parent, the abuse that they suffered. They

also are very frequently children who are behind academically, who

need tutors.

At the present moment, we can get a tutor for 1 month. And then

it has to be renewed for the next month and renewed for the next

month. And we do this on a monthly basis, which delays time. It

disrupts the tutoring, because the tutor is not available while the

referral process is going on.

Mentors are only allowed on a 3-month basis. So a child forms

a relationship, and the mentor either has to leave or be renewed.

I know it is an effort in monitoring costs and all the rest of it, but

it is very disruptive to the services for the children. And unless—

I now know that I immediately ask the Court for an order for a

6-month tutor or a semester for a tutor. Because if I get it in a

court order, I will get it. But if you just simply ask the agency for

a tutor, you get it on a monthly basis. If you ask for a mentor—

I ask for a mentor now for a year. But it has to be done by court

order in order to get it, rather than getting it through the agency.

And I think the agency needs to acknowledge that these children

need the services and leave it to the judgment of the social worker

as to whether the tutor needs to be for a semester or a year.

Because this is where some of the problem comes with the workers and the amount of time they spend doing these perfunctory

types of re-referrals month after month after month. And yet we

know the children need the services. And we know 1 month of a

tutor is not going to do any good. And the recommendation basically is that services be readily available to these children on a consistent basis and not in the fragmented way in which we are currently doing it.

Dr. GOLDEN. Let me comment on the overall recommendation for

services, and then specifically on mentoring and tutoring. We have

talked a little bit. There is a set of very particular contractor issues

there.

In terms of overall services for children, one of the things that

was most clear to me when I came and that I think is clear as we

develop the implementation plan for the modified final order is that

the District’s history of not having services for children and families has been pervasive across a range of services, including in

terms of dramatic needs of our children’s mental health, because

the District has not had a child and family mental health system.

That agency is coming back from receivership, did come back for

receivership at the very same time as we have. And we have

pushed intensively with them to build that network and have it be

there for our children. And again, there are some examples for particular children in my testimony.

We know and they know that we have a long way to go. For example, one of the things we really focus on is having a child be able

to have an appointment for therapy regarding the trauma that they
122

experienced during their abuse as quickly as possible. And what we

are finding, as we start tracking that and looping back to the Department of Mental Health is that sometimes there are process

steps they can do, but sometimes there is just issues of capacity,

of having the person available. So that is an area that we are

working on with them very intensively.

In terms of mentoring and tutoring and other services, we are

doing a big contract reform. We are trying to get more of our dollars into the front end services for children and families. Specifically in mentoring and in tutoring, we have had contracts with a

relatively small number of companies. We are trying to enlarge and

broaden, increase the use of volunteers in some of those areas. And

we have also had concerns from some about quality and appropriateness. So we are trying to review them better.

We had a lot of comments on our draft proposals. I have not had

the chance, I do not think, to see any comments from Ms. Schneiders. And I would like to seek you out after this and make sure

we have those. But our general direction there is that we are trying

to broaden the range of possibilities, include volunteer as well as

paid, and make sure that the mentoring is appropriate and that we

are looking at it to make sure that it is good quality.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. That does not address the issue, though, of

needing to get a tutor and then re-get a tutor and re-get a tutor,

whether having a tutor for a month and having a mentor for 3

months, which is a current policy, is really in the best interest of

the children. Because once the tutor stops and we do the reapplication, you may get another tutor. And then that one stops, and you

get another tutor. So the disruption and the fragmentation is very

problematic to the children that are trying to use these people.

Senator DEWINE. All right.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The fifth recommendation regarding the—it

may not be within the purview of this committee. And that is the

dismantling of youth forensic services, which was an excellent service for children and for the Family Court, where we had trained

people who understood the court system, understood child development. And that whole unit right now has no psychiatrist, one unlicensed psychologist and one licensed, and three social workers. So

it is virtually useless in terms of getting quality assessments of

children.

The current problem with Child and Family of getting current

assessments is finding people who are qualified to evaluate young

children.

Senator DEWINE. Excuse me. That unit is under what?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. I think it was under the Commission for Mental Health. But Child and Family used it through the court system

rather extensively. And we got very good, comprehensive evaluations of children and their parents. And now we are just scattered

all over. And the people that are currently evaluating children very

often have no knowledge of child development and the types of

therapy that children benefit most from.

And as I said, I am not sure that the family has any control over

that. But it is a serious concern.

The sixth recommendation and the ones that follow all relate to

the whole issue of the adolescent. And I think this is a population
123

that is very badly neglected in the Child and Family Services. A

lot of emphasis has been placed on adoption and reunification of

young children. But the child who gets past the adoptable age and

the child who gets into the adolescent age because their parents

are not ready to, or have not made the progress, and so they end

up at 14 up to 21 really children in limbo in this city.

They are youngsters—currently, the legislation says that children can be or should be kept in care until age 21, although they

may be emancipated at 18, if in fact they are ready. That is a very

human and responsible and necessary element of our law that

needs to be kept in place. Trying to reduce it to age 18 is unconscionable. These children—our own children are not ready at 18.

And I think if we did a poll of people in this room who had children

18, they are still at home, they are college hoping they will grow

up, they are in—they may be there until they are 25 or 30. And

they have had good nurturing homes.

To say that a child who has been abused and neglected and

bounced around foster family to group home to residential treatment to psychiatric hospital are somehow going to be ready at 18,

or even 21, to then go out and be independent is just—it is a myth.

And the children who leave the system are not generally prepared

to do so.

I had one youngster who joined the Marines. And she has done

very well. And I watch for her on television every day now, as we

proceed through this war. But two youngsters this month, one, as

I said, is currently homeless. She called me two nights ago to say,

‘‘Ms. Schneiders, where can I?’’ We knew she had no place to go.

But she was 21. Her case was closed and nothing was done to guarantee that she had housing or a means of support.

The other youngster has two children. She was given the Salvation Army Shelter and a list of city shelters to go to. She is, you

know, currently staying back with her abusive father until she can

get into the shelter.

The housing situation is critical for these youngsters. And CFSA

does get a handful of vouchers, I think it is like 100 a year, from

the Federal Government. And that is referred to in one of the recommendations where the—the vouchers that are given to CFSA

right now are all allocated to parents who are trying to reunify,

which is a good thing. I am not negating that. But we should not

take the parents who have abused these children and give them

housing and take the children who have been abused and put them

on the street. There is something wrong with that logic.

And we do not have a mechanism and Child and Family for

guaranteeing that our children who emancipate are safely cared for

at that point. And I would ask that a serious look be made at how

they are emancipated, what the housing situation is and the employment. We do not help them get jobs at the point of emancipation to make sure they have an income. We send them to TANF.

We tell them how to get food stamps. And I think that is, you

know, just an unacceptable way of emancipating our children.

Senator DEWINE. Dr. Golden.

Dr. GOLDEN. At our last local advisory board meeting, we talked

about the fact that we all think we need to be working in stronger

ways with adolescents. One of the effects of the past history of this
124

system and of the District’s very broad policy is that compared to

other States we have a very large proportion of young adults. We

have about 13 percent of all the children in our caseload are young

adults 18 to 21. And we talked about asking Ms. Schneiders and

others to help us work on that system. And I know I appreciate her

commitment to do that.

The District—we are supporting the current law, which continues services to children until 21. We are very unusual compared

to other States. Most States have some kind of voluntary commitment arrangement between 18 and 21. And at one point, we were

talking about that. We got input that, given the history of our

young people, having that arrangement from 18 to 21, being voluntary and not court supervised would be a bad thing to do here.

And so we heard that feedback.

I think the issue for me is that we are—again, it is looking at

the effects of all of these years and of the District’s absence of services as a whole. We have to do better for the young people coming

into the system, so we do not have as many young people who are

18 and have spent 2 years, 10 years, in the system. And at the

same time, that is one of the challenges of this moment in reform,

we have to be changing the front end, and we have to be taking

seriously the needs of the young adults in the system at a time

when the District as a whole faces a lot of big problems that really

hit them hard, like housing.

And I know, Senator DeWine, in your focus on the District’s appropriation as a whole, a lot of these are about the pieces that we

need in place. What we are working on right now is trying to improve the years 15 to 17, independent living and skills and support

for young people. And I think we are also planning to staff several

months before aging out, young people who are about to turn 21.

We are planning to work with the collaboratives and our community partners on what they can do.

But I think this is a hard one. And I really want Ms. Schneiders

and community help as we think it through.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. When I think of the vouchers that the agency

gets from the Federal Government, a percentage of them need to

be reserved for the children who need them, as well as for the parents who need them. I do not think 100 percent of them need to

go to the parents solely. I think we need to say, these are our children, we are the surrogate parent, and we need to allocate a percentage of those for the children. Not all the children need them,

but some really do need that front end help. And that is referred

to in recommendation 7.

Senator DEWINE. Let me just interrupt a minute, because I want

to make sure I understand the testimony.

Dr. Golden, Ms. Schneiders in her written testimony she says,

‘‘CFSA is now proposing to reduce the age of emancipation to 18

instead of the current age of 21.’’ Is that true or not?

Dr. GOLDEN. It is no longer true. As we had let her and others

know——

Senator DEWINE. That is no longer true. Okay.

Dr. GOLDEN [continuing]. We had discussed that idea, because

we felt as though some kind of voluntary arrangement might work
125

better. We got feedback from Ms. Schneiders and others saying it

was a bad idea. And we are no longer proposing it.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. So that is not true anymore.

Dr. GOLDEN. It is not true anymore.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Got it.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. In recommendation 8 we are recommending

that CFSA design an integrated program of services that are

staffed with persons who know how to engage young adults in

meaningful activities and to include the young people in participation in this. I think we need to have a mechanism from hearing

from these 18- to 21-year-old youngsters of what do they need,

what do they find helpful, and what will get them ready. There

currently is no mechanism, although I have proposed it on other

occasions that there be a task force of young adults in the system

as to what they need in order to be prepared to leave the system.

And we still would strongly recommend that they be involved in

that process.

Dr. GOLDEN. I have been meeting, though not as regularly as a

task force forum, with a group of young people in our system. And

I agree very much that their perspectives are very useful in shaping where we go.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. And then the final recommendation in this section is that there be some form of an aftercare department for

these youngsters. They do go out at 21. They think they are ready.

They try to do something. And then everything falls apart. And

then end up on the street. They end up in a shelter or nowhere.

And they need to be able to come home.

If they have lived their childhood, as some of these children have,

at Child and Family Services, they should be able to come home

to Child and Family and ask for help in an aftercare type of arrangement, just as adoptive parents very often do. There is an

aftercare for adoption. Adoptive parents think they know what they

got into when they adopted. They run into trouble. They can come

back and ask for help. And our children should also have some

place, some department, where they can come back and say I am

stuck, I need help, you know, to get me out of the predicament at

this point in time. And I would strongly recommend that that be

considered.

Dr. GOLDEN. I mean, it is interesting, because I think about that

recommendation a little bit from my experience at the national

level. And I remember how much difficulty we had. I mean, many

States just go through 18. Other States do the voluntary involvement between 18 and 21. The District is one of I think not very

many that support all children through 21. There is not Federal reimbursement for that period from 18 to 21, which is another issue

the committee may want to consider.

So I think the question of what we can do after 21 and how to

do it is a hard issue for us and a hard issue everywhere. We are

trying to—I mean, in some ways the only answer in the long run

is that children need to be in families. And we need to not have

children aging out. So that is, I think, the longer run answer. But

for these young people, where we are going right now is trying to

build those links to the community better, having it in our contracts with our collaborative partners, ‘‘aftercare,’’ as you described,
126

building mentor and family relationships in the community that

will endure.

So that is the direction that I have been thinking about. I do not

know if there is any more formalized direction. And as I say, I do

think that there is an issue nationally even in getting support in

a voluntary process beyond age 18. So I think we have to fix it so

kids do not get to that age in that situation. And at the very least,

we have to build community connections.

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. The final recommendation is one that Senator

Landrieu also referred to, the one case-one worker policy and the

reduction of the number of children. And I keep emphasizing that

we need to count children, not families. Because families can range

from one child to eight and ten children in a family. So I do not

think it is justified to say one case-one family, so much as we need

to count the children that these workers are responsible for.

And I think if we can get that policy in place with the reduction

of the number, that no worker should have more than 20 children

that they are responsible for, then we might get the data into the

computer that we were talking about. But right now, when they

are carrying 30 and 40 and 50 cases and doing IUPs and treatment

team meetings, they are not getting data into the computer, even

for current data, let alone any back data.

Senator DEWINE. I am intrigued by your comment, the continual

reorganizing of the agency is counterproductive. What do you mean

by that?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. It seems as if there is a continual process. Like

about 2 months ago, the agency reorganized everybody in the building on a given day, changed places, changed locations, changed

phone numbers, changed supervisors, changed, you know, units,

changed everything. The elimination of one unit and its consolidation with another, it simply causes confusion. And you call a worker and then you find out that, well, I am no longer the worker because I am now in this unit versus that unit. And you ask for the

rationale for it, and it is just: Well, we are reorganizing. We are,

you know, eliminating this department, adding this department.

There is no notice to the other service providers. You find that

there is no way to reach people with phone numbers. I mean it is—

foster parents, generally they call me to say: I do not even know

who my worker is anymore because I got—you know, I called and

the message says she is not the worker anymore; she got moved to

another unit.

I do not know the rationale. I hope maybe the last reorganization

may be the final one, but I am not overly hopeful that is going to

be the case.

Senator DEWINE. Dr. Golden?

Dr. GOLDEN. I am really sorry, Ms. Schneiders, that we did not

have a chance to talk when you had that concern, because that

definitely sounds like something we should have explained more

fully. Each of the—solving each of these problems, moving towards

one worker-one case, unifying abuse and neglect, correcting our

placement process has required that we have made changes. We

have created a whole new department of clinical practice so that

we have support for our workers. We have created for the first time

ever in the District an institutional abuse unit. So we are able to
127

look into reports of abuse and neglect. We have created a whole

new licensing process, which was not—we did not have as a—did

not exist in the District before.

We have just improved our placement process for exactly the set

of reasons that you have highlighted, because we want to make

sure that children go to families. So we have changed that. And we

did because we have also been hiring social workers so fast, we did

find ourselves in a situation where we needed to do a move so people could be physically lined up with their units, because we are

squeezed into our building, and we did have to do that.

So I guess what I would say is that I think the amount of change

we have to do is very great. And I think that that requires in some

cases structural change, as well as hiring and support for families.

And we—I mean, I think that the pace of change—and that is probably what my testimony highlighted. Partly, I think, what you are

experiencing, I am experiencing, our staff, our foster parents, is

that to meet the standards we have for ourselves, the court, and

the committee have for us, it has been a phenomenal pace of

change in 18 months. It has been creating an agency where there

were fragmented pieces before.

And the question of whether that will slow down or whether the

amount of change we still have to do is going to be an equal pace

actually is something I am reflecting on now. And we have been

having lots of dialogue with the court monitor’s office on the implementation plan. But I think that our big goal has been to make

sure that each of those new responsibilities, that we are able to

carry it out.

So that is kind of core to me in terms of which steps we take,

in which order, and at which pace.

Senator DEWINE. Do you want to comment about Ms.

Schneiders’s goal in regard to children versus families?

Dr. GOLDEN. Sure. And I might ask the court monitor to come

in after that. I think that the reason both we in many jurisdictions

focus on children in placements, and families in the home, is because the social workers work when a child in placement involves

visiting and working with that child very intensively. When they

are supervising a family, their goal is really for what we hope is

a relatively short period of time to strengthen that family so that

the parent can take back their role.

So that is, I think, the reason behind it. We do—one of the things

that goes with that is that you do not want workers to have a lot

of family cases. And the standard—because they are very demanding. And so the standard in the modified final order is very strict

for how many cases a worker ought to have. I think that we have

the chance over the next year, as we bring down caseloads, to do

a workload study and try to see if there is a better way to count.

But I think the big headline, which I think is probably the most

important one, is that the way we are getting a handle on what has

been a huge issue for years is by working every week with a count

of cases and workers working directly with the social worker and

the supervisor and focusing first on the ones who are at the top

end, so that we had a few months ago had got down to nobody over

50 this week to nobody over 40. And so we are focusing on the peo-
128

ple who are most overwhelmed to try to make an impact there

first.

I do not know, Judy, if you want to——

Ms. MELTZER. The modified LaShawn Order has caseload standards which are based on the Child Welfare League of America

standards. And they are: 1 worker to 20 children for children in

foster care, although they are 1 to 12 for children with special

needs. They are 1 to 17 for families, when the children are in their

own homes with their families. And they are 1 to 12 for investigations. Those are the standards that the District has to comply with.

And the hiring has to match so that they can get caseloads down

to those caseload standards.

I personally think that when you are doing work with families,

you want the caseloads organized around the families. But what

you want to do is have the caseloads low enough so that the worker

can deal with both the needs of the individual children in that family and the whole family.

The place where caseworkers complain the most is when one

child is in placement. So it counts as one case on their caseload,

if they are a foster care worker. But there may be three or four

children in the home with the family that, for reasons that may or

may not make sense, they are not in foster care or they are not

being served. And it is those situations where I think caseworkers

feel the most burdened.

The answer for me is caseloads that are low enough so that

workers can individualize the services to the needs of those children and families.

Dr. GOLDEN. And actually, one important step in terms of just

counting in a way that feels more responsive to our workers is that

in that situation you have just describe with the child in foster care

and a family at home, for a long time that was a big issue with

our union and our workers that we were not counting the family

work. Now we do, because that worker is responsible for a child in

placement and for reunification. So they have to be doing work

with that family. And that should count. So we do count that.

Senator DEWINE. Ms. Schneiders?

Ms. SCHNEIDERS. What we need to keep in mind is that when we

have one child in placement and three at home, the three at home

obviously something was amiss in that family which brought one

child into care. And therefore, that family needs closer monitoring.

With the three children at home, you know, it can run the range

of disability or need for service. They can be in different schools.

They can be—one needs therapy. They can be different ages. You

can have a disabled child at home, even though it is not brought

into care.

So I think there has to be some look at what is asked for in that

family, what is needed in that family, not just a numerical count

that meets a standard. So that when workers are complaining at

the amount of work they have to do with the family, it can be three

children in a family or eight children in a family, as we have any

number of families with large numbers in them. And it counts as

one. And I think there has to be some method for looking at what

it is we are asking the worker to do. How many children are we
129

asking that worker to be responsible for in the provision of services?

Senator DEWINE. All right. Dr. Golden, let me ask you for your

comment about this report. I am referring to the Child and Family

Services review, District of Columbia, from the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, dated February 2002. I am 7. ‘‘A little

evidence was found in the cases reviewed that showed the agency

as consistently petitioning to terminate the parental rights of parents whose children have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22

months. Of the foster care cases reviewed, 54 percent of the children who were in care longer than 15 months did not have parental rights terminated. And the compelling reasons for not terminating parental rights were not documented in the case plan or

court order. Children in the sample were in care an average of approximately 65 months before they achieved their permanency plan

or were still in placement as of July 29, 2001 review.’’

Now I understand that is July 29, 2001. And so what I would

like to do is just give you the opportunity to update that for me.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay. That report—and as you know, Senator, because I think you and I worked together when I was at HHS and

designed the child and family reviews. That was an experience for

me of having the Federal review right as I moved to the District

that I had previously worked on designing the framework at the

Federal Government. And I felt as though it was extremely useful

to us. It gave us the baseline, looking at the past system that we

then needed to use to move forward. So it was extremely helpful.

One of the things, as you know, that is highlighted there about

the history of the system is that there was never a focus on TPRs

in the District. And that is—well, let me tell you what we are doing

about it. But then I want to give you just a little more history, because it will help you understand what has to happen to move forward.

There are really three parts to what we are doing. One is an aggressive legal strategy. Last year for the first time, we filed more

than 100 TPRs, or the corporation counsel’s office did, more than

many previous years all added together. And this year we have expectations in our performance agreements with our attorneys of filing many more.

A second piece is changing, improving our social work casework,

because another piece of it is making our decisions earlier. It is

about what we were talking about earlier, engaging the family earlier so we can make up our mind whether that is working or not,

and having much prompter permanency staffings and administrative reviews.

A third piece is working with the Court on the legal framework

for terminating parental rights. And Judge Satterfield and I actually just talked about that this week, about moving ahead on that.

The history in the District is that there is a second way of terminating the rights of a parent in an adoption, which in the past was

used almost exclusively instead of TPR. And that is terminating

the rights during the adoption petition through a show cause. I am

not a lawyer, but it happens at the point where there is an adoptive home identified. And it only terminates rights for that home.
130

That approach, which was historic in the District, has big disadvantages for children where it delays timeliness or makes it

harder to recruit adoptive homes. So the Court is now—we are both

being more aggressive. And the Court is very open to working with

us so that we continue to move forward on that. So those are the

pieces of our strategy.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. I appreciate that. I thank you for that.

Where are we now, though? Are these figures still accurate, 65

months? It says children in the sample were in care an average of

approximately 65 months before they achieved their permanency

plan.

Dr. GOLDEN. Was that a sample——

Senator DEWINE. Is that about right now?

Dr. GOLDEN. It is not right if it is all children. If it is children

with a goal of adoption, I do not know. The numbers I have right

now, in terms of permanency, are that our median across all of our

open cases is a little under 3 years, which is way too high. But that

is for sort of all of our open cases. We have done a little research

work looking at a sample of cases at the point they close. And it

is clearly in the 2- to 5-year range.

I do not know. Typically around the country, if you look at the

sample that closes for adoption, it is even higher. So I guess the

main thing I would say to you is that I know that time until a case

closes is too high. It is—that number, it is not as high as that number, but it is definitely higher than it should be. And that is part

of what we have to work on.

And part of it—this may be more than you want to know about

the measurement of it. We do have—part of having so many older

young people and the history of the system’s earlier failures is that

we are going to continue to have young people who will be aging

out at the same time we are trying to change the experience of children who come in.

Senator DEWINE. Doctor, with all due respect, if I was in your

position—and thank God, I am not. You have the toughest job anybody has—I would want to know that.

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes. Well, we just asked——

Senator DEWINE. Why would you not want to know that?

Dr. GOLDEN. I actually just asked for a study. So I appreciate

that.

Senator DEWINE. You have to know that. You have to know each

different category. You have to know, you know, each—I would

want it broken down of each type kid.

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. Because it is a measurement of—how are you

going to hold everybody accountable on your team? Are you going

to back and say: Look, we have to do better than this? And you are

going to break it down. You are absolutely right. Kids in the certain age category, you know, where are they? And the kids in a certain age category, where are they? And there is going to be reasons

why some of them are going to be where they are.

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. But for you to come in front of this committee,

or it is not just this committee, but in front of the public, in a public meeting or anyplace, and not be able to answer that basic ques-
131

tion is a real problem. Do you not understand that? It is just a horrible, horrible problem. How can you run your department and not

know that?

Dr. GOLDEN. And the specific question is, not know the median

time to closure for cases.

Senator DEWINE. Oh, it is not the—yes. But that is just one

question.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. I would want to know the range.

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. I would want to know——

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely. Well, let me tell you what we are doing

about it. Because I agree. When I came to this agency, the fact that

there was no data available was a huge issue. Now we have, as the

court monitor will testify, data on dozens of indicators. But I agree

completely that the ones about permanency, we know the average

time to closure. We know the average time cases have been open.

That is that, I believe it was, about 2.8 years. And we have actually just had some graduate students work with us to analyze our

data in more detail. And that is where the information that I just

gave you came from.

So I think that that is exactly right. It is also an area that we

are working with the Court on, because they also have an interest

in tracking their data. And as we work on exchange of data, we are

making that more consistent.

Senator DEWINE. And the universe is what? And Senator

Landrieu asked you this. But how many total cases are we talking

about?

Dr. GOLDEN. Our total number of cases—the conversation she

and I were having was about the family cases and whether to count

the children.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. How many kids are we talking about?

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. And the number of children is about 8,000.

The number of cases is about 5,000, because—of the family cases.

So that is about the total number. And we track every month, not

only those overall caseloads, but age breakdowns, geographic

breakdowns, information about the investigations that come in

every month and what percent are substantiated, the children who

have left our caseload but are being supported by adoption subsidies. So all of those things we regularly track.

Senator DEWINE. But, I mean, I really would want to know how

long these kids were in care before they got a permanency plan. I

mean, that is just so basic.

Dr. GOLDEN. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. I mean, if they were not getting a permanency

plan, I have a problem, right?

Dr. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. A permanency plan is kind of a——

Dr. GOLDEN. Well, until a plan, we do know. We know from the

court monitor’s report and the court data about the permanency

hearing. We know that about 75 percent meet the AFSA standards

in terms of the permanency hearing, met it in 2001. And we have

to keep building on that.
132

Senator DEWINE. Wait a minute. You do know what? I missed

that.

Dr. GOLDEN. The share of children who achieve the permanency

hearing within the AFSA time line.

Senator DEWINE. Okay.

Dr. GOLDEN. I am sorry. I thought that was——

Senator DEWINE. You know that.

Dr. GOLDEN. Right.

Senator DEWINE. But you do not know how many actually have

a plan in place, because that is what the quote is.

Dr. GOLDEN. I am sorry. I thought you were——

Senator DEWINE. Well, let me just read it again to you. I am just

reading directly from the report.

Dr. GOLDEN. Okay.

Senator DEWINE. ‘‘Children in the sample were in care an average of approximately 65 months before they achieved their permanency plan.’’

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. So that means until they either went home

or were adopted. Right? That is until the closing of the case. Right.

And that is something that we know how long cases have been in

care, and the information that you are just asking me for at the

point of closure for different categories, we have just had a special

study done that looks at some pieces of that. And I will be happy

to share the more detailed information with you.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. Anybody have any other comments?

Well, I thank you all for your patience very much. I think it has

been a very helpful hearing. As I said at the beginning, this committee will continue to have hearings on these issues. We think it

is very, very important. We want to work with you. We want to try

to be of assistance to you. And again, we thank you very much. You

each have contributed a great deal. And there is nothing more important, I think, than what is going on in the District than to work

with our children.

Thank you very much.

Dr. GOLDEN. Thank you.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., Wednesday, April 2, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
(133)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator DeWine.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

STATEMENTS OF:

ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOUG NELSON, DIRECTOR, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

ACCOMPANIED BY:

RUFUS KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND MEMBER, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, D.C. COURTS AND SECRETARY,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. This hearing will come to order.

Today we are convening a second hearing regarding the fiscal year

2004 budget for the District of Columbia Courts. At our first hearing last month, there was some confusion as to capital funds required for fiscal year 2004.

My understanding is that since that hearing the courts have

worked closely with GSA to determine their actual capital requirements for the next 2 years. According to the court’s written testimony, $244.8 million is being requested for fiscal year 2004. This

is an increase of $38.5 million above the fiscal year 2003 enacted

budget, and $36.6 million more than the President’s budget request.

We would like to hear the witnesses today as to how they plan

to use these additional resources and how this increase would

work, including the success of the Family Court, as well as the operations of the Superior Court. We are also interested to learn how

the court’s facilities plan will be implemented in a time line for

completion of these important capital projects.
134

These capital projects will play a key role in providing a safe

family friendly environment as is required by the Family Court

Act.

Today our GSA witness will describe the important role his agency will have as a project manager for the renovation and construction of court facilities.

I’m also curious to hear how the time lines of the D.C. Courts’

construction plans compare to other courthouse constructions in

other jurisdictions.

Given the constraints of the recently passed budget resolution,

frankly, it’s going to be difficult for this subcommittee to provide

the increases above the President’s request for the courts. I would

like to hear from Judge Wagner how the President’s proposed

budget level, which is $36.6 million below the court’s request is

going to affect the court’s operations.

Also, I recognize that the most significant construction costs will

occur in fiscal year 2005. I urge the courts to meet with officials

from OMB as soon as possible to ensure that the capital costs are

requested in the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request.

The witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for opening remarks,

and copies of your written statements will be placed in the record

in their entirety.

Senator Strauss has submitted a written statement to be included in the record.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

As the elected United States Senator for the District of Columbia, and an attorney

who practices in the family court division of our local courts I would like to state

for the record that I fully support the fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the District of Columbia Courts. As an elected Senator for the District of Columbia, I stand

by the Court System of District of Columbia. It is vital that the District of Columbia

Court System be fully funded in the amount asked for today.

I respect the positions of all of the witnesses that are here today and especially

know that Judges King, Wagner, and their staff have worked hard on their budget

proposal. I know that the fiscal marks that he is testifying in support of today are

what we need in order for the D.C. Court System to continue to operate at full capacity. Since, as the D.C. Senator, I myself cannot vote on this appropriation I am

limited to merely asking you to support his proposal.

In this hearing, the witnesses have presented the fiscal marks that they request

regarding capitol improvements requirements of the D.C. Courts in fiscal year 2004.

With the cooperation of and significant input from General Services Administration,

the D.C. Courts have come up with a Master Plan for Facilities. This plan incorporates significant research, analysis, and planning. I support this plan and am

happy that this subcommittee supports it as well.

However, as much as I appreciate having the support from this subcommittee on

the Master Plan for Facilities, I respectfully state that this matter is not in the Office of Management and Budget or the President’s hands. I know that I need not

remind you that Congress has the final say over how much money is spent and it

is very unlikely that the President will veto the entire bill if more money is appropriated on this project than is written into the President’s budget. Of course, that

does not mean that Judges Wagner, King, and their staff should not take the advice

of Chairman DeWine and strongly advocate for this project to OMB. It is still very

important to have this project written into the President’s fiscal year 2005 Budget.

Having it in there will of course make it more likely that the money will be appropriated for the project.

The District of Columbia Courts’ fiscal year 2004 request is a fiscally responsible

budget that continues to build on past achievements to meet current and future

needs. Some of the needs that will be met by the budget proposal submitted by the

D.C. Courts are enhancing public security, investing in human resources, investing
135

in information technology, expanding strategic planning and management, and

strengthening services to families.

Moreover, having stated the importance of fully funding the District of Columbia

Court System, I would like to emphasize the importance of fully funding the Court’s

Defender Services line item. In order to provide adequate representation to families

in crisis we need to fully fund Defender Services. All of this Committee’s good work

on Family Court reform is in jeopardy without the resources to back it up. 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 yet important, legal

functions common to every jurisdiction. The safety of children should not and will

not be compromised due to political agendas or simple lack of funding. Although the

budget provides training for new attorneys, these children are best served by experienced advocates. We are in danger of losing our most experienced child advocates

due to budget cuts.

Once again this year the D.C. Court System asked for an increase in the hourly

rate paid to attorneys that provide legal services to the indigent including those attorneys that work hard to represent abused and neglected children ad guardia and

ad litems in Family Court. The first fee increase in nearly a decade was implemented in March of 2002 when it was increased to the present rate of $65 per hour.

In the fiscal year 2004 request the Courts recommend an incremental increase from

the current $65 an hour to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per hour. The reason

that this adjustment is so important is that the Federal court-appointed lawyers,

literally across the street already get paid $90 an hour to do very similar work.

Therefore, the disparity in pay between the two positions creates a disincentive

amongst the ‘‘experienced’’ attorneys to work for Defender Services in D.C. Court.

I call on this Subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive. It was unfortunate that the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill that came out of Conference and

was signed into law by the President did not include this raise that this Committee,

and full Senate rightly included into their mark up of the bill. I urge this Subcommittee to fully fund the requested increase in the defender services line item in

the bill for fiscal year 2004 just like they did for fiscal year 2003, and then fight

vigorously to defend that mark if a conference becomes necessary.

Senator Landrieu has stated that the District of Columbia Family Court should

be a ‘‘showcase’’ for the whole country. I firmly agree with that statement and add

that as an attorney who practices regularly in the D.C. Family Court, I believe that

it is thankfully on its way toward being that ‘‘showcase’’. However, there is continued need for improvement. I know that this Subcommittee has been firmly committed to the D.C. Family Court. On behalf of my constituents I thank you for all

your hard work and dedication and I look forward to your continued cooperation.

There has been strong bipartisan support in this Subcommittee for the D.C. Family

Court. In particular, I commend Senators DeWine and Landrieu for all the great

work that they have done on this important issue. Both of them have treated the

D.C. Family Court as if it were a court in their own States.

In the long term, a family-friendly showcase state-of-the-art Family Court with

its own identity and a separate entrance is included in the Master Plan that the

D.C. Courts and GSA have compiled. I am also happy to see that the Master Plan

takes into account the transition from the Family Court of today to the Family

Court we will see in the future. The two-pronged approach that includes the transition, the final step means that this plan is well thought out, and they are ready

for the money to be appropriated for this important project.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this important

hearing and Judges Wagner and King as well as Mr. Doug Nelson, Director-Property Development, GSA for working hard on the Master Plan for Facilities and testifying today. I urge this Subcommittee to take the budget proposals submitted today

into strong consideration. Finally, let me take this opportunity to thank Matt

Helfant of my staff for his assistance in preparing this statement. I look forward

to further hearings on this topic and I am happy to respond to any requests for additional information.

Senator DEWINE. Judge Wagner is, of course, the Chief Judge of

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. We are also joined by

Mr. Doug Nelson, Director of the Property Development Division,

Public Building Services, National Capital Region, General Services Administration. And of course also on the panel is Judge King,

who we welcome back again as well.
136

Mr. Nelson, why don’t we just start with you, and just tell us

where you think we are, what do we need to know.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. Thank you for

this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital budget request for the District of Columbia Courts. I’m Doug Nelson and I

am appearing here in my capacity of the Director of the GSA National Capital Region’s Property Development Division. The Property Development Division is part of the GSA Public Building Service, and we provide program and project management services for

major new construction, modernization, lease construction, renovations, and repair and alteration projects for Federal facilities.

Development of large, complex and technically challenging

projects of historical significance is not only part of our Nation’s

legacy, but also GSA’s. Our projects stand as a testimony to the

outstanding level of quality and service we deliver to our customers.

GSA is pleased that the D.C. Courts have turned to us to provide

project management services for their projects arising from the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. GSA has been supporting D.C. Courts’ projects ranging in scope from planning to

minor repairs and alterations to major renovation and new construction. We are now directly involved with projects encompassing

three existing buildings and a new parking garage, all of which are

located in and around Judiciary Square.

The projects consist of the Family Court Interim Plan, interior

renovation of Building B to house, among others, the Small Claims

Court, the Landlord-Tenant Court, and administrative offices. It

also includes the partial renovation of approximately 30,000 occupiable square feet of the Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level to

house part of the Family Court; the renovation and adaptive reuse

of the historic 1820’s old D.C. Courthouse to house the D.C. Court

of Appeals, including the new construction of the underground

parking garage; and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse to meet

the space needs of the Superior Court to provide state of the art

facilities for the Family Courts.

These projects are related to one another, since room for the

Family Court is being created within the Moultrie Courthouse by

a combination of relocation of the Court of Appeals to the Old

Courthouse, the movement of the current Moultrie occupants to

Building B, and the Moultrie John Marshall level renovation. Presently, all projects that I have identified are underway, although

each are at different stages of completion.

The current status of each project: An 8(a) contractor has been

awarded a design-build contract for the Building B interior renovations. The project is in the demolition phase of construction and occupancy is scheduled for December of 2003.

The Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level renovation and

creation of new courtrooms for the Family Court is being designed

by the architectural firm Oudens and Knoop.

The architectural firm of Beyer, Blinder, Belle, architects and

planners, has recently been selected for the Old Courthouse and
137

the parking garage, and we are using GSA’s Design Excellence program for that selection.

The architectural firm of Gensler has been recently selected for

the Moultrie Courthouse expansion utilizing the Design Excellence

program.

For your information, I have provided individual fact sheets for

the Building B project, the Old Courthouse and garage project, and

the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project. These fact sheets provide more detailed information on each of the projects.

In addition to the construction projects I have described, GSA is

also working with the D.C. Courts to prepare a master plan for Judiciary Square at the request of the National Capital Planning

Commission. A draft of this plan is scheduled for presentation to

the Commission early this summer, and approval of this plan is essential for continued progress of the projects.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman and Senators, we look forward to working with

you throughout the appropriate appropriations process, and I

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital budget request of the Courts as it relates to these projects. I

would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUG NELSON

Mister Chairman, Senators, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal

year 2004 capital budget request of the District of Columbia Courts. I am Doug Nelson, and I am appearing in my capacity as the Director of the GSA National Capital

Region Property Development Division. The Property Development Division is part

of the GSA Public Buildings Service and we provide program and project management services for major new construction, modernization, lease construction, renovations, and repair and alteration projects for Federal facilities.

Development of large, complex and technically challenging projects of historical

significance is not only part of our Nation’s legacy, but also GSA’s. Our projects

stand as testimony to the outstanding level of quality and service we deliver to our

customers.

GSA is pleased that the D.C. Courts have turned to us to provide project management services for their projects arising from the District of Columbia Family Court

Act of 2001. GSA has been supporting D.C. Courts’ projects ranging in scope from

planning to minor repairs and alterations to major renovation and new construction.

We are now directly involved with projects encompassing three existing buildings

and a new parking garage, all of which are located in and around Judiciary Square.

The projects consist of:

—Family Court Interim Plan:

—Interior renovation of Building ‘‘B’’ to house, among others, the Small Claims

Court, the Landlord-Tenant Court, and administrative offices;

—Partial renovation of approximately 30,000 occupiable square feet of the

Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level to house part of the Family Court;

—Renovation and adaptive reuse of the historic 1820’s Old D.C. Courthouse to

house the D.C. Court of Appeals, including the construction of a new underground parking garage; and

—Expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse to meet the space needs of the Superior

Court and to provide state of the art facilities for the Family Court.

These projects are related to one another, since room for the Family Court is

being created within the Moultrie Courthouse by a combination of the relocation of

the Court of Appeals to the Old Courthouse, the movement of current Moultrie occupants to Building ‘‘B’’, and the Moultrie John Marshall level renovation. Presently,

all of the projects that I have identified are underway, although each is at a different stage of completion.

The current status of each project is:
138

—An 8(a) contractor has been awarded a design-build contract for the Building

‘‘B’’ interior renovations. The project is in the demolition phase of construction

and occupancy is scheduled for December 2003;

—The Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level renovation and creation of new

courtrooms for the Family Court is being designed by the architectural firm

Oudens and Knoop;

—The architectural firm Beyer Blinder Belle has recently been selected for the

Old Courthouse and the parking garage utilizing GSA’s Design Excellence program; and

—The architectural firm Gensler has recently been selected for the Moultrie

Courthouse expansion utilizing the Design Excellence program.

For your information, I have prepared individual fact sheets for the Building ‘‘B’’

project, the Old Courthouse and garage project, and the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project. These fact sheets provide more detailed information on each of the

projects.

In addition to the construction projects I have described, GSA is also working with

the D.C. Courts to prepare a Master Plan for Judiciary Square at the request of the

National Capital Planning Commission. A draft of this plan is scheduled for presentation to the Commission early this summer. Approval of this plan is essential to

the continued progress of the projects.

Mister Chairman, Senators, we look forward to working with you throughout the

appropriations process, and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year

2004 capital budget request of the Courts as it relates to these projects. I would be

pleased to address any questions.

FACT SHEET.—D.C. COURTS BUILDING ‘‘B’’ INTERIOR RENOVATIONS

Background

This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts in accordance with the Family Court

Act of 2001. The scope of work is the renovation of the interior of Building ‘‘B’’, located on 4th Street, NW, between E and F Streets. Building ‘‘B’’ has three abovegrade floors and an occupiable basement totaling 68,000 OSF. Renovation of the

building is being carried out in two phases, with the building remaining partially

occupied during each phase. When the renovation project is complete, Building ‘‘B’’

will house the Landlord-Tenant Court and the Small Claims Court, as well as other

Superior Court offices.

Current Status

The first phase of the project is currently underway. A design-build contract was

awarded to Dalco, Inc., an 8(a) construction contractor working in conjunction with

the architectural firm of Leo A Daly. The demolition portion of the first phase is

nearing completion. The design of the new work is scheduled for completion in April

2003, with construction to commence immediately thereafter. —Construction Manager.—A Construction Management (CM) contract was awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects, including the Building

‘‘B’’ renovation. This contract includes management of the design and construction phases of the project. —Design.—Design is scheduled for completion in April 2003. —Construction.—Construction is ongoing, with the first phase new construction

scheduled to commence in April 2003.

Milestones

Award (Design-Build).—December 2002.

Design Complete.—April 2003.

Occupancy.—December 2003.

Cost

Design & Construction.—$13,500,000 (fiscal year 2003).

M&I.—$1,500,000 (fiscal year 2003).

Total Budget.—$15,000,000 (fiscal year 2003).

Contact

Doug Nelson, Director, GSA–NCR Property Development Division.

FACT SHEET.—D.C. COURTS OLD D.C. COURTHOUSE AND PARKING GARAGE

Background

This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts and includes the restoration and

adaptive reuse of the historic Old D.C. Courthouse in Judiciary Square in Washington, DC. The project also includes a new underground parking garage adjacent
139

to the Old Courthouse with space for approximately 250 vehicles, which will be

shared with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF). Designed

in 1820, the Old Courthouse currently comprises 96,000 SF. An additional 37,000

SF addition to the Old Courthouse is planned as part of this project, bringing the

completed total square footage to 133,000. When complete, the building will house

the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Current Status

The project is currently in the design procurement phase. An Architect/Engineer

(A/E) has been selected utilizing GSA’s Design Excellence program, and it is anticipated that the design will commence upon award in June 2003.

—Master Plan.—A D.C. Courts Judiciary Square Master Plan is being developed

at the request of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The draft

report is planned for a June 6, 2003 submission to NCPC. NCPC approval of

this plan is critical to the continued progress of the project.

—Construction Manager.—A Construction Management (CM) contract was awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects, including the Court

of Appeals and the parking garage. This contract includes management of the

design and construction phases of the project.

—Design.—An A/E has been selected based on technical merit, and cost negotiations are planned to commence in early May 2003. A single design contract will

be awarded, but the A/E will produce separate sets of construction documents

for the garage and the Courthouse.

—Construction.—The parking garage and the Old Courthouse are to be constructed utilizing separate construction contracts. Construction of the parking

garage is planned to commence in September 2004, with completion planned in

December 2005. The Old Courthouse construction is scheduled to begin in

March 2005 and is scheduled for occupancy in March 2007.

Milestones

Design Award.—June 2003.

Design Complete.—Garage: February 2004; Courthouse: August 2004.

Construction Award.—Garage: September 2004; Courthouse: March 2005.

Garage Complete.—December 2005.

Courthouse Occupancy.—March 2007.

Remaining Cost

GSA has received fiscal year 2003 and prior year funds from the D.C. Courts for

this project. In addition, part of the garage cost is to be funded by the USCAAF.

A summary of the total projected D.C. Courts project costs is as follows, with the

remaining funds required from the D.C. Courts:

Design.—Courthouse & Garage $5.4M (fiscal year 2003).

M&I.—Courthouse & Garage $7.3M ($1.7M in fiscal year 2003; $0.7M in fiscal

year 2004; $4.9 in fiscal year 2005).

Construction.—Courthouse & Garage $66.5M ($8.8M in fiscal year 2004; $57.7M

in fiscal year 2005).

Total Cost.—$79.2M ($7.1M in fiscal year 2003; $9.5M in fiscal year 2004; $62.6M

fiscal year 2005).

Remaining D.C. Courts Funding.—$74.1M ($2.0M in fiscal year 2003; $9.5M in

fiscal year 2004; $62.6M fiscal year 2005).

Contact

Doug Nelson, Director, GSA–NCR Property Development Division.

FACT SHEET.—D.C. COURTS MOULTRIE COURTHOUSE EXPANSION

Background

This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts in accordance with the Family Court

Act of 2001. The scope of work is the expansion of the H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse building to provide more room for the Superior Court’s Family Court and to

provide space for a new Family Services Center. The Moultrie Courthouse is located

on the south side of Judiciary Square facing Indiana Avenue, NW. The project consists of a 74,000 SF expansion of the building consisting of a 64,000 SF addition

along the building’s south side and a new 10,000 SF pavilion located on the north

side. Related projects in Judiciary Square arising from the Family Court Act include

interior renovation of D.C. Courts Building ‘‘B’’ and the partial renovation of the

Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level.
140

Current Status

The project is currently in the design procurement phase. An Architect/Engineer

(A/E) has been selected utilizing GSA’s Design Excellence program, and it is anticipated that the design will commence upon award in August 2003. —Master Plan.—A D.C. Courts Judiciary Square Master Plan is being developed

at the request of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The draft

report is planned for a June 6, 2003 submission to NCPC. NCPC approval of

this plan is critical to the continued progress of the project. —Construction Manager.—A Construction Management (CM) contract was awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects, including the Moultrie

Courthouse expansion. This contract includes management of the design and

construction phases of the project. —Design.—An A/E has been selected based on technical merit, and cost negotiations are planned to commence in July 2003. —Construction.—Construction is planned to commence in May 2005.

Milestones

Design Award.—August 2003.

Design Complete.—September 2004.

Construction Award.—May 2005.

Occupancy.—June 2009.

Remaining Cost

Design.—$3,600,000 (fiscal year 2003).

M&I.—$1,200,000 (fiscal year 2003).

M&I.—$4,800,000 (fiscal year 2005).

M&I.—$950,000 (fiscal year 2008).

Construction.—$44,000,000 (fiscal year 2005).

Construction.—$7,700,000 (fiscal year 2008).

Total Remaining.—$62,300,000 ($4.8M in fiscal year 2003; $48.9M in fiscal year 2005; $8.6M in fiscal year 2008).

Contact

Doug Nelson, Director, GSA–NCR Property Development Division.

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Nelson, thank you very much. You set a

new record. You only took 4 minutes to testify.

Judge Wagner, you do not have to follow that precedent. We will

give you his extra minute. Judge Wagner, go ahead.

STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER

Chief Judge WAGNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Senators. Thank you so much for this opportunity to address further

our capital improvement requirements for the District of Columbia

Courts in fiscal year 2004. For the record, I am Annice Wagner,

and I am the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, which is the policy-making body

for the District of Columbia Courts.

With me is Chief Judge Rufus King III, who is a member of our

Joint Committee and who is the chief judge of our trial court, the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia. We also have other staff

members present with us. We have Anne Wicks, our Executive Officer, and secretary to the Joint Committee, and Mr. Joseph

Sanchez, the Courts’ Administrative Officer. They are here to provide detailed information to the committee.

The Courts’ capital funding requirements are significant, as we

know. That is because they include funding for projects critical to

maintaining, preserving and building safe and functional courthouse facilities which are essential to meeting the heavy demands

of the administration of justice in our Nation’s capital.

Since we appeared before you, we have held several, or a series

of productive meetings with the General Services Administration,
141

which as you know, is the program and project manager for the

Courts’ construction and renovation projects. As with any complex

construction project, we are informed that ongoing refinement of

the design, acquisition, and construction plans have led to changes

in project approaches, which affect the Courts’ capital funding request for fiscal year 2004.

Two points should be emphasized about these changes at the outset. First, these changes do not change the timing for the completion of the adaptation of the Old Courthouse for use by the D.C.

Court of Appeals, the Moultrie Courthouse expansion, or the interim and final Family Court plans which will be discussed more

fully later. And second, they merely shift capital costs from fiscal

year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The shift in timing of funding has

had no impact on the construction time line, as you have heard,

and all capital projects remain on schedule, at least as of today.

Recent studies by GSA have shown the Courts’ space needs,

which will occur over the next decade, and indeed show a current

shortfall in space. To meet these needs, we have three major approaches.

First, renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use will

provide space for the District’s court of last resort, the District of

Columbia Court of Appeals, and this will free space in the Moultrie

Courthouse for trial court operations, including our Family Court.

Second, construction of an addition on the Moultrie Courthouse, a

major portion of which will be developed as a separately accessible

state of the art Family Court facility. And third, the future occupation of Building C, which is adjacent to the Old Courthouse.

The readaptive use of the Old Courthouse is critical to meeting

the space needs of the entire court system. Investment will improve

efficiencies by co-locating the offices and support facilities and provide 37,000 square feet of critically needed space in the Moultrie

building. As you know, the Moultrie building is uniquely designed

to meet the needs of the trial court particularly, because of its secure corridors through which many many prisoners have to go each

day to the various courtrooms within the building. It’s well suited

to that.

It is also well suited to the planned addition for the Family

Court, which will be facilitated through the master plan. This addition allows for development on C Street of a separate Family Court

entrance, with its own name appearing on the building, which will

provide a welcoming facility for families coming to the Court in the

most difficult times of their lives, no doubt.

The Moultrie building was built in 1978 for 44 trial judges, and

today it is strained beyond its capacity in order to accommodate 62

trial judges and 24 magistrate judges, and 9 appellate judges, as

well as senior judges and support staff for the two courts.

I would like to take the time to mention the historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square, which lends dignity to the

important business conducted by the Courts. The National Capital

Planning Commission is requiring the Courts to develop a master

plan for Judiciary Square, essentially an urban design plan, before

construction can begin. The D.C. Courts are working with several

stakeholders on the plan, including the United States Court of Ap-
142

peals for the Armed Forces, the National Law Enforcement Museum, the Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department.

The Old Courthouse is the centerpiece of Judiciary Square and

is one of the oldest buildings in the District of Columbia. The architectural and historic significance of the building, which was built

from 1821 to 1881, led to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Since it has been vacated, thanks to the support of

Congress, we have been able to take steps to prevent its further deterioration and to begin planning for its readaptive use.

The project will not only meet the critical needs of the Courts by

serving as the new site for the Court of Appeals, it will also impart

new life to one of the most significant historic buildings in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of the Courts and it will benefit

the community through an approach of strengthening a public institution, restoring a historic landmark, and stimulating the neighborhood’s economic activities.

There are a number of other buildings such as Buildings A, B

and C, which are in our master plan. Work is underway to move

the Superior Court’s two highest volume courtrooms, small claims

and landlord-tenant, into Building B by this year’s end. This move

will free much needed space in the Moultrie building, for the development of a Family Court, which will include three new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized intake facility, a

family friendly waiting area, and District of Columbia government

liaison offices for Family Court matters.

The Courts are pleased to be working with GSA on these

projects, and Mr. Nelson has explained some of them to you. As we

embark on projects of the large scope envisioned by the Master

Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, we are particularly pleased to have

GSA’s expert guidance and the guidance of the experts whom they

have hired. The master plan incorporates significant research,

analysis and planning by expert architects, engineers and design

planning.

I know that my time is short here, but there are two key features

that I want to mention about the interim Family Court plan. During 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured space in the

Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate the nine new Family Court

magistrate judges and their support staff. The Court also constructed four new hearing rooms for Family Court magistrates

hearing child abuse and neglect cases, and renovated space for the

mayor’s social services liaison office.

A key element of the Family Court interim plan is the JM level

construction in the Moultrie Courthouse of three new courtrooms

and three new hearing rooms, a centralized Family Court intake

center, a family friendly child waiting area, and a new Family

Court entrance on the John Marshall Plaza. The JM level construction will be complete in the latter part of 2004. We are pleased to

be able to report that.

There is a long-term Family Court plan, as you know. I won’t get

into it right now, but I will await your questions. It is addressed

in my written testimony to the committee.

Unless these infrastructure needs are addressed, the functional

capability of the Courts will decline and the quality of justice in the

District of Columbia will be compromised. For fiscal year 2004, we
143

ask for $52,889,000 for capital projects, and as you know, the bulk

of the funding needed for the master space plan will come in fiscal

year 2005.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Courts’ capital budget request, and we look forward to working with you

throughout the appropriations process. Chief Judge King and I

would be pleased to address any questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER

Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for this opportunity to address

further the capital improvement requirements of the District of Columbia Courts in

fiscal year 2004. For the record, I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing in my

capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia. The Joint Committee, as the policy-making body for the District

of Columbia Courts, has responsibility, for, among other matters, space and facilities issues in the District of Columbia’s court system.

With me this morning are Chief Judge Rufus King III, a member of the Joint

Committee and the chief judge of our trial court, the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia, Ms. Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer of the Courts and Secretary to

the Joint Committee, and Mr. Joseph E. Sanchez, Jr., the Courts’ Administrative

Officer.

The Courts’ capital funding requirements are significant because they include necessary funding for projects critical to maintaining, preserving and building safe and

functional courthouse facilities essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice in our Nation’s Capital. Since appearing before you on March

12, 2003, the Courts have had a series of productive meetings with representatives

of the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency serving as program and

project managers for the Courts’ construction and renovation projects. As with any

complex construction project, we are informed that on-going refinement of the design, acquisition and construction plans have led to changes in project approaches

which affect the Courts’ capital funding requirements in fiscal year 2004 for these

multi-year projects. Two points should be emphasized about these changes at the

outset. First, these changes do not change the timing for the completion of the readaptation of the Old Courthouse for use by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Moultrie Courthouse expansion, or the interim and final Family Court

plans, which will be discussed more fully later. Second, the changes provided to us

by GSA for fiscal year 2004 merely shift some capital costs from fiscal year 2004

to fiscal year 2005. The total cost of these projects and the GSA requirement for

full funding at the beginning of construction remain. The shift in the timing of funding requirements has had no impact on the construction timeline, and all capital

projects remain on schedule.

FACILITIES OVERVIEW

Let me begin by outlining an inventory of the Courts’ major facilities and key features of our Master Space Plan for their use. To administer justice in our Nation’s

Capital, the D.C. Courts presently maintain 645,000 occupiable square feet of space

in Judiciary Square. Specifically, the Courts are responsible for four buildings in the

square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the Moultrie Courthouse at 500

Indiana Avenue, N.W., and Buildings A and B, which are located between 4th and

5th Streets and E and F Streets, N.W. In addition, when the District government’s

payroll office vacates Building C, the old Juvenile Court, we anticipate that it will

be returned to the Courts’ inventory. Recent studies by the General Services Administration have documented the D.C. Courts’ severe space shortage. In 2002, the

Courts were short approximately 48,000 square feet for operations, with a shortfall

of 134,000 square feet projected in the next decade.

A recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities secured by the GSA

defined the 134,000 square foot space shortfall facing the Courts and proposed to

meet that need through three mechanisms: (1) renovation of the Old Courthouse for

readaptive use by this jurisdiction’s court of last resort, the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals, which will to free space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court

operations; (2) construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse, a major por-
144

tion of which will be developed as a separately accessible Family Court facility; and

(3) the future occupation of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse.

The restoration and readaptive use of the Old Courthouse for the District of Columbia’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, is pivotal to meeting the space needs

of the court system. Investment in the restoration of the Old Courthouse will improve efficiencies by co-locating the offices that support the Court of Appeals and

by providing 37,000 square feet of critically needed space for Superior Court and

Family Court functions in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Moultrie Courthouse is

uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial court. It has three separate and

secure circulation systems—for the judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners present in the courthouse each day. Built in 1978 for 44 trial judges, today

it is strained beyond capacity to accommodate 62 trial judges and 24 magistrate

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

staff for the two courts. Essential District criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy office space in the Moultrie Courthouse. It is needless to say that

the Courts have outgrown the space available in the Moultrie building. The space

is inadequate for this high volume court system to serve the public in the heavily

populated metropolitan area in and around our Nation’s Capital. The Courts require

well-planned and adequate space to ensure efficient operations in a safe and healthy

environment.

The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square lends dignity to

the important business conducted by the Courts and at the same time complicates

somewhat any efforts to modernize or alter the structures. Judiciary Square is of

keen interest to the Nation’s Capital. The National Capital Planning Commission

is requiring that the Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square—essentially, an urban design plan—before construction can be commenced in the area.

The D.C. Courts are working with all stakeholders on the Plan, including the

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the National Law Enforcement Museum, the Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department.

The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary Square, is one of the

oldest buildings in the District of Columbia. Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and Francis Scott Key practiced law, and John Surratt was tried for his part

in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The architectural and historical

significance of the Old Courthouse, built from 1821 to 1881, led to its listing on the

National Register of Historic Places and its designation as an official project of Save

America’s Treasures. The structure is uninhabitable in its current condition and requires extensive work to meet health and safety building codes and to readapt it

for use as a courthouse. Since it has been vacated, thanks to the support of Congress, we have been able to take steps to prevent its further deterioration. This

project will not only meet the critical needs of the Courts by serving as the new

site for the Court of Appeals; it will also impart new life to one of the most significant historic buildings in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of the Courts and

benefit the community through an approach that strengthens a public institution,

restores a historic landmark, and stimulates neighborhood economic activity.

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

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

and John Marshall Park and form part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. These buildings have been used primarily as office space in recent

years, with a number of courtrooms in operation in Building A. Work is underway

to move the Superior Court’s two highest volume courtrooms, Small Claims and

Landlord and Tenant, into Building B by year’s end. This move will free much needed space in the Moultrie Building for development of the Family Court, which will

include three new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized intake facility, a family-friendly waiting area and District liaison offices for Family Court matters.

The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970’s, while not historic, is also

located along the view corridor and reinforces the symmetry of Judiciary Square

through its similar form and material to the municipal building located across the

John Marshall Plaza. Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most

Court of Appeals, Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk’s offices,

as previously described.

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

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

District’s Department of Public Works. In 1999, GSA produced a study for the renovation and readaptive use of the Old Courthouse. Later, in 2001, GSA prepared

Building Evaluation Reports that assessed the condition of the D.C. Courts’ facilities. These projects culminated in the development of the first Master Plan for D.C.
145

Courts Facilities, which delineates the Courts’ space requirements and provides a

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

As we embark on projects of the large scope envisioned by the Master Plan for

Facilities, we are particularly pleased to have the General Services Administration

and its teams of construction and procurement experts working with us. We appreciate GSA’s presence and participation this morning to provide detailed information

on these projects that are so important to the administration of justice in our Nation’s Capital.

MASTER PLAN FOR FACILITIES

The Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities incorporates significant research, analysis, and planning by experts in architecture, urban design and planning. During

this study GSA analyzed the Courts’ current and future space requirements, particularly in light of the significantly increased space needs of the Family Court. The

Master Plan examined such critical issues as: alignment of court components to

meet evolving operational needs and enhance efficiency; the impact of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law Number 107–114); accommodation of space requirements through 2012; and planning to upgrade facilities, including, for example,

security, telecommunications, and mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space

shortfall for the Courts over the next decade of 134,000 occupiable square feet, and

proposed to meet that need through three approaches: (1) renovation of the Old

Courthouse for readaptive use by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will free space

in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations; (2) construction of an addition

to the Moultrie Courthouse, to meet the needs of the Family Court; and (3) reoccupation of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. In addition, the Plan determined that other court facilities must be modernized and upgraded to meet health

and safety standards and to function more efficiently.

FAMILY COURT IN THE MASTER PLAN

Interim Family Court Space Plan

The Master Plan incorporates an Interim Space Plan for the Family Court that

provides the facilities necessary to fully implement the Family Court Act, as well

as a long term plan that optimizes space and programmatic enhancements for the

Family Court. The Interim Space Plan for Family Court will be complete in the fall

of 2004. As this Interim Space Plan proceeds towards completion, procedural

changes have been implemented within the Family Court to meet the requirements

of the Family Court Act. I believe Mr. Nelson from GSA plans to describe the status

of the Interim Plan, which was detailed in the Family Court’s April 5, 2002 Transition Plan. Therefore, I will mention only briefly the essential components of the Interim Plan.

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

Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate the nine new Family Court magistrate

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

rooms for Family Court magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect

cases, and renovated space for the Mayor’s Services Liaison Office.

—A key element of the Family Court Interim Space Plan is the JM-level construction in the Moultrie Courthouse of three new courtrooms, three new hearing

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

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

Court entrance from the John Marshall Plaza to the Moultrie Courthouse. In

addition, the corridors and hallways along the courthouse’s JM-level will be redesigned and upgraded to create family-friendly seating and waiting areas.

As stated previously, the JM-level construction will be complete in the latter part

of 2004, marking the implementation of the Interim Plan. When the renovation of

the first floor of Building B is complete (fall 2003), the Small Claims and Landlord

& Tenant courts and clerk’s offices will be relocated from the JM level of the

Moultrie Courthouse to Building B, and Family Court construction will begin on the

JM level.

Long Term Plan

The long term plan includes expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art, family-friendly facility for Family Court operations, with its own identity and separate entrance, which will be a model for the

Nation. We envision a safe facility designed to alleviate the inevitable stresses on

the families who come to the courthouse seeking justice. We want the Family Court

to be inviting and welcoming to families with small children, to families with teenagers, to all families. We envision a customer-friendly facility that incorporates the
146

‘‘one-stop’’ concept by locating all related court units in one place and making it

easier for families to access needed social services from D.C. government agencies.

The interim Family Court plans are designed to transition smoothly into this long

term plan and to maximize the efficient use of time and money.

CAPITAL FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2004

To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community and the

demands confronting the District’s judicial branch, adequate resources are essential.

The most critical issue we face today is sufficient capital funding to address the

Courts’ severe space shortage and aging infrastructure. Only by investing in these

critical areas will the Courts be in a position to ensure that the type of security necessary to protect our citizens and our institution is in place, and that our facilities

are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably up-to-date. Unless infrastructure

needs are addressed, the functional capability of the Courts will decline and the

quality of justice in the District of Columbia will be compromised.

Based on figures from GSA, which reflect the current approach to our major construction projects, the Courts’ capital budget request for fiscal year 2004 is

$52,889,000, comprised of the following projects:

Courtrooms and Judges Chambers .................................................................................................................. $1,950,000

HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades ....................................................................................................... 16,220,000

Restoration of Old Courthouse (complete garage construction) ..................................................................... 4,519,000

Restroom Improvements ................................................................................................................................... 1,100,000

Elevator and Escalator ..................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000

Fire and Security Alarm Systems ..................................................................................................................... 6,500,000

General Repair Projects ................................................................................................................................... 7,740,000

Moultrie Courthouse Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 1,200,000

Master Plan Implementation—Development Studies ...................................................................................... 550,000

Integrated Justice Information System ............................................................................................................ 11,110,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 52,889,000

GSA has been working with us on the two major, multi-year projects to provide

the majority of the additional space needed to meet the 134,000 occupiable square

feet deficit identified in the Master Plan for facilities: Restoration of the Old Courthouse and Expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. Over the next 2 fiscal years, 2004

and 2005, these projects will require $117 million. As both projects are currently

in the design procurement phase, GSA will require the majority of these funds in

fiscal year 2005, when the major construction contracts are finalized. In addition,

to implement future projects required by the Master Plan, development studies will

be needed in fiscal year 2004; these have been added to our capital budget request.

I understand that Mr. Nelson from GSA plans to provide more detail on the current

status of these projects.

Restoration of the Old Courthouse will provide space for the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District’s court of last resort. Restoring this historic landmark will help

meet the urgent space needs of the appellate court and the entire court system and

will preserve the rich history of this building for future generations. When the Court

of Appeals vacates its current space in the Moultrie Courthouse, approximately

37,000 square feet will become available for Superior Court and Family Court operations. The Old Courthouse project includes: restoration of the Greek Revival building; construction of additional underground office and courtroom space, and a new

entrance to the north on E Street; and, as authorized by Public Law 106–492, construction of a secure parking facility to be shared with and connected to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which is adjacent to the Old Courthouse.

The Moultrie Courthouse Expansion is comprised mainly of additions presently

planned for the south side (C Street) and Indiana Avenue entrance of the courthouse. The C Street addition will result in the expansion of five floors in the

Moultrie building. The ground level floors of the addition will enhance the Family

Court by providing a new courthouse entrance solely for Family Court, additional

child protection mediation space, increased Child Care Center space, and safe and

comfortable family-friendly waiting areas. The C Street addition also will permit the

Courts to consolidate family-related operations in one central location, including juvenile probation functions and District government social service agencies that provide needed services to families and children in crisis. The upper level floors of the

addition will meet critical space needs for other Superior Court operations.

The remainder of the Courts’ fiscal year 2004 capital budget request includes

funding to: continue the implementation of the Integrated Justice Information Sys-
147

tem (IJIS); enhance the security, health and safety of the public using court facilities; and maintain our deteriorating infrastructure. These important projects were

discussed in my March 12th testimony, and their funding requirements remain as

originally submitted.

CONCLUSION

Mister Chairman, Senators, again, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the

Courts’ capital budget request. We look forward to working with you throughout the

appropriations process. Chief Judge King, Ms. Wicks, Mr. Sanchez, and I would be

pleased to address any questions.

Senator DEWINE. Judge, thank you very much. Let me start by

asking, to carry out this plan, you’ve got a real spike up in costs

next year, 2005, and this is just not going to happen, frankly, unless the President puts it in his budget. We all know that. What

has been your communication with OMB about this?

Chief Judge WAGNER. Good question. While I have not have had

any recent communication with OMB about this, what I was told

was, it is not a question of whether funding will be recommended

for one of the first phases, which is the readaptive use of 451 Indiana Avenue, the Old Courthouse, but a question of when. We have

shared our master plan in a full briefing in May, I mean our staff

has done that. In terms of the principals meeting with the leadership of OMB, that’s a different matter. They are always made

aware of our budget requests and what the purpose of the capital

funding is, and our staff briefed them in a full briefing in May.

Senator DEWINE. What kind of reaction did your staff get?

Chief Judge WAGNER. Well, that’s a good question, and I might

ask Ms. Wicks to respond to that. But the reaction that I’ve gotten

has always been it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when,

and we know that the country has other needs, but this country always preserves its historic treasures, its symbols of its democracy,

and in this case it can be used for that purpose. So if that phase

gets off the ground, we have the Family Court support, I think that

we can all accomplish this if we work together over the next few

years.

Senator DEWINE. Why don’t you step up and identify yourself for

the record.

Ms. WICKS. I am Anne Wicks, the Courts’ Executive Officer. We

briefed the Congressional staff in May, a full briefing of our plans.

We also, in October, did our fiscal year 2004 budget submission to

OMB, and did a full briefing.

Senator DEWINE. That was when?

Ms. WICKS. In October of this past year. At that time, OMB felt

that we weren’t quite far enough along in the planning and study

for the capital projects. Since that time, as you all are aware, we

have completed the D.C. Courts’ Master Plan for Facilities, at the

first of this year, which has been provided to OMB. We are now

at the point where we are nearly complete with the Judiciary

Square Master Plan, the first draft of that plan will actually be

presented in part tomorrow to the National Capital Planning Commission.

So we’re at the point now where OMB should have information

so that they feel we are very far along, and we are setting up a

meeting with OMB and GSA representatives to go through and

show them that we do have detailed plans at this point.
148

Senator DEWINE. That’s going to be at what level?

Ms. WICKS. Well, we will be meeting with Mark Schwartz, who

is the branch chief, and then after we brief him, I would hope that

he would help us set up something, as far as meetings which will

help us with this.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I can’t say this in—there aren’t strong

enough words for me to urge you, Judge Wagner, Judge King,

you’re going to have to go sell this. It is not going to happen unless

OMB is on board. It does not make me particularly happy that they

have that much power, but that is what the facts are. If the Administration does not come forward next year with this in their

budget, it will not happen. This is a chunk of money.

Now, I happen to support it, I think it’s very important, I think

you have a plan, I think it’s a viable plan, I think it’s essential for

the future of the District of Columbia, the court system. But if you

don’t sell it to OMB and sell it to the Administration, it will not

happen. Would you like to comment on that?

Chief Judge WAGNER. That’s an excellent reminder, Senator, and

I appreciate that, and I guess my experience in the past has been

consistent with what you just stated, and we will make every effort

to make that happen at the executive branch.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. I mean, it’s just not going to happen,

GSA can’t make it happen, and unless it comes up to the level in

that budget, it’s just not going to happen. So, it needs to come up

here with the Administration strongly behind it for it to have any

chance of being done.

FISCAL YEAR 2005 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

And you know, that’s where we have a major thrust on this, I

believe is 2005, isn’t it? We’re talking about how much money in

2005, Mr. Nelson?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, in fiscal year 2005 for the D.C. courthouse project, we’re looking at $62.6 million, and for the Moultrie Courthouse expansion, we’re looking at $48.9 million, for fiscal year

2005.

Senator DEWINE. Now if you don’t get that, what happens?

Chief Judge WAGNER. For the capital budget request?

Senator DEWINE. Right, what Mr. Nelson just said.

Chief Judge WAGNER. Well, I don’t think that, if you’re talking

about for 2004, I’d like to——

Senator DEWINE. I’m talking about 2005. I mean, what I’m saying is you have to be worried, I’m worried about 2004, but I’m also

saying, they’re thinking about 2005 now. They have already submitted 2004. You know, you need to be on dual tracks, you need

to be worried about 2004, but you also need to be worried with

OMB about 2005, and unless you start to make the case with people at OMB who are going to be ultimately deciding your fate and

unless somebody—you know, you need to get out there, you need

to be traveling around with them, you need to be showing them

around. You need them to see your vision and unless they get it,

it’s pretty easy to say well, that’s just a lot of money and we can’t

do it.

Chief Judge WAGNER. Senator, we’re going to work on that, and

I’m glad you reminded us. We have done this type of strategy be-
149

fore, and I think that we can get support from the White House

and OMB.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I pray that you can but I just want to put it into perspective. $118 million would be one-fourth of the entire

District of Columbia Subcommittee, our subcommittee’s allocation.

Now think about that. Now I’m for you, I am for it. You don’t have

to sell Mike DeWine and I don’t think you have to sell Mary

Landrieu. Don’t spend your time worrying about us.

Go talk to the Administration. Go talk to OMB. Spend a lot of

time talking to them.

Chief Judge WAGNER. We will do that, and we appreciate your

support.

Senator DEWINE. I’m for you, it has to get done. If it doesn’t get

done now, it will have to get done later. We have kids to worry

about, we have projects to deal with, it has to get done, but you

have to go sell them.

Let me move to a more immediate problem, and that is soon

enough, but let me move to a more immediate problem. Given that

the President’s budget request is $36.6 million less than what you

are requesting, what are we going to do, or what are you going to

do if we can’t deliver that money for you and if you end up with,

this subcommittee and this Congress ends up giving you exactly

what the President has requested? And that, let me just tell you,

is a distinct possibility. I’m not happy to tell you that.

Judge King, Judge Wagner, let’s just assume that you get what

the President says you should get. So that’s 36, by my calculation,

$36.6 million less than you want, or maybe a better way of saying

that is less than you requested. I’m sure you want more than that,

but less than you requested. So what gets cut?

Chief Judge WAGNER. Well, I am saying it would have a significant impact on some critical areas.

Senator DEWINE. Well, tell me what.

Chief Judge WAGNER. The Moultrie building has about 10,000

people coming through it every day. Since September 11th everyone has been concerned about safety and security, as we have. A

part of the funding that we have requested, which we would not

be able to do if the President’s numbers were enacted would be to

increase the number of court security officers for our court building. We would not be able to finance other facilities, security improvements, which are detailed in our study, that is the monitors,

the audio-video devices, the types of things that you need to upgrade security in these kind of uncertain times.

We need to invest in our implementation of the IJIS system, In- tegrated Justice Information System, and some $4 million we

would not have in order to do that. We wouldn’t be able to enhance

our strategic planning which is going to guide our progress over the

next 5 years. We wouldn’t be able to invest further in accurately

creating trial records, which is critical to a court of record. We

asked for $1,624,000 to improve the record of court proceedings.

Those are just some of the items that we have requested that I

think are critical to our functioning in the next fiscal year.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I think it would be helpful for this subcommittee if you prepared—I know we have just hit you with this

orally, but I think today—well, you have obviously seen the Presi-
150

dent’s budget before today, but we’re going to need from you, and

if we are able to see if this is what you end up with, we need to

see a more detailed description of where you’re going to go.

Chief Judge WAGNER. I’m sorry?

Senator DEWINE. I need to see a more detailed description of

where you want to go, assuming that’s what you end up with.

Chief Judge WAGNER. We will be glad to submit that.

Senator DEWINE. Why don’t you submit that for us please.

What were your discussions with OMB in regard to your, the

2004 budget preparation? I’m looking at this pretty significant cut.

What were your discussions with OMB?

Chief Judge WAGNER. I think Ms. Wicks could answer that.

Senator DEWINE. I would be interested in what kind of input

they had from you.

Ms. WICKS. We provided them with a full budget submission as

we provided to Congress, detailing all of our budgetary needs. We

also provided them with studies and reports that supported various

parts of our budget request.

Senator DEWINE. Did you have face-to-face contact with them?

Did you do interviews with them? I’m interested in the process.

Ms. WICKS. I understand. I can’t recall specifically this past October, whether we did sit down with and meet with them and walk

through the budget. We had done face to face meetings with them

over the summer for the capital request and the space planning. I

can’t recall, once we hit the fall and submitted the full request. I

believe at the time OMB had already started the process; I think

the President had speeded up the process for them this year because of other issues, and so I think they were very far along by

the time we met with them.

Senator DEWINE. Who would they have dealt with, you?

Ms. WICKS. They would have dealt with me and our Fiscal Officer and staff in our offices.

Senator DEWINE. Well, you would have remembered if they had

talked to you, wouldn’t you?

Ms. WICKS. Well, I have so many meetings in a day, I don’t recall

sitting down face to face with them at the time we submitted the

budget, but I do recall face to faces prior to that.

Senator DEWINE. Do you recall talking to them on the phone?

Ms. WICKS. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. What were they interested in?

Ms. WICKS. They were interested in more detailed plans and reports on the facilities issues. We had several telephone conversations in October trying to appeal the President’s budget and talking

through what we felt were priority issues for the year for reconsideration on appeal. Our focus was security issues, facility issues primarily, for the courthouse. We sent over security studies, the U.S.

Marshals Service had done surveys and studies of our building because they provide primary security in the building. And we provided as much information as we could—we sent over a box of reports and information during the appeal process. We tried to talk

through with them what we felt about the importance of the issues.

And we actually, I recall being advised by them that the Courts

should consider themselves lucky because we did get a slight increase in the President’s budget compared to the 2003 level, where
151

other agencies got nothing or got cut, so that was their response

to us.

Senator DEWINE. Well, as I said, Judge, I’m interested in getting

from you a summary, at least, of where you would make your cuts

in regard to your proposal versus the President’s funding level.

Chief Judge WAGNER. We will submit that for you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

D.C. COURTS CAPITAL REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 2004—PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENTS FROM COURTS’

REQUEST TO PRESIDENT’S RECOMMENDATION

Courts’ Request Preliminary

Adjustments

President’s

Recommendation

Courtrooms and Judges Chambers ............................................................ $1,950,000 ........................ $1,950,000

HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades ................................................. 16,220,000 ($7,450,000) 8,770,000

Restoration of Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue ............................ 4,519,000 ........................ 4,519,000

Restroom Improvements ............................................................................ 1,100,000 ........................ 1,100,000

Elevator and Escalator .............................................................................. 2,000,000 (1,000,000) 1,000,000

Fire and Security Alarm Systems .............................................................. 6,500,000 (6,500,000) ........................

General Repair Projects ............................................................................. 7,740,000 ........................ 7,740,000

Moultrie Courthouse Expansion ................................................................. 1,200,000 (1,200,000) ........................

Master Plan Implementation—Development Studies ............................... 550,000 ........................ 550,000

Integrated Justice Information System ...................................................... 11,110,000 (5,088,000) 6,022,000

Total .............................................................................................. 52,889,000 (21,238,000) 31,651,000

COMPARISON OF COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, let me ask you, if you

look at construction plans for the Courts in the District of Columbia, how does that compare with the courthouse construction plans

in other States or other cities? Is that possible to compare them?

I know this is kind of maybe in some respects more complex, at

least to me it looks complex.

Mr. NELSON. That’s a good question, and it depends how complex

the courts projects are, but in the size that we’re dealing with, a

design time frame for court projects usually is about 14 to 18

months, and then construction depending on the size, is about 24

months to 36 months, 2 years to 3 years for construction.

This is complex for the Moultrie Courthouse because of the additions that we’re doing. You have an occupied building that we will

be dealing with. We tried to work on the schedules for the projects

so we could fine tune them where we get them done as quickly as

we could, because they were stressing the need that they needed

for the project, and I think we have a realistic schedule for the design for the Old D.C. Courthouse and for the Moultrie Courthouse.

PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

Senator DEWINE. So the summary, though, would be what? This

doesn’t look out of the ordinary?

Mr. NELSON. No, it does not look out of the ordinary. For the renovation work for D.C. Courts, it looks like it fits in line with what

we would be doing for a renovation projects. And then for the additions that we’re doing for Moultrie, they look in line with the time

frame for other projects.
152

Senator DEWINE. This looks like a big chunk in one year. Why

is that? Why is there such a big chunk in 2005? Can that be dealt

with in some other way or is that just the way, is that the way that

it’s preferred to deal with? Explain that to me. Who prefers to deal

with it that way, is that the courts or is that you?

Mr. NELSON. I think it’s how the master plan has been laid out.

Senator DEWINE. But why was it laid out that way, is my question. Whose preference is it?

Mr. NELSON. Well, it’s the Courts’ preference for how they’re

going to be moving people while the renovation gets completed, and

then when the work gets done in Moultrie Courthouse, so there is

a domino effect between those two buildings for moving people

around.

Senator DEWINE. Maybe I wasn’t clear. Could you spread that

money out over time, is my question. For budget purposes, could

you spread that out?

Mr. NELSON. For awarding construction projects, you have to

have all your construction funds in the fiscal year that you make

the award. And right now, both of those projects are scheduled.

Senator DEWINE. Is that your rule?

Mr. NELSON. It is a requirement in OMB Circular A–11,

insstructions for preparing the budget.

Senator DEWINE. OMB’s rule.

So that’s what we’re dealing with?

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. So you have to have funds before you start the

project?

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. That’s not your problem, it’s our problem.

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. And then they have to live with that basically.

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. All right, thank you all very much. Does anybody have any other comments? Judge Wagner.

Chief Judge WAGNER. I just want to thank you again for your

support, for holding this hearing, for working with us on this, and

we will try to work on that other branch to get help.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. Well, you work on them. Go sell.

Mr. NELSON. Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]
(153)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF SISTER ANN PATRICK CONRAD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, NATIONAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SERVICE,

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.

Today we begin the subcommittee’s second hearing within 6 weeks

regarding the foster care system in the District of Columbia. On

April 2 we heard testimony that revealed a number of serious problems and shortcomings with the District’s Child and Family Services Agency.

It is imperative that CFSA address these problems and protect

the lives of this city’s children. Clearly, the paramount reason for

exposing CFSA’s failures is to discover ways to make lives better

for the most vulnerable and precious of citizens, our children.

That’s why today’s hearing will focus on ways that this subcommittee can target resources towards new initiatives aimed at

improving the foster care system in the District of Columbia.

Before we hear from today’s panel, I think some of the points

that were raised at our earlier hearing bear repeating, so briefly:

First, the General Accounting Office has determined that CFSA is

not meeting the official requirements of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act. This law, which I helped pass and get signed into law

in November of 1997, includes a number of very specific provisions.

It requires States to change policies and practices, of course also

the District of Columbia, to better promote children’s safety and

adoption, or other permanency options.

In fact since this law has been in effect, adoptions have increased

by nearly 40 percent nationwide. But, according to the GAO, CFSA

is not meeting the important requirements of the Adoption and

Safe Families Act.
154

Another troubling finding that the GAO testified about is the

District’s inability to track its children in foster care. In fact, data

is not even available for 70 percent of the District’s children in foster care. This is true even though the District has invested resources in a new automated information system that has been

operational now for over 3 years. How can we track these children

and determine their well-being if they are not even entered into an

automated system, or certainly not fully entered into that system?

In addition, the chairman of the National Association of the

Council for Children testified that children wait weeks or months

before a foster care placement is available. Some more of the children are waiting at group homes or overnight at CFSA offices.

They are often placed in whatever home has a vacancy, irrespective

of the needs of that particular child or the preference of the family.

With the findings from last month’s hearing as our backdrop, I

will now turn to today’s panel. These witnesses will describe their

experiences with CFSA and will provide ideas about ways that we

can better protect our children. Tragically, most children in this

system have been traumatized by neglect and/or abuse. Then add

separation from their caregivers. We should see to it that they do

not experience additional, and I might say avoidable traumas, because of a failed foster care system. I look forward to hearing our

witnesses describe ways that we can work together to fix this system.

Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for oral remarks; however,

we do have your written statements in front of us, which will be

made a part of the record. Let me just say that the 5-minute rule

we have, but we will be a little lenient in regard to that, as we

have some excellent witnesses and are very anxious to hear your

testimony.

Let me introduce the entire panel and then we will begin to hear

from all of you. Judith Sandalow is executive director of the Children’s Law Center. The Children’s Law Center is a nonprofit organization that provides free legal services to children, their families,

and foster and kinship caregivers in the District of Columbia. We

welcome you and thank you very much for being with us.

Marilyn Egerton is the deputy director of the Foster and Adoptive Parents Advocacy Center. This center assists foster, kinship,

and adoptive parents in the District of Columbia secure supportive

services. Thank you very much for being a witness.

Sister Ann Patrick Conrad is an associate professor with the National Catholic School of Social Service at The Catholic University.

NCSS is one of the top 20 schools of social service in the Nation.

Currently, 3,500 NCSS alumni are serving in the fields of child

welfare, mental health, social policy, social justice and social work

education. Sister, thank you for joining us.

Jacqueline Bowens is the vice president for Government and

Public Affairs at Children’s Hospital, and is also joined by Dr. Joseph Wright, who is the medical director for Advocacy and Community Affairs at the hospital. Children’s is the only hospital in the

area dedicated exclusively to children’s health. The hospital currently runs the DC KIDS program, which provides comprehensive

healthcare services for children in D.C. foster care. We thank both

of you for joining us here this morning.
155

Damian Miller is a 20-year-old student at Hampton University.

He has been in and out of D.C. foster care most of his life, having

lived in a total of, I believe, seven foster and group homes. Damian

has accepted an internship at the State Department this summer.

Damian, thank you very much for being with us today.

In no particular order, we will start with—Sister, do you want

to start first, and we will just go from right to left?

Sister CONRAD. Thank you.

Senator DeWine and members of the subcommittee, I want to

thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about some options that I feel are available to the subcommittee to enhance services in the District. I speak as a former dean of the School of Social

Service, as an experienced health and family service worker, as the

chair of the board of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, and also as a board member of the Council on Accreditation

of Child and Family Services in New York.

I want to commend the members of the subcommittee for your

interest in the children of the District. It can really be said that

the mark of a truly compassionate civilization is the way we treat

our least fortunate, and so clearly, the children of the District in

need of substitute families through foster care and adoption are

among the persons who should be considered as part of this group,

whom we sometimes refer to as the real human resources for the

future.

Most recently, as I’m sure many have had the opportunity to

speak and talk with persons who have been in foster care and

adoption, I know we are going to have this opportunity today, but

one of the things that I think we want to be very aware of is that

the potential of persons who are in care is something that we want

to capture as a society and to grow and to develop. I have had the

opportunity to review the hearings of the April meeting and I find

that certainly the road to change for the District has been a slow

and arduous path, but one of the things that is a serious and grave

concern today is that childhood is a very short experience, and it

leaves a lasting imprint, and this is particularly true for disadvantaged children.

So for this reason, it is urgent that the future path be directed

toward quality service, and the point that I want to make strongly

is sustainability of the services, lest any child be lost in the system.

At the School of Social Service we have worked over the years

to provide a sound curriculum in the field of child welfare, and

many of our students do go into this field. We have also joined with

our social work education colleagues in this metropolitan area in

providing continuing education and ongoing training for social

workers who are already in the field.

A point that I want to make is that what our graduates and

what our students often find is that although they come into child

welfare with a real passion to meet the needs of children and their

families they serve, and they are deeply interested in the clinical

well-being of the children, very often what they experience is that

the responsibilities sometimes of excessive documentation, support

services, transportation, crisis intervention, leave them little time

to engage in some of the really best practices that we attempt to
156

teach them in the School of Social Service. So this makes a real

tension for them.

Some feel that there is actually minimal or no public recognition

for a job well done, yet at the same time they have a tremendous

fear of the sense of sensationalism in the public arena with little

or no shared responsibility when deficiencies do arise. So a major

point, I think a major recommendation that I think that we can do

in the future is to truly affirm the positive examples of competent

foster care and adoption services and to provide ways that there is

public recognition for our child welfare workers. I think this is a

very basic.

At the same time, speaking from my experience with the Catholic

Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, we’ve sat down in the

past couple of days and we have had telephone conferences as late

as yesterday. As I’m sure you know, Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese is one of the largest nonprofit providers, service providers

in the District, and the Charities contract with CFSA for foster

homes for children, many of which become adoptive homes, and

also for independent living services for young men and women, as

well as for teenage mothers and their children.

For the most part, the staff reports that their working relationship with CFSA has improved tremendously over the years. Now

you have to remember that we’re talking about people that remember the days when the District did not make its payments for foster

care parents and when all of our budgets had such tremendous

deficits that we began to say, can we really contract with the District. So with that perspective in mind and with the perspective in

mind that staff had often tremendous problems in communication

and in collaboration with CFSA, what they find now is that CFSA,

they feel is very appropriately demanding an increased accountability. For example, with case plans that require identified goals,

service plans for children and families, and timelines to be made

available.

But as was brought out in the earlier testimony, the data system,

the basic data system is often down, or just not available to their

use. And what they’re finding is that it’s only very recently that

they’ve been able to get a real technological responsiveness in this

regard. But I want to make the point that that responsiveness does

seem to be coming.

The other point that seemed to be very, very important in my

talking with the staff is that in the amount of change that has

taken place in CFSA, there are, as one would expect, infrastructure

disruptions. But what has been happening more recently that they

do find helpful is the strengthening in communications. There are

now monthly meetings that allow CFSA to provide information,

and also that allow the contractors to be able to ask questions as

they need them.

A point of major concern, and I know it was discussed before but

I wanted to reiterate, the fact that it’s taking as long as 90 days

to complete the licensing of foster homes and this, the staff finds

very, very difficult in them being able to move children into a care

system.

Based on all of this then, I think it’s important that we recognize

that foster care was initially developed in our country as a re-
157

sponse to children who were orphaned either as a result of a mother’s death, accident, a father’s dying in the war, physical health

problems. The children were generally, they were fairly healthy

and well adjusted experiences, and they could fit into foster homes

much more readily.

However, the current situation is not the case. Children now

come into foster care because of abuse, family violence, community

violence, drug situations, substance abuse, many other problems.

So the children who come are already traumatized. As was pointed

out, what we find is that in many ways the health care, the mental

health care in the District, all of the social workers described the

mental health care, what we find is that the mental health services

that really could deal with the trauma that the children experience

are particularly overwhelmed in the District. And so a second recommendation that we feel, and I think much more work could be

done on this to flush it out even more fully, is that the District

really needs to develop specialized mental health services, staffed

by professionals who are experienced in meeting the special and

differential needs of young and older children who are in need of

care.

Many of the judges, as you know, order mental health evaluations, and yet, sometimes the staff available or the services available leave children on a waiting list, they tell me, for as long as

a month. Now this is not acceptable in trauma situations.

So in the older days of foster care, we had such things as the

child guidance clinic or the child mental health clinic, that was

truly tied in specifically with foster care and adoption, and understood those services in a special way. This seems to be very imperative for the District to move much more rapidly and strongly in this

direction.

The final area that I want to point out is that some gains have

been made during the period from child welfare receivership and

beyond. We can identify a number of directors who each have made

their own contribution. Yet at the same time, we know for any system when there is frequent and rapid change, it’s very possible to

move to a burnout or what many of the social work professionals

are calling today, the mental health professionals are referring to

as compassion fatigue.

What I would like to bring to our attention is the fact that it becomes very, very important to think about the future of the services and to begin to talk about the fact that across the country,

many agencies have moved into the area of accreditation. I served

and have been involved in the development of the Council on Accreditation of Family and Child Services for a number of years, and

we have been very strong advocates that the D.C. metropolitan

area move into this accreditation process.

If you’re not familiar with this particular process, it was formed

in 1977 at a time when the Child Welfare League of America, the

Family Services of America, and a number of the church-sponsored

or faith-based organizations were really experiencing a tremendous

desire to begin to set standards for child welfare organizations. At

the current time, COA, the Council on Accreditation, accredits

more than 1,400 public and private organizations that serve children and families. And the advantage of this is that this is a na-
158

tional organization that sets national goals, it readily updates the

standards for child care, and they hold accountable in an objective

way the staff from an administrative point of view, as well as from

a services point of view.

Most organizations that move into the process, it’s a stage process, that requires first an application process, a self study and the

self study in itself has the organizations look very carefully at their

own processes, what needs to be done, how do they have strong

quality assurance programs. And these are monitored, and there

are standards set for how this can happen. My recommendation is

that the District move into this accreditation process and that they

contract with service providers who are also accredited. This is

happening across the country. Many States and local jurisdictions

are given a timeframe by which they require that the agencies that

they work with have some form of accreditation, and have moved

in that area.

To the best of my knowledge, only three agencies in the District

have been accredited by this process. These are the Family and

Child Services of Washington, Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, and Progressive Life Center. And currently,

Catholic Charities is in this process and will move toward it.

We feel that the advantage of an accreditation process for the

District is that it will assure that all CFSA children and families

receive confident and holistic care based on regularly updated

standards regardless of who the service provider is. It would certify

that CFSA and provider agencies adhere to highest standard of

management practices regardless of administration or staff turnover.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Several years ago at Catholic University, the National Association of Social Workers sponsored a conference on child welfare and

at this time there was some of the early moves to move away from

the formal receivership. At that time the receiver who was in office

at that point in 1998 committed herself to moving toward an accreditation process and to contracting with accredited organizations. Unfortunately, it’s my understanding——

Senator DEWINE. Excuse me, Sister. You are way over time. I’m

liberal, but not that liberal.

Sister CONRAD. Thank you. Much more is in the written material.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SR. ANN PATRICK CONRAD

Senator DeWine and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the options available to the Subcommittee to enhance child and family services in the District of Columbia. I speak as an experienced child and family service social worker; as former Dean of the National Catholic School of Social Service (NCSSS), The Catholic University of America; as current

Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of

Washington; and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Accreditation of Child and Family Services, New York. I want to commend the members of

the Subcommittee on your interest in and commitment to the children and families

of the District of Columbia who are vulnerable and in need of our special support

and concern. It can be said that the mark of a truly compassionate civilization is

the way we treat those who are least fortunate. Clearly, the District children in
159

need of substitute families through foster care and adoption are among the persons

who should be considered as part of this group and whom we sometimes refer to

as the human resources of the future.

Most recently I had the opportunity to meet the family of a former Catholic Charities’ foster child who was later adopted by his foster family. They reminisced over

their experience of foster care and adoption, pointing out how very proud they are

of their adopted son, now a married adult and father of a growing family. He completed his education, served in the Gulf War and currently serves as a career Federal civil servant. This family continues to sustain a close and supportive relationship with each other that benefits not only the immediate family members and their

offspring but also the community in which they live. In many ways, this is an exemplar of the outcomes that quality professional child and family service can produce

when a social service agency, foster families, and the community work together.

I have had the opportunity to review former testimony provided to the Subcommittee in your April hearings and have followed the various transitions in the

District of Columbia Child and Family Service Agency since the LaShawn Order.

There is no question that the path to change over the subsequent years has been

slow and arduous. However, the experience of childhood is short and leaves a lasting

imprint—particularly so for our Nation’s poor and disadvantaged children. For this

reason, it is urgent that the future path be directed toward quality service and sustainability, lest any child be lost in the system. Therefore, my comments are directed to these ends: quality service and sustainability.

Our School of Social Service at Catholic University has had a continual interest

in the welfare of children and have worked to provide a sound curriculum in child

and family service that prepares social workers to pursue careers in the complex

and changing field of Child Welfare. We have also joined with our social work education colleagues in the Washington Metropolitan area to provide training and continuing education for social workers in this field. It has been our experience that

child abuse, family violence, and the drug culture are among the many social phenomena that require heroic efforts on the part of today’s caseworkers and case managers. Many have a real passion to meet the needs of the children and families

whom they serve and are deeply interested in the clinical well-being of the children.

Yet the responsibilities of extensive documentation and support services such as

transportation, crisis intervention and the like leave them hard pressed to find the

time to engage in best practices. Some feel that there is minimal to no public recognition for a job well done, yet they fear extensive sensationalism in the public

arena with little or no shared responsibility when there are deficiencies. As a start,

we need to affirm positive examples of competent foster care and adoption services

and to provide public recognition for our child welfare workers.

As you most likely know, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington is

among the largest private non-profit social service providers in the District. Our financial audit shows that 85 cents of every dollar goes into client service. The agency

contracts with the Child and Family Service Agency (CFSA) to provide Foster Home

Care for children—many of which become Adoptive homes—and Independent Living

Services for young men and women as well as teenage mothers and their children.

For the most part, staff report that their working relationship with CFSA is good

and mutually supportive and that increased accountability to CFSA is being appropriately demanded. An example is that case plans which contain identified goals,

service plans for children and families, and time lines are to be made available in

a timely manner through the automated FACES data base. Unfortunately, the system has been frequently ‘‘down’’ and it is only recently that workers are experiencing greater responsiveness to their difficulties in this regard. They describe other

infrastructure disruptions such as lack of information about whom to contact for

particular types of needs, but note that they are encouraged by CFSA to report

these problems when they occur. To address the issues and strengthen communication, CFSA holds monthly provider meetings which allow agencies the opportunity

to raise issues and concerns as well as to provide a vehicle for CFSA to transmit

necessary information to the service agencies. Additionally, Charities staff find that

the process of licensing of foster homes has been lengthy—taking as long as 90 days

to complete, because CFSA has been short of staff to carry out the review process.

These concerns are not new and have been discussed in previous hearings. In summary, the Catholic Charities staff find that communication and coordination with

CFSA are in transition from a crisis orientation to a more consistent working relationship.

It is important to recognize that foster care was initially developed in an earlier

century as a response to children who were orphaned as a result of a mother’s death

in childbirth, the father’s death in a war, or caretaker deaths from pneumonia, tuberculosis, polio, accidents, etc. The children were generally healthy, adjusted chil-
160

dren who fit easily into a family where the mother was at home and the father was

the sole breadwinner. This is not the case today! Children of this century come into

foster care as a result of physical or sexual abuse, domestic violence, community violence, substance abuse, severe neglect, abandonment, and other social problems.

These children are frequently not healthy, happy children who simply need a home.

They are traumatized children in need of many more supports. They are traumatized first by the neglect and/or abuse they have experienced; then by separation

from the primary caretaker; again by placement with strangers; and yet again by

re-placement for troubled behavior when the initial placement threatens to disrupt.

Too often, our child care system ignores the initial mental health stresses and compounds them with further forms of trauma such as movement from one home to another, often more harmful than the initial trauma. Although judges frequently order

psychiatric evaluations in emergencies, the services are described by social workers

as ‘‘overwhelmed’’ and so backed-up that foster children can be a month or longer

on the waiting list.

Compliance with current Federal Law (the Adoption and Safe Families Act) requires that children be returned to families or placed for adoption within a year.

While basically sound in terms of permanency planning, this requirement places intense psychological stress on children and on the child care system. We need to

make the assumption, then, that long waiting periods for mental health care are unacceptable and need to be remediated. The District needs to develop a specialized

mental health service staffed by professionals who are experienced in meeting the

special and differential needs of young and older children who are in our care.

Finally, and very importantly, there is the issue of strengthening and sustaining

the gains that have been made. We need to recognize that during the period of the

Child Welfare Receivership and beyond there have been at least five directors whom

I can identify. At NCSSS, we reached out and collaborated with them all. Each

brought important gifts and talents to the table and in his and her own way moved

the system along. However, with each change there was ambiguity and disruption

for the workers, the children, the families and the community as the environment

and expectations changed. While a certain amount of challenge is useful for any system, continual transitions can lead to burnout and what is known today as ‘‘compassion fatigue.’’ Over the years, I and several of my colleagues have been involved in

the development and work of the Council on Accreditation of Family and Child Services (COA) and have been strong advocates that the foster care and adoptions services in the Metropolitan area and the agencies with whom they contract engage in

this process. We see this as a way of stabilizing the gains that have been made

while at the same time placing the responsibility for long-term oversight in the

hands of experienced professionals.

The Council on Accreditation was founded in 1977 through the combined efforts

of the Child Welfare League of America, the Family Service Association of America

as well as Jewish Family Services, Catholic Charities U.S.A., Lutheran Family Services and other experienced family and child serving agencies. Their purpose was to

promote standards of care based on best practices that could be used across the

United States and Canada. Today, more than 1,400 public and private organizations

serving over six million individuals, children and families are accredited. With its

recent international thrust, family and child care agencies in the Philippines and

other underdeveloped countries struggling for financial and human resources have

become interested in the process. They see accreditation as a way of sustaining the

transformative efforts they have undertaken. COA provides standards for agency

administration as well as for service provision in 60 unique service areas. The process includes four basic phases: First, an application is submitted by the applying

organization. Eligibility criteria require that the organization provide at least one

of the services for which COA has accreditation standards; that it be in operation

for at least one year at the time of the on-site review; that it hold all applicable

licenses or certifications required to operate; and that it demonstrate sufficient autonomy and independence to permit review as a separate entity. Second, a self study

is completed which addresses all areas of organizational management as well as

service standards. During the self study, the agency undergoes a systematic quality

improvement process and strives to demonstrate to COA and to the peer review

team that it is in compliance with all standards. The self-study process takes between four and eight months and involves participatory self-study and change where

needed. Next, a site visit is made by a team of peer reviewers knowledgeable and

experienced in the accreditation process. In the final phase, an accreditation decision is made by the COA Accreditation Commission. Most organizations complete

the entire accreditation process within 12 months but an organization facing an internally or externally imposed deadline may opt for an accelerated time line.
161

To the best of my knowledge, only three agencies in the District have been accredited. These are Family and Child Services of Washington, Lutheran Social Services

of the National Capital Area, and Progressive Life Center. Currently, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington is in the final stages of the process. This

means that although they may be in compliance with current legal requirements,

neither CFSA nor many of its contractor agencies have been systematically evaluated against national standards of best practice.

You may already be aware that at a conference on child welfare held at Catholic

University in 1998 sponsored by the Metropolitan Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and co-chaired by Dean Richard English of Howard University School of Social Work and myself, a former CFSA Receiver committed her administration to work toward accreditation. Some staff work in this regard was

begun. Unfortunately, it has been my understanding that work toward compliance

with the law eventually took precedence and I am not aware that accreditation has

been pursued since that time.

However, in light of the continual and increasingly complex challenges to competent and responsible child welfare today—the challenges of physical and sexual

abuse, domestic and community violence, substance abuse, etc.—and in spite of the

strides that have been made through receivership and beyond, it is imperative that

an objective and experienced system of oversight such as that provided by the Council on Accreditation be required for the District of Columbia which holds CFSA and

its contractors to clear and measurable national standards within a three to four

year time line. This provision will serve the District of Columbia by:

—Assuring that all CFSA children and families receive competent and holistic

care based on regularly updated standards, regardless of service provider;

—Certifying that CFSA and provider agencies adhere to high standards of management practices regardless of administration and staff turnover;

—Providing a work environment that is safe and supportive of on-going professional development for all staff; and,

—Ensuring that on-going oversight of the child and family services of the District

is carried out by an experienced and committed professional organization, thus

reducing the amount of time and direct action needed by government officials

such as Congress and the Appropriations Committee.

Failure of the Appropriations Committee to act in this regard and to provide the

needed resources could compromise the future progress and sustainability needed to

meet today’s child welfare challenges. The District of Columbia needs and deserves

to be on a par with national standards of foster care and adoption as well as other

child and family services.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important issue—the future

of our vulnerable and neglected children in the District of Columbia. With appropriate resources and systems, they, like the former foster child I described earlier,

can and will become an integral part of our human resources of the future.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. Miss Egerton. You’re next. We

have been joined by Senator Landrieu.

STATEMENT OF MARILYN R. EGERTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOSTER &

ADOPTIVE PARENT ADVOCACY CENTER

Ms. EGERTON. Good morning, Senators. My name is Marilyn

Egerton. I am a D.C. foster kinship and adoptive parent. In addition, I am the deputy director of the Foster and Adoptive Parent

Advocacy Center, commonly known as FAPAC. We are very appreciative of your inclusion of foster parents’ voices into these hearings

and thank you for inviting us to participate and to share our experiences with the reform efforts of the D.C. child welfare system.

In the 12 years that my husband and I have been foster parents,

we have fostered over 25 children, had well over 50 social workers,

and I have been active as a member of foster parent leadership

through three changes in administration.

I would like to start my testimony by pointing out some of the

positive changes that have happened during this administration.

These changes include the successful closure of the respite center

in the CFSA building. This was a place where children were living,
162

often for days at a time, while placement workers tried to find a

home for them. As additional success, the majority of these children are going into individual foster homes as opposed to congregate care facilities.

Also at the insistence of the foster parent leadership, a CFSA

mandate requiring all staff to give the name and number of their

supervisor on their outgoing voice mail message enables us to immediately go up the chain of command when we cannot reach our

social workers. This is a huge accomplishment for us. We’ve worked

very hard and very long to get it.

Third, the accessibility of upper level management to both the

foster parent leadership and the individual foster parents has been

extremely commendable.

Fourth, the development of a new placement information packet

through a joint effort of foster parents and staff to address a serious issue of the lack of information given when children are placed

in their homes. The packet has been developed and when CFSA

workers actually begin using them, this will be another major improvement.

Fifth, the introduction of disruption conferences, which utilize

clinical expertise to try to prevent disruptions.

And sixth, principal deputy director Leticia Lacomba’s creation of

joint working groups of foster parents and staff to revise and impact policy and practice guidelines.

Despite the good intentions and real improvement we have seen,

the tasks ahead for CFSA regarding its foster parent community

are still great. There are many areas in which the support and

services we receive are inadequate to meet the needs of our children. These areas include, one, the need for the infrastructure of

CFS to improve to accommodate the changes being made at the

upper level. As a result of this process, problem resolution often

goes around in circles. Hours that could be appropriately spent parenting are often spent in frustrating efforts to seek problem resolution.

Second, the reliance on social workers for routine tests that could

be accomplished by administrative support like looking up a Medicaid number or Social Security number. Quite frankly, I’m perplexed that the agency does not utilize administrative support for

these clerical tasks within the social work unit, freeing the social

workers to actually practice social work.

Third, although the responsiveness and inclusiveness of the

upper level has been real and significant, the attitudes of true partnership have not yet reached the front line. Workers often invalidate our experience and when it comes to the right to make a decision, they exclude, ignore and/or rebuff the foster parent’s input.

For all the children currently living in my home, I have been invited to participate in a total of one administrative review, at

which parenting plans and progress are to be discussed. We have

been assured very recently that the technological and logistical barriers to notification have been resolved and that consistent notification of administrative review will now be implemented. We hope to

see evidence of this in the immediate future and we trust that our

notification of court reviews will be next.
163

Fourth, the inability of social workers to consistently access resources both within CFSA and from the community. We recommend that social workers receive training in this area.

Fifth, the lack of sufficient numbers of infant daycare slots in the

District of Columbia. It is an issue and it is a barrier to particularly working families fostering infants in the city.

Sixth, the lack of quality and timely mental health services. Our

children are wounded. Many have suffered emotional and sometimes physical abuse and all have suffered much loss by the mere

fact that they have been torn away from everything that they are

familiar with. It is outrageous that their mental health needs have

been addressed in such an inadequate manner. We do not know the

answer, I don’t know what it is, but it is a problem that is so paramount that it cannot go unaddressed. And just to say that we understand that the mental health, Department of Mental Health has

control over the mental health stuff, but we don’t think it’s enough

for the agency to just say okay, that’s their responsibility. And

much like special ed, it may fall on the DCPS, but if our children

are not getting what they need from those agencies, then we feel

it is the responsibility of CFSA to find a way to get it for them.

Seventh, the lack of adequate Medicaid numbers and cards, this

creates barriers to health care for our children.

Eighth, the lack of an operating medical consent to treat policy

leaves us as well as the hospitals confused about who can sign for

what treatments.

And ninth, the lack of availability of and access to respite care.

All parents need a break from their children at some time. Biological parents have the option of sending their children to spend a

weekend with their relatives or family friends, or to visit a classmate for the weekend. As foster parents, we don’t have that option

unless those parents can meet many criteria, including obtaining

all the clearances that we as foster parents have to obtain.

This puts us in a very tough position. Not only are we asked to

parent without significant breaks, we are parenting children who

often have serious issues. And I can say that I know placements

that have disrupted, I have experienced personally a placement disruption in my home because of a lack of respite care. And when I

requested respite for a child who was having very severe emotional

and mental health issues, I was told respite did not exist, but I

know of foster parents who get it. But I was told it was unavailable

and did not exist.

And so, the crisis in my home escalated to a point where the

placement disrupted and that child was moved to what is called a

therapeutic home, where once a month—where in a therapeutic

home they receive respite every other weekend, they get in-home

counseling, they have a staff available around the clock. Needless

to say, CFSA is paying exorbitant amounts of money to have this

child parented in that home when all I asked for was respite once

a month, and then he would not have been torn away from his

brothers, who are still with me, and he would not have had the experience of yet another move and an introduction into yet another

family.

I believe that many seeds have been planted under this administration which can lead to very positive change for foster families
164

at CFSA, but many have not yet blossomed into actual day-to-day

improvement. Responsiveness, accessibility and inclusiveness of the

upper level’s response to foster parents have been real and beyond

rhetoric. However, we have much further to go with the infrastructure in CFSA to implement the philosophy of the upper levels for

the principles of best practice.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, we do think that the agency is on the right path. We

believe that. However, we must acknowledge and support the necessity for them to develop an infrastructure that will facilitate the

kinds of changes essential for our children to receive the care that

they deserve. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to foster parent

concerns at this hearing as an individual foster parent as well as

the deputy director of FAPAC. I will continue to be available to assist in system reform in any way that I can, and to work with

CFSA to develop its partnership with this foster parent community.

Thank you, Senator.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARILYN EGERTON

Good morning. My name is Marilyn Egerton, and I am a D.C. foster, kinship and

adoptive parent. In addition, I am the Deputy Director of the Foster & Adoptive

Parent Advocacy Center, commonly known as FAPAC, an organization that assists

foster, kinship and adoptive parents of children in the D.C. child welfare system to

secure services and help to create system change.

We are very appreciative of your inclusion of foster parent voices into these hearings and thank you for inviting us to participate and to share our experiences with

the reform efforts of the D.C. child welfare system.

In the 12 years that my husband and I have been foster parents, we have fostered

over 25 children, had well over 50 social workers, and I have been active as a member of the foster parent leadership through 3 changes in administrations. Currently

living in my home are my foster grandson, the infant son of one of my older boys

who has ‘‘aged out’’ of the system, my foster teenage son and my three adopted

school aged children. In addition, we continue to parent four young adults who we

raised in foster care. They have aged out of the system and now live nearby and

although they no longer live in our home they are still very much a part of the family. With this perspective of history, I feel qualified to discuss changes we are currently experiencing under the administration of the Director, Olivia Golden, and the

Principal Deputy Director, Leticia Lacomba.

Although everyone agrees that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be

done at CFSA, I think it only fair to point out some of the positive changes that

have happened during this administration which have brought, and have the potential to bring many more, significant changes in the lives of children in the D.C. child

welfare system and their foster/kin/adoptive families.

Over the last two years, this administration and staff in partnership with the foster parent community has been able to close down the respite center that was located on the first floor of the CFSA building. This was a place where children were

living, often for days at a time, while placement workers tried to find a home for

them. Can you imagine being a child who was just recently removed from all that

is familiar to you—your family, your friends and your community? Only to spend

those crucial first few days sleeping in an office building and not in the comfort and

safety of the loving home and arms of foster parents trained and willing to help

them through this most difficult time. This is a very personal issue for me. As a

member of Foster Parents United for Support and Change, a local foster parent support group, I worked very hard to combat this situation. In previous years and during previous administrations, at the end of our monthly meetings, members who had

vacancies in their homes would go down to the respite center to see if there were

any children we could take home who were sleeping at the agency. It was tragic

and poignant to see children of all ages who could not be placed anywhere else living for days in an office building. To have lessened the need for this center so much

so, that it could be eliminated all together is quite an achievement. When we add
165

to this the fact that not only are children being placed without having to spend the

night at CFSA, but that most children are being placed in actual homes with loving

foster and kinship families, and not in congregate care, it is clear to us that this

in an amazing accomplishment.

Another major problem we have had for years and years has been the lack of accessibility of our social workers, supervisors and administrators. In fact, it was so

bad that many foster parents were convinced that once caller ID went into the agency, their calls were actually being screened out by workers. At the request of foster

parents, CFSA has mandated that each staff member have an outgoing voice message that reflects the name and number of their supervisor so that if we cannot

reach our worker we can immediately go up the chain of command. This may sound

like a small innocuous change to many, but I, like most foster parents whom I

know, have been in situations with my own children over the years when I have

called and left many messages for my children’s social worker(s) to request vital information like a Medicaid number, options for therapy for my child(ren), shot

records or daycare requests. And, because I didn’t know who the social worker’s supervisor was, or I didn’t know the supervisor’s number, my only options were to sit

and wait days and sometimes weeks for a social worker to get back to me or for

my husband or me to take a day off of work and go down to CFSA and act ugly

until someone helped us. Having this information readily available on the outgoing

voicemail message has been very helpful for those situations in which accessing

services are contingent upon the ability to reach our workers in an expedient fashion. In addition, the accessibility of upper level management’s to both foster parent

leadership and individual foster parents has been extremely commendable.

Another extremely serious problem we have had absolutely forever has been the

lack of information given to foster parents about the children we are taking into our

homes. Children have historically been placed without our being told imperative

medical, psychological, and behavioral information, because that information was

not communicated intra-agency to the placement workers. Imagine being a foster

parent who takes a child into your home and finds out that the child sets fires, but

you were not told. Because of this, children were often placed into homes that were

not prepared for them, and the placements broke apart, or as we say, ‘‘disrupted.’’

In the last few months foster parents and staff have worked together on the development of a new ‘‘Placement Information Package’’. The agency has promised to uphold the expectation that all relevant information available to the agency will be

passed onto foster parents through this package so they can make appropriate decisions about placements in their homes. When CFSA workers actually begin using

them, this will be another major improvement.

In these last years, as a member of the foster parent leadership, I have spent

much time at CFSA. My current experience is that there is active and diligent work

being done towards improvement and reform. Staff, administration and foster parent leadership have put in many hours working on systemic issues. Foster parents

have experienced significantly improved appreciation and inclusion from the upper

level and a more acute consciousness of what we need to care for our children. We

have seen much more energy spent on trying to address the issues of multiple placements, such as the introduction of Disruption conferences, which utilize clinical expertise to try to prevent the disruption of placements. We hope that these clinical

interventions will be increased to include wrap-around services that will permit a

‘‘traditional’’ foster parent to maintain a child they love in their home instead of

having to transfer them to a much more expensive higher end therapeutic home to

get services, as has been the case. We specifically recognize Clinical Services Administration, under Dr. Roque Gerald, for work in these areas.

One of the major issues for the District of Columbia’s foster parents, and indeed

nationwide, is the lack of inclusion in decision-making. This decision-making exclusion is two-fold and includes decisions about the individual children in your home

as well as decisions about agency policy, regulation and practice. Nationwide, this

lack of inclusion is sited as one of the major reasons that foster parents quit fostering. When a system can not retain its foster parents, any recruitment efforts, no

matter how successful, are like recruiting into a bucket that has a hole in the bottom.

To address the concern about lack of inclusion into agency policy and practice, Ms.

Leticia Lacomba, Principle Deputy Director, began to work directly with joint working groups of foster parents and staff to revise and impact policy and practice guidelines. Involving foster parents in true partnership with staff and administration in

this way has been a tremendous step forward and we want to acknowledge her for

this accomplishment.
166

Unfortunately, inclusion into the professional team for the children in our home

has not been yet achieved, and will be discussed as we move into the discussion of

the many challenges still ahead.

Despite the good intentions and real improvement we have seen, the tasks ahead

for CFSA regarding its foster parent community are still great. There are many

areas in which the support and services we receive are inadequate to meet the

needs of our children.

Although we applaud the accessibility of the upper level administration to its foster parent community, many of the issues brought up to that level should have been

resolved at lower and middle levels. What we see is that the infrastructure of CFSA

has not yet improved to accommodate the changes being made at the upper level.

As a result, balls are still always dropping on the lower and middle levels, problem

resolution often goes around in circles, and the person who needs help gets bounced

from one staff or unit to another. In addition, units themselves are often out of

alignment with each other in the information they give to our families and in the

processes they create. This causes much confusion to anyone trying to access services. Hours more appropriately spent parenting is spent in frustrating efforts to seek

problem resolution. It is our recommendation that communication between units as

well as internal to units be acknowledged as important job functions of program administrators and time be allotted for this purpose.

Another infrastructure issue I would like to comment on is the reliance on social

workers for routine tasks that could be accomplished by administrative support

staff. When foster parents have to call social workers for something as simple as

a birth certificate number, they may have to call over and over to reach a worker.

This in turn clogs up the worker’s voice mail which may make them less accessible

to others. I can not tell you the countless times that I have had to call a social worker to get a social security number for one of my children. Quite frankly I am perplexed that the agency does not utilize administrative support for these clerical

tasks within the social work unit, freeing the social workers to actually practice social work. It is our recommendation that CFSA assign one administrative assistant

per (X) number of social workers for this purpose.

In addition, although the responsiveness and inclusiveness of the upper level has

been real and significant, the attitudes of true partnership have not yet reached the

front lines. Many of the District of Columbia’s foster parents have been operating

as caseworkers themselves for years, handling all on their own the daunting tasks

of finding resources for their children. Many have had no regular visits from workers, no phone calls, no help, no after hours support at all, and as such stand alone.

Despite that, workers often invalidate that experience and when it comes to the

right to make decisions, exclude, ignore and/or rebuff the foster parent’s input.

It is this inclusiveness into case planning for the children in our homes that is

seriously lacking. In my own experience, for all the children currently living in my

home, I have been invited to participate in a total of ONE administrative review,

at which permanency plans and progress are to be discussed. Since these reviews

are supposed to be happening every six months, either they are not happening at

all or they are happening without my presence, input or feedback. In my ENTIRE

experience as a foster parent, I have never been informed about a court hearing

from my social workers, although I regularly attend due to notification from our

children’s GAL’s. The agency is out of compliance with The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) on both of these forms of notification. We have been assured very

recently that the technological and logistical barriers to notification have been resolved and that consistent notification of Administrative Reviews will now be implemented. We hope to report back to you on the successful intervention of this assurance. We trust that our notifications of court reviews will be next.

There is much work ahead to address the complicated issues of real partnership

between line workers and foster parents. We acknowledge that the agency has taken

a first step by inviting us to participate in the training that new workers receive.

I am personally very excited about the possibility of participating in these trainings.

I think it is vital to a successful working relationship that the worker have a real

understanding of how what s/he does or says may effect the foster parent’s ability

to open up to them and trust them, thus impacting the quality of care our children

receive. It is imperative that social workers understand that they must give foster

parents the same respect that they give the other professionals involved in the care

and treatment of our children. We are the ones who are caring for these children

day in and day out. Although I am very excited about these trainings, it is my hope

that this is just the beginning. It is my hope that we will get to the point where

we can expand this training to allow us to work also with those social workers who

have been around for a while. After all, it was a veteran social worker with many

years of experience who told my husband and me that we were too strict with my
167

17-year-old son when we put him on restriction for constantly acting out in school

and having multiple suspensions. She recommended that he go into independent living. When we objected, saying that we had been parenting him since he was 11

years old and that we were 100 percent sure that he was not mature enough to handle the freedom that comes with an independent living program, she pushed for it

and got it anyway. From the moment he entered the program my son went on a

downward spiral that landed him in a psychiatric facility. There it was determined

that he needed a more structured environment and we were asked if he could come

back home to us. Although this particular incident occurred under a previous administration, lack of input into decisions about our children still continues. I feel

this is a good example of the danger that can happen to our children when decisions

are made by people who see them at the most once a month, and often much less,

without taking into serious consideration the input of those of us who are parenting

them every day.

I think that it would be beneficial if we also recommend that social workers be

given more training on how to access resources, both within CFSA itself and from

the community. Access to resources remains a big problem for us. There is a lot of

inconsistency in this area. Securing resources often depends upon the knowledge,

workload and sometimes even personal feelings of your workers. A strong example

of this lack of resource consistency is day care. Foster parents who live in the District of Columbia are entitled to day care services through the Office of Early Childhood Development. However, some workers can access it fast, some have to be

taught by their foster parents or GAL’s how to access it at all, and in fact one private agency has told their families that day care is not even available! Again this

is a personal issue for me. My foster grandson was placed with us at the ripe old

age of two months old and in spite of many, many phone calls and inquiries from

both my husband and me, our little Jay was seventeen months old before daycare

was secured. Had it not been for the untiring help of family and friends, as well

as compassion and flexibility of my husband’s and my employers we would not have

been able to continue to parent this child who has known us as his grandparents

since the day he was born.

One resource is so very absent from the fabric of this city that it demands separate mention of its own. That resource is quality and timely mental health services.

Our children are wounded; many have suffered emotional and sometimes physical

abuse and all have suffered much loss. It is outrageous that their mental health

needs have been addressed in such an inadequate manner. We do not know the answer, however, this problem is so paramount that it cannot go unaddressed.

Another huge issue for us is Medicaid. Medicaid numbers may not be given to us

until our child has been in our home for weeks or months. This creates a very serious situation when we need prescriptions filled. In addition, our numbers often become inactive, creating the inability to access services. Many of us have been at doctor’s offices or pharmacies when the numbers have become inactive and we have

had to leave without the services we need for our children. In addition, the lack of

an operating Medical Consent to Treat Policy leaves us as well as the hospitals confused about who needs to sign for what treatments. We have been trying to get the

agency to develop and implement a medical consent policy for over a year and a

half, but to our knowledge there has been no significant progress made. This is of

utmost urgency to us, because sooner or later a child will die because of the confusion surrounding what foster parents can or cannot consent to.

Another issue for foster parents is the lack of availability of respite care. All parents need a break from parenting sometimes. Biological parents have the option of

sending to their child(ren) to spend the weekend with a relative or family friend,

or to visit with a classmate at his/her home. As foster parents, we don’t have that

option unless those persons can meet many criteria, including obtaining all the

clearances that foster parents are required. This puts us in a very tough position.

Not only are we asked to parent without significant breaks, we are parenting children who often have serious issues. Can you imagine all of a sudden the number

of children in your family increasing by four? It happened to me three years ago.

I got a call about a sibling group of four boys, ages 6, 8, 10, and 12. This was quite

an undertaking as I am sure you can imagine. As delightful as the boys were, we

began to notice almost immediately that one of our children had some pretty severe

emotional problems and we began to seek out help for him. When it was all said

and done he was diagnosed with severe depression and intermittent explosive disorder. It took about a year and a half for him to be diagnosed and for the doctors

to determine the proper medications in the proper doses to help stabilize him. During that time our home was in constant turmoil with crisis after crisis involving

him, while we were still trying to effectively parent his three siblings and my adopted daughter. When we asked for respite once a month so that we could regroup and
168

be better able to parent our children we were told that respite was not available.

The situation escalated to the point that the placement disrupted and he was placed

in a ‘‘Therapeutic’’ home where the city not only pays significantly more for his care,

but the therapeutic foster parents get respite every other weekend. This was very

traumatic for all of us. He was not only separated from us, but also from his siblings

who had been the only constant in his life. Mine is not the only story. Many foster

parents can tell of situations where they feel access to respite would have enabled

them to continue fostering a child rather than having the placement disrupt. I really

believe that respite can be a big part of decreasing the number of disruptions as

well as increasing foster parent retention. And a foster parent who is happy and

wants to remain a foster parent is more likely to actively recruit other potential foster parents for the agency. Providing respite for foster parents is a win/win situation

for all involved.

In conclusion, I believe that we are seeing many seeds which have been planted

under this administration which will lead to very positive change for foster families

at CFSA, but many of those seeds have not yet blossomed into actual day-to-day

improvement. There is still a great deal of work to do. Responsiveness, accessibility

and inclusiveness of the upper level to its foster parents have been real and beyond

rhetoric, as demonstrated by the cutting edge partnership lead by Ms. Lacomba. We

have come very far in these ways. However, we have much farther to go before the

infrastructure of CFSA supports and implement the philosophy of the upper level

or the principles of best practice. To summarize, some specific areas we need to see

improvement in are:

—After hours crisis intervention for foster families outside of the general hotline;

—Quality and timely mental health evaluations and therapy;

—Consistently active Medicaid numbers and cards;

—Easily and consistently accessible emergency and planned respite care for foster

parents;

—Timely day care;

—Operating Medical consent to treat policy;

—Increased team building efforts between social workers and foster parents as

well as between birth parents and foster parents;

—Training of all social work staff on resource availability;

—Strengthening communication between units so that information given to families is both accurate and consistent;

—Clear and consistent systems for problem resolution which free up foster parents to spend our time and energy parenting our children instead of going

around in circles fighting for services.

Again, in closing we do believe that the agency is on the right path, but we must

acknowledge the great need for them to develop an infrastructure that will allow

for the kinds of changes necessary to give our children the care they deserve. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to foster parent concerns at this hearing. As an

individual foster parent as well as the Deputy Director of FAPAC I will continue

to be available to assist in system reform in any way I can, and to work with CFSA

to develop its path of partnership with its foster parent community.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. Ms. Sandalow.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH SANDALOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHILDREN’S LAW CENTER

Ms. SANDALOW. Good morning, Senator DeWine, Senator

Landrieu. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today

about the solutions to problems facing abused and neglected children in the District of Columbia.

As you know, the Children’s Law Center helps at-risk children

in the District of Columbia find safe and permanent homes, and

the education, health and social services they need to flourish, and

provides comprehensive legal services to children, their families

and foster, kinship and adoptive parents. My testimony today is focused on remedies that involve the Child and Family Services

Agency, and that can be accomplished with targeted and specific

Federal funding.

The first days in foster care often determine the outcome of a

child’s life. When a child is injured in a car accident, an ambulance
169

rushes the child to a hospital where a team of doctors and nurses

drop everything to save that child’s life. We all recognize that without this extraordinary effort, a child could die or be permanently

disabled. That same urgency and those same resources should attend to the removal of adduced and neglected children from their

homes.

In fact, every day in the District of Columbia, children are permanently scarred because we don’t treat these first days in foster

care as an emergency. What is right for children is also right for

the D.C. budget. Early and intensive intervention on behalf of children will speed reunification and it will speed adoption and it will

prevent the financial and human costs of increased homelessness,

incarceration and welfare dependence that is found among adults

who spend their childhoods in foster care.

I propose that Congress fund a pilot project within CFSA to provide early and intensive intervention for children as soon as abuse

or neglect is reported. What you might ask, should such an emergency team do? On the first day that a child is removed from her

home, an emergency team of social workers should be interviewing

the child, their siblings, their parents, their neighbors, to find the

nearest relative, a person who is appropriate to be a temporary

caregiver while that family is restored. The emergency team should

have access to a flexible fund to buy beds, clothes and if necessary,

food, to ensure their relative can bring a child into their home immediately.

One of our clients, a grandmother, has been waiting 45 days for

benefits, while CFSA will not provide emergency funding for her to

feed the grandchildren who she has taken into her home on an

emergency case basis. The emergency team should provide drug

treatment, homemaker services, parenting classes immediately for

children and families so they can be reunified. All of these tasks

and many more that I highlight in my written testimony, must be

done within the very first few days that a child is removed from

her home.

Just as we staff the emergency room 24 hours a day and we

would never consider closing it after business hours, we must have

a child welfare emergency team 24 hours a day. Where a child is

removed from her family, she needs an opportunity to visit her

brothers and sisters and her parents in order to enhance the

chance of reunification, but also to help her with that transition as

she moves away from her birth family. But last week, a social

worker said in open court at the District of Columbia’s Family

Court to a mother who was begging to see her children, that she

and her children could only visit together 1 hour a week, and the

reason that she gave was because CFSA didn’t have the resources

to staff a visitation center for longer hours that would provide more

frequent visits.

Can we really tell a child that she can’t see her brothers, sisters

and parents more than 1 hour a week because she has to give other

little children the chance to see their families? Get in line, little

girl, behind all the other children who need to see their families.

I urge the committee to appropriate funds to CFSA to build and

staff visitation centers in the community.
170

Each center should be staffed by a social worker trained to work

with parents on their parenting skills. And most important of all,

the center should be open in the evenings and on weekends so that

children don’t have to miss school to see their families, and that

parents can maintain employment so that they can bring the children back to live with them.

Forty percent of all foster children in the District of Columbia

are teenagers. Despite this staggering figure, unfortunately, CFSA

has a woefully inadequate program to help teenagers prepare for

adulthood. Today I would like to focus on one particular issue,

which is helping teenagers find jobs, and that may be important to

me because I am the parent of teenage boys who came to me out

of the foster care system when they were in their preteen years,

and I know how important it is for their development that they be

able to find jobs. In part, they will have me as a safety net but

other foster children won’t have that kind of safety net.

How is it that CFSA can help teenagers find jobs and give them

the jobs skills necessary to make them productive citizens? One

very simple option is to partner with local businesses to provide a

job coach just like they do for developmentally disabled adults, to

ease that new foster child into a job. I am confident that there are

corporations in this city that would partner with CFSA. I understand that in California they reserve a certain number of government jobs for foster children entering the system to help them meet

that transition. Well, they’re part of our government family, so they

save some jobs for them. Those are both very simple solutions, I

think.

But no matter how many programs are available or what philosophy there is in the child welfare system, the quality of the individual social worker is successful to the successful system.

Senator DeWine has introduced legislation to provide loan forgiveness for lawyers and social workers who serve children. The

Children’s Law Center strongly supports this legislation and believes that it will increase the pool of highly qualified lawyers and

social workers.

Talented well-trained social workers, frequent family visits and

early intervention won’t help children if there are no services to

help children heal, to rehabilitate parents and to support families.

The District of Columbia has an extremely limited number of mental health providers. There are very few drug treatment beds.

Homemaker and intensive in-home services are almost nonexistent.

CFSA should be clamoring at your door asking for the funding to

provide these services. They should have a comprehensive plan for

developing and funding service providers.

Although I applaud their recent efforts to evaluate the quality of

service providers, and I understand that they are vigorously evaluating the outcomes of the service providers that they do have, I am

disturbed by their silence regarding increasing the availability of

services.

PREPARED STATEMENT

A foster child is by law in the legal custody of the government.

The government therefore has the right and the responsibility to

parent that foster child, to meet the needs of every child as if she
171

were our own child. I thank each of you in particular for taking

that responsibility seriously, and for calling for supporting measures that will give every foster child the promise of a safe and loving home.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH SANDALOW

Good morning, Chairperson DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the Committee. My name is Judith Sandalow, and I am the Executive Director of The Children’s Law Center here in Washington, DC. The Children’s Law Center helps atrisk children in the District of Columbia find safe, permanent homes and the education, health and social services they need to flourish by providing comprehensive

legal services to children, their families and foster, kinship and adoptive parents.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about solutions to the

problems facing abused and neglected children in the District of Columbia. At The

Children’s Law Center, we serve as the voice for many children. They share their

fears and their hopes with us. Because the solutions I propose today are informed

by these children and their experiences, I would like to start by sharing with you

some of their stories.

Sam, Tony and Terry were removed from their mother’s home on a Friday evening

and placed in a temporary group home. The very next day their aunt came to court

and offered to have them live with her. Understandably, she did not have three beds

in her home, nor did she have the money to pay for them. The CFSA social worker

told the judge it would take three weeks to buy beds for the aunt and, until then,

suggested that the boys stay in a group home. Only because The Children’s Law

Center purchased beds for the boys that afternoon were they able to be with their

family and avoid spending three weeks in a group home.

Seven-year-old DeMarco and nine-year-old Shawn were taken from their mother’s

home by the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency when it was discovered that

their mother physically abused them. Despite the fact that Shawn and DeMarco

have a loving and capable grandmother, CFSA put Shawn and DeMarco in a foster

home. Only after their grandmother contacted The Children’s Law Center were the

children allowed to see their grandmother and, with more advocacy by The Children’s Law Center, were the children allowed to live with her. The CFSA social

worker admitted that she had not interviewed the children to find out if they had

relatives nearby. DeMarco and Shawn spent a month living with strangers during

the most traumatic moment of their lives, when they could have been with the

grandmother they had known and loved all their lives.

Federal assistance can have an important, direct and measurable impact on the

District of Columbia’s abused and neglected children. My testimony is focused on

remedies involving the Child and Family Services Agency that will make a difference to Shawn, DeMarco, Sam, Tony and Terry and that can be accomplished

with targeted and specific funding.

EARLY AND INTENSIVE INTERVENTION

When a child is injured in a car accident, medical personnel have no qualms about

stopping traffic to get an ambulance to the scene. A helicopter or an ambulance

rushes the child to the hospital where a team of doctors and nurses drop everything

to save a child’s life or prevent permanent disability. A social worker contacts the

parents, provides counseling and helps the family plan for the child’s convalescence.

We all recognize that without this extraordinary effort, a child will die or be permanently disabled.

The same urgency and the same resources should attend the removal of abused

and neglected children from their homes. In fact, every day in the District of Columbia children are permanently scarred and irrevocably deprived of their childhoods,

their emotional well-being and their chance to become productive citizens because

we do not treat these first moments, these first days in foster care as an emergency.

What is right for children is also right for the D.C. budget. Early and intensive

intervention on behalf of children will speed reunification and adoption, will reduce

the number of children who languish in foster care at great cost to our city and will

prevent the financial and human cost of increased homelessness, incarceration and

welfare dependence that are found among adults who spent their childhoods in foster care.

I propose that Congress fund a pilot project within CFSA to provide early and intensive intervention for children as soon as abuse or neglect is reported.
172

What would such an emergency team do? There are three things that must be

accomplished quickly: (1) find the best home for the child as fast as possible; (2) provide services and support to the child to repair the damage caused by abuse and

to reduce the trauma of being separated from her family; and (3) provide the entire

family with the services necessary to reunify them.

How would an emergency team accomplish these goals?

—On the day a child is removed from her home, social workers should interview

the child, his or her siblings, neighbors and relatives to find an appropriate

temporary caregiver for the child. Frequently, grandparents, aunts, uncles and

cousins don’t learn that a child is in foster care for weeks or months.

—Quickly conduct criminal records checks, review the child abuse registry and do

a home study of the caregiver’s home so that the child can move in immediately.

—Have access to a flexible fund to buy beds, clothes and if necessary food to ensure that a relative can bring a child into her home immediately, without forcing the child to stay—scared and alone—in a group home or foster home while

the relative finds the money to prepare her home.

—Convene a meeting of the child’s family within 24 or 48 after removal to see

what resources the extended family can provide. Often, family members can

step in to assist an overwhelmed parent, can arrange visits in their home for

the child or can even bring a child to live with them while the parent is in recovery.

—Provide transportation to the child’s home school, so that she is not further

traumatized by having to adjust to a new school and a new home at the same

time.

—Gather medical records from the child’s pediatrician and area hospitals to ensure that medical treatment and medication are not disrupted.

—Provide drug treatment, homemaker services, parenting classes and other services a birth parent needs so that a child can be safely reunited with her parents.

—Do thorough medical and mental health assessments of children and provide

mental health services to assist children during this traumatic time.

—Arrange for a child to talk on the phone with brothers, sisters and other family

members during the initial, traumatic hours and days after removal.

—Provide transportation for frequent visits between children, their siblings and

important family members to reduce the trauma of removal and maintain the

familial bonds in preparation for reunification.

All of these tasks must be done within the first few days after a child is removed

from her home. Just as we staff an emergency room around the clock and not only

during business hours, we must staff a child welfare emergency team 24 hours a

day.

MAINTAINING FAMILY TIES THROUGH VISITATION

In 1989, when the ACLU was preparing to file a class action lawsuit against the

District of Columbia to address the needs of abused and neglected children, they

interviewed local child advocates. One of these advocates who had worked with neglected children for years and was a founding member of The Children’s Law Center, asked for only one thing. She said, ‘‘if you can get family visits for foster children so that they can visit their brothers and sisters and their parents and if you

can get those visits to happen on weekends and in the evenings so that children

don’t have to miss school to visit their families, then I will believe that your lawsuit

made a difference.’’

Fourteen years later, this simple wish has not been granted. Fourteen years

later—in fact just last week—a social worker said in open court to a mother who

was begging to see her children that she and her children could only visit together

one hour each week because CFSA didn’t have the resources or the staff to have

longer or more frequent visits.

Can we really tell a child that she can’t see her brothers, sister and parents more

than one hour a week because she has to give other children the chance to see their

families?

I urge the committee to appropriate funds to the Child and Family Services Agency to build and staff visitation centers in the community so that children can see

their brothers, sisters and parents as often as is necessary for them to maintain

their family bonds.

Today, just like 14 years ago, foster children visit with their parents in partially

furnished offices—artificial environments that are a far cry from the apartments

and houses in which families usually interact.
173

I envision visitation centers that feel like a real apartment, with a living room

that has games, books, a television and a radio. I picture a kitchen or at least a

microwave oven, so that parents could show their love the way most parents do—

by cooking a meal for their children. I imagine children playing in the center’s backyard, a backyard that has a swing set and a basketball hoop. With an opportunity

to visit in this home-like setting, parents could work on parenting skills and children could enjoy their brothers and sisters.

Each center should be staffed by a social worker trained to work with parents on

their parenting skills. Most important of all, the centers should be open in the evenings and on weekends so that children do not have to miss school and parents can

maintain their employment.

PREPARING TEEN FOSTER CHILDREN FOR ADULTHOOD

Forty percent of all foster children in the District of Columbia are teenagers. Despite this staggering figure and the additional Federal funding that has been made

available by the Chafee Act, CFSA has a woefully inadequate program to help teenagers prepare for adulthood. Today, I would like to focus on addressing one particularly important issue—helping teenagers find and hold jobs.

CFSA social workers do not help teen find work, they do not help teens fill out

job applications and they certainly do not create job opportunities for teenagers.

How can CFSA help teenagers learn the basic job skills necessary to make them

productive citizens? CFSA need look no further than their back door for a solution.

The See Forever Foundation, started by David Domenici, son of Senator Pete

Domenici, and by James Forman, Jr., owns several businesses that are run by teenagers, including a catering business and a print shop. The teenagers handle all aspects of the business, from marketing, to accounting to preparing and delivering the

product.

A business run by foster children would give these young people the training they

need to become successful and independent adults.

A simpler option that might help more teens more quickly would be for CFSA to

partner with local businesses to guarantee that there were jobs available to teen foster children. If CFSA hired a job coach who worked with teens during their first

weeks on the job—in a manner similar to job coaches for developmentally disabled

adults—I believe that many employers would commit to hiring foster children.

There are many other areas in which CFSA fails teen foster children. I am

pleased to announce that beginning this Fall, The Children’s Law Center will be

able to devote more of its resources to advocating for teens. Because of the generosity of the Equal Justice Works Foundation and the Public Welfare Foundation,

we have hired a lawyer who will help to train social workers and other child advocates about strategies for helping teen foster children make the transition to independence and adulthood.

RETAINING AND TRAINING CAPABLE SOCIAL WORKERS

No matter how many programs are available or what philosophy governs a child

welfare agency, the quality of the individual social workers is critical to a successful

system. The April 2003 report by the GAO on the challenges confronting child welfare workers supports the observations of The Children’s Law Center’s staff. Repeatedly, the best social workers tell us that they are leaving CFSA because they have

extraordinary administrative burdens with no secretarial support, that their caseloads are so high that they are worried about making mistakes that will jeopardize

children’s safety and health and that the quality of supervision they receive is extremely poor.

CFSA Director Olivia Golden testified before this committee just last month that

she was working to reduce caseloads for social workers. Reducing caseloads by hiring high quality social workers must continue to be a top priority for Ms. Golden.

She must also focus on retaining and training social workers. This committee may

be able to assist Ms. Golden by proposing legislation and targeting funding toward

initiatives that will increase social worker retention.

Senator DeWine has introduced legislation to provide loan forgiveness to lawyers

who represent children. The Children’s Law Center strongly supports this legislation and believes it will increase the pool of highly qualified lawyers who serve children. Similar legislation to provide loan forgiveness to child welfare workers would

help ease the financial burden on these dedicated individuals.

I also urge the Committee to consider providing funds to CFSA targeted toward

providing administrative support to the social workers who work directly with children and families. Social workers spend a tremendous amount of time completing

paperwork. As recently as last Fall, social workers were required to fill out requests
174

in triplicate to renew each child’s Medicaid eligibility. In addition, social workers

have little assistance in transporting foster children to evaluations, doctors’ appointments, family visits and therapy.

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Talented, well-trained social workers, frequent family visits and early intervention won’t help children if there are no services to help children heal, to rehabilitate

parents and to support families. The District of Columbia has an extremely limited

number of mental health providers. There are very few drug treatment beds. Homemaker and intensive in-home services are almost non-existent. CFSA should be

clamoring at your door, asking for more funding to provide these services. They

should have a comprehensive plan for developing and funding service providers. Although I applaud their recent efforts to evaluate the quality of service providers,

I am disturbed by their silence regarding increasing the availability of services.

The short-term cost of providing services may be great, but the long-term benefit

in personal and financial savings is extraordinary. For one D.C. family, it made all

the difference. After the death of his wife, a father of three children was extremely

depressed. He managed to hold down a full-time job, get dinner on the table and

was available to his children every evening after work. For some reason, however,

he couldn’t manage to get the children dressed and ready for school in the morning

and so the children missed school frequently. Rather than provide limited early

morning homemaker services, CFSA sought to remove the children from his home.

Only after the father’s lawyer intervened did CFSA agree to provide services to the

family. Obviously, the emotional and financial cost of splitting up this family pales

in comparison to the short-term cost of helping them through this crisis.

The Children’s Law Center receives dozens of calls each year from relative caregivers and foster parents who want to keep a child in their home, but cannot handle

the extreme behavioral and emotional needs of their child without assistance that

CFSA refuses to provide. One foster mother called The Children’s Law Center distraught because she had been trying to get services for her foster children for

months. At the end of her rope, she had asked the social worker to remove the children unless CFSA gave her some in-home support and respite care. Three days

later, she couldn’t bear to hear them crying on the phone. The children had been

with her for a year, called her Mommy, and were begging to come back to her. She

wanted them home, but needed in-home mental health services to address their extreme behavioral problems. Only after intervention by The Children’s Law Center

were the services provided and the children returned to the foster mother they had

come to love.

CONCLUSION

A foster child is, by law, in the legal custody of the government. The government,

therefore, has the legal right and responsibility to parent that foster child. To me,

this means that we must treat every foster child as if she or he is our own child.

Thank you for taking that responsibility seriously and for calling for and supporting measures that will give every foster child the promise of a safe, permanent

and loving home.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much, very helpful. Miss

Bowens.

STATEMENTS OF:

JACQUELINE BOWENS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AND

PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CHILDREN’S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

DR. JOSEPH WRIGHT, MEDICAL DIRECTOR FOR ADVOCACY AND

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, CHILDREN’S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Ms. BOWENS. Good morning, Senator DeWine and Senator

Landrieu. Thank you very much for providing us with this opportunity to address the committee today about our role in caring for

children in Washington, DC’s foster care system. I’m Jacqueline

Bowens, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at Children’s Hospital, and joining me this morning is Dr. Joseph Wright,

who is the medical director of Advocacy and Community Affairs, as

well as the medical director of the DC KIDS program. I’m going to

spend a quick few moments giving you some background on the DC
175

KIDS program, and turn it over to Dr. Wright to speak to some of

the challenges we face in our vision for the future.

The District of Columbia Kids Integrated Delivery System, DC

KIDS, is a collaborative effort between CFSA and Children’s Hospital to provide comprehensive health care services to the children

in foster care in the District of Columbia. The arrangement allows

for this vulnerable population of children to be evaluated and treated in a child-friendly pediatrics specific environment and provides

for support, information and navigation of the complex systems of

care for foster parents and their foster children. There is no paper

work to complete and no cost to the foster parents of child. All children under the age of 21 and under the care of CFSA living with

a foster family or in a group home are eligible for enrollment in the

program.

The agreement between CFSA and Children’s Hospital provides

coordination of ongoing healthcare services for children in foster

care. First a child is brought to Children’s DC KIDS assessment

center for an initial screening before their first foster family placement. This initial screening is done by dedicated staff who complete a medical portfolio on each child before certifying that they

are healthy enough for placement to a foster home. In addition,

each time that a child’s placement is disrupted, they return to Children’s for a new assessment before being sent to their new placement.

The child is enrolled in DC KIDS at the time of the initial assessment. Within 10 days, the DC KIDS program arranges for a

comprehensive physical examination and a mental health evaluation to identify necessary services for the child and family. These

may include early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment

of illnesses, inpatient specialty care, and prescription services.

From that point forward, the DC KIDS staff assists the foster families in navigating the complex health care system to provide for ongoing treatment for their foster child, everything from scheduling

and confirming appointments to arrangement of transportation for

specialty and follow-up services. The DC KIDS outreach coordinators are available to educate foster parents, social workers, in-service providers.

We are again, very proud of the relationship that we’ve had in

the DC KIDS program, and I’d like to just quickly talk about some

of our successes since taking on the program. We each feel that

we’ve come a long way since our first days on the job with DC

KIDS. We have increased enrollment by over 400 percent. When we

first assumed the program, there were less than 1,000 children actively enrolled in the program; now we care for over 4,000. Since

May 2001, we have had 3,053 children come through our assessment center, and 1,870 children have returned for visits due to a

disruption in their placement.

We’re also proud of the new technology we’ve developed to make

the process easier for social workers. We provide computer terminals for the social workers on-site with all their required forms online and readily accessible to them. This way they can make productive use of their time while waiting for their child’s medical assessment to be completed. And we get the information we need to

accurately enroll the children in the program. We work very hard
176

to minimize the time that the social worker spends on this process,

reaching our goal of 90 percent or more of the cases triaged in less

than 2 hours by July 2002.

Also, upon our assumption of the program, Children’s also requested the creation of a new system to provide foster families with

the prescriptions and other pharmaceutical items they needed in

order to care for their children once they left our care. Working

with CFSA, we developed a new electronic prescription pad that

creates a voucher that is now accepted at a network of pharmacies

throughout the city, allowing families to have 24-hour access to

prescription services.

These are just a few of our achievements with the program. At

this point I would like to turn it over to Dr. Wright, who can address some of the challenges and our vision for the future.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH WRIGHT

Dr. WRIGHT. Again, Senator, we would like to thank you for allowing us to testify this morning. Jackie has already told you about

some of the successes that we have achieved in the first almost 2

years of involvement with this program and I will address some of

the specific challenges that we face.

One that you have heard repeatedly this morning is in the area

of mental health. This is a struggle citywide due to the lack of capacity for mental health services. There are simply not enough providers, beds and programs to adequately serve the children in this

region, and not just the kids enrolled in DC KIDS, but for all children. As you might imagine, the DC KIDS population is especially

vulnerable in this area. More than 50 percent of these children require some type of mental or behavioral health intervention, and

most on a ongoing basis.

Children’s Hospital has a 12-bed inpatient psychiatric unit which

cannot absorb all the needs of this population. Further, our facilities are not equipped with the quiet rooms and restraints necessary

to primarily treat severely mentally ill and out of control patients.

As a result, we have tried to establish partnerships and collaborations with other community providers to whom we can refer DC

KIDS when we are unable to primarily provide services. In this regard we serve as the coordination point, managing the care that

these children require.

The same situation exists with dental services. There is a nationwide shortage of pediatric dentists and we feel the shortage in the

District as well. Many of the DC KIDS requiring dental care are

children with special health care needs and must be seen by dentists who are appropriately trained. In order to address this problem, Children’s has purchased half the time of two pediatric dentists who work at Sharpe and Mamie D. Lee, the District’s two

public schools dedicated to the special needs population. These dentists are dedicated to provide dental services to our DC KIDS population. While this arrangement has helped, it is insufficient.

Let me address briefly court-ordered mental treatment. Children’s works hand-in-hand with the judges in the Family Court to

ensure appropriate health care services are provided to this vulnerable population. However, there are no better advocates for these

children than the judges. Their sensitivities to these children’s
177

needs demand their strict attention, which they provide. However,

a growing concern for our institution and the DC KIDS program is

the amount and nature of court-ordered medical treatment that we

are experiencing.

As cases are adjudicated, specific medical treatment or therapy

is frequently ordered without any physician consultation. As the

medical provider for these children, we are forced to comply with

the court order even if it is medically inappropriate. Unfortunately,

such court-ordered referrals are continuing to grow. From October

2002 to April 2003, the number of court-ordered outpatient referrals grew from 10 percent of our referrals to nearly 20 percent. We

have begun to educate the judges about the difficulty of these very

specific orders for medical care, but we have a long ways to go.

Now, I want to make it very clear. We realize that the judges are

passionate advocates for these children. In the best interests of

these most vulnerable kids in our population, we simply feel that

it is our obligation to help educate all involved in their care, including the Family Court, about the best ways to work together.

Lastly, an internal challenge that we face is the appointment noshow rate. In some areas, this is as high as 50 percent. Even

though we coordinate transportation services for these families, it

does not help. This results in a negative domino effect. Children

are not getting necessary care, frustrated physicians who block out

sessions to treat DC KIDS only to have none of them show. The

problem is then compounded by other needy children in the community who may be waiting several weeks for an appointment.

Now at Children’s Hospital we continuously strive to make

things better, and I would be remiss if we didn’t offer some ideas

and potential solutions for the problems that I have identified.

Jackie has already alluded to our ideas in the area of information

technology and we envision an assessment program that will be a

model for the rest of the country. This assessment process will

build on the foundation already established.

The first step will be complete integration of the CFSA computer

system with our system in the DC KIDS program. Currently, as we

enroll children at the time of their initial assessment, this often occurs before CFSA has confirmed placement. As a result, it requires

a DC KIDS staff member to contact the social worker or CFSA to

locate the child in order to make their follow-up appointments. This

causes a tremendous bottleneck in waiting for the address and contact information. If we were fully integrated with the CFSA system, we could simply log on to the child’s file and see the placement immediately after it is entered into the system by the social

worker. This would save immeasurable time.

We also envision a program that makes health care for foster

children as accessible as possible to the foster family. Transportation is one of the biggest barriers for our foster families, and we

know that it contributes substantially to the aforementioned noshow rate. We believe that if we owned a DC KIDS shuttle and

driver that were dedicated solely to providing transportation to foster families and children for their appointments, more foster children would receive their care in a timely manner.

I have already mentioned our dental facilities. Currently we do

not have the facilities or space to cover all the needs of children
178

at Children’s Hospital. We are land-locked and do not have room

for expansion. Our vision for the future, however, includes a system of community-based partners to provide all services needed by

the DC KIDS children. We are making strides towards that goal

with the recent awarding of a State innovations grant from the Department of Health and Human Services that we will be implementing in conjunction with the D.C. Department of Health to develop state-of-the-art community-based dental programs at the District’s two special needs schools.

Lastly and clearly the most difficult clinical element in managing

the DC KIDS program is the mental health capacity issue. The

number of patients seeking acute care for mental health problems

has exploded at our institution over the past 2 years. The volume

for such crisis has more than tripled since the closure of the emergency psychiatric facility on the campus of D.C. General in 2001.

Because of the aforementioned physical limitations at our institution, we know that we must develop partnerships with other community providers, but there are some things that can be done immediately as well. For example, we are planning new programs to

operate a mental health urgent care center at Children’s Hospital

in the evenings and on the weekends. We believe this will help alleviate some of the strain that is being felt by our emergency department. We believe this mental health urgent care center will

help to redirect patients currently occupying beds in the ER that

are needed for children with medical and surgical emergencies.

Our proposal is currently being considered by the D.C. Department of Mental Health and they have agreed to provide funding for

a psychiatric social worker. However, ideally, funding is needed to

support three social workers, a security guard, a disposition staff,

and one full-time position in order to properly support such a program. Above all, the DC KIDS population needs stability. What is

best for these children is a comprehensive health system that addresses their emotional, medical and educational needs.

PREPARED STATEMENT

It is critical that they involve stable foster families and consistency among providers when they seek this treatment. Children

that face disruption in placement as well as fragmented medical

care will have their baseline problems further compromised.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify and will

be happy to answer questions at the end of the panel.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE D. BOWENS AND DR. JOSEPH WRIGHT

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee

today about our role in caring for the children in Washington, DC’s foster care system. I am Jacqueline D. Bowens, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs

at Children’s Hospital. Joining me today is Dr. Joseph Wright, who is the Medical

Director of Advocacy and Community Affairs, as well as the Medical Director of the

DC KIDS program.

BACKGROUND ON CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

Children’s Hospital is a 279-bed pediatric inpatient facility located in the District

of Columbia. For over 130 years, we have served as the only provider dedicated exclusively to the care of infants, children, and adolescents in this region. It is our
179

mission to be preeminent in providing health care services that enhance the wellbeing of children regionally, nationally, and internationally.

The Children’s system includes a network of five primary care health centers located throughout the city, and a number of pediatrician practices throughout the region, providing stable medical homes for thousands of children. We also operate numerous regional outpatient specialty centers in Maryland and Virginia, providing

access to high quality specialty care right in the communities that we serve. We are

proud to be the region’s only Level I pediatric trauma center.

Children’s Hospital serves as the Department of Pediatrics for George Washington

University medical school, and runs a highly-respected pediatric residency program,

providing education and experience to the next generation of pediatricians, pediatric

specialists, and pediatric researchers. We also conduct significant research within

Children’s Research Institute, with funds from the National Institutes of Health, the

Health Resources Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and countless private funders. Our researchers have received national recognition for recent

breakthroughs including identification of the gene associated with matasticizing

brain tumors, and discoveries related to muscle development for muscular dystrophy

patients.

Recently Children’s Hospital was named as one of the nation’s ‘‘Top Ten’’ pediatric

institutions in the country by Child Magazine, based on stringent quality and outcomes measures. Our Hemotology/Oncology program was ranked fourth in the nation. We are the only such facility in the region to receive this honor.

Locally, we also work in collaboration with the District of Columbia Department

of Health to operate the District’s School Health program, employing all the school

nurses in the public schools, including 21 charter schools. And we are very proud

of our affiliation with the District’s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), in

which we work in conjunction to operate the medical program for children in foster

care called DC KIDS.

BACKGROUND ON THE DC KIDS PROGRAM

The District of Columbia Kids Integrated Delivery System (DC KIDS), is a collaborative effort between CFSA and Children’s Hospital to provide comprehensive

health care services to the children in foster care in the District of Columbia.

The DC KIDS program was first established by CFSA as a medical management

model. The initial contract went to the former Public Benefits Corporation and DC

General Hospital. Prior to the closure of DC General Hospital and the PBC in early

2001, CFSA approached Children’s to absorb the program on an emergency basis

‘‘as is,’’ with the intent of eventually establishing a more formal long-term relationship—which we did. Children’s assumed the DC KIDS program on May 1, 2001

after a rapid transition. Our current agreement runs through December 31, 2003.

The arrangement allows for this vulnerable population of children to be evaluated

and treated in a child friendly, pediatric-specific environment. It provides each child

with a continuous and coordinated system of services. DC KIDS supports, informs

and navigates the complex systems of care for foster parents and their foster children. There is no paperwork to complete, and no cost to the foster parent or child.

All children under 21 years of age and under the care of CFSA, living with a foster

family or in a group home, are eligible for enrollment in the program.

The agreement between CFSA and Children’s Hospital provides coordination of

ongoing health care services for children in foster care. First, a child is brought to

the Children’s DC KIDS assessment center for an initial assessment, before their

first foster family placement. This initial screening is done by dedicated staff who

complete a medical protocol on each child before certifying that they are healthy

enough for placement into a foster home. In addition, each time that a child’s placement is disrupted, they return to the Children’s for a new assessment before being

sent to their new placement.

The child is enrolled in DC KIDS at the time of the initial assessment. Within

10 days, the DC KIDS program will arrange for a comprehensive and thorough

physical examination and a behavioral/mental health evaluation. Once completed,

necessary services for the child and family are identifed, such as:

—early and periodic screening

—diagnosis and treatment of illnesses

—dental services

—immunizations

—eye care

—hearing services

—mental health services

—substance abuse services
180

—developmental services

—in-home services

—inpatient and specialty care

—prescription services

From that point forward, DC KIDS assists the foster families in navigating the

complex health care system to provide for ongoing treatment for their foster child.

The DC KIDS team schedules and confirms appointments, and arranges for families

to receive care at the Children’s Health Center and therapists located in close proximity to their neighborhoods. When that is not possible, the staff arranges for transportation—this occurs most often for specialty and follow-up services. DC KIDS outreach coordinators are available to educate foster parents, social workers and service providers by answering questions about enrollment and eligibility.

OUR SUCCESSES

Increased Enrollment

We at Children’s Hospital feel that we have come a long way since our first days

on the job with DC KIDS. We have increased enrollment by over 400 percent. When

we first assumed the program, there were less than 1,000 children actively enrolled

in the program—we now care for over 4,000. Since May 2001 we have had 3,053

children come through our assessment center, and 1,870 children have returned for

visits due to a disruption in their placement.

Enhanced Technology

We are proud of the new technology we have developed to make the process easier

for the social workers. We provide a computer terminal for the social workers on

site, with all their required forms on line. This way they can make productive use

of their time while waiting for the child’s medical assessment to be completed, and

we get the information we need to accurately enroll the children in the program.

We have worked very hard to minimize the time that the social worker spends in

this process, reaching our goal of 90 percent or more of the cases triaged in less

than 2 hours by July, 2002.

Pharmacy Vouchers

Upon our assumption of the program, Children’s also requested the creation of a

new system to provide foster families with the prescriptions and other pharmaceutical items they needed in order to care for these children once they left our care.

Working with CFSA, we created a new electronic prescription pad that creates a

‘‘voucher’’ that is now accepted at a network of pharmacies throughout the city—

allowing our foster families to receive both prescription and over-the-counter products for their new foster child.

DC KIDS CHALLENGES

While we are very proud of these achievements, we acknowledge that there is so

much more that needs to be done to overcome the challenges that Children’s, CFSA,

and the entire system faces.

Mental Health

One challenge that is a struggle city-wide is the lack of capacity for mental health

services. There simply are not enough providers, beds, services and programs to adequately serve the children of this region—not just children enrolled in DC KIDS,

but for all children.

The DC KIDS population is a very vulnerable one. More than 50 percent of these

children require some type of mental or behavioral health service, most on an ongoing basis. Children’s Hospital has a 12 bed inpatient psychiatric unit, which cannot

absorb all of the needs of this population. Children’s Hospital does not have the facilities such as quiet rooms and restraints that are needed to treat the severely

mentally ill; patients needing that type of care must be treated elsewhere. As a result, we have tried to establish partnerships and collaborations with other community providers to refer our DC KIDS population when we are unable. We serve as

the coordination point, because we simply cannot provide all of the services needed.

More of this collaboration needs to be done.

Dental Services

The same situation exists with dental services. There is a nation-wide shortage

of pediatric dentists, and we feel that shortage in the District as well. Many of the

DC KIDS that need specialized dental care are ‘‘special needs’’ children, and must

be seen by a dentist that is appropriately trained. In order to address this problem,

Children’s has purchased half the time of two pediatric dentists who work at two
181

of the District’s special needs schools. These dentists are dedicated to provide dental

services to our DC KIDS population. While this arrangement has helped, it is insufficient.

One recent strategy has developed with the award of $450,000 in funding from

the Department of HHS, through a State Innovations Grant to the District of Columbia. The District was one of five states to receive this grant, which is intended

to spur states into finding new and innovative ways to improve access to health

care. Children’s partnered with the DC Department of Health to create a program

with two state-of-the-art dental clinics in schools for children with special health

care needs. The centers will use telemedicine tools to link patients with pediatric

dentists and hygienists. This will allow us to focus on the provision of dental services to the most vulnerable children, a population which includes many foster children. It is one step towards a comprehensive ongoing strategy in this area.

Focus on Young Children

Another challenge that Children’s faces with this population is the orientation of

our facility primarily on younger children, as the only acute care facility solely dedicated to pediatrics in this region. Although we are licensed to treat patients up to

age 21, and do so, we have met challenges in providing for the unique needs of the

older DC KIDS population. As with mental health, to meet this challenge, we have

had to build partnerships and collaborations with outside community providers,

serving as the coordinator of those services instead of the primary provider.

Court-ordered Medical Treatment

Children’s works hand-in-hand with the judges and the Family Court to assure

appropriate health care services are provided to this vulnerable population. There

are no better advocates for these children than the judges. Their sensitivities to

these children’s needs demand their strict attention, which they provide. But a

growing concern for our institution and the DC KIDS program is the amount and

nature of court-ordered medical treatment. As these cases get adjudicated, often

times a specific medical treatment or therapy will be ordered without any physician

consultation. As the medical provider for these children, we are forced to comply

with a court order, even if it is medically inappropriate for the child. Our physicians

have great difficulty in treating a child in a manner they feel in unnecessary, regardless of whether the court has ordered it or not. For example:

—It is common to receive an order to admit child for an inpatient psychiatric stay

for a specified number of days. The child may not need to be admitted for that

period of time—they may be appropriately released in half the time. But because of the order, the child may be required to remain in the inpatient psychiatric unit for the full number of days prescribed in the court order. These

types of social admissions are not always in the best interest of the child.

—Another example is a court order for occupational therapy within 14 days. But

an occupational therapist cannot treat a child without a physician’s order. So

DC KIDS must first arrange a visit with a physician for an evaluation before

an appropriate occupational therapist can be scheduled. It is usually extremely

difficult to accomplish this within the short time frame usually ordered by the

courts.

Unfortunately, such court-ordered referrals are continuing to grow. From October,

2002 to April, 2003, the number of court-ordered outpatient referrals grew from

about 10 percent of our load to nearly 20 percent. We have begun to educate the

judges about the difficulty of these very specific orders for medical care, but we have

a long way to go.

We want to make it very clear—the judges are passionate advocates for these children. They demand the very best of service and care, with the children as their

number one priority. Our task is to educate CFSA, the judges and the Family Court,

social workers and families about the best ways to work together.

Transportation Problems

Another internal challenge we have with this population is the high rate of ‘‘noshows’’ we encounter. We make every effort to expedite and facilitate appropriate

medical care for these very vulnerable and needy children—but it is to no avail if

the foster family does not bring them to their appointments. Even though we coordinate transportation services for them, it often does not help. The result is a negative

domino effect: children, who are not getting necessary medical care; frustrated physicians, who block out entire days or afternoons to treat this population, only to

have none of their appointments show up; and other needy children in the community who may be waiting several weeks for an appointment. We’ve got to find a better way.
182

OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE

At Children’s Hospital we continually strive to make things better. We have ideas

and solutions for which we are searching for ways to implement.

Information Integration

We envision an assessment program that could be a model for the rest of the

country. This assessment process would build on the foundation we have created.

The first step would be complete integration with the CFSA computer system.

Right now, when we enroll the children at the time of their initial assessment,

often this is before CFSA has confirmed their family placement. This requires a DC

KIDS staff member to contact the social worker or CFSA to locate the child in order

to make their follow-up appointments and comply with the 10-day window to complete the physical and mental health assessment. Waiting for address and contact

information creates a major bottleneck in the system. If we were fully integrated

with the CFSA system, we could simply log into the child’s file and see the placement immediately after it is entered into the system by the social worker. It would

save immeasurable time.

In addition, integration would eliminate duplication of effort. Right now, we keep

the medical records and CFSA keeps the complete record. The medical information

gets entered in at Children’s, and then has to be manually re-entered into the CFSA

system. Placement information gets entered into the CFSA file, and then has to be

manually re-entered into the medical record. There is a lot of exchanging of information and data that could be completely eliminated if the two systems were integrated.

Dedicated Transportation Service

We also can envision a program that makes health care for foster children as easy

and convenient as possible for the foster family. Transportation is one of the biggest

barriers for our foster families, and we know that it contributes substantially to our

‘‘no-show’’ rate. If a foster parent is unable to get the foster child to a scheduled

appointment, it is a delay in care for that child. Although the DC KIDS program

helps make transportation arrangements, it is an ongoing problem. We believe that

if we owned a DC KIDS shuttle and driver that was dedicated solely to providing

free transportation for foster families and children to their medical appointments,

more foster children would receive their care in a more timely manner.

Education and Training

We also believe there would be great benefit and improvement of the system if

there were opportunities for outreach and education—to families, to judges, to social

workers, and other partners who touch the lives of these children. Annual training

for all these groups, we are certain, would go a long way.

Mental Health Models

One of the most difficult pieces of this is the mental health capacity issue. Because of our physical limitations at our institution, we know that we must develop

partnerships with other community providers. But there are some things that could

be done immediately as well. For example, we are planning to pilot a new program

to operate a mental health urgent care center at Children’s Hospital for nights and

weekends. It would be housed in the outpatient psychiatric department as a mental

health urgent care center in the off hours. We believe this will help alleviate some

of the strain that is being felt by our emergency room. When St. Elizabeth’s closed,

we were told to anticipate an increase of about 10 percent in our emergency room.

Instead, emergency room visits for mental health crisis have tripled in the last ten

months. We believe this mental health urgent care center will help to redirect patients that are currently occupying medical/surgical beds in the emergency room

that are needed for children with physical issues. Our proposal is currently being

considered by the DC Department of Mental Health, and they have agreed to provide funding for one social worker. But the rest we are scraping together for this

pilot, to see whether or not it would be beneficial for the patients and for the facility. Ideally we need funding for three social workers, a security officer, a disposition

staffer, and one full-time physician to operate an ideal program.

We also would support the expansion of the DC Department of Mental Health 24-

hour access help line and mobile teams. This would allow patients to contact DMH

directly, and receive care right in their community. Not every child needs to come

to the hospital—they do now because that is the only place they know to get services. But expansion of community services like the mobile teams could be very helpful.
183

Another component that is lacking for the DC KIDS population is a day treatment

program. Often a child is not in need of hospitalization, but they also need more

structure and care than weekly therapy. A day treatment program is a structured

‘‘in-between’’ step that could be very valuable for those children who are in between

hospitalization and less rigorous treatment they can receive in the community.

Above all, the DC KIDS population needs stability. They come to us with developmental issues, and problems with attachment and trust. What is best for this kind

of vulnerable population is a comprehensive mental health system that addresses

their emotional, medical, and educational needs. It is critical to have the involvement of stable foster families, and consistency with the providers that they see for

treatment. Those children that face disruption in their placement, coupled with fragmented care that shuffles them from provider to provider, only worsens their problems with attachment and trust. Stability is key.

Children’s hopes to utilize current research that suggests more targeted cognitive

behavior psychotherapy, carefully re-evaluated every 3–4 months, will lead to better

outcomes—better resilience, better social skills, and better adjustment in the future.

Dental Care

Our current facilities will not cover all the dental needs of the children. We are

land-locked, and have no room for expansion. Our vision of the future of dental services includes a system of community based partnerships to provide all the services

needed by DC KIDS children.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today. We are very

proud of our efforts in caring for this vulnerable population, and look forward to

even greater successes with the DC KIDS program in the future.

We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator DEWINE. Doctor, thank you very much. Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF DAMIAN MILLER, STUDENT, HAMPTON UNIVERSITY

Mr. MILLER. Good morning, Senator Landrieu and Senator

DeWine, and distinguished guests, for the privilege of allowing me

to address the committee on concerns that I have and things that

need to be improved, as well as the positives of the D.C. foster care

program. First, let me say, my name is Damian Miller. I am a rising senior at Hampton University. I have been part of the D.C. foster care program since the age of 7 on and off. I have had a very

unique experience, to say the least, with some positives and some

negative things.

First, let me focus on the areas that I feel need improvement,

starting, I would like to say that I think the training for many parents should be more intense and with this training, I think that

there should be an emphasis on treating the kids like they are part

of the family. I know in many homes that I have been in, I found

that things like family picnics, we were not included in. Also, other

youths of my age were not included in things like that, simple

things like allowing the kids to play with other kids in the house

and use the refrigerator, and just do things that are part of the

family. I think that is definitely essential and a part of making

them feel like they are in the family and that you really care about

them.

Also, I think that the training should encourage the parents to

attend PTA meetings and reward you for good behavior and, you

know, academic achievement. I feel that I was always punished

when I did bad, but when I came home with good grades, I wasn’t

rewarded, and I think that with any child, you should definitely reward them, you know, not just always hound them, and I think

that should be an important part of the training.

Also, I think it’s important that we rid the system of parents

that are in it for the money. I think that there are many parents
184

that I have been with that I feel are definitely in the system, you

know, for a check. And even good foster parents, I remember being

in good foster homes, and I would have good parents, but the fact

that the agency would allow them to bring in three or four extra

kids, they were doing a good job with me but when you brought in

three or four other kids, I mean, can they really handle that? And

it definitely, you know, played a negative effect on my placement

with them.

I think that workers should make sure that the funds are actually used for the kids. A lot of the clothing allowances and things

of that nature, I missed out on, and other youth that were in the

home with me, they didn’t receive adequate funds to go clothing

shopping, an allowance, you know, and teaching them good economics, that wasn’t something that was taught to me in these

homes. And I think social workers should really go out of their way

to make sure that these funds are really being used to better the

youth and not just for the parents.

And part of that, I think that there should be a limit on how

many kids that a person can get, and not just based upon home

size. Just because they have four bedrooms, you know, doesn’t

mean that they should have four or five or six kids. It should be

based upon, you know, are they working well with two kids, you

know, should you put this third kid in. I think that that’s something that should be looked at and not just the size of the house.

Also, I think that recordkeeping is something that’s very important, and I know one of the panelists touched on that. Social Security cards, birth certificates and things of that nature, I cannot tell

the committee how many times I have tried to apply for summer

jobs and things of that nature, and a simple copy of my Social Security card could not be found or a birth certificate or things of that

nature. I think vital recordkeeping is essential and definitely something that needs to be improved within CFSA.

I think that one thing that should be expanded is family visitation time. Agencies like For Love of Children provide once-a-month

time when foster kids are allowed to see their parents. I think that

that’s a very positive thing and I think that should be expanded

to all agencies, because as Senator Hillary Clinton’s book says, it

takes a village to raise a child, and I think their families should

be included in that village.

I think that helping better the relationship with the families is

definitely a must. I think that these sessions were always great to

me because I would meet uncles and cousins that were coming, encouraging me with better grades, and like I said, I think the visitation thing is very important and should be expanded.

The positive areas that I think should be expanded and the great

improvement I have seen, programs like CFSA’s Keys for Life has

been extremely positive for me. In this program youth are encouraged to excel academically and given money to pursue a higher

education. Like I said, it has been a very positive experience, and

in fact I would call it the most positive out of my years in the D.C.

foster care system. It has given me an unbelievable opportunity to

attend college and definitely encouraged me along with many other

youths to better ourselves and our future.
185

The first semester at Hampton University during my freshman

year I didn’t do so well, and Keys for Life really stayed on me and

kept me focused to better myself, and since then, I’m a rising senior now and I have been on the dean’s list ever since. So programs

like Keys for Life are definitely essential and a great way to help

youth.

I think that one thing I have seen improvement in over the years

is that social workers today are not as swamped with caseloads like

they used to be when I first came into the system. It was very hard

to even talk to my social worker, but now that’s something that has

improved and I think that it’s critical that it improves even more,

because when you have a social worker that’s not swamped with

caseload, they can give the youth individualized attention which

definitely is always a positive.

And I think something that’s also important is mentors. I have

had mentors over my years in CFSA and they have helped me a

great deal, and I think that should be something that should be

mandatory for all youth if possible, that they be given a mentor or

someone to look up to and provide guidance to them.

And also, lastly, I would like to mention programs like the Orphan Foundation. Providing internships on Capitol Hill for youth

this summer, CFSA will be providing internships because of the

Orphan Foundation, and programs like that are positive.

Thank you for allowing me to come and testify.

Senator LANDRIEU [presiding]. Thanks to all the panelists today

for coming here and presenting well-put-together presentations,

and for concentrating on some of the positive efforts that are being

made, and still being forthright in pointing out some of the weaknesses that still need to be addressed.

Senator DeWine will be back with us. He had to make a quorum

for another committee, but he does have questions, so I will take

the first round and he will be back shortly.

Damian, just start with you. For the record, if you can remember, how many foster care placements and social workers have you

had since the age of 7?

Mr. MILLER. Sure. Approximately nine placements and maybe

eight to nine social workers also.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. I wanted to get it on the record and

I want to thank Damian for being here and sharing his experience

and his commitment to advocate for the 9,000 children or so that

are within the universe of this discussion this morning, and as well

as the 500,000 children in the country today that are in the foster

care system. Without leaders like Damian, we would have an even

harder time trying to figure out some of the solutions. Obviously

one of the goals of our work is to try to achieve one placement, at

the most two per child and one social worker for each child, to give

him or her the consistency over time. There will be turnover, so one

is not always going to be possible, but that ideally would be our

goal, one case worker, one placement, one judge, one permanency

plan, and that is what I would like us to keep in mind as we think

about Damian’s future and how hard he has worked and how much

he has achieved under these difficult circumstances.

Senator DeWine and I are very pleased to be part of the agencies

and offices that will be offering internships. Damian, I might spe-
186

cifically request you, since I have met you now, but we are not supposed to pick our young people for the summer. But both Senator

DeWine and I look forward, given our experience this last summer,

of having these interns come into our office.

Let me ask just a couple of questions. One, there are so many,

but one I would like to pursue is this seemingly model that’s developing here with Children’s Hospital. Ms. Sandalow, I think the car

accident analogy that you referred to is an excellent one. We would

not leave a family involved in a car wreck on the highway and not

give them immediate attention. This is exactly the same kind of

thing that happens when there is basically a breakdown or a wreck

in a family, and that emergency care, the first 24 to 48 hours is

crucial for the health and development of either that group of individuals or one individual that has been the victim of such an accident. It seems as though we’re developing a fairly good model here

with Children’s Hospital and with DC KIDS to do that early evaluation.

My question is, you were saying that you have seen 4,000 children. I think there are 9,000 in the universe. Am I looking at the

right number? What is preventing, or what is stopping the system

or slowing it down for all the children that are removed from the

home to get to this evaluation center where a lot of wonderfully

good things could be done in the first 24 or 48 hours? Medical

records could be compiled, an evaluation could be conducted, a social worker or case worker could make a fairly quick assessment

of the appropriate temporary placement, preferably a kinship

placement, which is what we always like to reach to, a kinship

placement or a neighbor, until an appropriate maybe interim placement can be made, and then the work begins to try to move that

child either back to reunification with the family, or on to a permanent adoption. In the new Federal law it refers to temporary foster

care of no more than 18 months.

So let’s talk about what might be a barrier for setting that as a

model, maybe Miss Bowens and all of you could comment. Is that

the model we’re trying to achieve, and what are the barriers?

Dr. WRIGHT. Let me just start by saying the point of entry for

children into the DC KIDS program is either an initial or a change

of placement, so that the universe of children who are in stable

homes and represent perhaps the 5,000 that represents the gap between the 4,000 that we have enrolled and the universe of children,

are not accessible to us through the DC KIDS model. However, let

me also say that the full universe of children in foster care is a

population in which we are very interested and would very much

like to access those children for the purposes of some of the things

that Damian has validated for us, which is very encouraging to see,

to hear, that we’re interested in education, we’re very much interested in mentorship and working with the families in the foster

care system, the entire foster care system and not just the ones

that enter into the DC KIDS program because there has been a

change in placement.

And one of the barriers that I alluded to in my testimony was

from the standpoint of information technology, we have access only

to the kids in the DC KIDS database, and there is not an interface

there.
187

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for your clarification. Did I understand you correctly that after the initial placement that every child

that has come into the D.C. system has to be evaluated at your

center?

Ms. BOWENS. No. We only have access to the children since we

assumed the program, and that would only be under the assumption that they were still in the homes that they were in when they

first came into our care. Any children that have been enrolled prior

to, we don’t have access. The bottom line is that we don’t have the

information on the foster care family. What would be great is actually to have the list of all the foster care families, so that we could

outreach to them and provide them with information and education

about DC KIDS. For example, issues about Medicaid numbers and

things like that, many of the families are not even aware that the

program exists. So if we had access to them and were able to educate them, some of the things that were mentioned earlier probably

could be minimized.

Senator LANDRIEU. I may be misunderstanding, maybe I heard

the testimony wrong, but I’m trying to determine when the car accident occurs, are the children in the car accident brought to you?

Ms. BOWENS. No.

Senator LANDRIEU. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I

thought you testified that was an early initial evaluation.

Ms. BOWENS. No. When children first go to CFSA, then CFSA

will bring, the social worker will bring children to Children’s Hospital for an initial assessment.

Senator LANDRIEU. Right, an initial assessment sometime after

that car accident.

Ms. BOWENS. Yes, exactly. I’m sorry. Very, very quickly, within

24 hours, those children will come in for an initial assessment. We

don’t have any idea of where they’re going, it’s just kind of the social worker is there with them, we’ll do an initial assessment just

to make sure that they are healthy enough to be placed. We then

work diligently to work with CFSA to find out where those families

are then located, so that we can provide their follow-up primary

care visit and a mental health evaluation.

Senator LANDRIEU. But in that stop, do you do a comprehensive

evaluation of the child’s general situation so that you could provide

foster parents with some meaningful information about a general

initial evaluation of their physical health, maybe some of their initial experiences, the reasons they were—you know, a packet that

would be helpful to what Mrs. Egerton said about having some information as a child comes into a foster care home, do you provide

this information?

Ms. BOWENS. We don’t, we would love to. I mean, we have actually reached out to the agency, because many of our physicians get

extremely frustrated because the children come in, we have no

medical record information, no background information, so we are

not poised right now to be able to do that, because like many of

the other panelists have said, we’re chasing after information to be

able to make those appropriate assessments. But our initial assessments when they first come in, again under that label of assessment, are to just make sure that the child is healthy enough to be

placed, and then we provide the follow-up comprehensive evalua-
188

tion. But then the struggle there is, we don’t have the requisite information.

Senator LANDRIEU. It’s a very limited evaluation of the child.

Ms. BOWENS. The initial, that’s correct.

Senator LANDRIEU. Ms. Sandalow, would you like to comment, or

Miss Egerton, if we could help develop this system, would that be

helpful? We want to create systems that are simple, streamlined

and work, and not add any other bureaucratic layers. Can you comment on that system as it exists today and what you would like to

see?

Ms. EGERTON. Well, that actually happens prior to the child

being placed with me. It would be divine, and we have been fighting for a very long time to get adequate information on our children when they come to us. The realities though, in all fairness to

CFSA, is that they’re chasing down the information as well. When

they go into a home to take a child out in the middle of the night

and the parent is in opposition, the parent isn’t standing there saying, well, wait a minute, let me get you the Social Security card

and Medicaid card. That doesn’t happen, and so CFSA is chasing

the information down also.

The evaluation happens before the child is placed with me, so I

really can’t speak to the evaluation itself, but we would like a situation where they go to that evaluation and from that evaluation

come to us with a full medical screening, with a mental health

evaluation, with all of the pertinent medical and mental health information available to us, absolutely. And if we can figure out a

way to do that, that would be beautiful.

Ms. SANDALOW. But we need the combination of the medical/

mental health screening. We need adequate social worker resources

at the very beginning to pull that together. The Foster and Adoptive Parents Advocacy Center, which I’m proud to be on the board

of, has done an extraordinary job in their efforts to put together the

concept of a placement passport, which would carry that information. If a child comes to your home who is HIV-positive, we want

to know so we can give adequate medication. That has been a

struggle.

So there is a medical and mental health piece that comes, but

there are also things as simple as has the child been in the system

before. It is common for a child to be returned home and then he

will come to you 2 years later and you are not told that. My own

children have been in and out of care twice. It took 2 years for me

to figure that out, until they were emotionally able to unlock that.

I didn’t learn it from CFSA. Those kinds of records could be pulled

in.

And I think most important is to focus CFSA on adequate social

worker resources in the first few days, to pull together family. We

had a case recently where we represented a child who had been living half-time with her father in a normal split custody situation

and CFSA did not know that there was a father involved. And we

figured it out and we had to tell them. So here’s a child who could

have moved straight to her father, and it took an outsider to tell.

So that kind of intensive interview of the family members and the

neighbors, and a family caucus, it is a model being used around the

country.
189

Senator LANDRIEU. I would like to follow that up for a minute.

I know Senator DeWine has questions, but I think this is a very

important component to obtain this initial placement assessment

by getting the general information from family and neighbors, so

an accurate assessment can be made. The hospitals need this, the

foster care parents need this, and the judges need this information

eventually so that they can make good determinations for the children.

Could we comment about what exists now? Is there any model

in the District of that group social worker intensive evaluation? If

so, where is it working? If not, how could this committee help to

get that initial assessment, which I think, that and the technology

piece are the two things that we perhaps could be most helpful

with.

Ms. SANDALOW. I think that the funding assets should go to

CFSA as a targeted type of project. I shared my testimony with a

few people who—yesterday, who said this emergency team,

shouldn’t that be true for every child? And you’d think that the

goal would be for CFSA to be given some pilot money to develop

it internally, because obviously our hope is, if it works, if they can

make it work and they have the funds to do it, that they can expand that even more for all the kids.

I don’t think it’s happening in any of the private agencies right

now. Our structure is that when a child comes into the system, it

is CFSA who touches them first. So I think that they need to be

focused on that job.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let’s take one minute, if you would, to describe in 30 seconds what this team would look like. How many

people would be on it, would there be a team leader? Does anybody

have a comment?

Ms. SANDALOW. I’m a lawyer, so I don’t think I’m the expert you

want, but it is—I can tell you what we do. In essence, we step in

and act like what we call the SWAT team that we’re hoping to, and

we do it ourselves. And we have one lawyer working tirelessly

around the clock. I think two or three social workers. The important thing is passing the information on. That needs to happen.

And you can go to hospitals after hours and get medical records,

we can coordinate that. What we’re talking about is a team of social workers who have the time as well as, and I think this is very

important, flexible funding.

I think you mentioned, Senator, we should try to place children

with relatives. Most of the relatives are not well off, they can’t absorb extra children in their home without some assistance. Grandmothers who may be on SSI are wonderful caregivers, but they

need some flexible funds to ease the transition. So it needs to be

social workers with access to some flexible funds, access to the resources of Children’s Hospital.

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question, and I want each of you to comment for the record. Do you

think it would be a wise policy for us to try to put these evaluation

teams together for the first initial assessment with the medical

evaluation coming as close to an assessment as possible, more comprehensive than just the physical well-being of the child to, if we

could identify a relative or neighbor, to make an emergency 30-day
190

placement based on the recommendation of at least two certified

social workers, if that would be the best, for at least 30 days until

we can find a more—not to say more appropriate, that may have

been a very appropriate placement, but a certified foster home, assuming none of these relatives have been certified for foster care,

most of the neighbors are not certified for foster care. But yet, they

may be the best short-term placement for these children until a

more—and I want an answer yes or no, a short comment, because

this is a big issue in trying to loosen up, if you want to use the

word loosen up, but make a greater pool of placement opportunities

that would help to ease this traumatic time for a child. Or should

we stick to the policy of you can’t place a child unless they’re a certified family? Sister.

Sister CONRAD. I would certainly support the idea of as much

flexibility as possible. The one area that strikes me immediately in

your question is the notion of neighbor, and in many cases this

would seem to be appropriate. However, if the child is being removed from a dangerous situation, if we’re talking about the neighbor next door or down the street, we may simply be endangering

the neighbor as well as the child themselves. And so in a very

broad sense, yes, but with that notion, that our concern is safety

in care, that perhaps a neighbor would be much further away than

down the street.

Senator LANDRIEU. Miss Egerton?

Ms. EGERTON. I actually have to agree with that. I think that’s

a real concern for—that’s a real concern for foster parents. Even

trying to keep children in their same neighborhood, if the child or

children have been pulled out of very dangerous situations, and

those parents can see that child going back and forth to that particular home, it can be an issue.

I think that there needs to be some room left for flexibility. It

sounds wonderful, right off the top it sounds like a wonderful

thing, but you would put the agency in a position of monitoring unlicensed homes if you do that, which brings in a whole other dynamic. And as a foster parent, I would say it isn’t always a bad

thing for that emergency placement to come to me. The reality is,

I raised six kids to adulthood who came to me as emergency placements who were only supposed to stay with me 4 weeks, and they

stayed with me from 11 or 12 years old to adulthood. I have one

who came in at 17 and was only supposed to stay a month, who

stayed until he aged out.

So, they called me not specifically because I could, you know, everything matched up or this was the child I wanted, or I matched

the needs of the child, or because I would be able to answer the

phone in the middle of the night. So it’s not always a horrible thing

either. I just think there definitely needs to be some room for flexibility.

Ms. SANDALOW. Unequivocally yes, with the additional problem

that the District of Columbia has, which is a lot of those people live

in Maryland, so anything that we can do to address the problem,

because many of our extended families are in Maryland.

Ms. BOWENS. Not to be redundant, but I agree. I think that that

would be great, but I think we do have to retain the flexibility because emergencies will happen and we don’t want to have a situa-
191

tion where we again have a backlog of children waiting while we

search out neighborhoods and families, and so there will be that

ongoing need for emergency placement. So I think what ultimately

the other panelists have said as well, but again, we need flexibility.

Dr. WRIGHT. Just to echo the flexibility mantra, but I would also

like to address your question about the composition. I think that

you have alluded to the fact that any such team would need to be

multidisciplinary, because these children and families present with

a multitude of issues, and the model that I alluded to in regard to

emergency or urgent mental health assessment is one that suggests

the need for several disciplines to be involved and a point of contact.

Mr. MILLER. I do agree with the rest of the panelists. I feel that

if you can place a child in an emergency placement with a relative,

that would be great, but that relative should not be in that community, and they should be—like you talked to about the economic

burden, maybe grandparents are not able to support an extra child

and things of that nature. So I think that if it’s possible and reasonable, I think we should work to do that, because that would

ease the transition.

Senator LANDRIEU. Was there a relative you could have been

placed with?

Mr. MILLER. I think that with economic help, I think that that

would have been definitely possible, and it would have eased my

transition to be with relatives.

Senator LANDRIEU. Would you have liked that?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I would have, Senator. I very definitely would

have.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DEWINE [presiding]. Let me apologize to all of you. I had

to attend another hearing actually, we call it a Senate markup, we

were moving a poison control bill that we passed out of committee

just a few minutes ago. So that’s where I was and now I’m back,

so I may ask some of the same questions that Senator Landrieu

asked, because I obviously did not hear some of your answers.

I would like to get into an area that I know has been covered

a little bit, and that is the question of Children’s Hospital contract

between, a medical contract between Children’s Hospital and

CFSA, and make sure I understand the nature of that contract.

How do you deal with a child that has a chronic medical problem

such as, let’s say asthma, and how do you know that kid has asthma, for example? How does that child get in to you? In other words,

you know, we know that asthma is a preventable problem, and unless that child ends up in your emergency room, asthma is something that you try to keep he or she out of your emergency room,

and if it’s something that’s severe enough, you’re dealing with

every day, that child is taking medication every day. How do you

know that child who maybe has been in the system for a long time,

how do you reach out and get that kid in so that kid is being seen

by your specialists or whoever he needs to be seen by?

Dr. WRIGHT. Well again, I will reiterate that the point of entry

into our system only occurs with initial placement or change of

placement. So provided that that has occurred, we as part of our

screening do inquire about the presentation of chronic illness. And
192

actually as we speak, we are developing a pilot program for the DC

KIDS program within which we have identified a physician who

would specifically work with those children who have complex medical conditions. In other words, this individual would be the primary physician for that cohort of children who have asthma as an

example, or who might have any host of medical conditions that

are actually more predominant in this population than in the population at large. This individual, as I said, we are piloting this right

now, and this individual would be identified as the follow-up physician from the point of assessment, and then be involved in the care

of—the ongoing care of that child through specialty care or whatever care the child needs. But we are sensitive and recognize that

that is an issue and a problem that we want to identify as early

on as possible, and that’s the reason why we are instituting this

pilot program right now.

Senator DEWINE. But the big picture is that you have—how

many children do you currently have, what I would call open case

files?

Dr. WRIGHT. Four thousand, five hundred that are enrolled in

the DC KIDS program.

Senator DEWINE. Those are foster children.

Dr. WRIGHT. That’s right.

Senator DEWINE. And that’s out of a total of how many kids that

are in the foster care program?

Dr. WRIGHT. I believe we heard this morning that the universe

is somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. So instantly we know that we have a

problem, right? I know I’m repeating what has been said, but to

me this is a real problem.

Ms. GOODE. No.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. We do have a problem or we don’t have

a problem. Who’s saying we don’t have a problem?

Senator LANDRIEU. They’re saying they don’t have that number.

Senator DEWINE. Okay, step up to the microphone and identify

yourself for the record please.

Ms. GOODE. Good morning, Senator.

Senator DEWINE. Good morning.

Ms. GOODE. I am Brenda Goode, Public Information Officer for

Child and Family Services. Let’s help get these numbers straight.

There are 3,200 paid placements in foster care.

Ms. SANDALOW. But many more children under the supervision

of the Court.

Ms. GOODE. That’s correct, but 3,200 paid foster care placements

and about 8,000 children in the system total. So, a number of those

children are being monitored in their homes with their parents.

Senator DEWINE. Well now, what does all that mean?

Ms. GOODE. Eight thousand children in the system, of which

3,200 are paid foster care placements. And then we have the remainder of the kids who are being monitored at home with their

parents.

Ms. SANDALOW. But other kids are placed with kinship caregivers.

Senator LANDRIEU. It would be very helpful if you all could give

us for the record today, I would appreciate this, literally just a
193

record of the universe, okay? Because we need to have those numbers.

Senator DEWINE. Well, I’m getting apples and oranges now. The

point is, the public policy issue is how many, as a matter of public

policy, should we be providing medical care for. Isn’t that the public policy issue?

Ms. BOWENS. All of them.

Senator DEWINE. All of what universe? I’m getting an 8,000

number or a 3,200 number?

Ms. GOODE. Right, the 8,000 is the entire universe of children

that we have cases open on at the current time, but 3,200 is the

number who are placed in foster care. So right now, DC KIDS only

serves our children who are in foster care.

Ms. BOWENS. But we also serve the children who are under the

jurisdiction of child protection as well, so we serve both.

Ms. GOODE. All right. So you serve all the court-involved kids.

Ms. BOWENS. Correct.

Ms. GOODE. We have a number of kids in the system for other

cases in court.

Ms. SANDALOW. I understand from the Family Court that it’s

slightly over 5,000 children who are court involved.

Senator DEWINE. That includes the foster kids?

Ms. SANDALOW. That includes children in foster care and it includes children who are still, there’s an open court case but they

may have returned home to their parents or whatever but they

didn’t close the Court’s involvement, and the children who are with

relative caregivers who are not licensed paid providers.

Senator DEWINE. So, are we all agreeing that that’s the universe,

that as a matter of public policy, the District of Columbia has

agreed that we want to take care of their health needs?

Ms. SANDALOW. Most of the children——

Senator DEWINE. Hold on. I want to get her. Since you represent

the CFSA, would you like to answer that?

Ms. GOODE. What was the question?

Senator DEWINE. My question is, do we agree as a matter of public policy, CFSA had said that that is the number that you want

to provide medical care for, and that is 5,000, whatever the figure

was.

Ms. GOODE. Yes. But we also provide Medicaid services for other

kids, so that if you’re not part of DC KIDS or not court-involved,

we still provide medical services for the families who are involved

with us.

Senator DEWINE. But if I have a 5,000 figure, and what’s the figure, 5,000 what?

Ms. GOODE. Five thousand court-involved kids.

Senator DEWINE. Five thousand court-involved kids, and you’ve

got, the hospital has open files for how many?

Ms. BOWENS. About 4,000 children year to date, we have been

tracking and following.

Senator DEWINE. All right. So we are missing a thousand. Do

you agree with that?

Senator LANDRIEU. One of the issues, Mr. Chairman, is that they

only have files for kids that have had a change in their placement.
194

Ms. BOWENS. And since we took over the program, there are

many more children——

Senator LANDRIEU. They’re not really lost, it’s just that they

didn’t come into the system because they are in a stable place now,

but I understand that your enrollment in DC KIDS is about 4,000;

is that correct?

Ms. BOWENS. That is correct. We only track those children who

have had an initial placement or a change since 2001 basically, so

any children who may have been in a home for many, many years

and did not have to come for an initial assessment through us

would not necessarily be in the program. Now we’ve done some significant outreach working with the agency to bring more in, but

there is obviously a large group of folks we do not have access to.

Senator DEWINE. And I’m not finding fault with Children’s.

Ms. BOWENS. I understand that.

Senator DEWINE. All I’m simply saying is, does that mean that

those children are not getting medical care?

Ms. BOWENS. No, it does not mean that.

Senator DEWINE. What does it mean?

Ms. BOWENS. It means that we are not coordinating all of their

health care services and they then are left to kind of navigate on

their own. So the foster family may have to work to get the Medicaid card, to schedule appointments. We are able to kind of fully

manage the care for these children.

Senator DEWINE. Let me ask it this way then.

Ms. BOWENS. Okay.

Senator DEWINE. Would we all agree as a matter of public policy

that it would be better if those thousand were picked up?

Ms. BOWENS. Yes, and I think the agency would agree with that

as well.

Senator DEWINE. Well, let me ask the agency. Does the agency

agree with that?

Ms. GOODE. Yes.

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Then why can’t we get it done?

Ms. GOODE. You’re asking me—you started out by saying that

you didn’t understand the contract between CFSA——

Senator DEWINE. Yeah, and now I’m asking a different question.

Can you answer that question?

Ms. GOODE. I know that’s a contracting issue, and I don’t know

the answer off the top of my head.

Senator DEWINE. I’m not sure it is a contracting issue.

Ms. BOWENS. No, it’s not a contracting issue. Part of the issue

is that we need to do a better job of outreaching and accessing the

families, and being able to educate them that the service is available to them. I mean, that is the largest obstacle.

Senator DEWINE. Well, my only point is, if we have decided, you

have decided that this is a good way to provide medical care and

you’re doing it for four-fifths of these kids, why don’t you figure out

a way to do it for the other fifth of these kids? That’s all I’m saying.

I didn’t devise the system, I didn’t say it was the best system, but

it seems to me as an outside lay person, you as the experts decide

it is the best system, and it seems to me it is the best system, it

looks like we have the experts here who are doing it, and why do

you just say we’ve got a fifth of these kids and we’re just not going
195

to worry about them? And it seems to me, I worry about them. I

don’t get it, why don’t you worry about them?

Ms. GOODE. And I simply don’t know the answer off the top of

my head.

Senator DEWINE. My only point is why?

Ms. GOODE. I will be happy to take that message back.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. If these are the best folks that

we’ve got, and I think it’s good you have a contract with them, and

I just think if we get the rest of these kids in the system so they

can get kind of the holistic approach to health care, and we know

it’s good and it’s particularly good with kids, and we can get prevention in there and get somebody paying attention to them, that’s

the way we want to treat these kids, and if we’re missing some of

them, we want to get them into the system. That’s all.

Let me turn to Miss Egerton, if I could, and you made some interesting comments, and I appreciate the fact that you said that

things are getting better. And I think that was, you put it in perspective and I think those of us who can be critical up here need

to understand that, so I appreciate you saying that.

But I am intrigued by some of the things you said, and I want

to read from your written testimony. You say, social workers often

invalidate our experience, and when it comes to the right to make

decisions, exclude, ignore and/or rebuff the foster parent’s input. I

wonder given your vast experience, if you can give me an example.

And obviously, don’t use names, and obviously don’t use anything

that we could tie them to any one person, but could you give me

an example?

Ms. EGERTON. I could give you some examples. One major example is the fact that there is supposed to be these administrative reviews that happen every 6 months, and in my history of fostering,

I think I have been to 2 or 3, in 12 years. And even, you know,

as much as things have gotten better over time, even recently, I

have not been invited to an administrative review.

Senator DEWINE. Why is that, do you think? You know the system as well as anybody.

Ms. EGERTON. I know the system pretty well and I am not sure

if that is because they are not happening or if that is because they

are happening without me; either way it’s a travesty.

Another example, a very personal example would be, I have a

son who at 17 was having some very serious behavioral issues in

school, and we were putting him on restriction. And so his social

worker came in, and this is a child who I have been parenting since

he was 11 years old, who had been in 8 homes in the 18 months

prior to coming to me and was only supposed to be there for a couple of days while they got a residential placement for him, and he

ended up there. And he’s my baby today, and he’s aged out.

But he at 17 years old went through some serious stuff, and his

social worker just came in and said we were too strict, and that he

should be in an independent living program, he didn’t need the

kind of restrictions we were putting on him. And I said you cannot

do that, he is not mature enough to cope with the independent living programs that we have out there. And she fought me, she won,

she got him into the independent living program. The moment he

went in there, he went on a downward spiral, he ended up in a psy-
196

chiatric facility for an extended amount of time. And when they did

release him from that facility, they would not release him back into

an independent living program. They called us and asked us if he

could be released back to us, and we would not take him back because of the structure—or if we would not take him back, then they

weren’t going to release him until they found a setting with the

kind of structure that he needed.

Senator DEWINE. Well, at least they learned.

Ms. EGERTON. But the fight was put up by the social worker who

did not see my son even once a month, okay? And I was parenting

him every single day.

Senator DEWINE. So you had all your years of experience.

Ms. EGERTON. And my husband and I were saying you cannot do

this, you cannot do this. We asked them for certain supports for

him. My son went down to his social worker, sat at her desk and

asked for certain support and said okay, I have some real problems

and I know it, and I have to get it together, and the solution that

they came up with was to put him in independent living in spite

of our protests.

And I think that that example, though I will point out that that

particular example did not happen under this administration, it is

a classic example of how absolutely dangerous it can be to ignore

the input of the person who is parenting these children every day

all day.

Senator DEWINE. I think that’s a great summary. I mean, it’s a

scary thing. You also tell us that although this incident occurred

under a previous administration, the lack of input in decisions

about our children still continues.

Ms. EGERTON. Absolutely.

Senator DEWINE. And that’s even more frightening. Why do you

think that is?

Ms. EGERTON. In my position as an employee of FAPAC, and also

as an active member of a local foster parent support group, I interact with a lot of foster parents going through a lot of issues and

they are brought to me constantly. Foster parents will tell me that

a particular child is therapeutic and they need more services for

this child, and they have a social worker telling them that child is

not therapeutic, you don’t know what you’re talking about, we’re

just going to take the child away from you. I can’t tell you how

many foster parents I have had call me with that issue where the

social worker just absolutely rebuffs what they say their child

needs, and they feel that very often the social worker’s personal

feelings are involved and that the social workers sometimes make

judgments about the underlying motivation for a foster parent requesting more services for their child, yet you know, ultimately

that foster parent is just working toward a larger check.

And let me say that I have worked with some fabulous social

workers, so this is not a blanket statement to say that all CFSA

social workers are lousy, it’s not that at all. I have had some social

workers use some of their skills to get me calmed down in some

situations, so my hat’s off to them, there are some wonderful ones.

But there are still some social workers out there who are not accepting the fact that we do know what we’re talking about and that

when we say our children need certain services, the answer is not
197

to decide that you just want to put yourself in a position to get

more money for that child. The answer is to hear what I have to

say and to act on getting those services for those children.

Senator DEWINE. Do you think that sometimes the problem is

that they don’t have those services?

Ms. EGERTON. I think absolutely, I think sometimes the problem

is the services are not available, but I also think that sometimes

the problem is that the social worker doesn’t know that the services are available or have access to those services for my child. I

have been in situations where I have known about services that

would help my child and the social worker did not, and I had to

school that social worker. And I know lots of foster parents, particularly those who have been it a long time, who have been in that

situation.

Senator DEWINE. Mary?

Senator LANDRIEU. Is there an annual evaluation of foster parents that is conducted by CFSA?

Ms. EGERTON. We have to get recertified every year and we have

a support group that used to be called monitors, the terminology

for a support worker assigned to us who visits us periodically

throughout the year and regularly at yearly intervals takes us

through the motions of getting recertified, so we go through all the

clearances again and the medical evaluations, we go through a

stack of paper work discussing what we can and cannot do.

Senator LANDRIEU. You have been through this evaluation now,

and as one of our outstanding foster parents, what would you recommend to either streamline that process and make everybody,

save everybody a lot of time, but also get the job accomplished? Because what we want, I think, the purpose is to identify the foster

parents who are doing a very good job and recommend that they

be continued, and then to eliminate those that are not doing a good

job. So, I don’t know if you would know how many foster parents

are eliminated each year.

Ms. EGERTON. I don’t know.

Senator LANDRIEU. If anybody in the audience knows, I would

like to know, if possible, how many foster families are eliminated

every year through that evaluation process. And Ms. Egerton, what

would you recommend, one or two or three things that could be

done differently that would make that process work better for you,

better for the system, that you would like to share with us?

Ms. EGERTON. Wow, that’s a good question. I think that for one,

if there were more consistent and regular interaction between the

social workers or the support workers and the foster parents, it

may be a lot easier for the workers to know what kind of job we’re

doing. I think that maybe, you know—I’m not really sure, honestly

I’m not sure. I think that it would probably be a good thing if we

had some kind of evaluation where they talk to us about our

strengths and weaknesses, and we talk to them about our

strengths and weaknesses.

As it stands, we do, we are required to do a certain amount of

training all year, 15 hours of training throughout the year, but

what does not happen is nobody sits down with me and says okay,

here is what we see as your strengths, here are what we see as
198

your weaknesses, what do you think about that, what training can

we get.

Senator LANDRIEU. In all of your years of foster care, no one has

sat down and done that?

Ms. EGERTON. No.

Senator LANDRIEU. And when they evaluate you as a foster parent, do they focus on your parenting skills, your relationship with

the children, or do you find that their evaluation is concerned more

about, you know, the home, the physical environment, or your recordkeeping capabilities, and what kind of records you are required

to show them year after year after year?

Ms. EGERTON. They very seldom come to my house, truthfully.

When I was trained I was told that I was required to keep a list

of the children who come into my home who are placed with me,

when they are placed, and their social worker. We are encouraged

to give social workers copies of children’s report cards, copies of

health evaluations, although we don’t get written copies of health

evaluations, just so you all know. And any, you know, any other

printed information we get, we are encouraged to give our children’s social workers copies of that. I keep copies of it all. I keep

a file on my children. I don’t know that I have ever been told beyond that list that I’m supposed to.

Senator LANDRIEU. Have you had the same monitor every year?

Ms. EGERTON. I had the same monitor for a very long time and

I recently, I think the last 2 years, I got a different one.

Senator LANDRIEU. Can somebody in the audience tell me how

many monitors we have? We have 3,000 foster homes; how many

monitors do we have?

Ms. SANDALOW. But I think it’s important, Senator, that CFSA

does not monitor Maryland homes, that Maryland monitors Maryland homes, and I think 60 percent of our children are in Maryland

homes.

Senator LANDRIEU. Of these 3,000 homes, for just homes where

D.C. children reside, how many of them are in the District?

A VOICE FROM AUDIENCE. About 250 homes.

Senator LANDRIEU. Only 250 homes are in the District of Columbia, and the rest of the homes of those 3,000 are either in Maryland or Virginia?

A VOICE FROM AUDIENCE. No, we don’t have 3,000 homes. I will

have to get back to you with accurate numbers.

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have to have

these numbers to do any of this work.

Senator DEWINE. You will.

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, before this meeting is over,

someone has to take responsibility to provide at least to me and to

my staff an accurate accounting of the universe of what children

we’re talking about. We would really like to help, but we’re having

a very difficult time, and I don’t want to take the time in a public

meeting, but in 24 hours I have to have on my desk what the universe of the 8,000 children under the jurisdiction of CFSA is, and

I’m going to ask them to give me this universe. How many children

are under the jurisdiction of the courts, how many do you have that

aren’t under the jurisdiction of the courts? How many that are

under the jurisdiction of the courts are living in traditional homes,
199

how many are living in group homes, how many are living in therapeutic homes, I think those are the three categories, and if there’s

a fourth one, please add that. And of those homes, where are the

homes? Are they in the District of Columbia, are they in Maryland,

are they in Virginia?

And we need these numbers before we can sign off on—the chairman and I agree that we spend—at least I spend half of my time

trying to figure out that’s not the number, that’s not the number,

and I’m tired of doing that. I want to focus on the solutions to the

problems. So being able to provide an accurate list of that would

be very illuminating to me, to begin with, and I’m getting very different information. So with that said, I have to have that in 24

hours, but this has been very helpful.

One of the things we want to do is recruit more foster parents

in the District of Columbia. This is a major problem that has been

identified, and while I, and I think the chairman believes that we

have want to have regional cooperation, if there are children who

can be well placed in Maryland, we don’t want to deprive them of

the opportunities to have placements with relatives or good parenting homes just because they happen to live outside the concentrated and very artificial district that was created for totally

other purposes, for the benefit of the Nation, so we should not hold

children responsible for that, but to improve foster care to what

some experienced foster care parents do, and we could recruit

more, do better evaluations, et cetera, et cetera.

Ms. EGERTON. I think that, if I can just say this, that if we could

retain more of our foster parents, your recruitment efforts would

be——

Senator LANDRIEU. Less than a third.

Ms. EGERTON. Absolutely, because we would actively recruit.

Right now today, I have to say, I’m a little more willing to recruit

today than I have been in years. And I for a long time absolutely

refused to, and not only absolutely refused to recruit, but had made

up in my mind, when the children I was fostering aged out, I was

quitting, because the system was so horrible and because I felt so

unsupported and unappreciated. As we see CFSA begin to give us

the tools to do the things that we need to quality parent our children, we will recruit for you. I am a District of Columbia resident,

have been my entire life, I’m one of those few native Washingtonians, and I would recruit. And I would guarantee that the people I bring in would be just like me and would be great foster parents.

Senator LANDRIEU. That’s what we want to hear.

Ms. EGERTON. But you have to take care of some of the issues

that we are fighting. We must have care for our kids, we must

have adequate healthcare for our children, we must be at the decisionmaking table for our children, and when those things happen,

we will go out and recruit.

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Additional submitted statements were received

by the subcommittee and are included here as part of the formal

hearing record. The statements follow:]
200

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, and others on this subcommittee, as the

United States Senator for the District of Columbia I wish to express my support for

this Committee’s examination of the D.C. Foster Care System. The foster children

of the District of Columbia deserve quality care and service, services that can only

be provided with your support.

I respect the positions of all of the witnesses that are here today and acknowledge

the testimony they have given. When faced with the challenge of reforming the

Child and Family Services Agency not only did they step up to make the changes

necessary, they did so to the best of their ability. However, it is the continuing need

for change that brings us here today.

Though we are all United States citizens, the residents of the District of Columbia

are not afforded the same rights as their neighboring States. Therefore, we must

rely on Congress to provide needed support to the D.C. Foster Care System. Ideally,

the District of Columbia should not have to look to Congress for supervision. This

is just another example of the injustice the American citizens residing in the District must suffer. While we will continue to fight to achieve full rights as celebrated

by those in surrounding areas, I urge you to consider the needs of our D.C. Foster

Care System as you would any issue that affects your own constituents, including

respect for local sovereignty.

All Americans must care about all American children. However, we must acknowledge the fact that to Ohio and Louisiana constituents the D.C. Foster Care system

is not a high priority. For that reason I appreciate this committee taking the time

to hear the needs of the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency.

We must come together and make effective judgments based on the needs of this

community, and despite the inconvenience of having to go through Congress to

make decisions about District spending, we welcome your input on matters that affect the interests of our children.

Over the months since the end of Federal Court Receivership, the District has

made substantial progress in reforming Child welfare and meeting the Federal

Courts expectations. The witnesses who testified here today, not only provided suggestions for improvement but also justification to those suggestions. Several key

issues must be taken into consideration. The development of a team of social workers whose primary goal is assessment and placement and an in-depth focus on permanent one-time placements are essential. Additionally an extension of the DC

KIDS program as well as increased communication between foster parents and social workers are resources that should not be denied to the children of the foster

care system.

In many foster care cases, the Child and Family Services Agency has to make

quick emergency placements. Often these placements are disruptive to the child and

the foster family. At times placements are not available which can result in the

child staying in group or intake homes. Ideally, the Child and Family Services

Agency would have the funding available to create a team of social workers whose

primary goal is assessment and placement. This team of social workers would be

able to investigate different placements quickly in order to find the one most suited

to the child’s needs. Kinship or extended family placements can be more readily

taken advantage of. In order to ease the transition into a new home flexible funding

would also be available for emergency supplies such as beds, food, and clothes.

These resources are fundamental in ensuring that the foster child receives the best

care within the first few days of transitioning from the biological home to the foster

home.

Furthermore, the Child and Family Services Agency has a commitment to ensuring that children grow up in permanent homes. These homes are a necessary step

in encouraging a healthy and normal lifestyle. They should have the means to devote more time in keeping siblings together and placing foster children with family

members. Attention should be focused on one permanent placement rather than

moving children from home to home. Foster children are taken from a traumatic

home-life and have to work to build trusting relationships with a new family only

to have to start all over again. The focus should be on finding the best placement,

not just on placement as quickly as possible.

The Children’s National Medical Center already has a strong foundation for quality health care being providing to the District’s foster children. With its DC KIDS

program, foster children who have recently been placed in foster homes are given

premium health care. However, the DC KIDS program does not help those kids who

were placed in foster care prior to 2001. The need to be able to reach those children

is great. With the development of the FACES program, a computerized database of

all foster children, medical records and medical histories can be easily accessible to
201

health professionals and social workers. Often foster parents, social workers and

medical staff do not have adequate records that are needed for the care of the child.

The DC KIDS program should be more integrated with the FACES database. This

would not only enhance the DC KIDS program but would increase the reliability

of the Child and Family Services Agency. The foster children of the District would

receive quality care and there would be accurate medical histories and data on

record for the children in the system.

The Child and Family Services Agency’s commitment to bringing up the services

standard for all children can be met if the communication between its social workers

and foster parents was at a more productive level. Currently social workers are

overloaded with cases and are not able to visit the children on a regular basis. They

can not provide important information, such as programs and opportunities, that

the foster parent and child can take advantage of because there is no time. An increase in staff would not only solve administrative headaches but could also lessen

the workload on current social workers. Face-to-face meetings should be arranged

between social workers and foster parents so that some sort of feedback session can

be accomplished. Policy changes frequently are not told to foster parents or even social workers. These administrative hiccups need to end. Only with the available resources can the Child and Family Services Agency become a valuable asset to our

community.

Senator Landrieu as you stated we would not leave a child involved in a car wreck

stranded without emergency care. So why do we continue to leave the District’s foster children stranded in this equally critical time? The answer is a lack of resources.

The District Foster Care Services Agency must be given the resources it needs to

take care of foster children. Most children are taken from a hostile environment,

homes that can be both physically and mentally abusive. We need to do all we can

to ensure the next home is one that will promote a healthy lifestyle so children of

the next generation will not go through the same vicious cycle. The Child and Family Services Agency has a deep commitment to strong management and maximization of the quality of care. They have dealt with strained relations among agencies,

increasing permanency placements, and have built a foundation of an improving organization. Adequate resources are a critical part of maintaining this momentum.

The Child and Family Services Agency is on the right path and as long as we continue to improve, the organization will become a better place. Again I would like

to thank Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu, members of the subcommittee for

listening to the needs of the Child and Family Services Agency. I would also like

to thank the witnesses who gave testimony effectively expressing the requirements

necessary to care for the District’s foster children. I trust the members of this subcommittee will go out of their way to ensure they have all the information that is

required for this tough decision. I look forward to further hearings on this topic and

am happy answer any questions. In closing, let me thank Ms. Adrianne Goffigan

of my staff, for her valuable assistance in preparing this testimony.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CASA OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Children being abused, neglected or not receiving mandated services while under

court ordered supervision is an unacceptable crisis. When children become lost in

the system that was put in place to protect them, the abuse of these children becomes an overwhelming tragedy. CASA of DC, Court Appointed Special Advocates

of the District of Columbia is a nationally accredited program to ensure that no

child gets lost in the system. CASA of DC’s mission is to recruit, train and supervise

volunteers from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds to assist the court in protecting the best interests of abused and neglected children by advocating for a safe

and permanent home for every child. Our mission is to provide stability and hope

to abused and neglected children by being a powerful voice in their lives. By matching trained community volunteers with children under court supervision, we can ensure that the needs and best interests of the foster children in the District of Columbia are met and can improve the decision-making ability of judges in the Family

Court system by providing an independent evaluation that is geared to the best interest of the child.

CASA of DC, Court Appointed Special Advocates for children of the District of Columbia is the ONLY accredited CASA program operating in the District of Columbia. Not only is the program the only program recognized and supported by the National CASA Association, the program receives technical and financial support from

National CASA. In order to make CASA of DC the showcase program for the Nation, the program was designed from the bottom-up to ensure strict compliance with

the National Standards established by Judge David Soukup in 1977. In 1990 with
202

the inclusion of the CASA Program in the Victims of Child Abuse Act, Congress affirmed the use of volunteers in the otherwise closed juvenile court systems and

made provisions for the growth of the CASA volunteer movement nationwide. CASA

of DC is also recognized and supported by foundations such as the Freddie Mac

Foundation, the Gannet Foundation and Microsoft.

Because the Metro D.C. area is unique, CASA of DC is working in collaboration

with CASA programs both in Maryland and Virginia and have formed a working

group entitled ‘‘METRO DC CASA COLLABORATIVE’’. The purpose of the group

is to work together to address the problems of the Metropolitan area in the areas

of abuse and neglect. In addressing the regional issues of child abuse and neglect,

the Metro DC CASA Collaborative is working to ensure that no child falls between

the cracks because of jurisdictional issues.

In the District of Columbia, the Child and Family Services Agency, [CFSA] was

removed from six years of Federal receivership established by the U.S. District

Court in 1995 under the LaShawn A. v. Williams decree. However, social workers

continue to carry large case loads and do not have time to provide the detailed, oneon-one attention that every child in the dependency system deserves. The office remains understaffed and children are not receiving the much needed services once

they enter the system. Children continue to have multiple placements, few visits

from the social worker and even fewer sibling visitations. Additionally, court orders

are often times not implemented. Children in the system spend a median of 31⁄2

years in foster care. Thirty-two percent of the children spend from 4–9 years in foster care.

Under a court ordered plan by Federal Court under the LaShawn decree, CFSA

must meet specific performance measures including:

—Compliance with ASFA ( Adoption and Safe Families Act).

—Increased visitation: Increase the number of visits children receive from their

social worker. (As of 2/2003, children in foster care were only visited monthly

by their social worker in one-third of the cases).

—Reduce the numbers of placements.

—Children should be placed in the least restrictive environment.

CASA programs fill the void left by an overburdened system. Social workers and

attorneys carrying large caseloads. In this jurisdiction there remains a high staff

turnover rate, so caseworker effectiveness remains low. Because of budget cuts and

low salaries, many jurisdictions face serious difficulties in recruiting qualified motivated caseworkers. We continue to see child welfare workers who are overworked,

have less time, and are doing a less effective job for children.

A CASA advocate will only carry one case at a time and advocate for all children

in that family.

The CASA program, historically has proven to be able to:

—Reduce the number of children in foster care.

—Reduce the amount of time a children remain in foster care.

—Ensures that court orders are implemented so that the child receives medical,

mental and educational services.

In the District of Columbia, approximately 1,500 new abuse and neglect cases are

brought before the Family Court each year. This compounds the number of children

already in the system which is approximately 4,000. The goal of the CASA of DC

program is to have a trained CASA advocate for every child in the system. Each

volunteer advocate represents one family representing approximately 1–3 children

per family ranging from birth to 18 years of age.

Why volunteers? CASA of DC trained and certified volunteers act as a multiplier

for professional program supervisors. Volunteers work on only one case at a time.

This one on one ability provides closer monitoring than can be cost effectively provided directly by professional staff. CASA volunteers focus gives them the ability to

see and do more on behalf of the children that they represent. CASA of DC volunteers receive extensive, ongoing training and close supervision from the professional

program staff. By the very nature of their ‘‘volunteerism’’ they empower themselves

through their commitment of time and energy. They stay with the case from beginning to end and serve the program an average of 30 months.

Volunteers are also independent of bureaucratic constraints that often keep those

employed by our local institutions playing by rules that frequently are too rigid or

outdated to serve the best interest of the children in foster care. Certainly CASA

volunteers do not work in a vacuum. It takes the strong support and guidance of

local program staff to facilitate their work. Careful screening, training, supervision,

and retention are essential to assure high quality volunteer advocacy. Although paid

staff play an integral role in the coordination and management of the program, the

traditional role of staff does not include routinely working cases. The CASA Advocate will have closer and more consistent contact with the children than the social
203

worker or the attorney. Another reason to have CASA advocates is its cost-effectiveness. It is certainly more cost-effective to have one staff person coordinating 30 volunteers serving 75 children as opposed to one staff person carrying 25 cases with

60 children. Still, cost-effectiveness is only a small component of our commitment

to the use of volunteers.

Volunteers bring a much needed outside perspective to our court and child welfare

systems. Their lack of past experience in the system not only brings a fresh perspective to what we do, it opens our doors to the community and helps raise public

awareness of the plight of our community’s abused and neglected children.

To a child, having a volunteer working for them can make all the difference. Hundreds of children across the country have been moved when understanding the notion, ‘‘you don’t get paid to do this?’’ It shows to them the level of concern and commitment being made by the volunteer. No, it’s not part of their ‘‘job.’’ Volunteers are

ordinary citizens, doing extraordinary work for children, and along the way bringing

such passion, dedication, and effort to their work. In the period from January, 2003-

March, 2003, over 463 volunteer hours were given to the children of our community.

The significant achievements by the advocates for the children represented includes

but is not limited to:

—Finding and retaining proper school assignment,

—Obtaining clothing,

—Obtaining school supplies,

—Locating tutoring services,

—Requesting child support and follow up with court and family,

—Ensuring dental appointment completed,

—Helping with housing,

—Monitoring the appropriate placements,

—Helping parents locate substance abuse program,

—Requesting an IEP in compliance with court orders,

—Assisting in locating summer camps,

—Ensuring medical and dental appointments are kept,

—Assisting in preventing the expulsion of a child,

—Locating therapy for the children,

—Informing the court regarding improper group home facility,

—Locating Saturday classes,

—Locating dance school,

—Locating GED classes,

—Locating independent living skills programs,

—Locating vocational training programs,

—Locating summer programs,

—Locating mentoring programs,

—Locating after school care, and

—Locating a more compatible foster placement.

In 1988, CSR, Inc., under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, published the results of a study entitled, National Evaluation of

Guardians Ad Litem [CASA] in Child Abuse or Neglect Judicial Proceedings. After

analyzing five types of CASA models the study found that:

‘‘CASA volunteers are excellent investigators and mediators, remain involved in

the case and fight for what they think is right for the child.’’ The study concluded,

‘‘We give the CASA models our highest recommendation.’’

As advocates for children, there are no phrases such as ‘‘it cannot be done’’ because when it is in the best interest of that child, our volunteers will zealously advocate for those interests no matter what barriers come before them. There is a story

about a man who was walking on the beach and saw hundreds of starfishes dying

on the sand so he began to throw them into the sea one starfish at a time. Another

man was walking and saw the man’s futile attempts to save the starfish when he

said to the man, ‘‘You will never save them all.’’ The man replied, ‘‘Oh, but it does

matter even if I save one starfish.’’ And so, the CASA program will continue to make

a difference, one child at a time.

We thank the committee for allowing us to submit this written testimony.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR COURT EXCELLENCE

The Council for Court Excellence (‘‘CCE’’) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice in the

local and Federal courts and related agencies in the Washington metropolitan area.

While the Council for Court Excellence is proud to have a number of judges among
204

its active and dedicated board members, it is important to note that no judicial

members of the Council participated in the preparation of this testimony.

For more than 3 years, CCE has been privileged to work with the key public agencies in the D.C. child welfare system—the Family Court of the D.C. Superior Court,

the Child and Family Services Agency (‘‘CFSA’’), the Office of Corporation Counsel

(‘‘OCC’’)—and others, to reform the city’s child welfare system so that every abused

or neglected child in the District of Columbia has a safe and permanent home within the time frame established by the Federal and D.C. Adoption and Safe Families

Acts (‘‘ASFA’’). To assist the agencies in meeting these goals, CCE has been tracking

and measuring progress in child abuse and neglect cases filed since February 1,

2000, the date the city began implementing ASFA. In October 2002, we were

pleased to issue a public report summarizing the many early successes of the D.C.

child welfare system reform effort. This statement is intended to explain how far

the system reform effort has come and how much further there is to go.

WHERE WE WERE

When CCE began its work with the agency leaders in late 1999, CFSA was under

Federal court receivership, relations among the agencies were strained, and there

was little awareness of ASFA’s permanency requirements. As reported on July 15,

1999, by the Federal court-appointed Monitor of CFSA:

‘‘Significant interagency issues remain unresolved... Relationships between

CFSA, the Office of Corporation Counsel, and the Superior Court also remain problematic; each agency is highly critical of the other’s failings. OCC currently is understaffed to meet the need for timely processing of abuse and neglect and termination

of parental rights petitions and CFSA’s staffing and practice problems contribute to

friction between the agencies. The structure and resources available in the Family

division of the Superior Court make it difficult for the court to provide timely legal

action for children and families. (1998 Assessment of the Process of the District of

Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency in Meeting the Requirements of

LaShawn A. v. Williams, Center for the Study of Social Policy, July 15, 1999).’’

WHERE WE ARE

Structural Improvements

There has been dramatic improvement since those early days. Perhaps the most

dramatic of improvements is CFSA’s emergence from receivership and establishment as a cabinet-level agency of the District of Columbia. Other important structural reforms are: 1) the selection of a new agency director, Dr. Olivia Golden, and

a new management team; 2) the agency’s assumption of responsibility for child

abuse cases in addition to child neglect cases; 3) the publication of licensing regulations for foster and group homes; and 4) the increased used and usefulness of the

agency’s FACES data system.

Improvement in Agency Relations

There also is a new spirit of collaboration and cooperation among agency leaders.

CCE facilitates monthly ‘‘Child Welfare Leadership Team Meetings’’ among the

agency leaders, i.e., Dr. Olivia Golden, CFSA director; Judge Lee Satterfield, Presiding Judge of the Family Court; and Arabella Teal, Interim Corporation Counsel;

and many others including the leaders of the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Human Services, D.C. Public Schools, etc. As trust and communication

among these leaders has grown, these meetings have become more and more productive with team members identifying multi-agency issues and setting-up work

groups to address them.

For example, the enormous task of transferring to the Family Court over 3,500

child abuse and neglect cases that were pending before judges assigned to divisions

outside the Family Court was accomplished by a work group consisting of CFSA,

the Family Court, the Department of Mental Health, and OCC. Together they identified cases appropriate for transfer and closure, and they prioritized the sequence

for transfers. In addition, CFSA is a member of several of the Family Court’s multiagency committees on Family Court Act implementation. CFSA also is a member

of the Family Court’s Training Committee which is organizing monthly and annual

interdisciplinary training sessions for judges, social workers, and lawyers. It also is

one of several agencies with an on-site service representative in the Family Court’s

Service Center.

In addition to the monthly Child Welfare Leadership Team Meetings, Judge

Satterfield and CFSA director Dr. Golden meet on a regular basis to discuss issues

affecting both agencies. Together they worked out a schedule that would allow social
205

workers to spend more time with their clients and less time in court. Relations between CFSA and the Family Court are perhaps the best they have ever been.

Relations between CFSA and OCC have improved significantly. OCC attorneys

and CFSA social workers are now co-located at the offices of the agency so that they

may work more closely together in preparing child abuse and neglect cases for court.

What is more, OCC attorneys are providing CFSA with legal representation in cases

from filing of the abuse/neglect petition through the permanency hearing stage. Before the city made the commitment to increase OCC staffing, CFSA social workers

were represented only through the trial and disposition stages of a child abuse and

neglect case.

IMPROVEMENT IN ASFA COMPLIANCE AND MEASURING ASFA COMPLIANCE

The agency leaders have made steady measurable progress in complying with

ASFA and they are keenly aware of the need to track case data to measure ASFA

compliance. One of ASFA’s most important requirements is that a permanency hearing be held within 14 months (425 days) of a child’s removal from home to decide

the child’s permanency goal, i.e., reunification with family, adoption, or guardianship, and set a timetable for achieving it. Data collected by CCE for cases filed since

2000, shows significant and growing improvement with ASFA’s permanency hearing

requirement:

COMPLIANCE WITH 425-DAY PERMANENCY HEARING DEADLINE 1

[For Children Removed from the Home] 2

Year Cases Filed Compliance Rate (percent)

2000 ................................................................................................................................................... 32

2001 ................................................................................................................................................... 43

2002 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 [54]

1 CCE’s data is calculated through the third quarter of 2002 only. The Court took over the responsibility of data tracking from CCE in the

fourth quarter of 2002. 2 80 percent of children in abuse and neglect cases filed in the past three years were removed from their homes. Thus, this data reflects

approximately 80 percent of child abuse and neglect cases filed in each of these years. 3We obtained this 2002 figure from the Family Court’s first annual report filed with Congress on March 31, 2003. The Court’s permanency hearing compliance rates for 2000 and 2001 were significantly higher than CCE’s. This 2002 compliance rate appears reasonable and more reliable.

Data from the past three years also shows that the length of time from filing of

the abuse/neglect petition to trial or a stipulation has decreased consistently. Indeed, data reported by the Court in its Annual Report shows that the city is now

in compliance with the trial deadline established by D.C. ASFA, i.e., 105 days from

filing of the petition. The city also has made consistent progress in reducing the

amount of time from filing to disposition—the court proceeding focused on remedying the conditions of abuse or neglect determined by trial or stipulation to be

true.

Through its FACES automated data system, CFSA has been successful at compiling additional types of information that are relevant to permanency. It tracks the

number of entries into and exits out of foster care, the reasons for exiting care, and

the permanency goals of children in care. It also tracks information on legal action

toward adoption and finalized adoptions. In an effort to improve communication

with the Family Court, CFSA has developed a function within FACES to access information on the dates, times, and locations of court hearings on child abuse and

neglect cases. CFSA also is able to scan abuse and neglect court orders into its

FACES system. In addition, CFSA is one of the most frequent users of JUSTIS, the

District of Columbia’s criminal justice information system, which can be used,

among other things, to locate missing parents.

WHERE WE ARE HEADED

Much additional information is needed to properly monitor compliance with

ASFA. Because cases filed prior to 2000 are a large part of the child abuse and neglect caseload, the city must obtain permanency hearing information for these cases

as it has done for cases filed since 2000. Also, the city needs information on how

many children actually achieve permanency each year and how long it takes them

to achieve it. Indeed, the city should know how long it takes children to achieve permanency for each permanency goal, i.e., reunification with family, adoption, or

guardianship. In addition, it will need information on the rate of children re-entering the child welfare system after the original petition is closed. This information

is essential to understanding and resolving the problems that delay permanency.
206

Both CFSA and the Family Court are working to improve their individual automated information systems so that they can access information that will enable

them to implement as well as monitor compliance with ASFA. The Court’s new

automated system is expected to be in place by July 2003. CFSA is revising its

monthly data monitoring as part of is plan to implement the final order in the

LaShawn lawsuit. In addition, the D.C. Mayor is working to create an automated

system that will integrate the individual systems of the Family Court, CFSA, and

the other child welfare agencies.

CONCLUSION

While there is much more work to be done, the D.C. child welfare system is on

the road to reform. It is headed in the right direction and is moving at a quick pace.

We have witnessed extraordinary commitment of the city’s child welfare system

leaders, including Dr. Golden, over the more than three years we have been involved in their work. We can now document improving performance trends, which

make us optimistic that in the future the city’s abused and neglected children will

be better protected, better served, and will spend less time in foster care.

We have attached a copy of the Council for Court Excellence’s District of Columbia Child Welfare System Reform Progress Report to this statement.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATE DESHLER GOULD, ESQ., NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN, WASHINGTON, DC CHAPTER

My name is Kate Gould. I am an attorney and a mediator. I am one of about 250

attorneys who are appointed by D.C. Superior Court to represent children, parents

and caretakers in child welfare cases. I have been doing this work since 1994 and

have represented many children in the foster care system over the years. In my

work I interact daily with the Child and Family Services Agency and advocate regularly for children in the foster care system.

SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT

I would like to share my perspective and some ideas for a plan that could help

to shorten the length of time children are in care and cut down on multiple placements and failed adoptive placements. My organization, the local chapter of the National Association of Counsel for Children, is proposing the formation of a new type

of mental health clinic dedicated to the needs of foster children. It would serve the

children from the point of the traumatic removal through the closure of the case,

if necessary. It would be a resource for the child to work together therapeutically

to support reunification with the biological family, as well as to promote stabilization of foster and adoptive placements. It would save money in the long run by helping to stabilize children and families sooner, enabling successful case closure at an

earlier date. Such a program is needed to replace the existing patchwork system of

delay, insufficient services and poor quality services.

PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT SYSTEM

In order to present the proposed solutions, I first need to describe the problems

with the current system. The Child and Family Services Agency uses a program

called DC KIDS for all its medical referrals, including mental health referrals. I

have heard few complaints about the medical functions of DC KIDS. The mental

health services provided by DC KIDS are another story.

Referrals for mental health services do not run smoothly. I have cases where

there are very long delays before a therapist is identified. In one case, it took two

months to identify a therapist. After another two months had passed, I learned that

therapy had not begun because the therapist had met once with the children to do

an assessment, had to write a report, which then had to be reviewed by DC KIDS

in order for services to be set up. In this case, not only had therapy been court ordered months before, but had also been recommended in psychiatric and psychological assessment reports. I was calling and threatening court action. The requirement for the therapist to assess and report only served to delay the onset of badly

needed services. I worry about what the time frame would have been like without

my advocacy.

In another recent instance, a child for whom I serve as Guardian ad Litem told

me that in order to reschedule her therapy appointment, she would have to contact

DC KIDS. I checked with the social worker and was informed that DC KIDS does

indeed do the scheduling for psychotherapy. This is an unnecessary encumbrance.
207

TRAUMATIZED CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Psychotherapeutic services are not routinely offered as part of the services to the

children removed, and yet, are universally needed. As the Guardian ad Litem, I routinely ask for court orders to provide these services. I have even been in the position

of having to file a motion in order for therapy to be provided to a very needy child.

These are not services that should have to be court-ordered in order to occur.

Children who are in foster care or placed with relatives frequently exhibit many

signs of emotional disturbance. They may be aggressive, oppositional, anxious, very

needy, and they frequently have low self-esteem. The reasons are obvious. They

have been removed from their parent and their home. They may have been traumatized by physical, sexual or mental abuse or neglect that has precipitated the removal. Next, they are nearly always traumatized by the removal itself. I have never

had a child removed from his or her parent, no matter how deplorable the abuse

or the conditions of the home, who did not desperately want to return to the parent.

Further, because of their own behaviors as a result of all this trauma, these children

can be hard to live with and frequently do things such as steal or damage property

which make them unwelcome in the foster home. Consequently, we see the additional trauma of multiple placements. Sadly, some children never recover from this

trauma and spiral down into a life of residential treatment or juvenile delinquency.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES REDUCE PLACEMENT DISRUPTION

If a child removed from his or her parent were guaranteed the services of a licensed psychotherapist as soon as the case comes in, we would have a better prognosis for adjustment to the foster home or relative’s home, making placement disruption less likely.

There are other critical points when availability of good mental health services

is crucial. Many children come into the system with a background that suggests the

possibility of developmental delays or educational problems. The patchwork of services that now exists provides uneven quality of psychiatric, psychological and psycho

educational reports. These almost routinely have to be court ordered in order to

occur, and very often there is delay in obtaining these services and the necessary

reports. This information is essential to getting the help that these children need

in order to address the problems that may be identified.

Good mental health services are particularly needed upon removal from the home

and for the adjustment period of about the first 90 days. In order to effectuate reunification of the child with the biological parent, family therapy may play an important role. If efforts toward reunification with the biological family are exhausted

and the goal is made adoption, the child will need support and therapy to help to

process feelings of grief and loss. Another critical point is when a pre-adoptive family is identified, and the child and family need help to establish trust, and to bond.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EASE ADJUSTMENT IN ADOPTION PLACEMENT

I have had several cases where a pre-adoptive placement failed. It is very sad to

see a child removed from the home that all had hoped would be that child’s permanent family at last. In these cases, as Guardian ad Litem, I have advocated for family therapy and supportive services that simply did not exist. Child and Family

Services certainly does not have a program that routinely provides the kind of support a family would truly need to adopt an emotionally fragile child from foster care.

In these sad cases of mine, the families have told me they felt that they were left

hanging with very little support to face this enormous adjustment.

A CLINIC MODEL WOULD IMPROVE QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES

Even if DC KIDS were to improve its service model, another problem exists. Wellqualified psychotherapists are not now widely available for foster children in the

District of Columbia. There is frequent turnover among therapists, just as with social workers. I have had instances in my cases of therapists not showing up for

scheduled appointments, dropping out of sight without a final session to give closure

for the child, and failing to return telephone messages from the Guardian ad Litem

or social worker. While in some of my cases, I have had excellent therapists who

helped the child tremendously, in general the agencies which currently provide mental health services to foster children in the District of Columbia are doing an inadequate job.

The Agency’s position is that they are limited for the most part to providers who

will accept what D.C. Medical Assistance pays. D.C. Medical Assistance pays a very

low rate, and as a result, we find rapid turnover, and poorly qualified therapists.

Licensed psychotherapists who will accept payment from D.C. Medicaid are very
208

hard to find. Frequently after long waits for identification of a therapist, a child is

assigned an intern. The problem with interns is that they are on the job for a short

term, usually only a period of three or four months. Part of the therapeutic process

involves trusting and building a relationship with the therapist. Children with behavioral difficulties resulting from neglect, removal and multiple placements frequently are diagnosed with attachment disorder, or at least have issues with attachment. This means that they reject others so they will not suffer rejection, which

leads to huge behavioral problems in the foster home, at school, and with peers. The

last thing most foster children need is a therapist who will leave after a short period

of time.

SEPARATE MEDICAL SERVICES FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

DC KIDS should separate out the mental health function from the provision of

medical services to the foster children, and a new agency should be formed or contracted with to provide comprehensive mental health services to the foster children

of the District of Columbia. It should have psychotherapists on staff who are licensed and well-trained to work with children and families. Funds should be allocated to cover salaries that are reasonable, which means significantly more than the

amount paid by D.C. Medicaid.

CONCLUSION: A MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC WOULD BE COST-EFFECTIVE

If funds for this purpose were reallocated from another function, it would be costeffective. A comprehensive mental health program for foster children would save

money by reducing the length of time spent in foster care, and reducing the need

for expensive services such as residential treatment.

I appreciate your consideration of my suggestions.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. We’ll end on that very positive note. Thank you

very much for your commitment to the children, and we thank all

of you for what you do for kids. We will continue to hold hearings

on our foster care system, this was the second and we will have

more in the future. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., Wednesday, May 14, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
(209)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

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

Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATEMENTS OF:

HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR

LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NATWAR M. GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. This hearing will come to order.

Today we will hear testimony regarding the District of Columbia’s

fiscal year 2004 local budget request. Mayor Williams, Council

Chairman Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi will present

the city’s budget and will discuss the District’s requests for Federal

resources.

I want to first note that this past Friday, the General Accounting

Office released the results of its 18-month long review of the financial health of the District. This important study presents a troubling picture of the long-term structural imbalance of the District’s

economy. This imbalance represents a gap between the District’s

ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and its ability to

provide services of reasonable quality to its residents.

I recognize that the structural imbalance is driven by expenditure requirements and revenue restrictions which are beyond the

control of the District’s leadership. Clearly, the city’s revenue capacity would be larger without constraints on its taxing authority,

such as its inability to tax Federal property or the income of nonresidents.

I agree that the city faces a troubling problem in the long term.

This report is the catalyst for serious discussions here on Capitol

Hill about how the Federal Government should protect the financial health of our Nation’s capital. Indeed, many of the problems

facing the city result from it being the seat of the Federal Government. Therefore, to do nothing is not acceptable. As chairman of
210

this subcommittee, I will work hard to ensure that we start exploring ways to avoid a financial catastrophe for the District.

Now, let me turn to the District’s fiscal year 2004 budget. Before

introducing our distinguished panel, I want to discuss some of my

priorities for this bill. First, I hope to provide resources to improve

the city’s foster care system so that more children have the opportunity to enjoy safe, permanent, and loving homes. The hearings

we have held this year on the foster care problem have highlighted

ways that we can help improve the situation. I know that the

Mayor and Ranking Member Landrieu share this desire and I look

forward to partnering with them on this initiative.

Also, I would like to continue a Federal investment in the city’s

Combined Sewer Overflow project. This multi-year project will revamp a system that was constructed at the end of the 19th Century and which overflows 50 to 60 times every year, dumping raw

sewage into the Anacostia River. Given the demands the Federal

Government places on this system, we clearly have a responsibility

to contribute to its much-needed renovations. By cleaning up the

Anacostia River, we will expedite the Mayor’s proposed Anacostia

waterfront development initiative, which I wholeheartedly support.

This development will ultimately provide recreational and commercial opportunities for D.C. residents and visitors.

I also want to ensure that efforts to construct biodecontamination

and quarantine facilities at Children’s Hospital and Washington

Hospital Center continue to proceed.

These are a few of my priorities for this bill. Now I look forward

to hearing what the District’s priorities are for Federal funding and

how the city has used the funds we recently provided in the fiscal

year 2003 appropriations bill.

Clearly, there are many worthy activities which will place demands on the always-limited resources in the D.C. Appropriations

Bill. But I look forward to working with these city leaders to continue to make life better for all who live, work, and visit this capitol city.

Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks.

Copies of your written statements will be placed in the record in

their entirety.

Senator Landrieu, would you like to make an opening statement?

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

welcome our witnesses, and thank Chairman DeWine for calling

the annual hearing on the District’s local funds budget. I look forward to hearing from the city on the status of the District’s economy, current Federal funding priorities, and a summary of the fiscal year 2004 local funds budget.

At this time, almost every city in the country is struggling to

maintain a balanced budget, much less deliver adequate or even

good services to their citizens. I am pleased to see that the District

has been careful to look ahead and address looming budget pressures while maintaining priority services. The city is in good fiscal

standing, and I trust that this environment will continue. However,

long-term outstanding economic pressures on the city and contin-
211

ued service challenges in such areas as public education and child

welfare will require a new partnership with the District.

Under the temporary State fiscal relief package included in the tax cut passed last month, the District will receive $94 million over

2 years. Considering current spending pressures of approximately

$50 million, I would be interested to learn how the city is planning

to spend these new funds.

In addition, substantial Federal funding was provided to the Dis- trict in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 ($122 million in direct

response to requests made by the Mayor, out of a total $512 million

in the D.C. appropriations bill for Federal responsibilities). The last

2 years have been unprecedented in the amount of discretionary

Federal dollars that have gone to the city, as well as an increase

in congressional confidence in local leadership, resulting in increased autonomy for the District of Columbia. Fiscal year 2004

has a much more conservative outlook as the committee attempts

to reconcile a weak economy, few proposed increases for Federal

discretionary programs and growing needs across the Nation, as

well as in the District. Chairman DeWine and I share a commitment to the restoration of the Anacostia Waterfront, assistance for

charter schools, and enhanced security this year. In this hearing,

I hope we can identify the city’s main priorities and how best to

address them with very limited funding.

A more broad challenge was confirmed last week when the General Accounting Office released a landmark report finding that the

city faces an annual deficit of $400 million to $1 billion between

their revenue capacity and cost of providing average services. The

report, requested by Congresswoman Norton and myself, found the

underlying reason for the structural imbalance in the city’s budget

is due to the high cost of providing services in the District of Columbia.

The District is uniquely situated and requires a unique relationship with the Federal Government; however, right now, I am not

convinced that more money is the answer. Many options for funding have been discussed: a renewed Federal payment, changing the

tax collection ability of the District, or funding directed to specific

infrastructure in the District of Columbia.

In this hearing I would like to discuss how to maximize the benefit of existing Federal funding, such as Medicaid and education.

As I stated last week, we need to create a new partnership with

the District. We must examine the underlying issues that create an

imbalance and take a multifaceted approach to addressing it, before the District goes back to years of deficit.

One major benefit for the District, with no budgetary impact, endorsed by President Bush, is to release the local budget from annual Congressional approval. The concept of budget autonomy for

the District’s local budget is building momentum on the Hill and

I hope it will be approved this year. These are funds derived from

locally generated tax dollars. The last word on how the city’s budget is expended should be made by locally elected leaders, just like

any other city. I urge my colleagues to examine the benefits of this

proposal as legislation makes its way through Congress.

I would like for the Mayor and Council Chairman to comment on

how current and future general provisions—limitations on spend-
212

ing local and Federal funds—will be addressed under budget autonomy. I respect the city leaders’ diligence in implementing and upholding these ‘‘social riders’’ through the years, against local pressure. I expect this same degree of respect for the law will be maintained in the future. There are legitimate means for Congress to

provide guidance to the city; however, it is my hope that at some

point in the future congressional interest in imposing riders will

wane.

The committee has also held hearings this year on child welfare

in the District and discovered disturbing gaps in service and care.

Through Chairman DeWine’s leadership I hope we can discuss options for addressing this area as well. I appreciate your attendance

today and look forward to continuing our partnership for growth

and success of the city. The General Accounting Office released a

landmark report finding the city faces an annual deficit, a structural imbalance, of $400 million to $1 billion. This amount is the

difference between the city’s revenue capacity and the cost of producing average services. The GAO report outlines definitively that

there is, in fact, a structural imbalance of the management and efficiencies of the District. They are still constraints beyond what is

in your control to solve it, so I want to support the chairman’s concepts that he outlined this morning, whether we have an internal

study group or an external group, to come up with some specific

solutions. There are some ideas that have been presented, but I

hope that in your testimony this morning perhaps you all would

have some suggestions, and then we could follow the chairman’s

lead in establishing a more specific commission to come up with

some solutions that Congress could indeed take up.

I also want to support the chairman’s efforts as we work together

to enhance and strengthen the foster care system. As Mr. Mayor,

you know, are I think painfully aware that the District of Columbia

is not the only entity by far in the Nation that is struggling with

this tremendous challenge. Just yesterday there was a front page

article in the New York Times about the deplorable conditions of

the New Jersey child welfare system. I have to say that in Louisiana this is a tremendous challenge for our State Government to

keep the finances and the management of a foster care system in

a way that temporarily removes children from homes so that they

can be safe and secure, and then re-engage or place them back with

those families or to move them to a permanent home through adoption or through a foster family that looks as much like a real family

as possible, and that is something that the chairman and I are

firmly committed to working with you all, and we have had several

good hearings.

The only other two things I would mention briefly, I am very interested in how we proceed in the future to provide every child in

this District with an excellent education. There are any number of

ideas that have come forward, work that is underway, progress

that has been made, but challenges that remain. It is going to be

a key focus of mine, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward to see

what the options are in providing an excellent education system for

every child, and to have the Federal Government live up and stand

up and step up to its responsibilities in that regard. Again, the District of Columbia is not in many instances that different from other
213

cities and States struggling to do the same, but I want to stay focused on that.

And finally, parks and recreation does not always receive the attention, and perhaps in some people’s minds, in the scheme of

things relative to economic development and education and health

care it does not always take the priority that I think it should deserve, because we have got to give our young people something to

say yes to, and it really underlines the quality of life issue for the

District, and while we have more green space here than in many

cities, and we are fortunate because of the Federal Government, we

still, I think, lack some recreational opportunities for children, for

young people, and for adults that the suburbs in this area seem to

have in abundance, and I think that is a real problem when it

comes to economic development, attracting people back to the city,

keeping children and families engaged and productive in positive

expenditures of their time, so I want to continue—I am glad the

chairman agreed with me, and we invested some direct Federal dollars to work with your local dollars in that regard, but it is not just

throwing more money, it is the management and the way that the

parks system will provide recreational opportunities for children.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to give you your

seat back and go find——

Senator DEWINE. You can stay there if you want to.

Senator LANDRIEU. All right. Well, I will stay here then.

Senator DEWINE. Just don’t get too——

Senator LANDRIEU. I won’t get too—well, look, it’s so comfortable,

I mean——

Senator DEWINE. Don’t get too comfortable there or too accustomed to that.

I am glad I got the gavel back.

Senator LANDRIEU. You got the gavel back, and the chair. Thank

you.

Senator DEWINE. Let me introduce our panel. Anthony Williams

was inaugurated as the fourth Mayor of the District of Columbia

on January 4, 1999. This past January, of course, Mayor Williams

began serving his second term in office.

Linda Cropp was sworn in on August 8, 1997 as the first woman

to chair the Council of the District of Columbia after serving on the

council for 7 years.

Dr. Gandhi is the Chief Financial Officer for the District of Columbia, and is responsible for the city’s finances, including his $5.4

billion operating budget and bond obligations.

Mayor, why don’t you start off.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,

and thank the Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, and thank the

other members of the committee for this opportunity to testify on

the District’s 2004 budget and financial plan, and wherever possible I will try to abbreviate my remarks, recognizing that they

have been submitted in whole in the record.

This subcommittee has been a partner in our city’s revitalization

over the last few years, and as Mayor, I think I represent all of

our citizens in saying that we are gratified for the support and en-
214

couragement offered by the previous chair and other Members, and

certainly are pleased now to be working with you, Mr. Chairman.

Your support and encouragement for our efforts to make our city

shine are deeply appreciated and, in particular, your devotion to

our children at risk has been both a consistent and long feature of

your service, and it’s a welcome signal of Congress’ joint bipartisan

commitment in this important area, recognizing Senator Landrieu’s

commitment in this area as well.

In fact, this committee’s members bring very valuable experience

in State-level management, and that gives you all a unique appreciation for the challenges and constraints under which the District

must operate. I think we can rest assured of a strong and vibrant

relationship with you.

As you know, many cities and States across the Nation are facing

their worst budgetary challenge of the last 60 years, and the District is no exception. Due to the economic downturn, we experienced a decline in revenues of almost $370 million in the first half

of fiscal year 2003. This decline equates to a 10 percent loss in our

local operating budget. Because the economy has not yet recovered,

these challenges have continued, as you know, into the 2004 fiscal

year, and we began formulation of the budget with a projected gap

of $114 million.

In facing these challenges, we not only continued our record of

sound fiscal management, we achieved, I think, a level of responsible and conservative budgeting found only among the most fiscally prudent governments in our country. As a result, the fiscal

year 2004 budget transmitted today is balanced in current and future years. I am not saying it is pretty, but it is balanced, and we

can talk about that.

More notably, the District’s leaders balanced this budget entirely

through budget reductions. No tax increases were adopted, and not

one dollar of the $250 million in cash reserves, one of the strongest

ratios of cash reserves in the country, was used. In many instances,

we were able to reduce spending by using existing funds more

wisely. In many other areas, however, significant sacrifices were

required. Most notable among these is a deferral of key infrastructure investments.

In making these sacrifices, we preserved existing funding for existing schools and libraries, but could allocate no new funding for

the next phase of modernization. As a result, current 10-year plans

for renovating neglected schools and libraries must be scaled back

dramatically, leaving major challenges in the education of our children. This sacrifice, coupled with even greater reductions in roads,

bridges, and other buildings to me presents one of the greatest

challenges that we face today, and have not addressed, as you have

mentioned in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, in the foreseeable future. In short, we have a significant problem.

Now, the Federal Government requires that the District provide

services like a State, but unlike every other State in the Nation,

we are prohibited by Congress from collecting a nonresident income

tax. This takes a tremendous percentage of our potential tax base

offline. As a result, the District must fund expenditures far greater

than the revenues provided through a reasonable level of taxation.
215

As you put it, it is very, very difficult to maintain a reasonable

level of service at a reasonable rate of taxation.

Faced with this clash between needs and revenue capacity, we

have maintained a balanced budget through overtaxing of our citizens and a deferral of critical investments which continues to damage the viability of the District as a place to live and operate a

business, and I might add by way of operating a business, the disproportionate taxation of our businesses is actually far larger than

the disproportionate rate of taxation of our citizens, not to say that

that is acceptable, either, but for businesses it is particularly stark.

In specific terms, the amount of the structural imbalance is between $400 million and $1.1 billion per year. This estimate has

been thoroughly analyzed and documented by the Rivlin Commission, the Brookings Institution, and McKinsey & Company. To

independently assess this matter, the Members of Congress, including Ranking Member Landrieu of this subcommittee, requested

that GAO conduct a full-scale analysis. I would like to quote as

Mayor several key findings that are particularly significant to me.

1. The District faces a substantial structural deficit in that the

cost of providing an average level of public services exceeds the

amount of revenue we could devise by average tax rates.

2. The District’s per capita total revenue capacity is higher than

all State fiscal systems, but not to the same extent that costs are

higher. In addition, our revenue capacity would be larger without

the constraints on our taxing authority, such as the inability to tax

Federal property or the income of nonresidents.

3. Addressing management problems, which we are committed to

doing, would not offset the District’s underlying structural imbalance, because this imbalance, as the Ranking Member has said and

you have said, Mr. Chairman, is determined by factors beyond our

direct control.

And finally, again as you have mentioned, if this imbalance is to

be addressed in the next term, it may be necessary to change Federal policies to expand the District’s tax base or to provide additional financial support or some combination thereof.

Through these findings that the independent—I want to stress,

independent—GAO has confirmed that the District cannot compete,

or—well, we cannot compete in the long term, and we certainly

cannot complete our financial recovery under our own power. Instead, we must somehow address the Federal policies that could

force the District back into insolvency, which I think would be a

tragedy of just overwhelming proportions.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced the Federal Fair Compensation Act, which I believe would go a long—well,

which I believe would address the situation, and I believe that, as

Congress moves through this study, it ought to look first to the

Federal Fair Compensation Act as a way to address the problem.

Now, of course, the city must do its part in terms of better management of existing resources. Special education and Medicaid

present two areas that need concentrated attention. The subcommittee I think should be pleased to know that we are making

some headway, along with city councilman and chair of the Education Committee on the Council Kevin Chavous, I am chairing a
216

Special Education Task Force that brought together all the Government entities that have a role in special education.

After intensive meetings over several months, we were able to agree on a cost-reduction plan that the CFO certifies will yield $20

million in savings in fiscal year 2004, while at the same time improving the educational experience offered to children in special ed.

Last month, I appointed the first Government-wide Medicaid

czar who will bring similar direction and unity of purpose on how

we draw down Medicaid funds. In addition to this matter of finances, we also face a procedural barrier in the Federal appropriations process. I will not go into a long list of details, but I would

urge this committee’s support for budget autonomy legislation that

is now emerging in the Congress. We certainly welcome the partnership with this committee. We certainly welcome and certainly

endorse wholeheartedly the oversight by this committee of Federal

funds, but we believe that, like every other State and city in the

country, we should have the autonomy and have the discretion to

use our own funds as they are developed and derived from local

sources.

There are specific funding requests in the fiscal 2004 budget before the committee. As I have shared with you, Mr. Chairman, and

also with the Ranking Member, I am alarmed that the President’s

overall request for the D.C. appropriations bill in 2004 is 17 percent below the 2003 level. A cut of this magnitude jeopardizes ongoing projects already funded by the subcommittee, many of which

both of you have mentioned. In particular, Congress allocated $50

million for the CSO, Combined Sewage Overflow Project, which

was matched with local funds. This was a very welcome down payment on a billion-dollar-plus multi-year project for an antiquated,

outdated system, as you have mentioned.

Updating this system, which was built originally by the Federal

Government, pollution of which is—I think a majority of which is

from the Federal Government, is an integral part of our Waterfront

Initiative. Therefore, we are seeking that additional $50 million.

The President’s budget includes $15 million for this purpose and

another $10 million for the bike trail. I strongly urge this subcommittee to accept the President’s proposal, but add the additional dollars to match last year’s commitment.

In 2003, Congress provided $4 million for a family literacy program. Since receiving this payment just 3 months ago, we have an

ambitious program underway that will soon have at least 20 literacy leaders dispatched around the city to help community-based

providers, Government agencies, the faith-based community expand

the network of adult learners.

We also have a training symposium this summer to begin to

train the trainers. With an additional $4 million in fiscal year

2004, this subcommittee can sustain this effort. This is in a city

where 40 percent of our city has a learning challenge and is reading at below adequate level.

Because education for our children is so critical, I strongly urge

the Congress to add new funding beyond last year’s level to support

our public schools and expand opportunities for parents to consider

nonpublic education settings. We believe that this three-sector approach will allow the city to leverage its best assets among the
217

public schools, the public charter schools, and the private parochial

schools. We are strongly committed to expanding the menu of

school settings for our children both within the public system and

outside of that system, but all as part of a coordinated effort.

And on a related matter, I want to acknowledge the concerns

that have been raised by this subcommittee regarding Child and

Family Services in the District. As a former child in foster care,

this is important to me, and I know it is important to both of you

and the members of this committee. Historically, this whole Child

Welfare System has been extremely troubled and although I believe

substantial progress has been made, including the creation of the

family court and the newly unified agency, there still remain, undoubtedly, challenges that we must continue to address. The CSA

Director and I are redoubling our efforts to complete the reform

process in serving our most vulnerable youth, including a more

seamless approach in how we relate to children at risk.

The subcommittee’s ongoing interest in supporting efforts to recruit social workers, promote early intervention in case work for

children and families, support foster parents, is all part of this effort.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that my appointment of a Senate

nomination to the council, of a new corporation counsel, one of the

key factors in my mind in sending the nomination to the Council

of Robert Spagnoletti was his experience in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in bringing together and getting on the right track domestic

abuse in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and he evinced a strong interest in doing the same thing as it relates to child support and core

council support for all these family matters, and I believe that he

will help us accelerate and promote the efforts that I know you

want to see, and we are committed to.

In short, we welcome this committee’s partnership and oversight,

and look forward to working with you in the days and months

ahead in the challenges facing our city.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

Thank you Chairman DeWine, Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, Senator

Hutchison, Senator Brownback, and Senator Durbin for this opportunity to testify

on the District’s fiscal year 2004 budget and financial plan. This subcommittee has

been a partner in our city’s renaissance over the last few years. As Mayor, I am

grateful for the support and encouragement offered by the previous chair and others

members, and I am pleased to now be working even more closely with Senator

DeWine. His support and encouragement for our efforts to make our city shine are

deeply appreciated. In particular, his devotion to our children at-risk has been both

consistent and strong, and is a welcome signal of the Congress’ commitment in this

area.

This committee’s members bring very valuable experience in State-level management, and that gives you a unique appreciation for the challenges and the constraints under which the District must operate. The citizens of our national capital

can rest assured that the city’s relationship with this subcommittee continues to be

strong and will serve us well as we strive together to address the pressing needs

of the District.

Specifically, this session of Congress could be pivotal in the evolution of the Federal-District relationship:

—fiscal challenges posed by the serious structural imbalance are becoming more

acute, and there are a number of proposals to help address the issue;
218

—the disruption of service delivery caused by problems with the congressional approval process can hopefully come to an end through proposed legislation;

—the education of our children can be enhanced through new partnerships between the District and Federal Governments; and

—important infrastructure projects are at critical junctures that require additional Federal support. These include the Combined Sewer Overflow system, the

Unified Communications Center, and the Forensics Laboratory.

With all these advances hopefully in our grasp, it is indeed a time of great opportunities and great challenges. As you know, cities and States across the Nation are

facing the worst budgetary challenge of the last 60 years, and the District is no exception. Due to the national economic downturn, the District experienced a decline

in revenues of approximately $370 million in the first half of fiscal year 2003. This

decline equates to a 10 percent loss in our local operating budget. Because the economy has not yet recovered, these challenges continued into fiscal year 2004, and the

District began formulation of that budget with a projected gap of $114 million.

In facing these challenges, however, the District not only continued its record of

sound fiscal management, we achieved a level of responsible and conservative budgeting found only among the most financially prudent governments. As a result, the

fiscal year 2004 budget transmitted today is balanced in the current and future

years. More notably, the District’s leaders balanced this budget entirely through

budget reductions. No tax increases were adopted, and not one dollar of the $250

million in cash reserves was used.

Just as significant is the fact that this budget protects core services. In times of

tight resources, some would set their goals aside in order to weather the storm, but

I believe the opposite must be done: in these difficult times we must focus on our

goals more than ever so that we may protect them and continue making forward

progress.

The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget reflects this approach by focusing resources

in the areas of highest priorities for our residents. These are (1) education programs, including early childhood education, school choice, and adult literacy; (2)

public safety, which includes providing greater police presence in neighborhoods and

a vastly improved 911 emergency communications system; and (3) opportunity for

all, which includes the housing, job-readiness, and health care needed for all residents to become productive and healthy members of the community and economy.

In order to protect these priorities, however, some reductions had to be made in

other areas of the budget.

SACRIFICES MADE TO PRESERVE BUDGETARY BALANCE

In many instances the District was able to reduce spending by using existing

funds more wisely. In many other areas, however, significant sacrifices were required. Most notable among these is the deferral of key infrastructure investments.

In fiscal year 2003 the District eliminated funding for $250 million in approved capital construction, including transportation investments, recreation facilities, and important technology investments. An additional $87 million of funding for such

projects was eliminated in fiscal year 2004.

In making these sacrifices the District preserved existing funding for schools and

libraries, but could allocate no new funding for the next phase of modernization. As

a result, current 10-year plans for renovating neglected schools and libraries must

be scaled back dramatically, leaving a major challenge for the education of our children. This sacrifice, coupled with even greater reductions in roads, bridges, and

buildings, present one of the greatest challenges that the District faces today and,

if not addressed, into the foreseeable future.

Is this challenge purely the result of our national economic woes? In fact, it is

not. Even during times of economic growth, the District’s can not support the level

of investment required to compensate for the many decades of neglect from which

our infrastructure has suffered. This is true not because of any factor under the District’s control, however, but because of the uniquely unfair constraints placed on the

District’s tax base by the Federal Government.

FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS ON REVENUE COLLECTION RESULTING IN STRUCTURAL

IMBALANCE

The Federal Government requires that the District provide services like a State,

but unlike every other State in the Nation, the District is prohibited by the Congress from collecting a non-resident income tax. As a result, the District must fund

expenditures far greater than the revenues provided through a reasonable level of

taxation. Faced with this clash between expenditure needs and revenue capacity,
219

the District has maintained a balanced budget through several strategies that have

provided solvency in the short term, but cannot be maintained. These strategies are:

—Producing service improvements within existing constraints.—The District has

aggressively improved service delivery through more focused use of existing resources. Having capitalized on the major opportunities for such efficiencies,

however, the District cannot expect to solve its structural imbalance through

this strategy.

—Taxing local residents and businesses at high levels.—With a severely limited

tax base, the District has had no choice but to rely on local residents and businesses to provide revenues for government services, resulting in many tax rates

that far exceed those of surrounding jurisdictions. This translates into additional hurdles to attracting and retaining residents and businesses that could

help stabilize our fragile economic base.

—Deferring spending on critical infrastructure and services.—At present, the District is deferring each year hundreds of millions of dollars in critical investments. These include funding for school buildings, transportation systems,

water and sewer projects, economic development, and social services.

Although these strategies have temporarily addressed the imbalance between expenditures and revenues, they cannot be employed much longer. The overtaxing of

our citizens and deferral of critical investments continue to damage the viability of

the District as a place to live and operate a business. As a result, the financial and

operational recovery underway will falter and the District will lose the important

ground that it and its Federal partners have worked to gain.

In specific terms, the amount of the structural imbalance is between $400 million

and $1.1 billion per year. This estimate has been thoroughly analyzed and documented by the Rivlin Commission, the Brookings Institute, and McKinsey and Co.

To independently assess this matter, the members of Congress, including Senator

Landrieu of this committee, requested that the U.S. General Accounting Office

(GAO) conduct a full-scale analysis, which was released just last week.

I would like to quote several key findings from this report:

1. ‘‘The District faces a substantial structural deficit in that the cost of providing

an average level of public services exceeds the amount of revenue it could raise by

applying average tax rates.’’

2. ‘‘The District’s per capital total revenue capacity is higher than all state fiscal

systems, but not to the same extent that its costs are higher. In addition, its revenue capacity would be larger without constraints on its taxing authority, such as

its inability to tax federal property or the income of nonresidents.’’

3. ‘‘Addressing management problems would not offset the District’s underlying

structural imbalance because this imbalance is determined by factors beyond the

District’s direct control.’’

4. ‘‘If this imbalance is to be addressed, in the near term, it may be necessary

to change federal policies to expand the District’s tax base or to provide additional

financial support.’’

Through these findings, the independent GAO has confirmed that the District can

not complete its financial recovery alone. Instead, we must somehow address the

Federal policies that could force the District into insolvency. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton will shortly introduce the ‘‘Federal Fair Compensation Act’’

which would go a long way to addressing the situation. Congress ought to move this

legislation or an alternative quickly.

Of course, the city must do its part in terms of better management of existing

resources. Special Education and Medicaid represent two areas that need concentrated attention. The subcommittee should be pleased to know that we are making some headway. Along with the City Council, I am chairing a special education

task force that brought together all the government entities who have a role in special education. After intensive meetings over several months, we were able to agree

on a cost reduction plan that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) certifies will yield

$20 million savings in fiscal year 2004, while at the same time improving the educational experience offered to children in special education. Last month I appointed

the first government-wide ‘‘Medicaid Czar’’ who will bring similar direction and

unity of purpose to how we draw down Medicaid dollars.

In addition to this matter of finances, the District also faces a procedural barrier

in the Federal appropriations process.

DISRUPTIONS RESULTING FROM FEDERAL REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT’S BUDGET

Unlike any other State or local jurisdiction in the Nation, the District must have

its locally-raised revenues appropriated to it through an act of Congress. Aside from

the obvious issues related to government by consent of the governed, this process
220

creates major disruptions in the delivery and improvement of basic government

services. Specifically, there are several key reasons why the President and Congress

should change the current process:

—The current system denies the District the capacity to adapt quickly to changing

needs for front line services. The Federal Government requires the District to

formulate its budget a year in advance in order to accommodate the Federal review process.

—Congressional delays disrupt critical new improvements.—Virtually every year,

Congress fails to approve the District’s budget by the beginning of the fiscal

year, most recently more than 3 months later.

—Mid-year budget reallocations require an act of Congress, and disrupt service delivery.—As discussed, local governments need the flexibility to respond to rapid

changes in their needs.

—The city must ‘‘use or lose’’ funding at the end of each year.—Congressional approval for spending expires at the end of the year, which punishes program

managers who save funds by not allowing the city to carry them over for onetime uses.

Last January, the President’s statement in favor of budget autonomy for the District was transmitted to the Congress, and is greatly appreciated by the District.

At present, the House and Senate oversight committees on the District of Columbia

are developing legislation that would begin reforming the Federal approval process

for the District’s budget. Of course, the process for Federal funds for the city and

relevant oversight would be unchanged. As Congress pursues passage of this legislation, the District looks to you for leadership in affecting this change that will relieve

the impediments to the District’s continued financial and operational recovery.

CRITICAL FEDERAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT

There are several specific funding requests in the fiscal year 2004 budget before

this committee. I am alarmed that the President’s overall fiscal year 2004 request

for the DC appropriations bill is 17 percent below the fiscal year 2003 level. A cut

of this magnitude jeopardizes ongoing projects already funded by this subcommittee.

In particular, last year Congress allocated $50 million for the Combined Sewer

Overflow (CSO) project, which was matched with local funds. This was a very welcomed down payment on a billion-dollar-plus multi-year project. Updating our antiquated sewer system, which was built originally by the Federal Government, is an

integral part of our Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. Therefore we are seeking an additional $50 million in fiscal year 2004. The President’s budget includes $15 million

for this purpose and another $10 million for the Anacostia Bike Trail. I strongly

urge the subcommittee to accept the President’s proposal, and add $35 million to

the sewer project to match last year’s commitment.

The President has also included $15 million for the Public Safety Event Fund,

which reimburses the city for various security costs of demonstrations and other

events related to our status as the Nation’s capital. This fund helps shift the unfair

burden of covering these costs from District taxpayers and allows the District to better balance our duties to protect residential neighborhoods and the Nation’s capital.

I strongly urge the subcommittee to provide these important resources.

In addition, thanks to the generosity of this subcommittee, the Tuition Assistance

Grant Program has provided thousands of District residents with tremendously expanded options for post-secondary education. Indeed, many of these people might

not have otherwise attended college. In fiscal year 2003, the program will use all

its allotted funding and will require an additional $17 million in fiscal year 2004.

In fiscal year 2003 Congress provided $4 million for a family literacy program.

Since receiving this payment just 3 months ago, we have an ambitious program underway that will soon have at least 20 Literacy Leaders dispatched around the city

to help community-based providers, government agencies, and the faith-based community expand the network of adult learners. We will also have a training symposium this summer to ‘‘train the trainers’’. My goal is to reverse the city’s destiny

in this area by transforming ourselves from a city with a shockingly high rate of

adult literacy challenges to a city where the right to read is sacred. Adults will have

a harder time fulfilling opportunities for health care, employment, and stable family

life as long as they lack basic reading skills. It is time that the stigma associated

with adult learning challenges be eradicated and all of Washington make this a priority. With an additional $4 million in fiscal year 2004 the subcommittee can sustain our efforts.
221

SUPPORTING CHILDREN IN THE DISTRICT

Because quality education for our children is a critical priority for the city, I

strongly urge the Congress to add new funding beyond last year’s levels to support

our public schools and expand opportunities for parents to consider nonpublic educational settings. This 3-sector approach will allow the city to leverage its best assets among public schools, public charter schools, and private/parochial schools.

The District of Columbia Public School system is making headway in reform, including the very promising Transformation initiative for 15 low-performing schools.

It also has a liberal out-of-boundary program that affords parents opportunities to

consider public schools across the city. Our robust charter school system is a national model for public school choice whose expansion is limited largely by a lack

of adequate facilities. In addition, dozens of private and parochial schools are assets

for our children. Consequently, I want to reiterate my support for school choice—

both within the public system and between public and private schools. I urge the

Congress to be both bold in supporting school choice in DC through a 3-sector approach.

On a related matter, I want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised

by this subcommittee regarding child and family services in the District. Historically, the whole child welfare service system has been extremely troubled, and although major progress has been made, including creation of the Family Court and

a newly unified Child and Family Services Agency, there still remain challenges

that we must continue to address. Our capable CFSA director and I are redoubling

our efforts to complete the reform process in serving our most vulnerable youth, including a more seamless approach in how government agencies relate to children

at risk. The subcommittee’s ongoing interest in supporting efforts to recruit social

workers, promote early intervention in case work for children and families, and support foster parents who take on this difficult work is very encouraging.

And finally, before I conclude this testimony there are several specific points that

must be made clear for the record. First, I ask that the District’s appropriation be

passed without the undemocratic ‘‘riders’’ that are sometimes included. These nonbudgetary provisions subvert the will of District citizens and their only elected representatives. If the elected leadership of the city has decided to use local funds for

various purposes, we ask only for you to grant us the same prerogatives and liberties that cities in your own districts enjoy.

In addition, I would also like to note for the committee that the city continues

to be vigilant in its emergency preparedness responsibilities and is expeditiously

drawing down on Federal funds provided for this purpose. We are making great

progress working with surrounding jurisdictions and Federal agencies in developing

effective regional responses. Similarly, working with local hospitals, our capacities

in the areas of preventing and responding to bioterrorism are greatly expanded.

Through partnership with the Federal Government, the District is rapidly becoming

one of the best prepared jurisdictions in the Nation.

And finally, no discussion of District-Federal partnership is complete without a

discussion of voting representation in Congress. The District is the capital of the

world’s greatest democracy, and it is the ultimate hypocrisy that its citizens suffer

from the exact disenfranchisement this Nation was founded to end. Like all of us

in this hearing room, I was filled with great pride and gratitude watching the young

men and women of our armed forces help bring democracy closer to the people of

Iraq. At the same time, however, I was struck with the irony that those among

them who hail from our great city do not enjoy full democracy here.

Again, Senator DeWine and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for your

support of the District and I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you

today. After the testimony of Chairman Cropp and Dr. Gandhi, I will gladly answer

any questions you may have.

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.

Ms. Cropp.

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA W. CROPP

Ms. CROPP. Good morning, Chairman DeWine and Ranking Minority Member Landrieu. It is a pleasure to be before you today to

testify on behalf of the District of Columbia. Let me thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Senator Landrieu, for your comments with regard to

the GAO report, and there is a nexus between the structural imbal-
222

ance and our ability to serve the needs of our young people, comments that you also made.

The fiscal year 2004 budget, another in a series of fiscally sound

and responsible budgets, marks another important stride in our

city’s home rule. It fully illustrates that the Mayor and the council

can work together and put together a good spending plan that continues to make the District a better place to live, to work, to raise

a family, and to visit. It also is a reflection of our resolve to stand

as one good government that will remain fiscally prudent and, most

importantly, responsible.

Fiscal discipline. This has always been and will be a top priority

on our legislative agenda. We not only demand it of the executive

branch, we practice it. The various forms of fiscal discipline, from

rainy day funds to financial safeguards, insurance and investment

policies, economic triggers to pay-as-you-go funds that we have demanded of and imposed on ourselves in the past several years have

yielded significant returns for the District of Columbia.

Case in point, the council insisted that the Government limit the

growth of our spending in fiscal year 2004 while ensuring that all

basic municipal needs were met. Instead of increasing taxes to address declining revenues for fiscal year 2004, the council, with the

mayor, limited the rate of growth in our spending to under 5 percent. Again, this was done without any detriment to the District of

Columbia residents who receive services and benefits from important programs. The $323 million-plus revenue shortfall in fiscal year 2003 budget on the very first day of our new fiscal year, October 1, 2002, was

dealt with very quickly by the Mayor and the council. On April 1,

6 months into the fiscal year, the council took emergency action, as

recommended by the mayor, on another $134 million that was a

hole in this year’s budget. Our counterparts in Maryland and Virginia and all across the country, of course, face similar challenges

because of the economy in our Nation, although we think that the

District has acted more quickly, effectively, and responsibly to take

the actions necessary to bring our budget in balance.

Finally, it is important to note that, due to the city’s fiscal discipline and our hard work, we have a positive image fostered by

the partnership of locally elected leadership in our business community. We have finally been recognized and rewarded on Wall

Street, where the District Government bond rating has been upgraded from stable to positive. Moreover, the city’s bond rating is

expected to be further upgraded while other jurisdictions’ ratings

are being downgraded during this economic period.

As the council continues its work during the fiscal year 2003 and

2004 legislative session, we will remain vigilant about maintaining

fiscal discipline that we have imposed on the executive branch and

ourselves, and we will also focus on other important goals set forth

in our legislative agenda. These goals include the revitalization of

our neighborhoods, investment in our youth, protection of our vulnerable residents, oversight of executive performance and service

delivery, promotion of continued economic stability and growth, and

expansion of home rule and democracy, our priorities, put together

with a fiscally sound and responsible spending plan, is good for the

District.
223

The operating budget funds basic city services and programs.

The capital budget, as a result of stringent oversight, was realigned. Funds were redirected and targeted for projects with higher priorities and critical needs such as schools for children, improving blighted properties in our neighborhoods, and enhancing existing facilities, better public-council interaction.

I have provided copies of the committee reports from all of our

council’s committees for the record, and I believe that it will be

good reading and will also provide you good information with regard to the status of many things in the District of Columbia.

Senator DEWINE. Those will be made a part of the record. Thank

you very much.

Ms. CROPP. Thank you. An integral part of the council’s budget

process is public input. As such, many hearings on the fiscal 2004

budget were held. This gives the council and the Mayor an opportunity to hear from our citizens. The process gave citizens and our

workforce the opportunity to comment and critique programmatic

and funding needs and agency performance and their impact. The

feedback is invaluable, because it contributed and culminated in

decisions and recommendations of each committee in the mark-up

process.

At the end of this public process—translated into 54 public hearings or about 289 hours—we incorporated the findings from that

public hearing process, from our residents and our employees, into

the budget. On May 6, the council approved the $6.6 billion spending plan that provides adequate funding for basic city services, in

keeping with the seven goals of our legislative agenda. All of this

was done, including full funding of our police department, without

a tax increase. In fact, we are continuing with the portions of the

tax reduction associated with the Tax Parity Act as passed by the

council in 1999, which were already in place. The council action

will bring our taxes more in line with our neighbors’ over a 5-year

period. We believe this has contributed to the economic renaissance

that our city is experiencing.

Historically, the relationship between the District and the Federal Government has been a unique political and financial arrangement. Between 1879 and 1920, the Federal Government provided

assistance by paying half of all of the District’s expenditures. Subsequently, given the various Federal prohibitions on taxing nonresidents’ 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 expropriated the cost of the contributions for the police, firefighters, teachers, and retirement plans, and various court services.

It is worth recalling that in 1997 the Revitalization Act was

passed. One recommendation was that since the District no longer

receives the Federal payment, that the District should not have its

local budget portion come before Congress, just like other States.

I join with the Mayor in asking that you support budget autonomy

for the District of Columbia. Although the District may be solely

responsible for its local spending, it’s not responsible for the structural imbalance that exists in its spending needs and its revenue

generation capacity.
224

The District, not unlike any other major urban city in this country, has a population that is older, sicker, and poorer. The big difference, and it is a major and important difference with the District

and other large urban cities, is, we help support Baltimore and

Richmond, because most of our income leaves the city and goes out

to help support our suburban economies, totally a reversal from

where it is in the rest of the country, where in most instances, the

suburban jurisdictions help to offset the high cost of what is going

on in the district. That is a huge structural imbalance unlike anything else. The GAO report is very clear, the imbalance ranges between $470 million and $1.1 billion a year. The cost of providing

public services is just much higher in the District than in other

areas.

Mr. Chairman, you had asked if we had some suggestions. The

Mayor certainly outlined the Federal Fair Compensation Act that

our Congresswoman has introduced that we would hope that we

could start discussions around that. I would like to also call your

attention to the fact that in 1997, Congress recognized that the

District paid an inordinate amount of Medicaid funds. We were the

only city in the country, in this entire United States, that paid 50

percent of the cost of Medicaid. You recognized that that was an

imbalance, and we changed the payment to 70 percent Federal and

30 percent District of Columbia. That is another area where you

can look.

The Federal Government pays a higher proportion of Medicaid

than many other jurisdictions. It seems only fair and just, and a

way to deal with the structural imbalance, that we at least get the

same rate as other States may get for just the city, when no other

city has to pay a Medicaid cost.

Another area is our whole Metro payment. That certainly is a

benefit to us, as we serve, as the capital city, our suburban jurisdictions. While we have Metro and we have our suburban areas

that sit on the Metro board, their States pay the cost of Metro, so

Montgomery County and Fairfax, Arlington, Prince George’s, they

do not even have to pay part of their Medicaid cost, while the District of Columbia once again, in a highly structurally imbalanced

way, must bear the brunt of our Metro cost, so that is another area

where we could look.

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

you support and pass the budget in time for the start of a new fiscal year and before adjournment of the 108th Congress. It really

is telling that while our budget period started in October we did

not have an approved budget until January. In some instances, we

needed to reduce the cost of our Government to deal with our economy. It is important to remember that at the end of the budget

process, both the Mayor and the council found themselves in sync

and approved a budget that invests in service delivery and basic

programs. We urge you to pass the budget as is without any riders.

This much-anticipated 2004 budget is important, because it

shows again that the Mayor and the council coexist and underscores our commitment to make Washington, D.C. one of the bestgoverned cities in the world. The council will continue to oversee

our operations and expenditures, sometimes to the chagrin of the
225

Mayor, but I think both of us agree that it is for the good of the

city as a whole.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We will be responsive to our constituents who call the District

their home. We will work with the Mayor, with you and Congress

and our 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

our future generations. Granted, we do not always agree, but we

are always at the table to assert ourselves as an institution and

work for the betterment and the future of our citizens.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP

Good morning, Chairman DeWine and Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, and

members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

I am pleased to be here with my colleagues to testify on the District’s budget for

fiscal year 2004.

INTRODUCTION

The fiscal year 2004 budget—another in a series of fiscally sound and responsible

budgets—marks another important stride in our city’s history of home rule. This is

the second budget that the locally elected leaders have crafted entirely within the

Home Rule process. It fully illustrates that the Council and the Mayor can work together and put together a good spending plan that continues to make the District

a better place in which to live, to work, to raise a family, and to visit. It is also

a reflection of our resolve to stand as one good government that will remain fiscally

prudent and most importantly responsible.

This past February, the Mayor and Council received the annual Comprehensive

Annual Financial Report, which certified that the District’s fiscal year 2002 budget

that ended on September 30, 2002 was our sixth consecutive balanced or surplus

budget.

Fiscal Discipline.—This has always been and will always be a TOP PRIORITY on

our legislative agenda. We not only demand it of the executive branch, we practice

it. The various forms of fiscal discipline—from rainy day savings, financial safeguards, insurance and investment policies, economic triggers to PAY-AS-YOU-GO

funds—that we have demanded of, and imposed on ourselves in the past several

years, have yielded significant returns to the District of Columbia.

Case in point... The Council insisted that the government limit the growth of

spending in fiscal year 2004, while ensuring that all basic municipal needs were

met. Instead of increasing taxes to address declining revenues for fiscal year 2004,

the Council resolved to limit the rate of spending to under 5 percent. Again, this

was done without detriment to the District residents who receive services and benefits from important programs.

This reflects a continuation of the same fiscal discipline strategies that the Council applied to the budget shortfalls that have occurred during fiscal year 2003. The

Council took the lead and made tough decisions with the Mayor in closing a $323-

million-dollar-plus revenue shortfall in this year’s fiscal year 2003 budget on the

very first day of the fiscal year—October 1, 2002. On April 1st, 6 months into the

fiscal year, the Council took emergency action to close another $134 million hole in

this year’s budget. Our counterparts in Maryland and Virginia and all across the

country of course face similar challenges, although we think that the District has

acted more quickly, effectively and responsibly to take the actions necessary to keep

our budget in balance.

Finally, it is important to note that due to the city’s fiscal discipline, our Congressional counterparts, as well as the hard work and positive image fostered by the

partnerships of the locally elected leadership and our business community, we have

finally been recognized and rewarded on Wall Street, where the DC government’s

bond rating has been upgraded from ‘‘stable’’ to ‘‘positive.’’ Moreover, the city’s bond

rating is expected to be further upgraded, while other jurisdictions ratings are being

downgraded at this time.
226

COUNCIL PERIOD XV

As the Council continues its work during the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004

legislative sessions, we will remain vigilant about maintaining the fiscal discipline

that we have imposed on the Executive Branch, and ourselves. Also, we will focus

on other important goals set forth in our legislative agenda. These include:

—Revitalization of our Neighborhoods;

—Investment in our Youth;

—Protection of our Vulnerable Residents;

—Oversight of Executive Performance and Service Delivery;

—Promotion of Continued Economic Stability and Growth; and

—Expansion of Home Rule and Democracy.

THE COUNCIL/MAYOR BUDGET PROCESS

In December of last year, the Council passed the fiscal year 2004 Budget Submission Requirements Resolution of 2002. It established March 17 as the date by which

the Mayor shall submit to the Council the proposed budget. The Mayor transmitted

his budget on March 17 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. The operating budget funds basic city services and

programs. The capital budget, as a result of stringent oversight by the Council, was

realigned. For example, funds were redirected and targeted for projects with higher

priority and critical needs, such as schools for the children, improving blighted properties in the neighborhoods, and enhancing existing facilities for better public/Council interaction.

I have provided copies of the Council’s committee reports and the fiscal year 2004

Budget and I would ask that they be made part of the record.

When the Mayor submitted the budget to us on March 17, he had proposed a local

budget of $3.8 billion, an increase of $195.5 million or 5.4 percent above the revised

fiscal year 2003 budget, as amended by the fiscal year 2003 Amendment Act of 2002

and later approved by the Congress.

THE COUNCIL/PUBLIC CITIZEN BUDGET PROCESS

An integral part of the Council budget process is public input and, as such, many

hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget were held. The process gave the citizens and

our workforce an opportunity to comment and critique programmatic and funding

needs and agency performances that impact them. 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

marks, the Committee of the Whole made additional recommendations in order to

bring the budget into balance. At the end of this public process—which translated

into 54 public hearings or about 289.15 hours—we incorporated findings from our

residents and employees into the budget.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET

On May 6, the Council approved the $6.6 billion spending plan that provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs. In keeping up with the seven

goals on our legislative agenda, schools continue to receive full funding. To protect

our vulnerable residents, the Council found $4 million to fund the Interim Disability

Assistance program for disabled adults. In the area of public safety, the Council provided the funding needed to increase the number of active policemen in the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to 3,800 by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Council accomplished this by separating the dollars needed to fund this initiative from

the rest of the MPD budget by placing the dollars into Pay Go funding. To invest

for future generations, capital and operating dollars were added for our young children to improve their studying environments and broaden their academic and vocational skills. We continued the District’s effort to collect Medicaid reimbursement for

local expenditures that are eligible for such Federal reimbursement.

All of this was done without any general tax increase. In fact, we are continuing

with the portions of tax reductions associated with the Tax Parity Act passed by

the Council in 1999, which are already in place. This Council action will bring our

taxes more in-line with our neighbors over a 5-year period. We believe this has contributed to the economic renaissance that our city is experiencing.
227

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Historically, the relationship between the District and the Federal Government

has been a unique political and financial arrangement. Between 1879 and 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 expropriated the cost of the contributions for the police, firefighters, and teachers retirement plans and various Court services.

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.

Although the District government may be solely responsible for its local spending,

it is not responsible for ‘‘the structural imbalance’’ that exists between its spending

needs and its revenue generation capacity. Just recently, the General Accounting

Office (GAO) released a report regarding this imbalance. Some of the significant

conclusions of this report include:

—The imbalance ranges between $470 million and $1.1 billion per year;

—The cost of providing public services is much higher in the District than it is

in the average State due to a relatively large poverty population, poor health

indicators, high crime, and the high cost of living;

—Although the District has a very high revenue capacity, we are already taxing

toward the upper limit of our revenue capacity, thereby creating a punitive tax

structure.

In order to solve the problem of structural imbalance, the General Accounting Office suggests that the Congress consider one of the following: (1) Relax current taxing restrictions on the District; or (2) Compensate the District for its special status

as a capital city.

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 and before the adjournment of the 108th Congress. 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 2004 budget is important because it shows that the Mayor and

the Council can co-exist together and underscores our commitment to make Washington, DC 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.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. Doctor.

STATEMENT OF DR. NATWAR GANDHI

Dr. GANDHI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu,

Congresswoman Norton. As the Chief Financial Officer, my primary responsibility is to ensure the overall financial viability of the

District at all times. In the past year, we have enjoyed some notable successes, including the sixth consecutive balanced budget.

Overall, the city ended fiscal year 2002 with a general fund surplus

of $27.4 million, and a positive general fund balance of $865 million. In fiscal 1996, there was a negative fund balance of $518 million, so we have witnessed a turnaround of over $1.3 billion since
228

then. This in itself is clear evidence the District is qualified for

Home Rule and ready for budget autonomy.

I believe we are in a good position to continue this progress. We

instituted several changes in financial systems that will give us a

much better picture of our financial posture as we go through the

year.

During fiscal year 2003, we began to implement standardized

spending plans and to report actual performance against those

plans, using a new online financial management tool for controlling

agency budgets. At the end of fiscal year 2001, we had $100 million

in cash reserves. This amount grew to about $248.7 million by the

end of fiscal year 2002, and will increase to nearly $254 million by

the end of fiscal year 2003, to remain at 7 percent of total local expenditures. These reserves were fully funded 5 years before the

designated deadline.

Along with the fund balance noted earlier, these steps solidified

the District’s bond rating and led Moody’s to upgrade their outlook

on the District’s $3 billion in general obligation bonds from ‘‘stable’’

to ‘‘positive’’. This is particularly significant at a time when rating

agencies are downgrading or looking negatively at numerous States

and localities. We hope our positive outlook will lead to a ratings

upgrade later this year, as Chairman Cropp expected, which will

contribute to even lower borrowing costs in the future.

For the fiscal year 2003 financial outlook, through the leadership

and cooperation of our elected officials, the District made the necessary tough decisions to assure a balanced budget for fiscal year

2003. As of early June, the remaining spending pressure for fiscal

year 2003 is estimated at about $50 million, primarily driven by

the high utilization cost for the health care safety net. These

amounts will be addressed. I am confident that we will end the

year with a balanced budget.

For the fiscal year 2004 budget request, in local funds, which

comprise about two-thirds of the total budget, the 2004 budget request is about $3.8 billion, an increase of about $230 million over

the approved 2003 level. The total number of positions funded with

the local fund is about $26,245, a decrease of 150 positions, or less

than 1 percent.

As you will see, the budget projects positive net operating margins through fiscal year 2007. This projection shows a positive financial picture, and is based on revenue forecasts that use realistic

economic and demographic assumptions generally accepted by the

forecasting community and the Federal Government. However, a

close examination of the data suggests that the District is operating on a slim financial margin indeed. Fortunately, we expect

local revenues to begin to grow in fiscal year 2004, after the decline

and stagnation of the past 2 fiscal years, but the growth that can

be expected is nothing like the 7 percent annual change between

fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2001.

The District now faces a more slowly rising revenue curve, as financial and real estate markets return to more normal patterns,

generating revenues that are expected to grow at around 41⁄2 percent per year. We believe that it will be challenging for this revenue to sustain our current level of services, and there is no room

for consideration of additional program initiatives, significant infra-
229

structure investment, or tax cuts. For these reasons, the city and

its elected leadership will face difficult program and financial decisions in the years to come.

One of the reasons for the difficulty is the structural imbalance

in the District’s budget that needs to be addressed. Chairman

Cropp and the Mayor already have talked about the structural imbalance issue, so I will not dwell on that any further. I appreciate

your leadership and Senator Landrieu’s leadership in our appropriations, and it is my hope that the current GAO report would

help Congress and the District move beyond the questions of

whether there is a structural imbalance to questions of how the

Federal Government and District Government can work together to

address this problem. This problem must be addressed with urgency to ensure the long-term financial viability of the Nation’s

capital city.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, 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 morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, and members of the subcommittee. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the District of Columbia, and I am here today to testify on the District’s fiscal year 2004 budget request to the Congress. My remarks will briefly touch on the fiscal year 2003 financial outlook, the fiscal year 2004 request, and the structural imbalance that threatens the District’s long-term financial viability.

OVERVIEW

As the Chief Financial Officer, my responsibility is to ensure the overall financial

viability of the District of Columbia in the short-, mid-, and long-term. In the past

year, we have enjoyed some notable successes, including the sixth consecutive ‘‘unqualified’’ (or clean) opinion from the city’s independent auditors, with the fiscal

year 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) completed ahead of time

and with a balanced budget. Overall, the city ended fiscal year 2002 with a general

fund surplus of $27.4 million, and a positive general fund balance of $865.3 million.

In fiscal year 1996, there was a negative fund balance of $518 million, so we have

witnessed a turnaround of over $1.3 billion since then. Even allowing for the restatements necessary to conform our financial reporting to the new requirements of

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 34, this result is clear evidence that the District is qualified for Home Rule.

I believe we are in a good position to continue this progress. We instituted several

changes in financial systems that will give us a much better picture of our financial

posture as we go through the year. We successfully implemented GASB 34 on time

with minimal outside assistance. During fiscal year 2003, we began to implement

standardized spending plans and to report actual performance against those plans

using CFO$ource, a new online financial management tool for controlling agency

budgets. At the end of fiscal year 2001, we had $100.9 million in cash reserves; this

amount grew to $248.7 million by the end of fiscal year 2002, and will increase to

nearly $254 million by the end of fiscal year 2003 to remain at 7 percent of total

local expenditures. These reserves were fully funded 5 years before the legislative

deadline. Along with the fund balance noted earlier, these steps solidified the District’s bond ratings and led Moody’s to upgrade their outlook on the District’s $3

billion in general obligation bonds from ‘‘stable’’ to ‘‘positive’’. This is particularly

significant at a time when rating agencies are downgrading or looking negatively

at numerous States and localities. We hope our positive outlook will lead to a ratings upgrade later this year, which would contribute to even lower borrowing costs

in the future.
230

We have made progress on other fronts as well. This year, for the second time,

the District of Columbia’s ‘‘Comprehensive Financial Management Policy’’ appears

as an appendix of the budget submission. This policy, required annually by the fiscal year 2001 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, Public Law 106–522, is actually a compilation of policies in key areas and a financial management tool that

codifies current policies and procedures. It is updated annually.

Effective with the fiscal year 2003 budget development process, we began the

transition to performance-based budgeting. With the active support of the Office of

the City Administrator, seven large operating agencies, including the OCFO, submitted performance-based budgets based on agency strategic business plans aligned

with the mayor’s citywide strategic plan. For the fiscal year 2004 budget process,

we worked with another 27 agencies (the remainder of the Mayor’s cabinet) to convert them to performance-based budgeting.

A long-term replacement strategy for the District’s payroll systems and their integration with other administrative systems has been developed as part of the Administrative Services Modernization Program (ASMP), spearheaded by the Office of the

Chief Technology Officer. Over the next 2 to 3 years, all of the District’s administrative systems—personnel, payroll, procurement, property management, and budget—

will be upgraded and integrated with the System of Accounting and Reporting

(SOAR). For the first time, this will give the District a top quality, integrated information system with which to manage District operations. Now that we have 3 years

of operating experience with SOAR, we are utilizing more of its capabilities. We already have an Integrated Tax System, rated as among the best in the country by

the Federation of Tax Administrators, and the District is the first city to offer free

online tax filing and the only city to provide account balances via the Web.

FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK

Through the leadership and cooperation of our elected officials, the District made

the necessary tough decisions to assure a balanced budget for fiscal year 2003.

As of early June, remaining spending pressures for fiscal year 2003 are estimated

at $50 million, primarily driven by higher utilization costs for the Health Care Safety Net. This amount will be addressed. I am confident we will end the year with

a balanced budget.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator Landrieu, and the subcommittee members and staff for your leadership and support on the District’s portion of the fiscal year 2003 budget supplemental that was enacted in April of this

year.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

The Council of the District of Columbia voted to approve the consensus fiscal year

2004 budget request on May 6. Copies of the budget documents have been distributed, and CD–ROMs will be made available shortly. I would like to briefly summarize some of the key points in the request.

In total, the District’s gross fund operating request for fiscal year 2004 is $5.69

billion, which represents an increase of about $119 million, or 2.1 percent, over approved fiscal year 2003 levels. The total number of positions in fiscal year 2004 from

all funding sources is 33,867, which represents an increase of 233 positions, or less

than 1 percent.

In local funds, which comprise about two-thirds of the total budget, the fiscal year

2004 budget request is about $3.83 billion, an increase of about $230 million, or 6.4

percent, over approved fiscal year 2003 levels. The total number of positions funded

with local funds is 26,245, a decrease of 150 positions, or less than 1 percent.

Over the 4-year period from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2002, the District’s local

fund expenditures increased by 6.1 percent annually, or a total of $741 million over

this period, from $2.768 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $3.509 billion in fiscal year

2002. Of this $741 million increase, $621 million (nearly 84 percent) came in two

areas: $316 million in the D.C. Public Schools and the Public Charter Schools, and

$305 million in the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health, and Health,

and the Child and Family Services Agency (all of which were part of the Department of Human Services in 1997). At these six agencies, expenditures increased at

a rate of 11.1 percent annually over the past 4 years. Expenditures in all other District agencies combined increased by $120 million, or 1.8 percent annually, over the

same period.

As you will see, the budget projects positive net operating margins through fiscal

year 2007. This projection shows a positive financial picture and is based on revenue

forecasts that use realistic economic and demographic assumptions generally accepted by the forecasting community and the Federal Government.
231

However, a close examination of the data suggests that the District is operating

on a slim financial margin. Fortunately, we expect local revenues to begin to grow

in fiscal year 2004, after the decline and stagnation of the past 2 fiscal years. But

the growth that can be expected is nothing like the 7.4 percent annual change between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2001. The District now faces a more slowly

rising revenue curve, as financial and real estate markets return to more normal

patterns, generating revenues that are expected to grow around 4.5 percent per

year. We believe that it will be challenging for this revenue to sustain our current

level of service, and there is no room for consideration of additional program initiatives, significant infrastructure investments, or tax cuts. For these reasons, the city

and its elected leadership will face difficult program and financial decisions in the

years to come. One of the reasons for the difficulty is a structural imbalance in the

District’s budget that needs to be addressed.

STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE IN THE DISTRICT’S BUDGET

Over the past several years, the District has submitted balanced and responsible

budgets during periods of increasing as well as stagnating and declining revenues.

Our restrained budgeting in the good years helped us work through some of the

hard times in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2004, the District

is submitting a balanced budget in a particularly challenging economic environment,

a testament to the ability of the District’s elected leaders to manage through difficult times. However, despite this balanced budget, and despite the surpluses the

District has generated over the past 6 years, the District has a serious long-term

financial problem—a structural imbalance that transcends short-term challenges

and cyclical revenue fluctuations. This structural imbalance is a long-term gap between the District’s ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the District’s ability to provide services of reasonable quality to its residents. It is driven

by expenditure requirements and revenue restrictions that are beyond the control

of District leadership.

Several outside assessments of the District’s financial condition have affirmed the

presence of this imbalance. In March 2002, a McKinsey & Company report funded

by the Federal City Council stated, among other things, that Federal constraints impose an annual opportunity cost of at least $500 to $600 million. In October 2002,

Alice Rivlin and Carol O’Cleireacain of the Brookings Institution assessed the District’s relationship with the Federal Government and concluded that a strong rationale exists for additional Federal financial assistance to the District. And just last

week, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released its final report, thoroughly assessing the District’s financial structure and corroborating the existence of a structural deficit in the District’s finances.

Economic changes have lead other jurisdictions to begin identifying structural

issues as well, and the District shares in the breadth and depth of problems facing

most States and localities. In addition, however, the District’s structural imbalance

is more extreme, driven by the unique set of services provided by the District and

the unique set of restrictions that limit the District’s revenue raising capacity. I

have testified to these requirements and restrictions on several occasions. In the

District, we provide city services, State services, county services and even the services of a school district; we provide public safety and public works services to the

Federal Government itself. We do all this with an artificially constrained tax base.

We cannot tax the income of people working in the District and living elsewhere,

a restriction faced by no State. We cannot tax 42 percent of the property value within the city because it is owned by the Federal Government. We cannot count on

high-density property to make up for our limited taxable property because of the

height restrictions on District buildings.

The cumulative effect of these requirements and restrictions is that the District

faces a long-term structural imbalance, whereby it is unlikely that we can provide

a standard quality and range of services to our citizens, even with tax burdens that

exceed those elsewhere. This imbalance manifests itself in many ways:

—The District’s per capita expenditure requirements are very high. We face high

per capita expenditure requirements because we provide public services in a

market with high labor costs; we provide services to a large commuter population; and we have many residents with high service needs. On top of these

cost drivers, the District provides about $500 million in services of a State-like

nature, and we provide millions of dollars of services as host to the Nation’s

capital. Although the District certainly has the potential to improve the efficiency of operations, the District’s higher costs are determined by factors beyond

our control and cannot be offset entirely by improved service delivery.
232

—The District compensates for its very high expenditure requirements with taxes

that are very high. The District’s tax effort is among the highest, if not the

highest, in the Nation. The need for high taxes is driven further by restrictions

on the District’s ability to tax income earned in the District and a significant

portion of the property within the District.

—The structural imbalance is not just a reality facing the District’s operating

budget. The imbalance contributes to a significant capital budget and infrastructure problem as well. The District faces an accumulated infrastructure

backlog of $2.5 billion, which has not been funded in recent capital improvement plans. The District continues to defer capital investment to avert the operating costs associated with debt service. The problem is acute because additional borrowing could raise outstanding debt to levels that adversely affect the

District’s credit rating.

When it comes to addressing the structural imbalance, we have few options. Increasing the tax burden on District businesses and residents even further could

have an adverse impact on total receipts, because it could influence potential and

current residents or businesses to locate in adjacent, lower-tax States. Given the

structural imbalance, the District must choose between tax levels that are even

higher than the national average, service levels that are lower than the national average, or combinations of both.

An alternative solution is Federal compensation for the District’s unique relationship with the Federal Government. Not only does the District provide unreimbursed

services to the Federal Government and fund itself with a federally restricted tax

base, but the Federal Government has a strong interest in a fiscally secure District

of Columbia. Ultimately, the long-term solution to the structural imbalance is a

matter to be addressed by District and congressional policy-makers. A dialogue must

continue that revisits the Federal/local partnership and arrives at a long-term solution for equitable support of District services.

It is my hope that the GAO report helps Congress and the District move beyond

questions of whether there is a structural imbalance to questions of how the Federal

Government and District government can work together to address this problem.

And this problem must be addressed with urgency to ensure the long-term financial

viability of the Nation’s capital city.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, 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 members may have.

Senator DEWINE. Good, thank you very much.

Senator Landrieu.

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate

the overview provided by each one of you, and particularly the

points of your focus.

EDUCATION

Mr. Mayor, maybe I should start with an issue that has been in

the news a great deal, an issue that probably needs some clarifying, and we are going to spend some time working on this issue

here, and that is the issue of education and choices and opportunities that we have to improve the educational opportunities for children not just here in the District. As you know, it has been a major

focus of Congress with the passage of ‘‘Leave No Child Behind’’ as

well as other efforts of funding and reforming special education.

It has been a real focus of Congress to try to figure a new way

to work in partnership with local Governments and State Governments to enhance the quality of education for all children, and it

is a contentious debate at times, because there are a variety of different approaches. There seems to be some consensus emerging at

least on the subject of providing more options than what exist now,

but as you know, there is not tremendous support, and I agree with

that, for abandoning the public school system, even though I know
233

that people would contend that this is not what some people are

attempting to do. Some evidence would suggest that some people

have maybe completely given up on the public school system and

want to go elsewhere. I am not one of those.

So given this debate, could you just express to us, as clearly as

you can, about what your views are. You have talked about a threesector approach when this subject comes up, could you just clarify

that issue for us? I realize that the school budget is not part of the

District’s Federal budget—though the school board is not here, I

would like your views, Mr. Mayor. Many Mayors are now stepping

up to try to help their cities navigate this issue of school choice,

and your voice is one that we listen to a great deal, could you clarify what some of your thoughts are about that issue, and then I

will come back to some others that you outlined.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think, Senator Landrieu, that education is

really critical to the future of the city. It is critical to have any kind

of workforce and talent pool that our businesses need. It is critical

in terms of having in the future the civic leadership that any city

needs, let alone our Nation’s capital, and if you look at a lot of literature about cities right now, people will tell you that more and

more employers are looking to come to cities for the sense of energy

and creativity, energy that a city is about.

Well, clearly you are not going to have that energy and creativity

if a good part of your city is really not fully part of the mainstream

educationally, in terms of literacy and otherwise, so education is vitally important, and what we have tried to do is certainly in the

first instance put a major emphasis on education over, if you look

at the budgets over the last 4 or 5 years that I have introduced to

the council, you know, major increases have really gone to either

human services or they have gone to education. Everything else

has pretty much been flat—education, some 42 percent increase in

education.

As we face this looming structural, well, present and looming

structural imbalance in the capital budget, we have had to basically cut out of the capital budget $250 million in order to preserve

capital dollars for school programs, so schools have been, are, and

will continue to be, the public schools, a major part of our emphasis, because they are clearly the major part of the lifting and the

delivery system for our children, and in that regard, the program

that I have supported, calling for additional dollars for a choice

program, or additional dollars above and beyond the dollars that

we are investing in our schools.

To the extent that children leave our regular public schools

under this program, we would hold our regular public schools

harmless, so in any event, regular public schools would have additional dollars to devote to better class sizes, other kinds of initiatives.

Above and beyond that, we are proposing as part of this threesector strategy provision of dollars, I would like to see in the order

of magnitude of $50 million ongoing funding to relieve the funds

of State costs that they can then invest, State costs borne by our

District, no other State, or not other city, certainly, that can go into

teachers, learning, and other kinds of enrichment.
234

The second part of this program, in addition to these ongoing dol- lars for the public schools, would involve $50 million matched by

the private sector for school modernization for our charter schools.

Right now, the demand far outstrips the supply for our charter

schools. One of the big issues, as you know, is facilities in our charter schools. This will go a long way toward helping our charter

schools meet and satisfy that gap.

And then finally, certainly there is a choice component here for

the third sector. We believe that it ought to be devoted to children

who are right now trapped in our low-performing schools, our lowest-income children, their ability to go to schools in the District,

schools that would agree to accept nondiscriminatory policies, and

certainly—and I am pleased that the Cardinal has already evinced

support for this, certainly one leader in the private parochial

area—that there be a common accountability mechanism, so that—

you know, one of the things I am seeing right now as we enter into

this debate is there is so much fury, inflammatory rhetoric about

what can or will happen if we do this, but not a lot of it is based

on real, empirical data.

What we are talking about here is a pilot. We are talking about

experimenting, and we are talking about doing a study under the

Department of Education, Federal Department of Education, so

that 4 or 5 years from now, we can look and say, okay, the outcomes were better, or maybe the outcomes are the same, or maybe

they are no different, in which case we ought to try something new.

And that is what I am proposing, and that is what I strongly support.

I think we have tried one model for a long, long time. We are

not abandoning that model, but if we can help 2,000 or 3,000 children as part of a multisector approach, I think we ought to do it.

SCHOOL CHOICE

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, just to conclude, and then I have got a

couple of questions on different subjects. Regarding school choice,

perhaps an approach would be a limited pilot, as you have described, but that would include not just the District, but several

other cities, but quite limited, and the parameters quite secure.

One of the reasons that I hesitate to even be more supportive at

this point is because of the experience we just went through with

‘‘Leave No Child Behind’’, where funding was promised, but it was

not forthcoming, and so I guess that there are many Members of

Congress on both the Democratic and I would say some on the Republican side, that are wondering how we even move forward from

here. There were commitments of funding levels made to schools

across the country, and in my position the chairman may disagree,

but those levels were not—whoever’s fault it was, we could argue—

but those levels were not maintained, and so entering into any

kind of arrangement without some security of the funding that follows whatever arrangements is something I think we should be

very careful about, and again, having an approach that might include other regions of the country as well, if we were going to pursue it.

But finally, I do want to, Mr. Mayor, commend you for being at

least open. I think in this debate we have to be open to new ap-
235

proaches, but your efforts and the council’s efforts particularly on

expanding charter school options and choices in the District is very

commendable. There are not many cities, Mr. Chairman—and I

think now almost 17 percent of the students have a choice for charter schools. There are many cities that have much more limited

choices, so the District has made a lot of progress in their charter

school movement, and now having quality charter schools and accountability.

But when you move into other areas beyond that, this issue of

what children will be tested, what tests they will agree to, the private sector, as you know, holds very dearly their freedom to either

not have tests, have whatever kinds of tests they want—of course,

they do not have public funds involved, so they have that freedom,

but adopting a new system would require private and independent

schools to maybe adopt certain criteria that they might not feel is

appropriate.

So we are not going to resolve it today, but I just want to commend you for being open, but I guess caution that we proceed very

slowly because of some of the things that I outlined.

Go ahead.

Ms. CROPP. If I may just for a moment add to that, the council

shares in your concern with regard to funding for unfunded mandates. With ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’, the District is looking right

now for millions of dollars to try to pay for that. We have the issue

of our transformation schools that we are still dealing with.

I would just like to put on the record for discussion not only in

the District, but I think nationally, the real issue and concern with

education is with the hard-core child who is having problems. The

District has probably the largest charter school population of any

city, any State in the country almost, or we are probably up there

in the highest rank. Normally, those who go to charter schools, it

is a certain culture, or a certain belief from the parents starting

out with the children, but we still are not really tapping into that

hard-core, uneducated child, and no matter what of the pilots that

we are talking about now, until we touch into this hard-core group

of those who are undereducated, I do not think we are going to

achieve what we want to achieve.

And the District of Columbia has really done exceptionally well,

I think, over the past several years, but the area, if I had to select

an area where I think we have the greatest need in growth it is

with education and with our young people, and I would hope, as

everyone, the District, nationally, other jurisdictions, as we look at

it, we do not just look at those individuals who are going to make

it. You know, with the charter schools, the parents obviously have

a care for education. With school of choice, the parents obviously

are trying to seek a higher level of education for their children, but

it is that hard core that is in the public schools around this country, that if we do not address them, we are not going to resolve the

problem at all.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I thank the councilwoman, and I am

not going to take any more time, but only to say that many of those

hard-core children, as you are describing them, and perhaps that

is a good term, are special needs children, and the Federal Government said they would pick up 40 percent of the tab of special
236

needs, and the Federal Government is only picking up 8 percent for

jurisdictions all over the country, so that would have to be addressed as one of the founding building blocks of this new proposal,

that discrepancy in funding, before we would proceed.

Mr. Chairman.

BOND RATING

Senator DEWINE. Dr. Gandhi, what is the outlook on Wall Street

for the city’s bond rating, and do you think that the recent GAO

report will affect the bond rating?

Dr. GANDHI. Sir, let’s say my hope is that next time we go to

Wall Street—which will be another month or two—that we would

see an upgrade. That is my hope.

Senator DEWINE. An upgrade?

Dr. GANDHI. Upgrade, sir, but let me say there are two fundamental issues here. The people on Wall Street are looking at, first,

how well the city is managing its fiscal affairs, and I think the

elected leaders have proved that, in the 2003 and 2004 budgets,

they have done heavy lifting and have done monumental work in

terms of making sure that our budget is balanced. It is balanced

without raising any taxes. They were able to provide realistic remedies to solving problems without using any tricks—no one-time

revenues, no accounting mechanism that others have used. We

have not done that.

The second issue here is that they do look at our structural problem. There is no way of going around that. That does affect us, and

they look at our long-term economic viability. Unless the Congress

resolves this fundamental issue, we do have some problem, but as

far as the city’s fiscal credibility, I think we have proved on Wall

Street that we can manage the city, and manage in a very fiscally

prudent and financially responsible manner.

The last thing I would say, sir, is that we now have roughly 25

percent of our fund balance, and until the year 2007, every year we

will have more than half, up to 60 percent of our fund balance, in

cash. No other State, except perhaps Mississippi, that has a requirement of putting 7 percent of fund expenditure in general fund

cash reserve. We have that.

Further, and I will end with this, the replenishment requirement

that we have is rather—how shall I put this?—very strict; so basically, that fund is untouchable, and that gives a lot of assurance

to the people on Wall Street that that money is always there, and

there in cash, so I am very hopeful.

Mr. WILLIAMS. If I could add, Mr. Chairman——

Senator DEWINE. Good. Mr. Mayor, go ahead.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Because of my experience as CFO, I think that it

actually helps, because when we go up and talk to them, one of

their major issues is this issue of the imbalance, and the Federal

relationship, and to the extent that a recognized authority like

GAO has pointed this out, and that there are statements from you

as Chairman and the Ranking Member on this, and certainly our

Congresswoman, I think that that actually—I think Wall Street

sees that as supportive, as opposed to counterproductive.
237

Another thing, as I just said, I am proud of the fact that from

the time of our fiscal insolvency until now—and you are talking

about a swing probably of, what, around $1 billion?

Dr. GANDHI. $1.3 billion, yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right, in liability, to now a fund balance, we

never financed our debt. So we basically worked that debt down

year by year, managing—you know, like the family managing the

MasterCard, we just managed it down the very, very old-fashioned,

hard way. And I think that is to our credit, over these last 7, 8

years.

Dr. GANDHI. And Mr. Chairman I would add, just to supplement

the Mayor’s point, that when the tobacco money came to us, we

securitized that, and that substantially lowered our debt by $1/2

billion.

Senator DEWINE. You did what, Doctor?

Dr. GANDHI. Securitized our tobacco debt, and consequently we

do not have to now rely upon lower tobacco consumption and lower

tobacco input into the fund. We are basically free of that obligation,

so I think it was a very wise fiscal move on the part of the elected

leadership, and it established our credibility on Wall Street even

further.

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW PROJECT UPGRADES

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Mayor, in fiscal year 2003, our sub- committee provided $50 million to begin these urgently needed upgrades to the city’s Combined Sewer Overflow Project. Do you want

to give us an update on the status of the project?

And also, with Federal cost-sharing, how will you be able to reduce the time for the project completion, and also maybe tell us a

little bit about, if the funding level goes down? In other words, if

the numbers we are able to give you will go down to, say, $10–15

million, what does that mean to you?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right. Well, Mr. Chair, first of all the project, as

you know, has three phases. There is the Anacostia phase, the Potomac phase, and the Rock Creek phase. All of them, particularly

the Anacostia and Rock Creek, are particularly polluted.

The most urgent and complicated of these is the Anacostia River

phase, which as you have mentioned is $1 billion. The contribution

of $50 million so far has been matched by a $90 million contribution from WASA, which will go to completing early work. There remains, however, a need of $800 million for this Anacostia phase.

There are several projects that are already underway, pumping capacity, targeted separation, an initiative to maximize storage in the

existing system. Were we to receive reliable funding—in other

words, if we were to know we were going to receive reliable funding

over a period of years, we would then be able to finance the project

properly and start the project in all of its phases and get it done

over a reasonable period of time.

Senator DEWINE. Reliable means what?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Pardon me?

Senator LANDRIEU. Dedicated.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Dedicated, reliable, recurring funding.

Senator DEWINE. At what level, though? It means at a certain

level, I assume.
238

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I do not want to—I could get you the exact

number, but I would believe that if we were able to receive the

level of funding we have already received on a reliable basis, recurring basis, we could then take that to the markets and package the

project and get it done in a timely fashion.

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Were we not to receive this, I do not see a way

that we can rely on our taxpayers and our businesses to shoulder

the total cost of doing this project, and I think the results are just

tragic, because it would grossly undermine the overall effort to revitalize the river, revitalize the city’s waterfront here in our Nation’s capital, what is it, ten blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

And I might mention that the sewage system is antiquated. It

was built in the last century. The major issue is, as you know,

storm separation. This is the old, quote-unquote old city, south of

Florida, here in Washington, D.C. The Federal Government probably has got about a 60 percent share of that old city, so it really

is—it is not just a Federal issue because we are the Nation’s capital. It is a Federal issue because our largest employer or major

corporate partner here has got to do its share.

METRO COMMITMENT

Senator DEWINE. Let me move to another area. You are requesting Federal support to help the District meet its commitment to

Metro. Do you want to explain why you feel this Federal commitment is so important?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Metro is certainly important to our city’s

economic livelihood, because our city has probably the second-largest in the country, I believe it is, ingress-egress of commuters of

any city in the country. We have—like many cities in the country,

we are in the top tier in terms of transportation congestion. This

has been exacerbated by Federal actions, however well-intentioned,

whether they are up here at the Capitol, but certainly down with

the executive agencies, and most prominently, the White House.

We have got Pennsylvania Avenue closed.

I do applaud the effort to begin work on studying a tunnel, but

we are way behind in getting the circulator moving, which will help

free up traffic, so here you are trying to revitalize the city. We have

seen $27 billion of investment in the city, and yet we have got this

transportation congestion, coagulation, which is really hampering

that effort to bring in additional business. The tractor man was a

great example of how one little hiccup in the system can ricochet

all over the region.

Another example, if the Pentagon decides they are going to

change how they register employees as they come in, or change

how they do business—I remember this happened shortly after 9/

11. We had traffic backed up for miles all over the place, so we

really need Metro.

Now, Metro, the District’s share of Metro is disproportionately

higher than the surrounding jurisdictions, even though we do not

have the tax base to support it, so our share is disproportionately

higher, and we are paying that share, as Chairman Cropp has

mentioned, unlike our partners in Montgomery County, Fairfax

County, and the like.
239

Dr. GANDHI. If I may supplement the Mayor——

Ms. CROPP. If I may add to that?

Senator DEWINE. Sure.

Ms. CROPP. What the mayor just articulated, with the share that

we are paying, our capital dollars are being spent, and we are almost at a very high level. The infrastructure of the city as a whole

needs to be repaired. The Mayor, the council, we have aggressively

been trying to do that, fix our streets and do other things. With

limited capital dollars, and with such a large share having to go

to Metro, at some point the city is going to have to make a decision.

Remember, we are talking about our taxpayers’ dollars, and our

taxpayers are saying, we want our parks and recreation that you

are talking about, and the fact that we cannot even keep our parks,

our recreation facilities, but we are going to help to pay and offset

a disproportionate share of Metro for people outside of the District

of Columbia, once again, a structural imbalance where the people

who are paying for it are not even getting their dollars’ worth.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is an excellent point. In 2005, I believe, the Metro share climbs up to $200 million, so you are already cutting

the capital budget tremendously in order to meet the kind of per

capita debt ratio that is going to satisfy Wall Street, and you have

to cut it tremendously in order to just maintain ground with the

schools, yet we have got to face this $200 million of Metro that is

going to further crowd out, as the chairman is saying, needed investments.

Senator DEWINE. Doctor.

Dr. GANDHI. If I may just supplement by some numbers here the

Council Chairman and the Mayor’s point—if you really look at this

formula, which is really antiquated, we are now paying around 39

percent of the subsidies, while we hold only about 6 percent of the

real property valuation in the region, and only about 20 percent of

the workforce is the riders who are on Metro. Any working day, the

majority of the people riding Metro are basically regional people,

and any working hour, especially in rush hours, the majority of the

riders are Federal workers.

Senator DEWINE. Senator Landrieu.

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me ask—and I really appreciate the discussion on Metro, because I think there might be some opportunities there for us to pursue some of the suggestions that all of you

have made, Dr. Gandhi, some of us debated within this recent tax

relief an opportunity, although it never came to fruition, to allow

our cities to save through refinancing, because there are some Federal restrictions right now on refinancing. We did not opt to do

that, which I think we should have, because we could have, at no

cost to the taxpayer, saved our city some money.

Would that be applicable to you in terms of, if we allowed some

refinancing options, and I am not talking about reamortizing the

debt, stretching it out, I am just talking about a refinancing to take

advantage of potentially lower rates. Have you looked at that to

see——

Dr. GANDHI. I appreciate your concern, Senator Landrieu, and I

think currently we are exploring every available opportunity to refinance our debt. We want to be absolutely sure that as we refinance, that roughly 15 percent of the total current outstanding
240

debt should be the limit by which we have new issue of additional

general obligation. We also want to make sure that our debt services do not rise above the limits that we have imposed upon ourselves in terms of the overall revenues.

But our fundamental problem, as the Mayor and Mrs. Cropp

have pointed out, is that our per capita debt now is among the

highest in the country, and we are neck and neck with New York.

Senator LANDRIEU. And what is that? What is your per capita

debt?

Dr. GANDHI. That is around, roughly in 2004 it is likely to be

around $5,000 per capita. That is a lot of per capita debt, because

we are carrying the debt of the municipality, county, and the State.

Senator LANDRIEU. Correct. It is a combined debt that you are

carrying.

Dr. GANDHI. Senator, the chairman had asked me a question

about the viability of having an upgrade in the bond rating, but

this is one of the things they look at, what is your per capita debt.

In per capita debt, we are very high.

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, explore—and if you have any Federal

restrictions that are not allowing you to refinance to take advantage of lower rates, let us know, because it may be something that

our committee could help you with, because some of us had that

idea to allow all the cities to do it in the tax package. It did not

make it in the final package.

And finally—I know we have a vote—Mr. Mayor, we are committed, as the chairman, under his leadership, to help on this Anacostia piece. I think it is very important, to find out what the surrounding areas are contributing, because as I think about it, even

if we would redo the sewer system here in the District, there are

lots of other States or counties that drain into this basin. I should

be more clear as to what Maryland and some of the other jurisdictions are doing in terms of their nonpoint pollution source and revitalization of their infrastructure, or is their infrastructure already

where it needs to be?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, certainly I would say that—and I applaud

Senator Sarbanes, the former Governor, the current Governor,

county executives, Prince George’s and Montgomery County have

all pledged their support to the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative,

and indeed some steps have been taken certainly on a cosmetic

level, although that is important, too, just the trash traps on some

on the tributaries up in Maryland, so we at least do not have just

huge amounts of floating debris on the top of the river, but above

and beyond that, a firm commitment on real dollars to the water

clean-up is still forthcoming.

But I think that, you know, were there to be the kind of commitment by this Congress, I think—and certainly there is a commitment here at the local level—we are able to leverage that and get

that commitment up there as well.

Senator LANDRIEU. So to do this project, you would need Maryland, primarily, participating. Any other State?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, you are talking about three rivers again.

You are talking about Potomac, Anacostia, and Rock Creek.

Senator LANDRIEU. So you would need Virginia, Maryland——
241

Mr. WILLIAMS. The two most polluted, Rock Creek and Anacostia

River, you are talking primarily Maryland. When you get into the

Potomac, obviously you are talking about ultimately up into West

Virginia and Virginia, in the watershed.

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

Senator DEWINE. Senator Strauss has prepared a statement for

the record, which will be included.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

Chairman DeWine, Senator Laundrieu and distinguished members of the Senate

Subcommittee. I am Paul Strauss, the Shadow United States Senator elected by the

voters of the District of Columbia.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement on behalf of my constituents in the District of Columbia. Today I would like to address the District’s fiscal

year 2004 local budget request to Congress. I would like to state for the record that

the locally raised portion District of Columbia budget should not have to go through

this process. The fact that there is a congressional hearing devoted to our budget

is fundamentally wrong. These hearings have been held in the D.C. Council and the

District should not have to submit this purely local portion of the budget to Congress at all.

It is essential to the District of Columbia that Congress pass this budget in time

for the new fiscal year 2003. You must avoid getting the local District of Columbia

budget held up in Continuing Resolutions. The consequences are severe enough

when the Federal Budgets get held up in Continuing Resolutions but the consequences are far worse when applied to the budget of the District of Columbia.

When the District of Columbia’s budget is held up, needed spending adjustments increases are not allowed to be implemented and the cost of debt services increases.

Our local govermental services suffer greatly every new day that our budget is held

up.

An easy solution to the dilemma of our budget being held up every year is budget

autonomy. The budget autonomy bill in the House of Representatives allows the

District Budget to be separated from the Federal Appropriations Process. That is

a good step in the right direction but it does not go far enough. Our local budget

should have nothing to do with Congress. Since fiscal year 1996, the District of Columbia has continuously provided Congress with a balanced budget. The District of

Columbia has demonstrated itself as a competent, governing body, which should

allow the District right to reject all policy interference and social riders attempting

to regulate the government within the District. It should be the privilege and priority of the government of the District of Columbia, not Congress, to make the District’s economic decisions. Although it is a present constitutional prerogative of Congress to exercise oversight of the District and its budgetary needs, it is not always

appropriate.

The District of Columbia has submitted a budget that calls for serious investments in education and public services. Mayor Williams, Chair Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi have explained the specifics in great detail and I support

their efforts in the budgetary requests of the District of Columbia.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no role for Congress in the D.C. Budget

process. This committee should focus on resolving the structural imbalance faced by

the District of Columbia. The structural imbalance faced by the District of Columbia

is one of the major problems concerning the budget. The gap between the District’s

ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the District’s ability to provide

services of reasonable quality to its residents jeopardizes the District’s ability to retain residents. Instead of being penalized for residing in the District, they should

receive the same constitutional rights as all American citizens.

The government of the District of Columbia needs to be fairly compensated by

Congress for the services it provides to Federal agencies. This compensation would

provide a solution to the structural imbalance within the District’s budget. The District’s government represents the citizens of the most unique city in the Nation. The

District has repeatedly provided Congress with a budget that has proved to be both

sensible and attainable. The outlook for the current fiscal year 2003 budget is being

projected as balanced with a surplus. The government of the District has proven
242

itself to be the best determiner of the expenditures within the District itself. This

reoccurring record of balanced and responsible budget management during times of

economic hardships and declining revenues is yet another fact that proves the District’s elected officials can govern the District. Not allowing the District to have complete control over its spending only increases the structural imbalance in the District which continues to discourage its citizens.

The elected officials of the District work hard to ensure the District is able to attain the locally raised revenue needed to fund various local interests such as public

service and education. The city should be able to utilize its tax dollars in a more

flexible manner. Allowing the District’s government flexibility with its tax dollars

would give them an opportunity to provide the community grater benefit from that

revenue. Flexible use of locally raised revenue within the District of Columbia would

provide the proper funding would ensure the community’s public service departments remain secure and stable entities within the city. My constituents have the

right to receive needed revenue to meet their children’s educational needs. I urge

you to approve the proposed budget, as it will be necessary in aiding the improvement of our District’s schools. The District submitted a timely budget so Congress

has appropriate time to approve it. I again ask that Congress pass this budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. It is unfair the District and its constituents

suffer Congressional delays that often disrupt critical improvements such as these

within the local government.

I would like to thank you, Chairperson DeWine for the opportunity to present this

statement. This budget was carefully drafted in order to benefit the citizens of the

District of Columbia. I support this prompt passage without amendment. In closing,

let me that two members of my legislative staff, Matt Helfant and Tricia Torok, for

their assistance in preparing my testimony this morning.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DEWINE. Well, we thank you very much.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DEWINE. I think it has been a very helpful hearing.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Page

Ashby, Cornelia M., Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Issues, General Accounting Office ...................................................................... 76

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 78

Bowens, Jacqueline, Vice President for Government and Public Affairs, Children’s National Medical Center .......................................................................... 174

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 178

CASA of the District of Columbia, Prepared Statement of .................................. 201

Conrad, Sister Ann Patrick, Associate Professor, National Catholic School

of Social Service, The Catholic University of America ...................................... 153

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 158

Council for Court Excellence, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 203

Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia ....................... 209

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 225

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 221

Davis, Hon. Tom, U.S. Representative from Virginia:

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 62

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 60

DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:

Opening Statements of ........................................................... 1, 53, 133, 153, 209

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 57

Questions Submitted by................................................................................... 47, 48

Egerton, Marilyn R., Deputy Director, Foster & Adoptive Parent Advocacy

Center .................................................................................................................... 161

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 164

Gandhi, Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia ..................... 209

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 229

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 227

Golden, Dr. Olivia A., Director, Child and Family Services Agency, District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 64

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 66

Gould, Kate Deshler, Esq., National Association of Counsel for Children,

Washington, DC Chapter, Prepared Statement of ............................................ 206

King, Rufus, III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia,

and Member, Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................ 13, 133

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 14

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:

Prepared Statements of ..................................................................................... 5, 59

Questions Submitted by................................................................................... 47, 48

Statements of............................................................................................. 3, 59, 210

Meltzer, Judith W., Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Social Policy,

and Court-Appointed Monitor, Child and Family Services Agency, District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 93

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 95

Miller, Damian, Student, Hampton University, Statement of ............................. 183
Page

ii

Nelson, Doug, Director, Property Development Division, Public Buildings

Service, National Capital Region, General Services Administration ............... 133

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 137

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 136

Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency, District of Columbia ............................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 29

Sandalow, Judith, Executive Director, Children’s Law Center ........................... 168

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 171

Satterfield, Lee, Presiding Judge, Family Court of the District of Columbia .... 13

Schneiders, Anne E., Chair and Founder, Washington Chapter, The National

Association of Counsel for Children ................................................................... 86

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 89

Strauss, Senator Paul, U.S. Senator from the District of Columbia, Prepared

Statements of ................................................................................... 45, 134, 200, 241

Sullivan, Ronald S., Jr., Director, Public Defender Services, District of Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 32

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 33

Wagner, Annice M., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals

and Chairman, Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, District of

Columbia Courts .................................................................................................. 1, 133

Prepared Statements of ................................................................................... 9, 143

Statements of.................................................................................................... 7, 140

Wicks, Anne, Executive Officer, D.C. Courts and Secretary, Joint Committee

on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia................................... 1, 133

Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia .................................... 209

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 217

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 213

Wright, Dr. Joseph, Medical Director for Advocacy and Community Affairs,

Children’s National Medical Center ................................................................... 174

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 178

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 176
(iii)

SUBJECT INDEX

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Page

Bond Rating ............................................................................................................. 236

Combined Sewer Overflow Project Upgrades ........................................................ 237

Council Period XV .................................................................................................... 226

Critical Federal Financial Support ........................................................................ 220

Disruptions Resulting from Federal Review of the District’s Budget ................. 219

Education .................................................................................................................. 232

Federal:

Constraints on Revenue Collection Resulting in Structural Imbalance ...... 218

Contribution ...................................................................................................... 227

Fiscal Year:

2003 Financial Outlook .................................................................................... 230

2004 Budget Request ....................................................................................... 230

Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget ........................................................... 226

Metro Commitment ................................................................................................. 238

Sacrifices Made to Preserve Budgetary Balance ................................................... 218

School Choice ........................................................................................................... 234

Structural Imbalance in the District’s Budget ...................................................... 231

Supporting Children in the District ....................................................................... 221

The Council/Mayor Budget Process ........................................................................ 226

The Council/Public Citizen Budget Process ........................................................... 226

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY

Faith-Based Initiative ............................................................................................. 45

Offenders .................................................................................................................. 40

Questions Submitted to the .................................................................................... 48

Supervisor/Pretrial Defendants Ratio .................................................................... 42

COURTS

Appropriations Language Changes ........................................................................ 12

Capital Questions .................................................................................................... 47

Capital Funding in Fiscal Year 2004 ..................................................................... 146

Comparison of Courthouse Construction Plans ..................................................... 151

Critical Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Priorities .......................................................... 10

Enhancing Security and Emergency Preparedness .............................................. 5

Facilities Overview .................................................................................................. 143

Fact Sheet—D.C. Courts:

Building ‘‘B’’ Interior Renovations .................................................................. 138

Moultrie Courthouse Expansion ...................................................................... 139

Old D.C. Courthouse and Parking Garage ..................................................... 138

Family Court in the Master Plan ........................................................................... 145

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Requirements .............................................................. 148

Master Plan for Facilities ....................................................................................... 145

Phasing of Construction Funds .............................................................................. 151

Questions Submitted to the .................................................................................... 47

Revitalization of Neighborhoods ............................................................................. 6

Strengthening Schools and Education Standards ................................................. 5

Supporting the Family Court in the District and Reforming Child Welfare ...... 6

D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

Capital Expenditure ................................................................................................ 16
Page

iv

Children Adoptions .................................................................................................. 22

Community Court for Minor Misdemeanors and Traffic Cases ........................... 15

Domestic Violence .................................................................................................... 25

Family Court Implementation ................................................................................ 15

The 6D Community Court ....................................................................................... 15

Intake Center .................................................................................................... 15

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES

Administrative Accomplishments ........................................................................... 39

Community Re-entry Initiative .............................................................................. 36

Criminal Justice Collaboration Project .................................................................. 38

DNA Sample Collection Response Initiative ......................................................... 35

Fiscal Year:

2003:

Accomplishments ....................................................................................... 35

Initiatives ................................................................................................... 35

2004 Request ..................................................................................................... 34

General Program Accomplishments ....................................................................... 37

Other Program Accomplishments ........................................................................... 38

Parole Revocation Defense Initiative ..................................................................... 36

Æ