[Senate Report 107-145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 362
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-145
======================================================================
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2001
_______
April 29, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2305]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 2305) to authorize certain Federal
officials with responsibility for the administration of the
criminal justice system of the District of Columbia to serve on
and participate in the activities of the District of Columbia
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................6
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................7
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of H.R. 2305, the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council Restructuring Act of 2001, is to authorize the heads of
six Federal agencies, specifically, the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, the
District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, the United States Parole Commission, and the
United States Marshals Service, to meet regularly with District
law enforcement officials as the ``Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council'' (CJCC). H.R. 2305 strengthens the CJCC
by authorizing Federal participation and funds. H.R. 2305
requires the CJCC to submit to the President, Congress, and
appropriate Federal and local agencies an annual report
detailing its activities.
II. BACKGROUND
The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District
of Columbia (CJCC) is the primary venue in which District of
Columbia criminal justice agencies can identify and address
interagency coordination issues. The CJCC for the District of
Columbia was originally established pursuant to a Memorandum of
Agreement entered into on May 28, 1998 by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department, the Chair of the Council of the District of
Columbia, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Council
of the District of Columbia, the Chief Judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia, the Corporation Counsel of the
District of Columbia, the Chief Management Officer, the
Corrections Trustee of the District of Columbia, the Offender
Supervision Trustee of the District of Columbia, and three
members of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority (also known as the
``Control Board.''). It has operated as an independent working
group to foster cooperation among the 13 governmental agencies
which have law enforcement responsibility in our Nation's
capital.
CJCC's mission is to address coordination difficulties
among District of Columbia criminal justice agencies. CJCC
members have typically met every four to six weeks and have
formed numerous teams to address criminal justice issues, such
as drugs, juvenile justice, halfway houses, information
technology, and identification of arrestees. CJCC staff have
coordinated meetings, provided data and statistics, summarized
workgroup findings, performed best practices reviews, and
provided other information and support to District of Columbia
criminal justice agencies.
Establishment as a local agency
As part of a local enactment in August 2001, the Fiscal
Year 2002 Budget Support Emergency Act of 2001 (District of
Columbia Laws Act 14-124, Title XV), the CJCC was established
as an independent agency within the District of Columbia.
Under this local law, the Mayor of the District of Columbia
is designated as the Chair of the CJCC. Other members include
the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia; the
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Council of the
District of Columbia; the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia; the Chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department; the Director of the District of Columbia Department
of Corrections; the Corporation Counsel for the District of
Columbia; the Director of the Department of Human Services'
Youth Services Administration; the Director of the Public
Defender Service; the Director of the Pretrial Services Agency;
the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency; the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia; the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee; the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the chair of the
United States Parole Commission.
The 2001 local law enumerates eight specific duties of the
CJCC. Among them are the responsibility to: make
recommendations concerning the coordination of the activities
and the mobilization of the resources of the member agencies in
improving public safety in, and the criminal justice system of,
the District of Columbia; define and analyze issues and
procedures in the criminal justice system, identify alternative
solutions, and make recommendations for improvements and
changes in the programs of the criminal justice system; receive
information from, and give assistance to, other District of
Columbia agencies concerned with, or affected by, issues of
public safety and the criminal justice system; make
recommendations regarding systematic operational and
infrastructural matters as are believed necessary to improve
public safety in the District of Columbia and Federal criminal
justice agencies; and establish measurable goals and objectives
for reform initiatives.
Federal funding
The FY 2002 appropriations for the District of Columbia
(P.L. 107-96, 115 Stat. 923 at 925) provides for a Federal
payment of $300,000 to the City Administrator for the Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia.
GAO assessment of criminal justice coordination challenges in the
District of Columbia
In March 2001 the General Accounting Office (GAO) released
a report, ``D.C. Criminal Justice System,'' \1\ on the
effectiveness of coordination among the District's various
criminal justice entities. As explained by GAO, the criminal
justice process--from arrest through correctional supervision--
in any jurisdiction is generally complex and typically involves
a number of participants including police, prosecutors, defense
attorneys, courts, and corrections agencies. Because of the
large number of agencies involved, coordination among agencies
is necessary for the process to function as efficiently as
possible within the requirements of due process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed
Among Participating Agencies,'' GAO-01-187, March 30, 2001 (210 page
report); see also ``D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination
Needed Among Participating Agencies,'' GAO-01-708T May 11, 2001 (GAO
prepared testimony before House Subcommittee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO emphasized that the unique structure and funding of the
District of Columbia's criminal justice system, in which
Federal and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries and
dollars are blended, creates additional coordination
challenges. The District of Columbia criminal justice system
consists of four District of Columbia agencies principally
funded through local funds, six Federal agencies, and three
District of Columbia agencies principally funded through
Federal appropriations. Seven of the ten stages of the District
of Columbia's criminal justice system require coordination
among agencies funded by different sources.
Because of the different sources of funding, reporting
structures, and organizational perspectives of the various
agencies involved in the District of Columbia criminal justice
system, GAO stressed that it has been difficult in the District
of Columbia to coordinate systemwide activities, reach
agreement on the nature of systemwide problems, and take a
coordinated approach to addressing problem areas that balances
competing institutional interests. CJCC's ability to effect
cooperation among the various agencies has been limited because
it has no formal authority or power over any member agency.
According to GAO, without a requirement to report successes
and areas of continuing discussion and disagreement to each
agency's funding source, CJCC's activities, achievements, and
areas of disagreement have generally been known only to its
participating agencies. GAO observed that this has created
little incentive to coordinate for the common good, and all too
often agencies have simply ``agreed to disagree'' without
taking action. Further, without a meaningful role in the
establishment of multi-agency initiatives, CJCC has been unable
to ensure that criminal justice initiatives are designed to
identify the potential for joint improvements, and that they
are carefully coordinated among all affected agencies.
GAO found that while there has been notable success in
areas where agencies share a common interest, there is a
general lack of coordination among participating agencies.
According to GAO, poor coordination of numerous projects, such
as case processing, information technology, correctional
supervision, and the sharing of responsibilities among
agencies, have led to inefficient operations and poor program
performance. GAO also stated that funding is a problem for CJCC
because the Control Board disbanded in 2001 and because funding
of CJCC through any individual participating agency potentially
diminishes its stature as an independent entity in the eyes of
several CJCC member agencies, reducing their willingness to
participate.
GAO offered several recommendations to address the
deficiencies identified. Among them, GAO recommended that
Congress consider funding CJCC; require CJCC to report annually
to Congress, the Attorney General, and the Mayor of the
District of Columbia; and require all District of Columbia
criminal justice agencies to report multi-agency activities to
the CJCC, which would serve as a ``clearinghouse'' for these
initiatives.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 2305 was introduced on June 25, 2001 by Representative
Connie Morella (R-MD) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-
DC). It was referred to the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on July 9, 2001. H.R.
2305 was amended in the subcommittee to address concerns raised
by the Department of Justice that requiring participation by
the Federal entities designated in the bill in this locally-
constituted body could be read to authorize the local agencies
comprising a majority of the CJCC to make decisions with
binding authority on the Federal agency participants.\2\ The
amendment allays the concern by making clear that Federal
agency involvement is merely authorized, but not required,
thereby making clear that the bill does not impose on the
Federal agencies any obligation to accede to CJCC decisions.
H.R. 2305, as amended, was reported to the full House Committee
on Government Reform by voice vote on September 21, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter of July 31, 2001 to Representative Connie Morella from
Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 4, 2001, H.R. 2305, as amended, was considered
by the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules,
and passed by voice vote. H.R. 2305, as passed in the House,
was received in the Senate on December 5, 2001, and referred to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs. On December 17, 2001,
the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia.
On March 14, 2002, H.R. 2305 was favorably polled out of
the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia. H.R. 2305 was considered by the Committee on
Governmental Affairs on March 21, 2002, approved by voice vote,
and ordered to be reported, with no Members present dissenting.
Present were Senators Akaka, Bennett, Cleland, Cochran,
Levin, Lieberman, Stevens, Thompson, and Voinovich.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 entitles the Act as the ``Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2001.''
Section 2 authorizes the Director of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, the
Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency,
the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the chair of the United
States Parole Commission, and the Director of the United States
Marshals Service to serve on the District of Columbia Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council, participate in the Council's
activities, and take such other actions as may be necessary to
carry out the individual's duties as a member of the Council.
Section 3 requires that not later than 60 days after the
end of each calendar year, the District of Columbia Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council shall prepare and submit to the
President, Congress, and each of the entities of the District
of Columbia government and Federal government whose
representatives serve on the Council a report describing the
activities carried out by the Council during the year.
Section 4 authorizes such sums to be appropriated for
fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal year as may be
necessary for a Federal contribution to the District of
Columbia to cover the costs incurred by the District of
Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
Section 5 defines the `District of Columbia Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council' as the entity established by the
Council of the District of Columbia under the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia Establishment
Act of 2001.
V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 3, 2002.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2305, the Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew
Pickford (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the
state and local impact.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 2305--Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of
2002
H.R. 2305 would authorize certain federal officials
involved in the criminal justice system of the District of
Columbia to serve on and participate in the activities of the
District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The
act would authorize the appropriation of the necessary sums to
cover the costs incurred by the council.
Assuming the appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 2305 would cost about $500,000
annually. That estimate assumes that the council would hire a
staff of five individuals. Because the act would not affect
direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not
apply.
H.R. 2305 would require the District of Columbia Justice
Coordinating Council to prepare an annual report describing the
activities carried out by the council during the year. This
requirement would be an intergovernmental mandate as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the
cost to the District of Columbia in complying with this mandate
would not be significant and thus would fall well below the
threshold established by UMRA ($58 million in 2002, adjusted
annually for inflation). Further, the bill would authorize
funding to cover the costs incurred by the council. The act
contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew
Pickford (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the
state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H.
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analyst.
VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill
evaluate the ``regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out this bill.'' Carrying out H.R. 2305 would have no
regulatory impact. In addition, as explained in the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) letter, H.R. 2305 would
require the District of Columbia Coordinating Council to
prepare annual report describing the activities carried out by
the Council during the year. This requirement would be an
intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA). CBO has estimated that the cost to the
District of Columbia to comply with this mandate would not be
significant and thus would fall well below the threshold
established by UMRA. Further, the bill would authorize funding
to cover the costs incurred by the Council. H.R. 2305 contains
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that H.R.
2305, as reported, makes no changes in existing law.