Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Fletcher, just a few questions here. This $5 million of revenues that you referred to the other day that we lost as a result of the recent civil disorder Mr. FLETCHER. The loss of revenue is, at present, is 2.75 million. In addition, we are projecting the material, cost of material, and put together, it is over $5 million. It will present problems and we are working with Mr. Herman of the budget right now. Hopefully, some of the projected loss of revenue can be offset. We know we have already lost, and that cannot be retrieved. The Mayor is working closely with the business community to find ways in which we can forestall the cost, however. Mr. BROYHILL. Have you taken into consideration the additional loss of businesses that have not yet recovered? Mr. FLETCHER Yes, sir. We have done that both in terms of revenue, and in terms of assessed values. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Steiger. CRIME FIGHTING COSTS Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Commissioner, will you look at page 2 of your statement. (See p. 19). You refer to a $12,800,000 increase for what you term Crime Committee Efforts and then you list rather general areas in which you will spend this. I wonder if we could be a little more specific as to what this increase represents? Mr. WASHINGTON. I think, yes; I think we can give you those. Mr. HERMAN. We have this broken down into two costs, capital outlay and operating expenses. In the police department we have approximately $1.8 million for improvements to the police department which includes the training of police officers, additional cadets, staffing for the A.D.P. informational systems, motor scooters, and personnel to replace policemen and items of that sort, and capital outlay. The police department, we have an item to consolidate the police stations into six major stations and also to do miscellaneous repairs. We will submit the breakdown of these items. Mr. Steiger. What is the cost of the consolidation? Mr. HERMAN. $621,000. Mr. STEIGER. That will represent an increase in the budget, even though it is a consolidation? Mr. HERMAN. Yes, it will be repairing the present stations so we can alter them into this. It is still under consideration by the city council. Mr. WASHINGTON. That is a capital outlay expense. Mr. STEIGER. Eventually there will be a savings, I suppose? Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes. Mr. HERMAN. For the Court of General Sessions, the budget includes $842,000 to administer the Criminal Justice Office Act and Probation Act and increase in witness fees. Mr. STEIGER. The police, by themselves, will realize only some $2.4 million for the increase in civilian personnel, police cadets and the proposed precinct consolidation. The rest of the increase goes to the judicial branch? Mr. HERMAN. Judicial branch and Department of Correction. Mr. STEIGER. Are we talking about a capital outlay for a new institution? You are still a long way from the $12,800,000 increase mentioned earlier. Mr. HERMAN. The plans and specifications for a new jail are in the figure. The plans and specifications amount to $350,000. Mr. STEIGER. I don't know if you recall Mr. Sisk's colloquy with you last week. He expressed great concern over the disorders in the District. I think it was very well stated because our constituents are concerned about the safety in the District. It is a very real problem and has a very real bearing on the budget. I wonder, for example, have you projected any extraordinary expenses for this upcoming Poor People's March? Is there some contingency in the police budget at all times? Is there an extraordinary one this time? Mr. WASHINGTON. This is no extraordinary amount. There is a contingency in there, based upon the circumstances of the need. The planning in relation to it, not simply this month, but for other months, ones that are involved, the Anti-Vietnam and others that are either here or proposed involve considerations that will tax whatever contingency we have, and may bear on our ability to do some of the jobs that we have planned, of an expanding nature, like consolidation of the police stations. We would have to put that into added costs in respect to use of manpower on the streets, and on duty. Mr. STEIGER. You have anticipated this already? Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir. (The following itemization of the increases in expenditures for crime were subsequently filed with the committee:) RELATIONSHIP OF 1969 BUDGET TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Table 1 below shows the items recommended in 1969, by District agencies, which are directly related to recommendations of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia. The list excludes requests for Schools, Health, Welfare, and other agencies which are related to Crime Commission's "Roots of Crime" recommendations in Chapter 10 of the Report. It should also be noted that not all increases for agencies directly related to the crime problem are included in this table, since an attempt has been made only to identify those items specifically by the Crime Commission. Items reported endorsed a total increase for 1969 of $12,083,000 (rather than $12,800,000 as budgeted), comprised of $6,987,000 in operating expenditures and $5,106,000 for capital outlay projects. Combined with the restructuring of correctional programs and with 1968 budget requests related to the Crime Commission Report, the 1969 budget goes a long way toward providing the fiscal resources for operating expenditures and equipment needed by police, courts, and adult and youth corrections. Many recommendations (about 40%) involved little or no increase in funds for implementation. The following are several elements of cost not included in Table 1 which are essential to an overall assessment of funds to implement the Crime Commission Report: 1. Construction costs. Construction cost of a new detention facility, now court facilities, new police district stations, and new Receiving Home or other juvenile facilities will involve considerable expense over what has already been budgeted-perhaps over $50,000,000 in the next several years. Requests for 1968 and 1969 are generally for preliminary survey and plans. 2. Youth Commission. Table 1 does not include funds for dealing with delinquents or predelinquents who are known to authorities but who do not need to be sent to Juvenile Court or Welfare institutions. Providing resources for this critical area presents organizational as well as fiscal problems. Part of the reserve for special programs may be allocated for these youth services. 3. Pending legislation. Table I also excludes items of pending legislation related to the Crime Commission Report which would involve cost in 1969 if enacted. Significant items (and their estimated cost) include: (1) additional judges for General Sessions, Juvenile Court, ($700,000) and (2) higher beginning pay for policemen and higher salaries for educational achievement ($1,200,000). 4. Program Coordination. Lack of an effective interagency planning and program mechanism results in possible inconsistency of program assumptions for related agencies of police, courts, corrections, parole, and youth agencies. This problem is aggravated by the key role of the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Attorney's Office which are not a part of the District Government and by the general independence of the Courts. Capital outlay estimates for new detention or youth facilities would also benefit from systematic program review. TABLE 1.-ITEMS ALLOWED IN 1969 BUDGET RELATED TO RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TABLE 1.-ITEMS ALLOWED IN 1969 BUDGET RELATED TO RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-Continued 1 Part of this program implements this recommendation and part is additional staffing. 2 Except for nonprofessional and clerical staff the numbered recommendation of the Crime Commission Report does not involve substantial increases in funds. The Text of the Report, however, specifically endorses the research unit and states: "The court should continue to seek substantial increases in staff, and we believe that these additions should be authorized" (p. 697). POLICE RESERVES Mr. STEIGER. Earlier this year I sponsored a bill, H.R. 16420, which would beef up the Police Reserve Corps here in the District of Columbia. Several of our colleagues joined me in cosponsoring that bill. Similar legislation has received the backing of the District Government. The President, in his message on the District, strongly urged such a bill. Subsequent to the introduction of my bill, the violent disorders erupted here in the District in early April. Wouldn't those disorders and the real prospect of future trouble underscore the need for a strong Police Reserve such as is envisioned by my bill? Mr. MURPHY. The problem with the reserve corps, Mr. Congressman, is that the present members who generously volunteered their services must purchase their own uniforms, and they do not have any insurance protection, and the purpose of our proposed legislation would be to provide these two benefits which we think well deserved by the men who have given many, many hours of their time to the police department and the community and we feel that if these ad vantages were made available to them, we could significantly enlarge the corps. Mr. STEIGER. But that, of course, is not included in the $12,800,000 increase? Mr. WASHINGTON. That is not included. We will be operating out of 1968 funds in our budget which is not involved here. Here we are talking of '69, sir, but this will mean some reconstruction or realignment of our 1968 budget, based upon the needs as we plan them and as we see them today. I think that is what you are getting at. Mr. WINN. On the matter of the contingency funds, would this contingency fund allow possible overtime pay for the policemen and firemen in case we do have a long siege of trouble during the Poor People's March? Mr. WASHINGTON. Up to the extent that it is possible, we do have some reserves that is carried by way of the amounts that were not used because we did not have a full complement of men which would be usable in this degree for overtime and for added assignment. I think that would provide, as well as a part of the contingencyMr. WINN. Is that based on averages down through the years? Mr. WASHINGTON. Not only on averages but on actual amounts that were not used. We are closing the gap in our full complement rather fast. That is going to cut down on the amount although it is going to put additional men in the street. We are down from 384 to 170. Chief LAYTON. 166. There may be one added. Mr. FLETCHER. We are anticipating an additional $400,000 in overtime pay between now and the end of June. DEMONSTRATIONS Mr. STEIGER. Concerning demonstrations, what is the District governments policy regarding the issuance of parade and camping permits? Has there been provision for limiting such permits in light of possible heavy expenses to the District? Mr. WASHINGTON. Our concern is on parades, primarily, Chief Layton handles that. He might enlighten the entire committee on what our practices with respect to permits are. There would hardly be any expense to us. With respect to District land, the matter of permits on Federal lands is quite another factor. Mr. STEIGER. The recent suggestions that parade sponsors establish bond or that they pay for any damages, in my view, is a very meritorious one. But I gather that such a proposal will be viewed by some as too restrictive to become law. I wonder if you have considered, Chief, what the expense is of either the cleaning up after or maintaining of parade route. Might not such expense to the District be a valid reason for limiting the number of parade permits? |