The importance of getting tested for HIV

Be sure to read Richard Holbrooke's important piece in the Washington Post entitled "AIDS: The Strategy Is Wrong" [Nov 29, 2005; Page A21]. 

In the piece, Mr. Holbrooke laments: "We are not winning the war on AIDS, and our current strategies are not working."  The thesis of Mr. Holbrooke's piece is that HIV testing and detection are vital to attacking the HIV/AIDS epidemic. 

Holbrooke writes:  "Only effective prevention strategies can stop the spread of AIDS. Yet it is precisely here that current policies have failed most seriously. In the long chain of actions required to stop the spread of AIDS, attack on all fronts is necessary. But on one vital front, the world health community has been shamefully quiet for two decades: testing and detection."

DC Appleseed advocates for HIV testing and counseling being offered as a routine part of all medical care.  Look at our report, HIV/AIDS in the Nation's Capital, for more information.

Posted on Nov 30, 2005 at 7:20 AM | Comments (0)

"Report Card" To Be Issued On HIV/AIDS Progress

"REPORT CARD" TO BE ISSUED BY DC APPLESEED ON HIV/AIDS PROGRESS
Areas that will be measured in February 2006 Report Card to be announced on World AIDS Day

This summer DC Appleseed issued a report entitled HIV/AIDS in the Nation's Capital:  Improving the District of Columbia's Response to a Public Health Crisis.  D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, City Administrator Robert Bobb, Department of Health Director Dr. Gregg Pane, and HIV/AIDS Administrator Dr. Marsha Martin each have called DC Appleseed's report a "blueprint" for reform of the District's response to HIV/AIDS. 

In order to keep the spotlight on this important issue, DC Appleseed intends to monitor progress on the recommendations contained in its report and plans to publicly issue periodic follow-up reports on progress made. The first of these follow-up reports will be released in February 2006--six months after the release of the report.

On World AIDS Day--Thursday, December 1, 2005--DC Appleseed is planning to announce the areas that will be measured in this first progress report.  By publicly announcing the areas to be measured well ahead of the February 2006 release, DC Appleseed hopes to give attention to those areas and to give advance notice of the particular issues DC Appleseed wants to emphasize.

Posted on Nov 29, 2005 at 8:48 AM | Comments (0)

Supreme Court Special Ed Decision to Impact D.C.?

On November 14, the Supreme Court decided an important case dealing with special education and due process.  The case of Shaffer v. Weast asked the question: when a parent challenges the adequacy of a school district's special education program, who should have the burden of proof? The Supreme Court held that the parent has the burden of proof, because they are the party bringing the complaint. 

Under IDEA, school districts must meet with parents to create an "individualized education program" (IEP) for any child with special education needs.  If a parent is unsatisfied with the IEP, they may request a due process hearing.  IDEA is silent as to which party bears the burden of proof. In this case, the parents argued that the school district should bear the burden because the school system has better access to information about the educational program.  The Court rejected this argument because IDEA builds in many ways for a parent to access such information. 

The Court noted that school districts spend a great deal of time and funding on due process and that ruling in favor of the parents would likely increase the amount of litigation.  DCPS receives far more hearing requests than any school district -- even entire states.  It spends $10-$15 million per year on hearings alone. 

States and school districts may still voluntarily adopt the burden of proof.  The District of Columbia is one of only a handful of places that does so.  The D.C. Municipal Regulations place the entire burden in a due process hearing on the D.C. Public Schools.  However, in light of this ruling, the School Board is likely to consider changing this regulation.  

What do you think?  Should D.C. change the current regulation and require the parent to bear the burden of proof?

Posted on Nov 18, 2005 at 2:53 PM | Comments (1)

The Billion-Dollar-a-Year Structural Deficit

Every state--and territory--in the U.S. has the ability to tax all income generated within its borders.  And as a result, every state with an income tax (all 41 of them) has a nonresident income tax (sometimes called a "commuter tax").  The purpose of such a nonresident tax is to ask nonresidents to pay their fair share of services they receive in the jurisdiction where they work. (Commuters don't pay twice--in other states, they pay property tax to their home state, and income tax to the state where they work.)  Only in Washington, D.C. has Congress prohibited such a nonresident tax.  As a result, in Washington, D.C. residents effectively have to pay for their own services, as well as for the services received by nonresidents.

Because of this prohibition, the District is forced to overtax its own residents; its infrastructure is crumbling; and it does not have the funds needed to provide even basic services to residents and nonresidents alike--particularly in the areas of education, healthcare, transportation, and security. 

In fact, this taxing system has produced a billion-dollar-a-year structural deficit and makes financial stability impossible in the Nation's Capital.

When all is said and done, there are two possible remedies to this problem:  (1) that Congress removes the prohibition on the District, and the District decides for itself how to tax the income of nonresidents; or (2) the federal government assumes responsibility for the District's structural deficit and makes a compensatory annual federal payment.

Efforts are underway in pursuit of both remedies.  On the first possible remedy--seeking authority to implement a nonresident income tax--DC Appleseed, working with Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, the Washington Lawyers' Committee, Gilbert, Heintz & Randolph, and White & Case, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of D.C. residents and the D.C. government challenging the constitutionality of the federal prohibition.  In addition, D.C. Councilmember Adrian Fenty (D-Ward 4) has introduced legislation to hold a referendum to call for the removal of the congressional ban on a commuter tax, and to subsequently impose such a tax on nonresidents who earn income in the District of Columbia.

On November 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the commuter tax ban in Washington, D.C.--essentially holding that the District is a creation of Congress and subject to its will.  However, the court's decision to treat our constitutional arguments seriously showed that our case raises important questions about the role of Congress in making rules for the District of Columbia--especially a Congress in which the District has no voting representation.  We therefore intend to petition the Supreme Court to review the decision.

While we were disappointed with the court's decision, the good news is that the court's opinion confirms DC Appleseed's long stated position that the Congress must either permit the commuter tax or find some way to help the District pay for the costs it bears in providing services to nonresidents.  Specifically, in upholding the commuter tax ban as constitutional, the court said that Congress might well have decided "that the enhanced burden of financing the District's operation should fall on the nation at large, rather than on the residents of the neighboring states." 

Meanwhile, on the second possible remedy--federal compensation addressing the issue--the problem is that "the nation at large" has not yet done what the court described (i.e., compensate the District for the enhanced burden of providing services to people it cannot tax).  But there is a way for that to happen:  the Congress should pass the bill introduced by Congresswoman Norton and co-sponsored by every House Member from the region. That bill is designed to compensate the District for the structural deficit caused by the commuter tax ban and to require, as the court said, that the District's enhanced burden "should fall on the nation at large, rather than on the residents of the neighboring states."  We are heartened that Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) recently stated on The D.C. Politics Hour:  "It's the nation's capital--if there's any deficit or shortfall I think that that's a federal responsibility . . . so I tend to favor Mrs. Norton's approach."  And we are hopeful that the committee he chairs will soon hold a hearing on the bill.

Posted on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:05 AM | Comments (2)

"Commuter Tax" Ban Upheld

Posted on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:01 PM | Comments (1)

DC Appleseed...Solving DC Problems

DC Appleseed -- Solving DC Problems. That's our new slogan.

We thought devising a slogan would be hard. But in the end it was simple.

Kentucky Fried Chicken...does chicken right.

Milk...does a body good.

And Nike...just does it.

Solving DC problems...that's what WE do.

Sometimes the problems are small. In a recent report, we recommended that new "rapid" HIV testing technology be used at the District's STD clinic. Last week the District began doing that.

Other times the problems are huge. Several years ago, DC Appleseed helped the District's teachers, firefighters, police officers and judges resolve a problem with their pension plans. Our work saved the District $5 billion.

DC Appleseed -- Solving DC Problems.

Posted on Nov 3, 2005 at 2:33 PM | Comments (0)

CareFirst: Whose Company Is It Anyway?

As the Washington Post recently reported ("CareFirst's D.C. Insurer Could Lose Tax Break," Oct. 4, 2005),  this past week Mr. Bill Jews, the President of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, told  the DC Council that it has no authority to hold CareFirst accountable for the way it serves the residents of the National Capital area.

In particular, Mr. Jews objected to a bill introduced by Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) that requires the company to operate "in a manner that is in the public interest" and to do so "to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with financial soundness." The bill also requires an annual examination by the Mayor to determine whether the company's surplus is "unreasonably large" and requires the distribution of any excess surplus to benefit subscribers, to help those having difficulty acquiring insurance, and to fund other public health initiatives. Significantly, the District's Mayor, Insurance Commissioner, and Attorney General all testified in support of the bill.

However, Mr. Jews and other company officials testified that the bill is an unreasonable and unwarranted intrusion into a "private company." They are wrong about that.

The DC-based portion of CareFirst (named Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., or GHMSI) is chartered by Congress. The charter provides that the company "shall not be conducted for profit" and that its mission shall be to operate as a "charitable and benevolent institution." In carrying out this mission, the charter authorizes the company both to provide health insurance and to engage in activities that "promote and safeguard the public health." The charter also provides that the company "shall be licensed and regulated by the District of Columbia."

Notwithstanding these clear provisions, the company has not been operated as a charitable and benevolent institution. Instead, as a report by DC Appleseed showed last December, the company is essentially operating as a for-profit company, piling up huge surpluses, and doing very little to "promote and safeguard public health." In fact, even though it has net assets of over $500 million and revenues in excess of $2 billion, last year the company spent only about $1 million on charitable community health benefits. DC Appleseed's December report showed that the company could easily have spent at least $50 million and still remain financially sound.

How did this happen? It happened because the company's managers don't acknowledge what this company is. They manage it as if it were a private, for-profit company company. But it is not. The public owns this company and it must be managed for the public's benefit.

As the Attorney General said in his testimony this week, "the company's assets belong to the public."  He also said that the company "has an obligation to use its profits and excess surplus to serve the purpose of promoting health in its service area."  And perhaps most importantly, he said that until the company acknowledges its obligation as a "charitable and benevolent institution" to operate for the benefit of the public, one cannot presume that its corporate decisions are based on a board determination as to how best to fulfill the corporation's charitable purposes." Consistent with the Attorney General's view, it appears that the vast majority of  the money the company recently told the Insurance Commissioner it is now  spending on charitable benefits ( through a claimed "slowdown" in rate increases) is really part of a profit-oriented business strategy, not an effort to serve the public interest.

We the public own this company. We are therefore entitled to insist that it be managed in our interest and that it adhere to its charter as a charitable and benevolent institution. Because the company's current management denies that this is so, some standards of accountability for the company should be established through the Council's bill.

At a minimum, the bill should do three things: establish the legal standards the company must meet to fulfill its obligation as a "charitable and benevolent" institution; define which activities are "charitable and benevolent" and which are not; and give enforcement power to the Attorney General to ensure that the company meets these requirements.

Over two years ago, the Maryland Insurance Commissioner expressly rejected CareFirst's request to become a for-profit company, finding that the request was "not in the public interest." He furthermore found that CareFirst was failing to meet its nonprofit mission. This past May, the District's Insurance Commissioner determined that the company is still not meeting its mission and that it could and should be doing significantly more to safeguard and promote public health in the National Capital area. It is time to require the company to start doing these things.

Posted on Oct 21, 2005 at 5:34 AM | Comments (0)

Your Chance to Question the Next Mayor

The District of Columbia Affairs Section of the District of Columbia Bar, DC Appleseed, the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law, DC League of Women Voters, DC Vote, Consortium of Universities, and the ACLU of the National Capital Area are co-sponsoring:

"The Mayoral Election - One Year To Go"

We're a year away from the election.  Come hear what the candidates for Mayor of the District of Columbia have to say at the first District-wide public forum.  Join an impressive panel of local commentators as they question the 2006 lineup of mayoral candidates. 

2006 Mayoral Candidates

Linda Cropp, Adrian Fenty, Vincent Orange, Michael Brown, and Marie Johns

Panelists

Mark Plotkin, WTOP
Tom Sherwood, NBC4
Jonetta Rose Barras, WAMU

Moderator 

Colbert King, The Washington Post

Date

Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Time

6:30 pm - 8:00 pm
(Doors Open at 6:00 p.m., Program Begins at 6:30 p.m.)

Location

The University of the District of Columbia
The Windows Lounge - Building 38, 2nd Floor
4200 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
(Van Ness/UDC Metro Station - Red Line)
(Paid Parking Available in UDC Garage)

Cost

Free

*** Please register by the close of business, Monday, November 7, 2005, by indicating in an email to outreach@dcbar.org that you plan to attend the mayoral forum and providing your name, address, and telephone/fax number.

Posted on Oct 20, 2005 at 8:27 AM | Comments (0)

Why you should care about CareFirst

Are you a resident of the National Capital area?  If you are, then believe it or not, you own an insurance company. 

It's true.

The considerable assets of the not-for-profit health insurance company CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield of the National Capital Area (which operates under the name "GHMSI") belong to the public.  And unlike for-profit insurance companies, GHMSI exists to serve the public.

But GHMSI declared earlier this week that proposed legislation that reinforces the company's obligation to operate "in a manner that is in the public interest" represents an unreasonable and unwarranted intrusion into a "private company."

If a company owned by the public refuses to operate in the interest of the public, there's a problem--and it's your problem. 

Think of it this way:  if GHMSI were a for-profit company, its profits and surpluses would benefit the company's shareholders.  In this case, residents of the National Capital area are the company's shareholders--and the company is withholding the public's benefits. 

A report issued by DC Appleseed last December showed that even though GHMSI could and should have spent at least $50 million last year on community benefit activities, the company spent only about $1 million. 

What is GHMSI doing with the tens of millions of dollars its federal charter requires it to use to "promote and safeguard public health"?  It is socking away huge annual surpluses that are far higher than any of its competitors--to make the company more attractive to potential buyers.

What could it be doing instead?  For starters, it could increase the benefits in its health plans without increasing rates.  Or it could provide discounts for subscribers with limited incomes.  It could also provide health-related education for subscribers or the general public in its service area, and support other organizations that promote health in its service area

D.C. Councilmember Jim Graham has introduced "The Medical Insurance Empowerment Act of 2005," which would require GHMSI to operate "in a manner that is in the public interest" and to do so "to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with financial soundness."  DC Appleseed supports this legislation and would also like to see additions to the bill that we believe would strengthen its purpose and make it more effective. 

What follows is a summary of the reasons why we support the legislation and why we think there should be additions to it.
                                  
DC Appleseed's December 2004 Report

In December 2004, DC Appleseed issued a report explaining why we thought GHMSI was not meeting its obligation to citizens of the National Capital area. That report showed, through an opinion from Covington & Burling, that GHMSI has a legal obligation under its federal charter and District law to commit the maximum possible amount of its revenues and surplus toward serving the healthcare needs of current and future subscribers as well as the communities in which they live. The only limitation on that obligation is that in committing that maximum amount the company should maintain its competitive and financial stability. Our report also showed, through an economic and financial analysis performed by Mathematica, that GHMSI was falling well short of meeting that obligation. Specifically, the report showed that in 2004 GHMSI could conservatively have provided approximately $50 million in community benefits when in fact it provided only around $1 million.

In the wake of our report, several important things happened that we believe should influence the legislation the Council is now considering. 
                                      
The Attorney General's Opinion

First, on March 9, 2005, of this year the Attorney General issued a memorandum to the City Administrator explaining GHMSI's legal obligations. Although in that memorandum the Attorney General did not agree with all the details of our report, he firmly supported the key legal points we made. Specifically, he agreed that:

(1) "under both District and common law, GHMSI's assets belong to the public" and "unlike a for profit company GHMSI exists to serve the public" (p.4);

(2) under its charter, "GHMSI must operate as a charitable and benevolent institution, consistent with operating for the benefit of its present and future subscribers" and it must "devote its entire operation, directly or indirectly, to serving the purposes for which it was chartered" (p.2);

(3) this means that it must act "in a manner that is consistent with the larger 'charitable' purpose of promoting better health in GHMSI's service area" (p.8); and

(4) it furthermore means that "GHMSI has an obligation to use its profits and excess surplus to serve the purpose of promoting health in it service area" (p.8).

Significantly, the Attorney General also gave clear examples of the kinds of things GHMSI could and should be doing to meet this stated obligation. These included:  increasing the quality of or benefits in its health plans without increasing rates; providing discounts for subscribers with limited incomes; providing health-related education for subscribers or the general public in its service area; and supporting other organizations that promote health in its service area (pp. 7-8).
                           
The Insurance Commissioner's Hearing and Opinion

After the release of the Attorney General's opinion, Insurance Commissioner Larry Mirel held a hearing (on March 24, 2005) to inquire whether GHMSI is in fact meeting its obligations to the community.  At that hearing, GHMSI took the position that it has no legal obligation to the community at all; rather, the company said, its obligations are no different from that of for-profit health insurance companies. It also took the view that the Attorney General's opinion supported this position.

Following the hearing, on May 15, 2005, Commissioner Mirel issued a report making certain findings critical to the legislation being considered by the D.C. Council. First, he found that "the public health needs of the District of Columbia are extensive and diverse" (p.12). Second, he found that "not only does GHMSI have the authority to engage in charitable activity outside the provision of health insurance, it has the responsibility to engage in such activity" (p.11). In fact, he determined that "it seems clear that the general purpose of the organization was intended to be the furtherance of the public health" (p.12).

Third, he found that GHMSI "can and should do more to promote and safeguard the public health of the residents of the District of Columbia" (p.2). He added that "the ability of CareFirst and GHMSI to do more for the community than it is doing currently is beyond doubt" (p.19). Fourth, he determined that GHMSI could "reduce its surplus level without negatively impacting financial strength and viability, and the Department believes that could be achieved by increasing financial contributions to organizations, activities, or joint efforts that will advance the public health in the District of Columbia" (p.21).

Given all these determinations, Commissioner Mirel directed GHMSI to submit to him by September 1, 2005 a "detailed report" of the charitable activities it was engaged in for 2004, 2005, and "the planned activities of GHMSI and CareFirst for 2006 and beyond" (p.23).

Unfortunately, however, from our viewpoint, Commissioner Mirel made one other determination that undercut the force of all his other determinations:  he agreed with GHMSI that it had no legal obligation to do any of the things he identified. Thus, he said categorically:  "GHMSI may satisfy the charitable obligation under its charter solely by providing health insurance in its service area" (p.10). This, we believe, is directly contrary to the language of GHMSI's charter, flatly inconsistent with GHMSI's role as a charitable and benevolent nonprofit, and in clear violation of the Attorney General's opinion. We also believe, however, that the mere fact that the Insurance Commissioner has made this determination--casting doubt on GHMSI's legal obligations--now requires action by the Council to clarify those obligations. 

GHMSI's Community Benefits Plan

The last important development that we think should be considered by the Council in its legislation is the actual community benefit plan described by GHMSI in its September 1 filing with the Insurance Commissioner. In that filing, GHMSI said it will be providing a total of $38.9 million in community benefits in 2005. And although directed by the Insurance Commissioner to provide a comparable description of its community benefits for 2004 as well as for 2006, that information is not presented in the September 1 filing.

Our concern with the filing is that it is impossible to tell whether the claimed $38.9 million really constitutes charitable and benevolent community benefits. That is because nearly all of the claimed benefits--$35 million according to the filing--are in the form of "rate relief" benefiting GHMSI subscribers. When this plan for rate relief was announced by CareFirst and GHMSI earlier this year, DC Appleseed sent a letter to the company asking it to say (1) how it calculated the amount it could afford to spend on community benefits; (2) which particular groups or persons would benefit from the claimed rate reductions; and (3) how the public could be sure that the claimed rate reduction were in fact true community charitable befits, as opposed to being rate reductions dictated by business, market, or competitive factors. CareFirst and GHMSI refused to provide any of this information. As a result, there is simply no way to tell whether the company is in fact doing what the Insurance Commissioner himself said it should be doing--committing significantly more to charitable community benefits in its service area.

At the same time, there are indications that the claimed $35 million in rate relief is in fact not charitable but a business-related action. First, the asserted rate relief is consistent with the rate relief occurring in the market as a whole. As the Washington Post recently reported (Sept 15, p. D2), while health insurance premiums rose 9.2% this year, that represents a slowdown from the increases of 11.2% in 2004 and 13.9% in 2003. Second, there is no indication that the asserted rate relief is of the kind that the Attorney General identified as qualifying for community benefits, i.e., relief targeted at persons of low income who otherwise could not afford insurance. And third, it seems to us not irrelevant that GHMSI itself describes the claimed rate relief in its own September 1 filing as a "Business Strategy" (p.4).

Of course we do not fault GHMSI for engaging in prudent business strategies. We want it to do so; but we also want it to meet its charitable obligations. Yet prudent business strategies and charitable benefits are not the same thing and it is not clear to us that this company understands the difference between the two. What is clear to us is that the company has not shown that the program described in its September 1 filing is in fact a charitable one. Nor is this a surprise given the company's view--confirmed by the Insurance Commissioner--that it has no charitable obligation in the first place.

DC Appleseed's Legislative Recommendation

As noted, the assets of GHMSI are effectively owned by the public.  We think the public has a right to demand that those assets are used for its benefit.  We also think the public has a right to demand that a process be in place that will make that happen. In our view, at least three basic things are now legislatively needed to accomplish that:  (1) a legal standard defining GHMSI's community benefit obligation; (2) an additional legal standard defining what qualifies as community benefits; and (3) an enforcement scheme ensuring that GHMSI meets these standards.

Thus, first, the legislation should make clear that GHMSI has a community-benefit obligation to its service area and it should state the legal standard for meeting that obligation. The bill now under consideration requires GHMSI's Board to "manage the affairs of the corporation, including all policies and proposals, in a manner that is in the public interest and so as to cause the corporation to assist and support public health initiatives in its service area to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with financial soundness." We support this standard. We also support the corollary requirement in the bill that the Mayor must annually examine whether GHMSI's surplus is "unreasonably large" and should be reduced to further support community benefits. We think this provision of the bill would be strengthened if it also required annual examination of whether the company is in fact committing the "maximum feasible" amount to its community benefit program. This should include a showing by the company of how it calculated the "maximum feasible" amount it could commit.

Second, particularly in light of the uncertainty over what qualifies as community benefits and what does not, we think it important that a definition of community benefits be included in the bill. Otherwise, the requirement to commit the maximum feasible amount to such benefits may be rendered ineffective. We think the definition and examples in the Attorney General's opinion provide guidance for this needed provision in the legislation. However, we also think it critical that any definition of qualifying community benefits not include premium abatements that the company would have adopted in any event in order to safeguard or increase market share.

Finally, while we think GHMSI's board should in the first instance decide the content of its community benefit plan, we think that plan must be made subject to review and scrutiny by the Attorney General and the Attorney General must be given adequate investigative and subpoena powers to ensure that the plan meets the applicable legal requirements and that the public's interest in the assets is protected.

Posted on Oct 6, 2005 at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)

The District's Affordable Housing Crunch

The loss of affordable housing is a growing concern for many District residents and housing advocates as many District residents must choose between bearing the economic burden of rising rents and home values and leaving the District for neighboring counties. Last week's Washington Post article (September 13, 2005; Page B01) calls attention to the booming housing market that has resulted in mortgage and rent payments that many of the District's current residents can not afford.  Ensuring that District residents have access to affordable housing is one of the key goals of DC Appleseed's Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Project; however, the affordable housing crisis is a District-wide issue that requires serious attention from the District government.   

According to the Washington Post article, the District spent nearly $117 million on housing production; and yet, between 2003 and 2004, the District lost nearly 12,000 affordable housing units. As the DC Fiscal Policy Institute's (DCFPI) recently released report indicates (New Census Data Shows DC Affordable Housing Crisis is Worsening), rents and home values have steadily risen between 2003 and 2004. DCFPI's analysis of US Census Bureau data shows that median rent increased by almost nine percent between 2003 and 2004 and median home values in the District increased by 32%. Much of this burden is being carried by the District's lowest income residents. According to a report that DCFPI issued in January, households with income below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI)--$25,600 for a family of four--account for 80% of the households that spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs.  (Housing is considered affordable when a household spends 30% or less of monthly income on total housing costs--paying over 50% constitutes a "severe housing burden."  The AMI for the Washington Region is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to help calculate funding for local housing programs--more information can be found on their website.)
 
Last year, the Mayor commissioned the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force to address the District's long term housing needs and create a strategic policy plan that can adequately improve housing and expand access to affordable units for District residents. According to the Task Force's recently released draft report, Housing for an Inclusive City: Comprehensive Housing Strategy for Washington D.C., the current situation has resulted in a "crisis of affordability" in which working families are being forced out of DC's housing market. To change this situation will require substantial increases in the city's current spending on affordable housing. 

The Task Force endorses the Mayor's goal of attracting 100,000 new District residents, and has calculated that, based on expected household sizes, the city will need to create 55,000 new housing units for those new residents.  One of the key recommendations in the draft report is that federal and local resources should be maximized to ensure that at least a third of the new 55,000 housing units built in the city are affordable on a long-term basis. Of that third, the Task Force recommends that 7,600 units should be set aside for households with annual incomes of less than 30% of AMI ($26,790 per year), 5,700 units for households with annual income between 30-60% of AMI (between $26,790 and $53,580) and another 5,700 for those with annual incomes of 60-120 percent of AMI (between $53,580 and $107,160).

At public meetings last week, the Task Force heard from many residents and affordable housing advocates who said that, as scarce as the resources to subsidize affordable housing are, more should be spent on families in the lowest income levels, who feel the most severe burdens.  Task Force members acknowledged the problem, but also emphasized that many middle-income, working-class families who are not eligible for certain subsidies also are being pushed out of the District, and that one of the goals of the Task Force was to develop an inclusive policy to meet the needs of all District residents.

Such affordable housing set asides are also a key component of the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation Act (AWCA) which requires that for housing developed on land along the Anacostia River that is under the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation's authority, 15% must be affordable for low-income families and another 15% must be affordable to moderate-income families.  The AWCA defines low-income as a household with an income below 30% of AMI and moderate-income as between 30% and 60% of AMI. 

DC Appleseed's AWI Project is addressing the housing crisis in the District by working to ensure that the housing set-asides in the AWCA are enforced.  However, the Anacostia waterfront is only one area of the District.  Access to affordable housing is a growing challenge throughout the District that will require coordinated and committed resources and partnerships from the District government, developers, and local community advocates.

Posted on Sep 22, 2005 at 9:06 AM | Comments (0)

D.C. Department of the Environment

Following the District's 2004 lead contamination crisis, we issued a report saying how the law should be changed to guarantee safe drinking water.  One of our recommendations was the creation of a D.C. Department of the Environment to oversee the District's environmental and natural resources programs.

Having a District department dedicated to the environment, rather than relying on a regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) located in Philadelphia, will give District residents greater comfort that their environment and natural resources are being managed and protected at the local level. 

We are pleased that the "District Department of the Environment Establishment Act of 2005" is moving through the D.C. Council with near-unanimous support.  But the content of that legislation is still being decided. 

We believe that two critical environmental issues affecting the District should be addressed in the important legislation and by the new Department:  responsibility for lead in the District's drinking water and regulation of pollution from storm water runoff.  We think the steps taken so far concerning lead contamination are insufficient to ensure safety of the District's water.  And better management of storm water pollution is integral to cleaning up the Anacostia River.

The reason DC Appleseed believes the steps the DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has taken so far are insufficient to ensure safety of the District's water is because the EPA rule under which WASA operates--the Lead and Copper Rule of the Safe Drinking Water Act--is itself deeply flawed. 

The GAO recently issued a report that is critical of the current rule, and the EPA has announced planned revisions to the rule.  Further, Sens. Jeffords and Sarbanes and Reps. Norton and Waxman have introduced the "Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2005," which calls for significant revisions to the rule in order to ensure delivery of safe drinking water. 

Excessive lead levels in drinking water has been one of the leading issues affecting the District in the last several years.  To ensure that the lead crisis which has affected the District is never repeated, the new Department should, at its creation, be given the power to obtain primacy for the Safe Drinking Water Act and to act on the recommendations contained in the December 2004 report of the D.C. Council Committee on Public Works and the Environment entitled "Report on the Investigation into the Conduct and Operations of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Relating to Lead in Drinking Water and its Lead Service Replacement Program." 

With primacy over drinking water issues, the District, through the Department, would be able to directly address lead in water issues at the highest levels of the D.C. Government, through a department with a head administrator directly accountable to the Mayor.  In addition, with primacy the District would be able to make changes to the Lead and Copper Rule necessary to ensure that the public has additional protection from harmful levels of lead in its drinking water, including:  expanding drinking water sampling efforts; discontinuing the use of lead-containing water service parts in residences; and disseminating to the public comprehensive and standardized information regarding testing results (including recommendations to prevent excess lead exposure).  A new Department would also be able to assume the responsibility for overseeing and enforcing the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority's obligations to comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

A study in the July 2005 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives finds that there is no safe level of lead in children's blood.  The study found that children exposed to lead suffer substantial intellectual impairments, even at exposures far below levels currently considered harmful.  Further, an August 2005 study in the Journal of the American Water Works Association finds that household brass faucets may be leaching more lead into drinking water than previously thought and a stricter standard to certify their safety is needed.

Regarding storm water pollution prevention, D.C. Appleseed has been involved with the effort to reduce storm water pollution since 1999, when we released a report recommending adoption of storm water management and finance systems.  The D.C. Council and the Mayor adopted some of these recommendations through 2001 legislation creating the Storm Water Administration and Compliance Fund. 

Given the problems that continue to exist, however, with respect to pollution of storm water, it is time for additional action.  We believe that the new Department, at its creation, should be given the responsibility for management of the Storm Water Administration, which is currently managed by the Water and Sewer Authority. 

By making the new Department responsible for storm water management, operations and oversight of the administration could be more efficiently managed.  It would also allow the District to have control over a program that is integral to cleaning up the Anacostia River, a primary goal that is key to the District's long-term plan to redevelop the Anacostia Waterfront, for polluted storm water runoff is the primary contributor to pollution in the Anacostia.

Posted on Sep 8, 2005 at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

D.C. Interagency HIV/AIDS Task Force

As reported in the Washington Post, Mayor Williams generally agrees with the findings and recommendations in the report we released on August 10, HIV/AIDS in the Nation's Capital:  Improving the District of Columbia's Response to a Public Health Crisis.  The Mayor said that, in response to the report, he plans to form and lead a task force to spearhead improvements. 

Some, including political commentator Jonetta Rose Barras and D.C. Councilperson David Catania, have scoffed at the notion that forming "yet another" task force is the right move for the District.  In an August 17 article in the Northwest Current, Councilperson Catania said that the idea of a task force is "perfectly absurd."  The Councilperson went on to say:  "Leadership is needed.  We don't need to talk about it."

In an August 17 commentary in the DC Examiner, Jonetta Rose Barras wrote, "The last thing the District needs is another mayoral-appointed commission filled with political hacks and well-meaning do-gooders with only a marginal understanding of what government can and should do.  It needs action--now."

We agree that leadership is needed.  We also agree that, in the abstract, forming another task force sounds like a bad idea--an idea that could be viewed (and is being viewed) as a way to sweep the problem under the rug.  That said, we think this problem does, in fact, require a task force--not just any task force, but the right kind of task force doing the right kind of things. 

After all, two of the major recommendations in DC Appleseed's HIV/AIDS report were:  (1) that the District's leaders should make a strong, ongoing commitment to addressing this public health crisis; and (2) that addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis requires significant improvement in the area of "coordination"--i.e. improvement will require a city-wide, interagency response rather than the HIV/AIDS Administration working alone to address HIV/AIDS. 

Therefore, we believe a working, experienced executive-level interagency task force chaired by Mayor Williams is an important first step in implementing both of these recommendations.  We think the task force should include only high-level government officials from all relevant government agencies (including, for example, the Directors/Administrators of the Department of Health, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Human Services, and the District of Columbia Public Schools) who will be committed--and be held accountable--for addressing the city's HIV/AIDS crisis.

The purpose of the task force would be both symbolic and practical; it would signal to the community and to the District government that the District is serious about addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and it would provide a forum--currently not in existence--for agency leaders to identify specific steps to facilitate the needed coordination that is now lacking among the agencies responsible for delivering services to individuals at risk for HIV.
 
The task force would consider and, where appropriate, implement recommendations made by the DC Council, Office of the Inspector General, DC Appleseed, the HIV Prevention Community Planning Group, the Ryan White Planning Council, and other relevant groups and organizations.  The HIV/AIDS Task Force would have the unique ability to take action on all of their recommendations and start making a real difference in confronting the epidemic.

Posted on Aug 24, 2005 at 11:52 AM | Comments (0)