FACING FACTS

Drug Strategies

Facing Facts

A Profile of Washington, D.C.

This report is designed to inform residents of Washington, D.C., local officials, members of Congress and U.S. policymakers about the dimensions of the problems caused by alcohol, tobacco and other drugs in the city, and about public and private initiatives to reduce these problems. The report focuses on:

use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs
crime related to alcohol and other drugs
the impact of drug use and abuse on health
costs of drug use and abuse
Washington, D.C.'s response to these problems

Every day, tens of thousands of nonresidents visit Washington, D.C. Some contribute to local markets for alcohol sales and illicit drug dealing.(1) Although this profile acknowledges the interdependence of urban and suburban drug abuse trends in the metropolitan area, it focuses on the District of Columbia itself.

This profile also acknowledges the difficulty of comparing the District to states, because the District's fiscal and administrative structures are different from those of constitutionally independent states. For example, the District's crime patterns and demographic composition resemble those of other large cities far more than comparably populated states. On the other hand, the District has certain fiscal and management responsibilities, such as the Medicaid program, that are usually reserved for state or county governments. Therefore, while we provide some national, state and city-level comparisons to place District figures into context, whenever possible we use local trends, as they provide the best comparisons for the city itself.

Drug Strategies will distribute Facing Facts broadly in Washington, D.C. to elected officials, researchers, business leaders, private organizations, government agencies, educators, community groups and the media. National distribution will include members of Congress and mayors of other major cities. We hope the report will increase public understanding of drug abuse problems in the District of Columbia and generate political and financial support for more effective policies and programs.

In preparing this report, Drug Strategies consulted numerous D.C. and federal government agencies and non-governmental organizations. A distinguished Advisory Panel guided the project, including representatives from public and private agencies with drug abuse responsibilities. Interviews with federal and local officials, community leaders, and representatives from treatment and prevention programs helped provide a comprehensive picture of public and private initiatives. While we are grateful for the insight and wisdom of those who contributed to our research, Drug Strategies is solely responsible for the content of this report.

Key Findings

Since the 1980s, drug abuse and related violence has scarred the image of the District of Columbia. Throughout the 1990s, falling budgets and government mismanagement undermined efforts to address the city's alcohol, tobacco and other drug problems. All these drugs remain easily accessible.

Washington, D.C. has not spent all of the funding available to fight drug abuse in recent years, and the city has not deployed its resources as effectively as possible. Cooperation among city agencies and with neighboring jurisdictions has been inadequate. Although the District has created one of the nation's most comprehensive databases on offender drug use, policymakers have generally lacked vital information on the city's drug use trends.

During the past decade, the city has overemphasizedcriminal justice at the expense of prevention and treatment, which are both in short supply. The results: although Washington spends more per capita on law enforcement than any other city in the country,(2)crime rates remain high. Most of this crime is driven by alcohol and other drugs. Yet the city spends only $42.45 per capita on prevention and treatment -- compared to $1,257 per capita on criminal justice -- and regularly releases addicted prisoners without providing the treatment they need.

It is time for a fresh start, and there are many reasons to believe the District will now be able to confront its drug abuse problems more effectively. Crack use is waning, and the murder rate is falling. The federal government has assumed funding responsibility for most of the District's criminal justice system, contributing the District's $445 million budget surplus posted in 1998. Alice Rivlin, the chair of the presidentially appointed District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (known as the Control Board) has been well received by local and national leaders. New police chief Charles Ramsey brings a reputation for strong management skills and innovative approaches to policing. And Anthony Williams, the new mayor, has started his term with broad political support and substantial goodwill in Congress.

Three in four D.C. residents are optimistic about the city's future -- a sentiment expressed equally across each of the city's eight wards, by both African American and white residents.(3) Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 1998

These changes provide an ideal opportunity to develop a comprehensive response to the city's drug problems, as part of broader fiscal and administrative improvements in District government. Nonetheless, tremendous challenges lie ahead, and unless the city's alcohol, tobacco and other drug problems are effectively addressed, they may undermine other reforms.

To help meet these challenges, Facing Facts offers policy recommendations in five key areas: criminal justice, prevention, treatment, information and leadership.

Criminal Justice. Drug use is widespread among criminal offenders throughout the city's justice system, but few offenders receive drug treatment while in prison, on probation or on parole. Much of the District's criminal justice system has been put under federal control. The District, Congress, and the relevant federal agencies must ensure access to drug treatment for all offenders in need.

Prevention. D.C. residents place a high priority on drug prevention, but few consider current efforts to be adequate. The District should bolster prevention activities on several fronts by raising alcohol and tobacco excise taxes, restricting alcohol and tobacco advertising in areas accessible to children, increasing enforcement against alcohol and tobacco sales to children, implementing school-based prevention programs that are proven to be effective, and providing strong support for needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. For its part, Congress should end its prohibition on the use of local revenues to fund needle exchange efforts in the District.

Treatment. Despite treatment's proven effectiveness in reducing drug use and drug-related crime, publicly funded treatment is scarce in the District. Funding for treatment services should be increased significantly. At the same time, Medicaid eligibility and coverage should be expanded to ensure access to drug treatment services for all of the District's lower income residents. Providing treatment services through an insurance model would fold drug treatment into comprehensive health services and reduce dependence on inconsistent treatment funding. Continuity of care, which is crucial to long-term treatment success, should be built into contracts with treatment providers.

Information. Data on alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and its consequences in the District have been gathered only sporadically in recent years, and the lack of accurate, current information has seriously hampered policy planning. The District must build its capacity for data gathering and policy analysis that spans agency boundaries. The District should establish its own state-of-the-art, interdisciplinary research facility to plan and evaluate drug policies and programs, to determine how much money needs to be spent and how best to spend it.

Leadership. The wide-ranging effects of alcohol, tobacco and other drug problems in the District require that the government's response be formulated at the highest level -- including the mayor, relevant department heads, the D.C. Council, and while it exists, the Control Board. To sustain leadership, one official who reports directly to the mayor must be empowered to coordinate the city's overall drug abuse response, bring all the necessary players to the table and increase interagency cooperation.

Context

Washington, D.C. faces a complex array of social, economic and political challenges, and understanding them is vital, because they provide the underlying context for the city's drug abuse problems and impacts. (The Appendix provides a more detailed discussion.)

Demography. Urban flight and a high mortality rate have reduced the District of Columbia's tax base. The city is racially and ethnically diverse, but most residents live in wards where one racial group out numbers others by at least six to one. Similarly, while Washington is a wealthy city, its wealth is distributed unevenly, and one in six city residents lives in poverty.(4) Areas where poverty rates exceed 30 percent are inhabited almost exclusively by African Americans.(5)

Public Image. In the 1980s, Washington gained notoriety following the onset of the crack cocaine epidemic and an unprecedented surge in homicides. Today, that reputation continues to dominate the city's national image. Close to home, the District is often singled out as the source of drug problems throughout the greater metropolitan area, but city health and criminal justice officials note that residents of nearby suburban communities help sustain local drug markets.

Economic and Fiscal Constraints. Since 1994 the unemployment rate among D.C. residents has been 60 percent higher than the national average, and double that of the surrounding region. In addition, the revenue most states use to help fund public programs is significantly restricted in the city. Forty-one percent of the assessed property value in the District is exempt from property taxes, primarily because the land belongs to the federal government.(6) And the city is prohibited from taxing commuters, who take home 60 percent of the income earned there.

Federal Authority. Tensions dominate the relationship between the District of Columbia and Congress. The Constitution gives Congress authority to govern the city, although District residents do not have voting representation in Congress. In April 1995, due to budget shortfalls and mismanagement in District agencies, Congress created the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (known as the Control Board). Five presidential appointees were empowered to write the city budget, hire and fire personnel, and direct some city agencies, including the public schools and police department. The 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act transferred authority over nine other city departments to the Control Board and mandated significant changes in the criminal justice system.

By the end of 2001, all sentenced felons in the District will be in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons. The federal government will pay for incarcerating them, while the District will be responsible for juveniles, misdemeanants and felons awaiting sentencing. The court system remains under local management but is funded by the federal government. By 2000, a new federal agency will assume responsibility for probation, parole and supervised release. The shift to federal funding of much of the District's criminal justice system will contribute to net savings for the city of about $170 million a year through 2002.

New Leadership. In March 1999, Congress and the President returned to the District's elected leaders the governing powers that had been stripped away by the 1997 Revitalization Act and vested in the Control Board. With passage of the D.C. Management Restoration Act, Mayor Anthony Williams resumed control of all D.C. government operations, and the D.C. Council regained its authority to approve mayoral appointees without Control Board intervention. Unless Congress chooses to dissolve it sooner, the Control Board will maintain an oversight role until the city has balanced its budget for two more consecutive years.

Next Section

Programs | Prevention Programs | Criminal Justice Programs
Workplace Programs| Treatment Programs