DOCSLIB.ORG

The District's School Modernization Program Has Failed to Comply With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The District's School Modernization Program Has Failed to Comply With 028:15:JL:LG:MY:cm:LP:KP The District’s School Modernization Program Has Failed to Comply with D.C. Code and Lacks Accountability, Transparency and Basic Financial Management July 1, 2015 Audit Team: Julie Lebowitz, Audit Supervisor Lilai Gebreselassie, Auditor-in-Charge Markia Yates, Auditor A Report by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor Kathleen Patterson, District of Columbia Auditor July 1, 2015 What follows is the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor’s (ODCA) report entitled “The District’s School Modernization Program Has Failed to Comply with D.C. Code and Lacks Accountability, Transparency and Basic Financial Management.” This performance audit was conducted as required by D.C. Code §38-2973.05. ODCA addressed the requirements of the statute by: 1. Evaluating the use of the Public School Capital Improvement Fund including a school and project specific audit of all expenditures for school facility capital improvements; and 2. Assessing whether the Department of General Services (DGS) met the process, quality, schedule, and cost objectives of the Facilities Master Plan (MFP) and Capital Improvement Plan and Budget. ODCA thanks DGS staff for their assistance and cooperation during this audit. We also would like to thank representatives of the D.C. Partners for the Revitalization of Education Projects (DC PEP), a joint venture partnership between McKissack & McKissack and Brailsford & Dunlavey, as well as representatives of the Modernization Advisory Committee. All of their valuable time and efforts spent on providing us information were greatly appreciated. This report is part of a package of information designed to assist the D.C. Council in its oversight of the school modernization program. Other elements include: A companion report titled Audits of Public School Construction Programs: A Literature Review. An interactive map of schools and funding broken down by individual campus and by ward, available here: http://geospatial.dcgis.dc.gov/templates/dcfinder/s2.html?appid=102e3aeccafb487296c 3b17142315828. July 1, 2015 The District’s School Modernization Program Has Failed to Comply with D.C. Code and Lacks Accountability, Transparency and Basic Financial Management What ODCA Found Why ODCA Did This Audit The audit was conducted as required by D.C. law charges the Department of General Services (DGS) D.C. Code §38-2973.05. with oversight and management of the District’s school modernization program. In addition to DGS administration, What ODCA Found: several other District offices and agencies have varying roles in the design and execution of the program, including the Deputy Mayor for Education, the Mayor of the District of I. The Fenty and Gray Columbia, the Council of the District of Columbia, and the Administrations, the Office of District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). Public Education Facilities Modernization, and the This decentralized structure may well have contributed to a Department of General Services number of the problems outlined in this report. It has proven have failed to comply with difficult, if not impossible, to determine how, when, why, and requirements of the School by whom schools are selected for modernization. Additionally, Modernization Financing Act of the District does not currently provide the public with 2006. comprehensive data on both the state of the program and II. The District Government failed to plans for its future. The District has delegated the day-to-day monitor school modernizations management of the program to a partnership of two large for compliance with statute, project management firms and has provided only limited contracts, best practices, and to supervision of their work. secure cost savings. III. OPEFM/DGS failed to provide During ODCA’s review of individual projects, we found several basic financial management, specific concerns regarding the manner in which DGS creating the risk that the District managed the program. Issues ranged from a lack of support has not obtained maximum value for payments that DGS made to contractors, to a basic for taxpayer dollars and the inability to produce required contracts and reports. The potential for the misuse of internal control environment has made little progress since taxpayer funds. ODCA’s last audit of the program in 2011. In some cases, the control environment was so deficient that ODCA could not perform the assessments necessary for a basic program evaluation. With this audit and others to follow during the course of the coming year we hope to provide constructive feedback to assist the executive and legislative branches of the District government – including DGS and DCPS as well as policymakers -- in righting the ship of school modernization. Providing facilities conducive to learning remains a top priority for the Mayor and Council and securing the greatest value possible For more information regarding this report, please for taxpayer dollars is the goal of this and subsequent audits. contact Anovia Daniels, Communications Analyst/ANC Outreach, at [email protected] or 202-727-3600. Table of Contents Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives, Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 7 Audit Results .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 I. ... The Fenty and Gray Administrations, the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, and the Department of General Services have failed to comply with requirements of the School Modernization Financing Act of 2006. ............ 9 The District has not met the process and schedule objectives of the Master Facilities Plan and does not have a process in place for selecting schools for modernization. ........................................................................................... 9 The Mayor's Capital Improvement Plan did not comply with D.C. Code § 38-2803(d), omitting important information about the future of the District's schools. ................................................................................................................. 15 The District's Modernization Advisory Committee could have provided valuable technical expertise to the District's school modernization program and identified deficiencies in the MFP and CIP, but due to inadequate support, stopped meeting in 2008. ........................................................................................................................................ 17 The Mayor, D.C. Council, and CFO disregarded the funding provisions of the School Modernization Financing Act of 2006. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 II. The District Government failed to monitor school modernizations for compliance with statute, contracts, best practices, and to secure cost savings. ............................................................................................................................. 22 The District failed to collect required documentation for school modernization contracts and may have spent more on construction costs than was necessary or contractually required. ........................................................................ 22 High school modernizations have exceeded the cost per square foot standard included in the 2010 MFP. ................ 27 A majority of modernization projects reviewed exceed the District’s LEED standards, potentially driving costs beyond projections. ............................................................................................................................................................. 29 III. OPEFM/DGS failed to provide basic financial management, creating the risk that the District has not obtained maximum value for taxpayer dollars and the potential for the misuse of taxpayer funds.............................................. 31 DGS’ internal control environment hindered ODCA’s review of the District’s school modernization program and requires substantial improvement. .......................................................................................................................... 32 For 166 out of 458 project budget transfers reviewed, representing $168,997,484 in budgetary authority, ODCA could not verify that the project expenditures were approved before they were made...................................................... 37 Neither DGS nor DC PEP could properly support a substantial number of payments made to District contractors, creating the risk of improper payments.................................................................................................................... 39 DGS record keeping does not provide an accurate accounting of the total cost to modernize each District school. ... 45 $44,945 of funds allocated for the District’s school modernization program were instead spent on parks and community centers. ................................................................................................................................................. 47 IT equipment is not being properly monitored as DGS purchases and installs the equipment in District Schools. .....
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Other DCPS Contact Information J
    16. Other Information a. DCPS Visiting Instruction Information i. DCPS Visiting Instruction Form ii. Physician’s Verification Form for VIS b. Private and Religious School Office i. DCPS Q&A for Children in Private or Religious Schools ii. DCPS Private and Religious Office Referral 2010 c. Attendance and Truancy i. CLC Tip Sheet: Attendance and Truancy ii. Attendance and Truancy Regulations (DCMR Tit. 5, Ch 21) d. Graduation Requirements i. Graduation Requirements Regulations ii. DCPS Transcript Analysis Worksheet e. DC Retention and Promotion Regulations f. School Transfers i. Transfers Due to Change of Address ii. Immediate Involuntary Transfers iii. Out-of-boundary Transfers iv. No Child Left Behind School Choice Information v. High School Selection Transfers vi. Involuntary Transfers vii. Safety Transfer Request Letter g. Common Core Competency Standards Information from OSSE h. OSSE DC CAS Information (year-end testing) i. Key DCPS Contact Information i. DCPS Office of General Counsel Contact Information ii. DCPS Office Direction (2011) iii. DCPS 2011-2012 School Directory iv. DCPS Cluster Directory v. DSCPS Instructional Superintendent Contact Information vi. DCPS Organizational Chart (2011) vii. Other DCPS Contact Information j. Mental Health Referrals k. SSI and Public Benefit Referrals l. Landlord Tenant Referrals m. Custody Referrals n. Advocacy Code Card o. Other School Policies and Resources Toolkit http://dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/How+Students+Are+Supported/Visiting+Instruction+Service Questions and Answers Services for Children with Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private and Religious Schools (REVISED 3-5-10) DCPS PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS OFFICE (PRO) Early Stages Center 1125 New Jersey Ave NW, 3rd floor Washington, DC 20001 (202) 698-8037 District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) is responsible for Child Find activities which include locating, identifying, and evaluating all students with disabilities who are enrolled by their parents in private or religious schools in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue 4 BASKETBALL RETIRED PLAYERSBASKETBALL RETIRED PLAYERS ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION the OFFICIAL MAGAZINE of the NATIONAL CONTENTS
    WE’RE PROUD TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL RETIRED PLAYERS ASSOCIATION Being Chicago’s Bank™ means doing our part to give back to the local charities and social organizations that unite and strengthen our communities. We’re particularly proud to support the National Basketball Retired Players Association and its dedication to assisting former NBA, ABA, Harlem Globetrotters, and WNBA players in their CHICAGO’S BANK TM transition from the playing court into life after the game, while also wintrust.com positively impacting communities and youth through basketball. Banking products provided by Wintrust Financial Corp. Banks. LEGENDS Issue 4 BASKETBALL RETIRED PLAYERS ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION BASKETBALL RETIRED PLAYERS BASKETBALL RETIRED PLAYERS THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE CONTENTS of the NATIONAL KNUCKLEHEADS PODCAST NATIONAL HOMECOMING: p.34 TWO PEAS JUWAN HOWARD IS p.2 PROUD AND A POD BACK AT MICHIGAN In Partnership with The Players’ Tribune, the Ready to bring NBA swagger to the storied Knuckleheads Podcast Has Become a Hit with program where he once played PARTNER Fans and Insiders Alike. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE KNUCKLEHEADS PODCAST p.2 TWO PEAS AND A POD OF THE KEYON DOOLING NANCY LIEBERMAN p.6 BEYOND THE COURT p.30 POWER FORWARD 2019 LEGENDS CONFERENCE p.11 WOMEN OF INFLUENCE SUMMIT PUTS BY NANCY LIEBERMAN SPOTLIGHT ON OPPORTUNITY p.12 NBRPA HOSTS ‘BRIDGING THE GAP’ NBA AND It’s a great time to be a female in the SUMMIT CONNECTING CURRENT AND game of basketball. FORMER PLAYERS p.13 BUSINESS AFTER BASKETBALL NBRPA. p.14 THE FUTURE IS FRANCHISING “IT’S ABOUT GOOD VIBES, p.15 HAIRSTYLES ON THE HARDWOOD NOT CONCENTRATING ON FAREWELL, ORACLE ARENA ANYTHING NEGATIVE.
    [Show full text]
  • What's in a Name
    What’s In A Name: Profiles of the Trailblazers History and Heritage of District of Columbia Public and Public Charter Schools Funds for the DC Community Heritage Project are provided by a partnership of the Humanities Council of Washington, DC and the DC Historic Preservation Office, which supports people who want to tell stories of their neighborhoods and communities by providing information, training, and financial resources. This DC Community Heritage Project has been also funded in part by the US Department of the Interior, the National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the DC Historic Preservation Office and by the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.‖ In brochures, fliers, and announcements, the Humanities Council of Washington, DC shall be further identified as an affiliate of the National Endowment for the Humanities. 1 INTRODUCTION The ―What’s In A Name‖ project is an effort by the Women of the Dove Foundation to promote deeper understanding and appreciation for the rich history and heritage of our nation’s capital by developing a reference tool that profiles District of Columbia schools and the persons for whom they are named.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Application
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Regist er Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Kingman Park Historic District________________________________ Other names/site number: ______________________________________ Name of related multip le property listing: Spingarn, Browne, Young, Phelps Educational Campus; Spingarn High School; Langston Golf Course and Langston Dwellings ______________________________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: Western Boundary Line is 200-800 Blk 19th Street NE; Eastern Boundary Line is the Anacostia River along Oklahoma Avenue NE; Northern Boundary Line is 19th- 22nd Street & Maryland Avenue NE; Southern Boundary Line is East Capitol Street at 19th- 22nd Street NE. City or town: Washington, DC__________ State: ____DC________ County: ____________ Not For Publicatio n: Vicinity: ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Spingarn Etal Educational Campus 2.Pdf
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORlC PRESERVATION OFFICE * * * lDSTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICA TION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation _X_ Historic District Amendment of a previous designation Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________ Browne Junior High School, Charles Young Elementary School, and Phelps Architecture, Construction, and Engineering (aka Vocational) High School, and Their Grounds and Surrounding Landscape's Educational Campus and Historic District. Propertyname __________________________________ Ifany pari ofthe interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. 850 - 26th Street, N.E., 820 - 26th Street, N.E., and 704 - 26th Street, N.E., and their grounds and surrounding landscape. Address___________________________________________ Parcel 1600043 1600043 and/or 1600045 Square and lot number(s) _____________________________________________ 5B (5D in 2013) Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ___________________________ 1931 - 1952 Date of construction Date of major alteration(s~ ______________ Merrel Coe, Municipal ArchlNathan Wyeth, Architect 19th and 201 Century Colonial Revival Architect(s) Architectural style(s) ___________~_ Public Schools Public Schools Original use _______________ Present use ________________ D.C. Government Propertyowner _______________________________________ 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Legal address of property owner _________________________ Kingman Park Civic
    [Show full text]
  • Dave Bing, Kevin Johnson, and the Rise of Athletes-Turned-Politicians
    A Tale of Two Mayors: Dave Bing, Kevin Johnson, and the Rise of Athletes-Turned-Politicians By Nicholas J. Coburn-Palo B.S., Weber State University, 1995 A.M., Brown University, 2010 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science at Brown University Providence, Rhode Island May 2014 © Copyright 2014 by Nicholas J. Coburn-Palo This dissertation by Nicholas J. Coburn-Palo is accepted in its present form by the Department of Political Science as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ______________________ _______________________________ (date) James Morone, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council ______________________ ________________________________ (date) Corey Brettschneider, Reader ______________________ _________________________________ (date) Pauline Jones-Luong, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council ______________________ __________________________________ (date) Peter Weber, Dean of the Graduate School iii Nicholas J. Coburn-Palo E-Mail: [email protected] Academic Background Brown University – Providence, RI • Masters in Political Science (2010) • Passed Comprehensive Exams in both American Politics and Political Theory (2010) Weber State University – Ogden, UT • B.S. in Political Science with a Minor in History (1995) Cornell University – Ithaca, NY • Significant undergraduate coursework undertaken at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the College of Arts and Sciences (1986-1989) Employment Background in Education Doctoral Fellow Brown University – Department of Political Science, Providence, RI; 2008-2013 I am currently a PhD candidate at Brown University in Political Science, attending as a result of winning a fully-funded doctoral fellowship. Areas of academic interest include American Political Development, Celebrity Politics and Elections, Urban Politics, Political Communication, International Diplomacy, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • . */ -S Signature and Title of Certifying Official / Datyr R
    NFS Form 10-900-b / OMB No. 1024-0018 (March 1992) ./ ; :' United States Department of the Interior f . v\'' National Park Service ' ,'; National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. X New Submission __ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing_____________________________________ Public School Buildings of Washington, D. C, 1862-1960. B. Associated Historic Contexts_________________________________ (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Development of Public Education in the District of Columbia, 1804-1960. C. Form Prepared by ____________________________________________________ name/title: Tanya Edwards Beauchamp / architectural historian (Incorporates in part "Public School Buildings of the District of Columbia, 1804-1930," prepared in 1988 by Antoinette E. Lee, historian for District of Columbia Public Schools) organization: Tanya Edwards Beauchamp, Associates date: 09-30-01 street & number: 930 Leigh Mill Road telephone: 703-759-3796 city or town: Great Falls ________________ state: Virginia ______ zip code: 22066_________
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Kingman Park HD Nomination
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Regist er Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Kingman Park Historic District________________________________ Other names/site number: ______________________________________ Name of related multip le property listing: Spingarn, Browne, Young, Phelps Educational Campus; Spingarn High School; Langston Golf Course and Langston Dwellings ______________________________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: Western Boundary Line is 200-800 Blk 19th Street NE; Eastern Boundary Line is the Anacostia River along Oklahoma Avenue NE; Northern Boundary Line is 19th- 22nd Street & Maryland Avenue NE; Southern Boundary Line is East Capitol Street at 19th- 22nd Street NE. City or town: Washington, DC__________ State: ____DC________ County: ____________ Not For Publicatio n: Vicinity: ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Education on the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget for Agencies Under Its Purview
    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION DAVID GROSSO, CHAIRPERSON FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember David Grosso Chairperson, Committee on Education DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Education on the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget for Agencies Under Its Purview The Committee on Education (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year 2021 (“FY21”) for the agencies under its purview, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020 as proposed by the Mayor. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary 3 A. Executive Summary 3 B. FY21 Agency Operating Budget Summary 8 C. FY21 Agency Full-Time Equivalents 10 D. FY21-FY26 Agency Capital Budget Summary 12 E. Transfers from Other Committees 21 F. Transfers to Other Committees 21 G. Revenue Adjustment 21 H. Funding of Legislation 21 II. Agency FY21 Budget Recommendations 22 A. Introduction 22 B. June 4, 2020 Hearing: Invited Witnesses 23 C. June 11, 2020 Hearing: Deputy Mayor for Education and the District of Columbia Public Schools 36 D. DC Public Charter School Board 53 E. DC Public Charter Schools 61 F. District of Columbia Public Library 62 G. District of Columbia Public Schools 66 H. DC State Athletics Commission 87 I. Non-Public Tuition 91 J. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education 92 1 K. Office of the State Superintendent of Education 98 L.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Education
    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION DAVID GROSSO, CHAIRPERSON FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember David Grosso Chairperson, Committee on Education DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Education on the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget for Agencies Under Its Purview The Committee on Education (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year 2021 (“FY21”) for the agencies under its purview, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020 as proposed by the Mayor. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary 3 A. Executive Summary 3 B. FY21 Agency Operating Budget Summary 8 C. FY21 Agency Full-Time Equivalents 10 D. FY21-FY26 Agency Capital Budget Summary 12 E. Transfers from Other Committees 21 F. Transfers to Other Committees 21 G. Revenue Adjustment 21 H. Funding of Legislation 21 II. Agency FY21 Budget Recommendations 22 A. Introduction 22 B. June 4, 2020 Hearing: Invited Witnesses 23 C. June 11, 2020 Hearing: Deputy Mayor for Education and the District of Columbia Public Schools 36 D. DC Public Charter School Board 53 E. DC Public Charter Schools 61 F. District of Columbia Public Library 62 G. District of Columbia Public Schools 66 H. DC State Athletics Commission 87 I. Non-Public Tuition 91 J. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education 92 1 K. Office of the State Superintendent of Education 98 L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Report
    2013 ANNUAL REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE DC OFFICE OF PLANNING DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION CEILING RESTORATION FRONT AND AND BACK COVERS: FRANKLIN SCHOOL; SHERMAN BUILDING SPIRE RESTORATION; DAR CEILING DETAIL; NPR HEADQUARTERS CAPITAL TRACTION COMPANY CAR BARN 2013 ANNUAL REPORT - DC HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE H IG H LIG H TING A Y EAR OF A CCOMPLIS H MENT The District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office is pleased to report on the progress of the District’s preservation program during Fiscal Year 2013. Highlights of the year’s accomplishments include: Supporting Communities Encouraging Good Stewardship • Released Enriching Our Heritage, the 2016 District of • Reviewed more than 400 District agency projects, Columbia Historic Preservation Plan, after a year-long including the Pavilion at Saint Elizabeths, Play DC planning and outreach effort (see page 2) playgrounds and other modernizations, to ensure appropriate treatment of historic property (see page 16) • Completed the Ward 7 Heritage Guide, the second in a series of community heritage guides for each ward (see • Helped guide planning and preservation efforts at the page 3) Walter Reed campus and other federal properties, completing more than 500 reviews (see page 19) • Partnered with the Humanities Council of Washington, DC to complete 17 projects that encourage residents Promoting High Quality Reinvestment to participate in discovering and telling their own community stories (see page 3) • Promoted superior architectural design and public input in plans
    [Show full text]
  • DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative: Needs Assessment and Segmentation Analysis
    DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative: Needs Assessment and Segmentation Analysis October 2010–July 2011 Prepared for: DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative Prepared by: The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW ● Washington, DC 20037 DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative: Needs Assessment and Segmentation Analysis October 2010–July 2011 Prepared By: Susan Popkin Jennifer Comey Molly Scott Elsa Falkenburger Chantal Hailey Amanda Mireles The Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Submitted To: Cesar Chavez Public Charter Schools for Public Policy 709 12th Street SE Washington, DC 20003 Contract No. 08594 UI No. 08594-000-00 The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or it funders. DC Promise Neighborhoods Initiative: Needs Assessment and Segmentation Analysis Table of Contents Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................................... 6 Segmentation Analysis: ............................................................................................................................... 13 Description of the Neighborhoods ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]