Testimony

Before the District of Columbia Subcommittee,

Committee on Government Reform,

House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. DST

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 D.C. FAMILY COURT

Progress Made Toward

Planned Transition and

Interagency Coordination,

but Some Challenges

Remain

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

GAO-02-797T
Page 1 GAO-02-797T

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the progress made by the District

of Columbia Superior Court in transitioning its Family Division to a Family

Court. In January 2002, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001

(P.L. 107-114) was enacted to, among other things, (1) redesignate the

Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as the

Family Court of the Superior Court, (2) recruit trained and experienced

judges to serve in the Family Court, and (3) promote consistency and

efficiency in the assignment of judges to the Family Court and in the

consideration of actions and proceedings in the Family Court. The passage

of this act represented the first major overhaul of the Superior Court’s

Family Division in 3 decades. The Congress, in considering such an

overhaul, found that poor communication between participants in the

child welfare system, a weak organizational structure, and a lack of case

management were serious problems plaguing the Family Division.

As a first step in initiating changes to the Family Division, the Family

Court Act required the chief judge of the Superior Court to submit to the

president and the Congress a transition plan outlining the proposed

operation of the Family Court. The Congress also required that the chief

judge submit the transition plan to the U.S. General Accounting Office

(GAO) and that, within 30 calendar days after submission of the plan by

the Superior Court, we submit an analysis of the contents and

effectiveness of the plan in meeting the requirements of the Family Court

Act. My testimony is based on our analysis of the transition plan, including

discussions with court and child welfare experts,1

 juvenile and family

court judges across the country, and officials from the District of

Columbia Superior Court and the Family Court. To further assist us in our

analysis of the transition plan, we also asked several court experts to

examine the plan and highlight its strengths and areas that may need more

attention. This analysis was presented in our May 2002 report.2

 In

addition, my remarks today will include preliminary observations on court

initiatives to coordinate its activities with other District social service

 1

We interviewed officials of a variety of organizations, such as the National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges; the National Center for State Courts; the Center for

Families, Children and the Courts at the University of Baltimore; and the Child Welfare

League of America.

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken

to Fully Implement Its Transition, GAO-02-584, (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
Page 2 GAO-02-797T

agencies. We will provide a more detailed assessment of service

coordination, the integration of automated information systems, and

related spending plans later this year.3

In summary, the District of Columbia Superior Court has made progress in

planning the transition of its Family Division to a Family Court, but some

challenges remain. The Superior Court’s transition plan addresses most,

but not all, of the required elements outlined in the act. Significantly, the

completion of the transition hinges on timely completion of a complex

series of interdependent plans intended to obtain and renovate physical

space to house the court and its functions. For example, the plan explains

how the abuse and neglect cases currently being heard by judges in other

divisions of the Superior Court will be closed or transferred to the Family

Court; however, the plan states that the complete transfer of these cases

can only occur if additional judges and magistrate judges are hired,

trained, and housed in appropriate space. All required space may not be

available, as currently planned, to support the additional judges the Family

Court needs to perform its work in accordance with the act, making it

uncertain as to when the court can fully complete its transition. While not

required as part of its transition plan efforts, the Superior Court has begun

to coordinate its activities with social service agencies in the District.

However, the court and agencies face challenges in achieving coordinated

services in the longer term. For example, the court believes it will take

time to obtain interagency commitments to provide resources and to

coordinate their use. Finally, the development and application of the

District of Columbia Courts’4

 Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS)5

 3

The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 and the fiscal year 2002 District of

Columbia Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-96) require the mayor to submit a plan to the

president and the Congress to integrate social services and automated systems with the

family court and to specify related spending plans. P.L. 107-96 requires GAO to report on

the contents and effectiveness on the mayor’s plan within 30 days of its submission.

4

The D.C. Courts includes three main entities—the Superior Court, the Court of Appeals,

and the Executive Office—and provides the overall organizational framework for judicial

operations. The Superior Court contains five components: Civil Division, Criminal Division,

Family Court, Probate Division, and the Tax Division. The Court of Appeals, among other

responsibilities, handles appellate functions referred to it from the Superior Court. The

Executive Office performs various administrative management functions.

5

Faced with a myriad of nonintegrated systems that do not provide the necessary

information to support its overall mission, the D.C. Courts is in the process of acquiring a

replacement system called IJIS. See U.S. General Accounting Office, DC Courts:

Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System Acquisition, GAO-02-316,

(Washington, D.C.: 2002) for more details on the court’s planning of IJIS.
Page 3 GAO-02-797T

will be critical for the Family Court to be able to operate effectively,

evaluate its performance, and meet its judicial goals in the context of the

changes mandated by the Family Court Act.

The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-114) was

enacted on January 8, 2002. The act stated that, not later than 90 days after

the date of the enactment, the chief judge of the Superior Court shall

submit to the president and Congress a transition plan for the Family

Court of the Superior Court, and shall include in the plan the following:

• The chief judge’s determination of the role and function of the

presiding judge of the Family Court.

• The chief judge’s determination of the number of judges needed to

serve on the Family Court.

• The chief judge’s determination of the number of magistrate judges6 of

the Family Court needed for appointment under Section 11-1732,

District of Columbia Code.

• The chief judge’s determination of the appropriate functions of such

magistrate judges, together with the compensation of and other

personnel matters pertaining to such magistrate judges.

• A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing needs (including

the needs of both judicial and nonjudicial personnel) for the Family

Court, including a description of how the Superior Court will handle

the one family/one judge requirement pursuant to Section 11-1104(a)

for all cases and proceedings assigned to the Family Court.

• A plan for space, equipment, and other physical needs and

requirements during the transition, as determined in consultation with

the administrator of General Services.

• An analysis of the number of magistrate judges needed under the

expedited appointment procedures established under Section 6(d) in

reducing the number of pending actions and proceedings within the

 6

A magistrate judge is a local judicial official entrusted with the administration of the law,

but whose jurisdiction may be limited.

Background
Page 4 GAO-02-797T

jurisdiction of the Family Court.

• A proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court of child

abuse and neglect actions pending as of the date of enactment of the

act (which were initiated in the Family Division but remain pending

before judges serving in other divisions of the Superior Court as of

such date) in a manner consistent with applicable federal and District

of Columbia law and best practices, including best practices developed

by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges.

• An estimate of the number of cases for which the deadline for

disposition or transfer to the Family Court cannot be met and the

reasons why such deadline cannot be met.

• The chief judge’s determination of the number of individuals serving as

judges of the Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of

the Family Court and are willing and able to serve on the Family Court.

If the chief judge determines that the number of individuals described

in the act is less than 15, the plan is to include a request that the

Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the president nominate

additional individuals to serve on the Superior Court who meet the

qualifications for judges of the Family Court, as may be required to

enable the chief judge to make the required number of assignments.

The Family Court Act states that the number of judges serving on the

Family Court of the Superior Court cannot exceed 15. These judges must

meet certain qualifications, such as having training or expertise in family

law, certifying to the chief judge of the Superior Court that he or she

intends to serve the full term of service and that he or she will participate

in the ongoing training programs conducted for judges of the Family

Court. The act also allows the court to hire and use magistrate judges to

hear family court cases. Magistrate judges must also meet certain

qualifications, such as holding U.S. citizenship, being an active member of

the D.C. Bar, and having not fewer than 3 years of training or experience in

the practice of family law as a lawyer or judicial officer. The act further

states that the chief judge shall appoint individuals to serve as magistrate

judges not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the act. The

magistrate judges hired under this expedited appointment process are to

assist in implementing the transition plan, and in particular, assist with the

transition or disposal of child abuse and neglect proceedings not currently

assigned to judges in the Family Court.
Page 5 GAO-02-797T

The Superior Court submitted its transition plan on April 5, 2002. The plan

consists of three volumes. Volume I contains information on how the court

will address case management issues, including organizational and human

capital requirements. Volume II contains information on the development

of IJIS and its planned applications. Volume III addresses the physical

space the court needs to house and operate the Family Court.

Courts interact with various organizations and operate in the context of

many different programmatic requirements. In the District of Columbia,

the Family Court frequently interacts with the child welfare agency—the

Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA)—a key organization responsible

for helping children obtain permanent homes. CFSA must comply with

federal laws and other requirements, including the Adoption and Safe

Families Act (ASFA), which placed new responsibilities on child welfare

agencies nationwide.7

 ASFA introduced new time periods for moving

children who have been removed from their homes to permanent home

arrangements and penalties for noncompliance. For example, the act

requires states to hold a permanency planning hearing not later than 12

months after the child is considered to have entered foster care.

Permanent placements include the child’s return home and the child’s

adoption. Other organizations that the Family Court interacts with include

the Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC)8

 and the Metropolitan Police

Department.

 7

For additional details on the challenges facing the District of Columbia’s child welfare

system and the implementation of ASFA, see U.S. General Accounting Office, District of

Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring Children’s Well-Being,

GAO-01-191, (Washington, D.C.: 2000) and Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences

Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act, GAO/HEHS-00-1, (Washington, D.C.:

1999).

8

OCC, among its other duties, represents the District of Columbia in child abuse and

neglect cases and represents victims of intra-family domestic violence by obtaining civil

protection orders and prosecuting related contempt of court matters in the Superior Court.
Page 6 GAO-02-797T

The Family Court transition plan provides information on most, but not all,

of the elements required by the Family Court Act; however, some aspects

of case management, training, and performance evaluation are unclear.

For example, the plan describes the Family Court’s method for

transferring child abuse and neglect cases to the Family Court, its one

family/one judge case management principle,9

 and the number and roles of

judges and magistrate judges.10 However, the plan does not (1) include a

request for judicial nomination, (2) indicate the number of nonjudicial

staff needed for the Family Court, (3) indicate if the 12 judges who

volunteered for the Family Court meet all of the qualifications outlined in

the act, and (4) state how the number of magistrate judges to hire under

the expedited process was determined. In addition, although not

specifically required by the act, the plan does not describe the content of

its training programs and does not include a full range of measures by

which the court can evaluate its progress in ensuring better outcomes for

children.

The transition plan establishes criteria for transferring cases to the Family

Court and states that the Family Court intends to have all child abuse and

neglect cases pending before judges serving in other divisions of the

Superior Court closed or transferred into the Family Court by June 2003.

According to the plan, the court has asked each Superior Court judge to

review his or her caseload to identify those cases that meet the criteria

established by the court for the first phase of case transfer back to the

Family Court for attention by magistrate judges hired under the expedited

process provided in the act. Cases identified for transfer include those in

which (1) the child is 18 years of age and older, the case is being

monitored primarily for the delivery of services, and no recent allegations

of abuse or neglect exist; and (2) the child is committed to the child

welfare agency and is placed with a relative in a kinship care program.

 9

The Family Court Act requires the Family Court, to the greatest extent practicable,

feasible, and lawful, to assign one judge to handle a case from initial filing to final

disposition, as well as to handle related family cases that are subsequently filed.

10In the Family Court, two Family Court judges—the presiding and deputy presiding

judges—will primarily handle the administrative functions of the court. Family Court

judges are judges of the Superior Court who have received training or have expertise in

family law. These judges will hear a variety of cases in the court. Family Court magistrate

judges are qualified individuals with expertise and training in family law. These magistrate

judges will also hear various Family Court cases.

The Transition Plan

Reveals Progress and

Challenges in

Planning the

Transition to the

Family Court

The Transition Plan

Includes a Description of

the Court’s Plan for

Transferring Abuse and

Neglect Cases to the

Family Court
Page 7 GAO-02-797T

Cases that the court believes may not be candidates for transfer by June

2002 include those the judge believes transferring the case would delay

permanency. The court expects that older cases will first be reviewed for

possible closure and expects to transfer the entire abuse and neglect

caseloads of several judges serving in other divisions of the Superior Court

to the Family Court. Using the established criteria to review cases, the

court estimates that 1,500 cases could be candidates for immediate

transfer.

The act also requires the court to estimate the number of cases that cannot

be transferred into the Family Court in the timeframes specified. The plan

provides no estimate because the court’s proposed transfer process

assumes all cases will be closed or transferred, based on the outlined

criteria. However, the plan states that the full transfer of all cases is

partially contingent on hiring three new judges.

The transition plan identifies the way in which the Family Court will

implement the one family/one judge approach and improve its case

management practices; however, some aspects of case management,

training, and performance evaluation are unclear. The plan indicates that

the Family Court will implement the one family/one judge approach by

assigning all cases involving the same family to one judicial team—

comprised of a Family Court judge and a magistrate judge. This

assignment will begin with the initial hearing by the magistrate judge on

the team and continue throughout the life of the case. Juvenile and family

court experts indicated that this team approach is realistic and a good

model of judicial collaboration. One expert said that such an approach

provides for continuity if either team member is absent. Another expert

added that, given the volume of cases that must be heard, the team

approach can ease the burden on judicial resources by permitting the

magistrate judge to make recommendations and decisions, thereby

allowing the Family Court judge time to schedule and hear trials and other

proceedings more quickly. Court experts also praised the proposed

staggered terms for judicial officials—newly-hired judges, magistrate

judges, and judges who are already serving on the Superior Court will be

appointed to the Family Court for varying numbers of years—which can

provide continuity while recognizing the need to rotate among divisions in

the Superior Court.

The plan also describes other elements of the Family Court’s case

management process, such as how related cases will be assigned and a

description of how many judges will hear which types of cases. For

The Transition Plan

Describes the Family

Court’s Approach to

Managing Its Cases, but

the Court Could Consider

Additional Approaches to

Assessing Implementation
Page 8 GAO-02-797T

example, the plan states that, in determining how to assign cases,

preference will generally be given to the judge or magistrate judge who

has the most familiarity with the family. In addition, the plan states that (1)

all Family Court judges will handle post-disposition child abuse and

neglect cases; (2) 10 judges will handle abuse and neglect cases from

initiation to closure as part of a judicial team; (3) 1 judge will handle abuse

and neglect cases from initiation to closure independently (not as part of a

team); and (4) certain numbers of judges will handle other types of cases,

such as domestic relations cases, mental health trials, and complex family

court cases. However, because the transition plan focuses primarily on

child abuse and neglect cases, this information does not clearly explain

how the total workload associated with the approximately 24,00011 cases

under the court’s jurisdiction will be handled. One court expert we

consulted commented on the transition plan’s almost exclusive focus on

child welfare cases, making it unclear, the expert concluded, how other

cases not involving child abuse and neglect will be handled.

In addition to describing case assignments, the plan identifies actions the

court plans to take to centralize intake. According to the plan, a

centralized office will encompass all filing and intake functions that

various clerks’ offices—such as juvenile, domestic relations, paternity and

support, and mental health—in the Family Court currently carry out. As

part of centralized intake, case coordinators12 will identify any related

cases that may exist in the Family Court. To do this, the coordinator will

ensure that a new “Intake/Cross Reference Form” will be completed by

various parties to a case and also check the computer databases serving

the Family Court. As a second step, the court plans to use alternative

dispute resolution to resolve cases more quickly and expand initial

hearings to address many of the issues that the court previously handled

later in the life of the case. As a third step, the plan states that the Family

Court will provide all affected parties speedy notice of court proceedings

and implement strict policies for the handling of cases—such as those for

 11During 2001, court activity included 13,132 filings, 13,957 dispositions, and 24,373 pending

cases (including approximately 5,100 child abuse and neglect cases—most of which were

being handled by judges outside of the Family Division).

12Coordinators will provide day-to-day liaison between judges and magistrate judges, legal

counsel, litigants, court clerks, and the child welfare agency. They will also be responsible

for monitoring the cases for ASFA compliance.
Page 9 GAO-02-797T

granting continuances13—although it does not indicate who is responsible

for developing the policies or the status of their development.

The plan states that the court will conduct evaluations to assess whether

components of the Family Court were implemented as planned and

whether modifications are necessary; the court could consider using

additional measures to focus on outcomes for children. One court expert

said that the court’s development of a mission statement and

accompanying goals and objectives frames the basis for developing

performance standards. The expert also said that the goals and standards

are consistent with those of other family courts that strive to prevent

further deterioration of a family’s situation and to focus decision-making

on the needs of those individuals served by the court. However, evaluation

measures listed in the plan are oriented more toward the court’s

processes, such as whether hearings are held on time, than on outcomes.

According to a court expert, measures must also account for outcomes the

court achieves for children. Measures could include the number of

finalized adoptions that did not disrupt, reunifications that do not fail,

children who remain safe and are not abused again while under court

jurisdiction or in foster care, and the proportion of children who

successfully achieve permanency. In addition, the court will need to

determine how it will gather the data necessary to measure each team’s

progress in ensuring such outcomes or in meeting the requirements of

ASFA, and the court has not yet established a baseline from which to

judge its performance. In our May 2002 report, we recommended that the

Superior Court consider identifying performance measures to track

progress toward positive outcomes for the children and families the

Family Court serves.

The transition plan states that the court has determined that 15 judges are

needed to carry out the duties of the court and that 12 judges have

volunteered to serve on the court, but does not address recruitment and

the nomination of the three additional judges. Court experts stated that

the court’s analysis to identify the appropriate number of judges is based

on best practices identified by highly credible national organizations and

is, therefore, pragmatic and realistic. However, the plan only provides

calculations for how it determined that the court needed 22 judges and

magistrate judges to handle child abuse and neglect cases. The transition

 13When a continuance is granted by the judge, the case is rescheduled for another day.

The Transition Plan

Addresses the Number and

Roles of Judicial Officers,

but Other Human Capital

Issues Remain Unclear
Page 10 GAO-02-797T

plan does not include a methodology for how it determined that the court

needed a total of 32 judges and magistrate judges for its total caseload of

child abuse and neglect cases, as well as other family cases, such as

divorce and child support, nor does it explain how anticipated increases in

cases will be handled.14 In addition, the plan does not include a request

that the Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the president

nominate the additional three individuals to serve on the Superior Court,

as required by the Family Court Act. At a recent hearing on the court’s

implementation of the Family Court Act, the chief judge of the Superior

Court said that the court plans to submit its request in the fall of 2002.15

The Superior Court does not provide in the plan its determination of the

number of nonjudicial staff needed. The court acknowledges that while it

budgeted for a certain number of nonjudicial personnel based on current

operating practices, determining the number of different types of

personnel needed to operate the Family Court effectively is pending

completion of a staffing study.16 In our May 2002 report, we recommended

that the Superior Court supplement its transition plan by providing

information on the number of nonjudicial personnel needed when the

staffing study is complete.

Furthermore, the plan does not address the qualifications of the 12 judges

who volunteered for the court. Although the plan states that these judges

have agreed to serve full terms of service, according to the act, the chief

judge of the Superior Court may not assign an individual to serve on the

Family Court unless the individual also has training or expertise in family

law and certifies that he or she will participate in the ongoing training

programs conducted for judges of the Family Court. In our May 2002

 14The transition plan states that three legislative proposals pending before the District of

Columbia City Council could increase the size of the Family Court caseload—the Improved

Child Abuse Investigations Amendment Act of 2001, the Mental Health Commitment

Amendments Act of 2001, and the Standby Guardianship Act of 2001. However, no

estimates of the anticipated increases were provided.

15The hearing was held before the Senate Subcommittee on DC Appropriations, April 24,

2002.

16D.C. Courts has hired Booz-Allen & Hamilton to conduct a workforce planning analysis.

The analysis and the development of a customized automated tool for ongoing workforce

planning and analysis are scheduled to be complete in the near future. The courts

contracted for this project in response to our report, D.C. Courts: Staffing Level

Determination Could Be More Rigorous, GAO/GGD-99-162, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27,

1999).
Page 11 GAO-02-797T

report, we recommended that the Superior Court supplement its transition

plan by providing information on the qualifications of the 12 judges

identified in the transition plan to serve on the Family Court. The act also

requires judges who had been serving in the Superior Court’s Family

Division at the time of its enactment to serve for a term of not fewer than 3

years, and that the 3-year term shall be reduced by the length of time

already served in the Family Division. Since the transition plan does not

identify which of the 12 volunteers had already been serving in the Family

Division prior to the act and the length of time they had already served, the

minimum remaining term length for each volunteer cannot be determined

from the plan. In commenting on our May 2002 report, the Superior Court

said it would provide information on each judge’s length of tenure in its

first annual report to the Congress.

The transition plan describes the duties of judges assigned to the Family

Court, as required by the act. Specifically, the plan describes the roles of

the designated presiding judge, the deputy presiding judge, and the

magistrate judges. The plan states that the presiding and deputy presiding

judges will handle the administrative functions of the Family Court, ensure

the implementation of the alternative dispute resolution projects, oversee

grant-funded projects, and serve as back-up judges to all Family Court

judges. These judges will also have a post-disposition17 abuse and neglect

caseload of more than 80 cases and will continue to consult and

coordinate with other organizations (such as the child welfare agency),

primarily by serving on 19 committees.18 One court expert has observed

that the list of committees to which the judges are assigned seems

overwhelming and said that strong leadership by the judges could result in

consolidation of some of the committees’ efforts.

The plan also describes the duties of the magistrate judges, but does not

provide all the information required by the act. Magistrate judges will be

responsible for initial hearings in new child abuse and neglect cases and

the resolution of cases assigned to them by the Family Court judge to

whose team they are assigned. They will also be assigned initial hearings

 17At the disposition hearing, a decision is made regarding who will have custody and

control of the child, and a review is conducted of the reasonable efforts made to prevent

the removal of the child from the home.

18These committees include the Child Welfare Leadership Team, the Mayor’s Advisory

Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on

Permanent Families for Children.
Page 12 GAO-02-797T

in juvenile cases, noncomplex abuse and neglect trials, and the subsequent

review and permanency hearings,19 as well as a variety of other matters

related to domestic violence, paternity and support, mental competency,

and other domestic relations cases. As noted previously, one court expert

said that the proposed use of the magistrate judges would ease the burden

on judicial resources by permitting these magistrate judges to make

recommendations and decisions. However, although specifically required

by the act, the transition plan does not state how the court determined the

number of magistrate judges to be hired under the expedited process. In

addition, while the act outlines the qualifications of magistrate judges, it

does not specifically require a discussion of qualifications of the newly

hired magistrate judges in the transition plan. As a result, no information

was provided, and whether these magistrate judges meet the qualifications

outlined in the act is unknown. In our May 2002 report, we recommended

that the Superior Court supplement its transition plan by providing

information on the analysis it used to identify the number of magistrate

judges needed under the expedited appointment procedures. In

commenting on that report, the Superior Court said that it considered the

following in determining how many magistrate judges should be hired

under the expedited process: optimal caseload size, available courtroom

and office space, and safety and permanency of children. In addition, the

court determined, based on its criteria, that 1,500 child abuse and neglect

cases could be safely transferred to the Family Court during the initial

transfer period and that a caseload of 300 cases each was appropriate for

these judicial officers. As a result, the court appointed five magistrate

judges on April 8, 2002.

A discussion of how the court will provide initial and ongoing training for

its judicial and nonjudicial staff is also not required by the act, although

the court does include relevant information about training. For example,

the plan states that the Family Court will develop and implement a

quarterly training program for Family Court judges, magistrate judges, and

staff covering a variety of topics and that it will promote and encourage

participation in cross-training.20 In addition, the plan states new judges and

 19Review hearings are held to review case progress to ensure children spend the least

possible time in temporary placement and to modify the family’s case plan, as necessary.

Permanency hearings decide the permanent placement of the child, such as returning home

or being placed for adoption.

20Cross-training refers to the practice of bringing together various participants in the child

welfare system to learn each other’s roles and responsibilities. The act requires the court to

use the resources of lawyers and legal professionals, social workers, and experts in the

field of child development and other related fields in developing its cross-training program.
Page 13 GAO-02-797T

magistrate judges will participate in a 2 to 3 week intensive training

program, although it does not provide details on the content of such

training for the five magistrate judges hired under the expedited process,

even though they were scheduled to begin working at the court on April 8,

2002. One court expert said that a standard curriculum for all court-related

staff and judicial officers should be developed and that judges should have

manuals available outlining procedures for all categories of cases. In

commenting on our May 2002 report, the Superior Court said that the

court has long had such manuals for judges serving in each division of the

court. In our report on human capital, we said that an explicit link

between the organization’s training offerings and curricula and the

competencies identified by the organization for mission accomplishment is

essential.21 Organization leaders can show their commitment to strategic

human capital management by investing in professional development and

mentoring programs that can also assist in meeting specific performance

needs. These programs can include opportunities for a combination of

formal and on-the-job training, individual development plans, and periodic

formal assessments. Likewise, organizations should make fact-based

determinations of the impact of its training and development programs to

provide feedback for continuous improvement and ensure that these

programs improve performance and help achieve organizational results.

In commenting on our May 2002 report, the Superior Court said that—

although not included in the plan—it has an extensive training curriculum

that will be fine-tuned prior to future training sessions.

 21U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency

Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2000).
Page 14 GAO-02-797T

While the court’s transition plan specifies initiatives to coordinate court

activities with social services, the Family Court and District social service

agencies face challenges in coordinating their respective activities and

services in the longer term, such as the time it will take to obtain

interagency commitments to provide resources and to coordinate their

use. Today, we can offer some preliminary observations of efforts to

coordinate family court activities with social services—our ongoing

examination of these efforts and related challenges will culminate in a

more detailed assessment of factors that facilitate and hinder planned

coordination later this year.

Collectively, the Family Court Act and court practices recommended by

various national associations provide a framework for planning,

establishing, and sustaining court activities that are coordinated with

related social services. Specifically, the act requires the mayor, in

consultation with the chief judge of the Superior Court, to make staff of

District offices that provide social services and other related services to

individuals and families served by the Family Court available on-site at the

Family Court to coordinate the provision of services. These offices

include CFSA, District of Columbia Public Schools, the Housing Authority,

OCC, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Department of Health.

The act also requires the heads of each specified office to provide the

mayor with such information, assistance, and services as the mayor may

require. In addition, the mayor must appoint a liaison between the Family

Court and the District government for purposes of coordinating the

delivery of services provided by the District government with the activities

of the Family Court.

National associations, such as the National Center for State Courts, the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the Council for

Court Excellence, have also recommended court practices to enhance

service coordination and thereby aid in the timely resolution of cases.

Key elements that can help establish and maintain coordinated services

include:

• Case management—decisions by judicial officers, nonjudicial officers,

legal representatives, and officials from other agencies that link

children and families to needed services. According to the National

Center for State Courts, for example, effective case-level service

coordination requires the involvement of individuals familiar with both

the legal and service areas. Service coordinators can be court or social

service agency employees and can be composed of individuals or

teams.

The Court Has

Initiated Efforts To

Coordinate Its

Activities with

District Social

Services, but Faces

Challenges in

Achieving Longer

Term Coordination
Page 15 GAO-02-797T

• Operational integration—organizational commitments and integrated

operations that routinely link court and social service priorities,

resources, and decisions. For example, in the interest of integrating

court and agency operations, the National Center for State Courts

reported that various jurisdictions have established a formal or

informal policy committee to discuss issues of relevance to all entities

involved in providing services to children and families served by the

court.22 In addition, courts can play a key role in providing centralized

access to a network of social services. In some cases, this role

includes establishing courthouse resource centers to carry out service

referrals or mandates immediately.

The Family Court has begun several initiatives to integrate its activities

with the social services provided by other District agencies. At the case

management level, the court states in its transition plan that it intends to

focus increased attention on family matters to ensure that cases are

resolved expeditiously and in the best interests of children and families.

The family court will use case coordinators, child protection mediators,

attorney advisors, and other legal representatives to support the

functioning of the judicial team. In addition, the court has asked OCC to

assign attorneys to particular judicial teams and anticipates guardians ad

litem, parents’ attorneys, and social workers being assigned to particular

teams as well. For example, the court said in its April 24, 2002, testimony

before the Subcommittee on D.C. Appropriations, Senate Committee on

Appropriations, that it has offered CFSA the opportunity to identify

clusters of social workers that could be assigned to the teams.

To help achieve operational coordination, the court established

interagency committees—the Family Court Implementation Committee

and the Child Welfare Leadership Team—that include representatives

from CFSA and other agencies. According to court officials, these

committees constitute the court’s major vehicle for collaborating with

other agencies. In addition, the presiding and deputy presiding judges of

the Family Court will meet monthly with heads of CFSA, District of

Columbia Department of Mental Health, OCC, Public Defender Services,

District of Columbia Public Schools, and the Family Division Trial Lawyers

Association in an effort to resolve any interagency problems and to

coordinate services that affect the child welfare cases filed in Family

 22Casey, Pamela and William E. Hewitt, “Courts Responses to Individuals in Need of

Services: Promising components of a service coordination strategy for courts”, National

Center for State Courts (Williamsburg, Va.: 2001).
Page 16 GAO-02-797T

Court. Other Family Court initiatives to achieve coordinated services

include the Family Service Center, which will be comprised of the

following agencies under the direction of the mayor: District of Columbia

Public Schools, District of Columbia Housing Authority, CFSA, OCC,

Metropolitan Police Department, and the Department of Health.

In achieving coordinated services in the longer term, the court faces

several challenges. For example, the court’s transition plan states that

until certain key agencies, such as CFSA and OCC, are sufficiently staffed

and reorganized to complement the changes taking place in the Family

Court, substantial improvements in the experiences of children and

families served by the court will remain a challenge. Moreover, to the

extent that improvements in the agencies and the court do not happen

simultaneously, or improvements in one do not keep pace with the others,

the court has concluded that the collective ability to collaborate will

become compromised. The court also said in its April 24, 2002, testimony

that it takes time to obtain interagency commitments to coordinate the use

of staff resources. Finally, the availability of the Family Service Center as

a forum to coordinate services depends on the timely completion of

complex and interdependent space and facilities plans discussed in more

detail below.

Two factors are critical to fully transitioning to the Family Court in a

timely and effective manner: obtaining and renovating appropriate space

for all new Family Court personnel and developing and installing a new

automated information system, currently planned as part of the D.C.

Courts IJIS system. The court acknowledges that its implementation plans

may be slowed if appropriate space cannot be obtained in a timely

manner. For example, the plan addresses how the abuse and neglect cases

currently being heard by judges in other divisions of the Superior Court

will be transferred to the Family Court, but states that the complete

transfer of cases hinges on the court’s ability to hire, train, and provide

appropriate space for additional judges and magistrate judges. In addition,

the Family Court’s current reliance on nonintegrated automated

information systems that do not fully support planned court operations,

such as the one family/one judge approach to case management,

constrains its transition to a Family Court.

The Transition Plan

Reveals that

Challenges in

Obtaining the

Necessary Physical

Space and in

Developing a New

Information System

Could Impede Family

Court Implementation
Page 17 GAO-02-797T

The transition plan states that the interim space plan23 carries a number of

project risks. These include a very aggressive implementation schedule

and a design that makes each part of the plan interdependent with other

parts of the plan. The transition plan further states that the desired results

cannot be reached if each plan increment does not take place in a timely

fashion. For example, obtaining and renovating the almost 30,000

occupiable square feet of new court space needed requires a complex

series of interrelated steps—from moving current tenants in some

buildings to temporary space, to renovating the John Marshall level of the

H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse by July 2003.

The Family Court of the Superior Court is currently housed in the H. Carl

Moultrie Courthouse, and interim plans call for expanding and renovating

additional space in this courthouse to accommodate the additional judges,

magistrate judges, and staff who will help implement the D.C. Family

Court Act. The court estimates that accommodating these judges,

magistrate judges, and staff requires an additional 29,700 occupiable

square feet, plus an undetermined amount for security and other

amenities. Obtaining this space will require nonrelated D.C. Courts entities

to vacate space to allow renovations, as well as require tenants in other

buildings to move to house the staff who have been displaced.

The plan calls for renovations under tight deadlines and all required space

may not be available, as currently planned, to support the additional

judges the Family Court needs to perform its work in accordance with the

act, making it uncertain as to when the court can fully complete its

transition. For example, D.C. Courts recommends that a portion of the

John Marshall level of the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, currently occupied

by civil court functions, be vacated and redesigned for the new

courtrooms and court-related support facilities. Although some space is

available on the fourth floor of the courthouse for the four magistrate

judges to be hired by December 2002, renovations to the John Marshall

level are tentatively scheduled for completion in July 2003—2 months after

the court anticipates having three additional Family Court judges on

board. The Family Service Center will also be housed on this level.

Another D.C. Courts building—Building B—would be partially vacated by

non-court tenants and altered for use by displaced civil courts functions

 23The interim space plan addresses facility needs of the Family Court in response to the act.

D.C. Courts is also developing a comprehensive master plan to address the needs of the

courts through 2012.

The Plan for Obtaining the

Necessary Space and

Facilities Carries a

Number of Project Risks
Page 18 GAO-02-797T

and other units temporarily displaced in future renovations. Renovations

to Building B are scheduled to be complete by August 2002. Space for 30

additional Family Court-related staff, approximately 3,300 occupiable

square feet, would be created in the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse in an as

yet undetermined location. Moreover, the Family Court’s plan for

acquiring additional space does not include alternatives that the court will

pursue if its current plans for renovating space encounter delays or

problems that could prevent it from using targeted space.

The Family Court act calls for an integrated information technology

system to support the goals it outlines, but a number of factors

significantly increase the risks associated with this effort, as we reported

in February 2002.24 For example,

• The D.C. Courts had not yet implemented the disciplined processes

necessary to reduce the risks associated with acquiring and managing

IJIS to acceptable levels. A disciplined software development and

acquisition effort maximizes the likelihood of achieving the intended

results (performance) on schedule using available resources (costs).

• The requirements25 contained in a draft Request for Proposal (RFP)

lacked the necessary specificity to ensure that any defects in these

requirements had been reduced to acceptable levels26 and that the

system would meet its users’ needs. Studies have shown that problems

associated with requirements definition are key factors in software

projects that do not meet their cost, schedule, and performance goals.

• The requirements contained in the draft RFP did not directly relate to

industry standards. As a result, inadequate information was available

for prospective vendors and others to readily map systems built upon

these standards to the needs of the D.C. Courts.

 24U.S. General Accounting Office, DC Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful

System Acquisition, GAO-02-316, (Washington, D.C.: February 2002).

25Requirements represent the blueprint that system developers and program managers use

to design, develop, and acquire a system. Requirements should be consistent with one

another, verifiable, and directly traceable to higher-level business or functional

requirements.

26Although all projects of this size can be expected to have some requirements-related

defects, the goal is to reduce the number of such defects so that they do not significantly

affect cost, schedule, or performance.

Reducing Risks in

Developing the New

Information System

Critical to Meeting Family

Court Goals
Page 19 GAO-02-797T

Prior to issuing our February 2002 report, we discussed our findings with

D.C. Courts officials, who generally concurred with our findings. The

officials said that the D.C. Courts would not go forward with the project

until the necessary actions had been taken to reduce the risks associated

with developing the new information system. In our report, we made

several recommendations designed to reduce the risks. In April 2002, we

met with D.C. Courts officials to discuss the actions taken on our

recommendations and found that significant actions have been initiated

that, if properly implemented, will help reduce the risks associated with

this effort. For example, D.C. Courts is

• beginning the work to provide the needed specificity for its system

requirements. This includes soliciting requirements from the users and

ensuring that the requirements are properly sourced (e.g., traced back

to their origin). According to D.C. Courts officials, this work has

identified significant deficiencies in the original requirements that we

discussed in our February 2002 report. These deficiencies relate to

new tasks D.C. Courts must undertake. For example, the Family Court

Act requires D.C. Courts to interface IJIS with several other District

government computer systems. These tasks were not within the scope

of the original requirements that we reported on in our February 2002

report.

• issuing a Request for Information to obtain additional information on

commercial products that should be considered by the D.C. Courts

during its acquisitions. This helps the requirements management

process by identifying requirements that are not supported by

commercial products so that the D.C. Courts can reevaluate whether it

needs to (1) keep the requirement or revise it to be in greater

conformance with industry practices or (2) undertake a development

effort to achieve the needed capability.

• developing a systems engineering life-cycle process for managing the

D.C. Courts information technology efforts. This will help define the

processes and events that should be performed from the time that a

system is conceived until the system is no longer needed. Examples of

processes used include requirements development, testing, and

implementation.
Page 20 GAO-02-797T

• developing policies and procedures that will help ensure that the D.C.

Courts’ information technology investments are consistent with the

requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106).27

• developing the processes that will enable the D.C. Courts to achieve a

level 2 rating—this means basic project management processes are

established to track performance, cost, and schedule—on the Software

Engineering Institute’s28 Capability Maturity Model.29

In addition, D.C. Courts officials told us that they are developing a

program modification plan that will allow the use of existing (legacy)

systems while the IJIS project proceeds. Although they recognize that

maintaining two systems concurrently is expensive and causes additional

resource needs, such as additional staff and training for them, these

officials believe that they are needed to mitigate the risk associated with

any delays in system implementation.

Although these are positive steps forward, D.C. Courts still faces many

challenges in its efforts to develop an IJIS system that will meet its needs

and fulfill the goals established by the act. Examples of these include:

 27D.C. Courts has decided to apply the Clinger-Cohen Act to its investments even though it

is not required to do so. The act requires federal executive agencies to establish a process

to maximize the value and assess and manage the risks of information technology

investments. This process is to provide for, among other things, identifying for a proposed

investment quantifiable measurements for determining the net benefits and risks of the

investment, and minimum criteria for undertaking a particular investment, including

specific quantitative and qualitative criteria for comparing and prioritizing alternative

systems investment projects. Only by comparing the costs, benefits, and risks of a full

range of technical options can agencies ensure that the best approaches are selected.

28The Software Engineering Institute is recognized for its experience in software

development and acquisition processes. It has also developed methods and models that can

be used to define disciplined processes and determine whether an organization has

implemented them.

29Capability Maturity ModelSM (a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University, and CMM is

registered in the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office) provides a logical and widely accepted

framework for baselining an organization’s current process capabilities (i.e., strengths and

weaknesses) and assessing whether an organization has the necessary process discipline in

place to repeat earlier successes on similar projects.
Page 21 GAO-02-797T

Ensuring that the Systems Interfacing with IJIS Do Not Become

the Weak Link

The Family Court Act calls for effectively interfacing information

technology systems operated by the District government with IJIS.

According to D.C. Courts officials, at least 14 District systems will need to

interface with IJIS. However, several of our reviews have noted problems

in the District’s ability to develop, acquire, and implement new systems.30

The District’s difficulties in effectively managing its information

technology investments could lead to adverse impacts on the IJIS system.

For example, the interface systems may not be able to provide the quality

of data necessary to fully utilize IJIS’s capabilities or provide the necessary

data to support IJIS’s needs. The D.C. Courts will need to ensure that

adequate controls and processes have been implemented to mitigate the

potential impacts associated with these risks.

Effectively Implementing the Disciplined Processes Necessary to

Reduce the Risks Associated with IJIS

The key to having a disciplined effort is to have disciplined processes in

multiple areas. This is a complex task and will require the D.C. Courts to

maintain its management commitment to implementing the necessary

processes. In our February 2002 report, we highlighted several processes,

such as requirements management, risk management, and testing that

appeared critical to the IJIS effort.

Ensuring that the Requirements Used to Acquire IJIS Contain the

Necessary Specificity to Reduce Requirement-Related Defects to

Acceptable Levels

Although D.C. Courts officials have said that they are adopting a

requirements management process that will address the concerns

expressed in our February 2002 report, maintaining such a process will

require management commitment and discipline.

 30For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Weaknesses in

Financial Management System Implementation, GAO-01-489, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30,

2001); District of Columbia: The District Has Not Adequately Planned for and Managed

Its New Personnel and Payroll System, GAO/AIMD-00-19, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17,

1999); and District of Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for A New Financial

Management System, GAO/AIMD-98-88, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 1998).
Page 22 GAO-02-797T

Ensuring that Users Receive Adequate Training

As with any new system, adequately training the users is critical to its

success. As we reported in April 2001,31 one problem that hindered the

implementation of the District’s financial management system was its

difficulty in adequately training the users of the system. In commenting on

our May 2002 report, the Superior Court said that $800,000 has been

budgeted for staff training during the 3 years of implementation.

Avoiding a Schedule-Driven Effort

According to D.C. Courts officials, the Family Court Act establishes

ambitious timeframes to convert to a family court. Although schedules are

important, it is critical that the D.C. Courts follow an event-driven

acquisition and development program rather than adopting a scheduledriven approach. Organizations that are schedule-driven tend to reduce or

inadequately complete activities such as business process reengineering

and requirements analysis. These tasks are frequently not considered

“important” since many people view “getting the application in the hands

of the user” as one of the more productive activities. However, the results

of this approach are very predictable. Projects that do not perform

planning and requirements functions well typically have to redo that work

later. However, the costs associated with delaying the critical planning and

requirements activities is anywhere from 10 to 100 times the cost of doing

it correctly in the first place.32

With respect to requirements, court experts report that effective

technological support is critical to effective family court case

management. One expert said that, at a minimum, the system should

include the (1) identification of parties and their relationships; (2) tracking

of case processing events through on-line inquiry; (3) generation of orders,

forms, summons, and notices; and (4) production of statistical reports. The

State Justice Institute’s report on how courts are coordinating family

cases33 states that automated information systems, programmed to inform

 31U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial

Management System Implementation, GAO-01-489, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2001).

32Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Bruce McConnell, (Microsoft

Press).

33Flango, Carol R., Flango, Victor E., and Rubin, H. Ted, “How are Courts Coordinating

Family Cases?”, State Justice Institute, National Center for State Courts (Alexandria, Va.:

1999).
Page 23 GAO-02-797T

a court system of a family’s prior cases, are a vital ingredient of case

coordination efforts. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges echoes these findings by stating that effective management

systems (1) have standard procedures for collecting data; (2) collect data

about individual cases, aggregate caseload by judge, and the systemwide

caseload; (3) assign an individual the responsibility of monitoring case

processing; and (4) are user friendly.34 While anticipating technological

enhancements through IJIS, Superior Court officials said that the current

information systems do not have the functionality required to implement

the Family Court’s one family/one judge case management principle. In

providing technical clarifications on a draft of this report, the Superior

Court reiterated a statement that the presiding judge of the Family Court

made at the April 24, 2002, hearing. The presiding judge said that the

Family Court is currently implementing the one family/one judge principle,

but that existing court technology is cumbersome to use to identify family

and other household members. Nonetheless, staff are utilizing the

different databases, forms, intake interviews, questions from the bench,

and other nontechnological means of identifying related cases within the

Family Court.

Basically, even though some important issues are not discussed, the

Superior Court’s transition plan represents a good effort at outlining the

steps it will take to implement a Family Court. While the court has taken

important steps to achieve efficient and effective operations, it still must

address several statutory requirements included in the Family Court Act to

achieve full compliance with the act. In addition, opportunities exist for

the court to adopt other beneficial practices to help ensure it improves the

timeliness of decisions in accordance with ASFA, that judges and

magistrate judges are fully trained, and that case information is readily

available to aid judges and magistrate judges in their decision making.

Acknowledging the complex series of events that must occur in a timely

way to achieve optimal implementation of the family court, the court

recognizes that its plan for obtaining and renovating needed physical

space warrants close attention to reduce the risk of project delays. In

addition, the court has initiated important steps that begin to address

many of the shortcomings we identified in our February 2002 report on its

 34National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Information Management: A

Critical Component of Good Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, Technical

Assistance Bulletin, Vol. II, No. 8 (Reno, Nev.: Dec.1998).

Concluding

Observations
Page 24 GAO-02-797T

proposed information system. The effect of these actions will not be

known for some time. The court’s actions reflect its recognition that

developing an automated information system for the Family Court will

play a pivotal role in the court’s ability to implement its improved case

management framework. In commenting on our May 2002 report, the court

generally agreed with our findings and concurred with our

recommendations. Our final report on the mayor’s plan to coordinate

social services, integrate automated information systems, and develop a

spending plan to support these initiatives may discuss some additional

actions the mayor and court might take to further enhance their ability to

achieve intended service coordination and systems integration. By

following through on the steps it has begun to take and by evaluating its

performance over time, the court may improve its implementation of the

Family Court Act and provide a sound basis for assessing the extent to

which it achieves desired outcomes for children.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy

to respond to any questions that you or other members of the

subcommittee may have.

For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia M.

Ashby at (202) 512-8403. Individuals making key contributions to this

testimony included Diana Pietrowiak, Mark Ward, Nila Garces-Osorio,

Steven J. Berke, Patrick DiBattista, William Doherty, John C. Martin, Susan

Ragland, and Norma Samuel.

GAO Contacts And

Acknowledgments
Page 25 GAO-02-797T

D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully

Implement Its Transition. Washington, D.C.: 2002.

D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but

Some Challenges Remain. Washington, D.C.: 2002.

DC Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System

Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: 2002.

District of Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial Management System

Implementation. Washington, D.C.: 2001.

District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring

Children’s Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: 2000.

Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia’s Child Welfare System

Reform Efforts. Washington, D.C.: 2000.

Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and

Safe Families Act. Washington, D.C.: 2000.

Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders.

Washington, D.C.: 2000.

D.C. Courts: Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous.

Washington, D.C.: 1999.

District of Columbia: The District Has Not Adequately Planned for and

Managed Its New Personnel and Payroll System. Washington, D.C.: 1999.

Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Efforts.

Washington, D.C.: 1999.

District of Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for A New

Financial Management System. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

Related GAO Products

(130166)