D.C. COURTS

Implementation of

Personnel Policies

Requires Further

Attention From the

Courts’ Leadership

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to Congressional

Requesters

April 2000

GAO/GGD-00-75BR

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

B-284121

April 12, 2000

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

Chairman, Subcommittee on the

 District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman, Subcommittee on the

 District of Columbia

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

This briefing report responds to your request that we examine the

personnel management policies and practices of the District of Columbia

Courts. Those practices have been criticized by some employees of the

D.C. Courts, who individually have alleged to you and to us that the Courts’

personnel management practices are unfair and at odds with the Courts’

policies on personnel management.

This report details the information provided in our February 1, 2000,

briefing. It is our second report to you on personnel management at the

D.C. Courts. Our first report discussed how the D.C. Courts determine the

adequacy of nonjudicial staff levels.1

 For this second report, which also

concerns nonjudicial employees, as agreed with your offices, our

objectives were to determine whether (1) the Courts’ applicable policies

for six basic personnel activities or functions were consistent with

commonly accepted personnel management principles and (2) the Courts

generally adhered to their policies when implementing the six personnel

activities or functions. These activities or functions were as follows:

 

1

Nonjudicial employees are individuals other than judges and their secretaries, law clerks, and

administrative assistants. Also excluded from the definition of nonjudicial employees are the positions

of special counsel to the chief judges and hearing commissioners (judicially appointed). D.C. Courts:

Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous (GAO/GGD-99-162, Aug. 27, 1999).
B-284121

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

performance evaluation, competitive and noncompetitive promotions,

corrective actions, training, classification, and equal employment

opportunity (EEO) policies. In gathering information on the EEO function

in the Courts, we also compared certain court practices with practices

called for or recommended by certain federal guidelines. Although the

Courts are not required to follow these federal practices, we viewed them

as prudent practices to follow.

Specifically, we reviewed (1) the provision of feedback to employees about

their job performance; (2) the awarding of competitive and noncompetitive

promotions; (3) the application of official disciplinary measures by

supervisors or managers in response to unacceptable employee behavior

or performance, which the D.C. Courts refer to as corrective actions; (4)

employee training; (5) the classification of positions; and (6) EEO policies.

These activities and functions are widely regarded as among the basic

attributes of an effective public sector human resources system. In

addition, as agreed with your offices, we asked employees and managers

about the D.C. Courts’ process for reporting fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement.

To do this review, we compared court policies with commonly accepted

personnel management principles, interviewed program managers and

court executives, obtained various documents and data, reviewed over 700

personnel files, and sent a questionnaire to a representative sample of 460

court employees. All results from our sample data are accurate to plus or

minus 6 percentage points or less with 95-percent confidence. The Courts’

Joint Committee on Judicial Administration gave us written comments on

a draft of this briefing report, which are discussed near the end of this

report and appear in appendix III.

The D.C. Courts’ policies for the six personnel activities or functions were

generally consistent with commonly accepted personnel management

principles. However, the D.C. Courts did not always adhere to many of

those policies. As the following text shows, where we found nonadherence

to a policy, it was not usually an anomaly limited to a single action or a

single year. Managers and supervisors were clearly not required in practice

to regularly follow all of the personnel policies and practices we reviewed,

even though those policies were presented as the way the D.C. Courts’

personnel management system should and would operate. Apart from

adhering to policies, certain court practices could be improved as

evidenced by the Courts’ own work, the results from our questionnaire,

and our comparison of the Courts’ practices to certain federal guidelines.

Results
B-284121

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

These practices involve training; EEO; and the reporting of potential fraud,

waste, abuse, and mismanagement.

Our specific findings follow and are presented in the Briefing Section in

more detail.

Performance evaluations (feedback). Regular performance evaluations and

feedback are common key components of personnel systems and are

intended to help employees improve their job performance and thereby to

also improve organizational performance. Two objectives of the D.C.

Courts’ policy on performance management are to provide employees with

regular performance feedback (at least every 6 months) and a written

evaluation annually on each employee’s anniversary date with the Courts.2

In practice, according to a Personnel Division official, supervisors are

given 30 days from anniversary dates to provide written evaluations. In

connection with providing feedback at least every 6 months, about 34

percent of the court employees who answered our questionnaire said their

supervisors had talked with them about their work performance about

once in the past year. Another 18 percent indicated that their supervisors

had not talked with them during the past year about their job performance.

We recognize that sometimes a supervisor can give performance feedback

that the employee does not perceive as feedback and, if this occurred at

the Courts, it could explain some of the responses we received. However,

our questionnaire results indicate that about half of the Courts’ employees

do not perceive that they have received timely performance feedback in

conformance with the Courts’ policy.

In calendar years 1996 and 1997, according to the Courts, relatively few

Superior Court and Court System nonjudicial employees—about 6 percent

in 1996 and 13 percent in 1997—received written performance evaluations.

The Courts adopted a program to increase the rate of compliance after we

initiated our review and reported that about 84 percent of Superior Court

and Court System nonjudicial employees received written evaluations for

calendar year 1998. This percent was without regard to employees’

anniversary dates. We determined that a much smaller percentage of

employees—about 13 percent—received their 1998 evaluations on or

within 30 days (before or after) of their anniversary dates. This smaller

percentage means the Courts were still not consistently following their

policy of giving employees written evaluations on their anniversary dates.

 2

The Courts’ define anniversary date as the date of an employee’s last appointment, promotion, or

demotion. The Courts centrally keep track of each employee’s latest anniversary date, and court

divisions are notified quarterly of those dates for their staffs.
B-284121

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

For calendar year 1999, the Courts told us that 76 percent of those

Superior Court and Court System nonjudicial employees who were eligible

to receive a written evaluation through November had received them as of

December 15. However, when the employees received the evaluations was

not always related to their anniversary dates. Using a representative

sample of personnel files, we determined that about 29 percent of the

employees who were eligible to receive a written evaluation had received

it on or within 30 days (before or after) of their anniversary dates. Thus,

the Courts have much further to go to comply with their policy to give

written evaluations on anniversary dates. To improve compliance with the

written evaluation policy, the Courts have implemented a procedure for

checking each division’s compliance and said they would formally evaluate

supervisors’ compliance with the policy beginning in fiscal year 2000.

Promotions (competitive and noncompetitive). Promotions at the Courts

come about through competitive means (also called merit selection) or

through noncompetitive means (by earning the next pay grade in a career

ladder, for example). Federal regulations require federal agencies to keep

records on a temporary basis sufficient to allow reconstruction of each

competitive promotion action. The D.C. Courts are not subject to this

regulation and did not have formal procedures detailing what documents

they believed should be collected and retained to support the competitive

promotion process. That is, the Courts did not specify the documents they

believe are necessary to reconstruct a promotion process, if challenged, to

show it was fair.

However, the Courts do collect and retain documents as a matter of

practice in connection with competitive promotions, using the federal

government’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures as a

guide in deciding what to collect and retain. However, the Uniform

Guidelines are designed to ensure only that employers, both public sector

and private sector, do not discriminate on the basis of characteristics such

as race, color, and religion. And while the Uniform Guidelines do require

employers to maintain documentation on what the adverse impact of their

selection process might be, they do not identify what documentation

would be necessary to ensure the fairness of a selection process under a

merit system.

We worked with court personnelists to construct a checklist of documents

they said were collected as a matter of practice and used the checklist to

review the files on 88 competitive promotions made in 1997 and 1998 that

we randomly selected from 121 competitive promotions. About 76 percent

of the files contained all of the checklist documents. One or more
B-284121

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

documents were missing from the remaining 24 percent. The document

missing most often was a “referral panel certificate,” which would be

important in reconstructing a promotion process as it would show

where—by points—panel members ranked promotion candidates. It was

missing in an estimated 14 percent of the files. Therefore, in addition to not

identifying in procedures what documents should be kept, the Courts had

not always collected and kept the documents that in practice they intended

to keep.

On the basis of our review of the supporting files and information from the

Personnel Division, we found that the Courts’ procedures for

noncompetitive promotions were not followed in 12 of the 79

noncompetitive promotions in 1997 and 1998.3

 With one exception, which

was a career-ladder promotion, the noncompliance involved promotions

that came about through reorganizations. Seventeen noncompetitive

promotions in 1997 and 1998 resulted from reorganizations, and files for 11

of them did not indicate that the Personnel Division had conducted the

required position review. The purpose of a position review is to ensure that

a position’s pay grade is justified by the duties of the position.

According to the Courts’ Executive Officer, there are two types of

reorganization categories, and each has a different time requirement for

doing position reviews. When new or revised positions result from

reorganization, they are to be reviewed and classified by the Personnel

Division at the time of promotion. However, when a new or revised

position results from a reorganization that is triggered by legislation,

grants, new programs, new projects, or operational emergencies, then the

position is to be reviewed within 1 year of the trigger’s inception. The

responsible personnel official said one position review was not done

because of a Personnel Division oversight. This review was to have been

done at the time of promotion. The Personnel Division was, the official

said, unaware of the need to conduct the other 10 position reviews. The

official attributed this situation to a lack of coordination between the

Personnel Division and the Courts’ Executive Office. The Executive

Officer had used his authority to initiate the reorganizations and these

associated promotions. All 10 reviews were to have been done within 1

year.

 3

The Personnel Division is now the Human Resources Division. However, because it was the Personnel

Division during much of our work and to avoid confusion with using both names, we have used

Personnel Division in this report.
B-284121

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

The Executive Officer also used his authority to change the career ladder

for a position—from grade 14 to grade 15—to promote the position’s

incumbent. The incumbent was then promoted after the change. The

Courts’ practice, according to the Executive Officer, is for career ladder

promotions to be accompanied by supervisory verification of the

employee’s satisfactory job performance at the lower grade. We found no

evidence of supervisory verification in the files to support this career

ladder promotion to grade 15.

The Courts do not appear to have followed another of their policies in

connection with four of the reorganization promotions for which no

position review was conducted. As set out by a court document on

position classification, the Executive Officer is to designate managerial

positions at grade 14 and above upon consultation with the director of

personnel. We found no evidence in the files that this consultation

occurred for the four positions, all of which were managerial positions at

grade 14 or above.

Corrective actions. Court supervisors and managers can impose a

corrective action against an employee when the employee’s improper

behavior or poor performance warrants an official action. The corrective

action policy requires that all corrective actions be in writing and that the

employee be notified of key elements regarding the action. Nonjudicial

employees can appeal corrective actions, and the Courts have established

a formal process for this purpose.

The case files for 150 employees from 6 court divisions who received

corrective actions between July 1997 and June 1999 typically contained

correspondence to the employees noting the nature of the problem, the

proposed corrective action, and the right to appeal the action. However,

employees were not routinely notified—as required by court policy—of

their right to review the materials that were the basis for the corrective

action. Of 150 corrective actions we reviewed, corrective action

correspondence lacked the required notification in 112 cases. In addition,

according to the results of our employee survey, a sizeable percentage of

employees (about 40 percent) said they had not received information on

the range of disciplinary actions that could be taken for inappropriate

employee behavior. Also, a sizeable percentage of employees (about 41

percent) responded that they were unsure whether the Courts would fairly

or unfairly handle an appeal of a corrective action. Employees appealed

corrective actions in 13 cases over 4 1/2 years. The appeals appeared to

follow the process provided for in the Courts’ personnel policies.
B-284121

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Employee training. The Courts, as a matter of policy, encourage the

training and development of employees, and appeared to have an active

training program. Employees receive training from the divisions in which

they work and the Courts’ Center for Education, Training, and

Development. In general, the operating divisions are to provide the types

of training employees need to do their jobs on an everyday basis while the

Center offers formal courses to maintain and enhance their knowledge,

skills, and abilities. As a general matter, the Courts have not established,

and we are unaware of any requirement for them to establish, overall

requirements as to the amounts of training or the training curriculums

nonjudicial court employees should receive or follow.

However, the Center had formulated a concept for further defining the

training needs and curriculum of positions that were to be identified.

Under the concept, according to the Center’s director, the knowledge,

skills, and abilities of staff would be determined. With that information, the

Courts would then determine what training should be offered to enable

employees to reach performance expectations, as set out in job

descriptions. According to the director, funds to develop a staffassessment instrument were included in the Center’s budget request for

fiscal year 2001. A different instrument, the director said, would be

necessary for different job series. However, beyond this initial request, no

plan or timetable had been developed as of September 1999 for

implementing the concept. According to the director, the Center will

propose a plan and timetable in consultation with the newly appointed

director of personnel, since this effort is anticipated to be a joint project

with the Personnel Division. The new personnel director was appointed in

the fall of 1999.

Classification. The Courts are required by their policy to conduct a

classification survey periodically and to conduct the survey either by

surveying all or a representative number of positions. Classification is used

to establish grades and rates of pay based on the difficulty, responsibility,

and qualifications needs of positions and is done to help ensure equal pay

for equal work. The Courts have not conducted systematic surveys

periodically. The last systematic review was in 1983. Since then, the Courts

have substituted the results of reviews done for other purposes, such as

for reorganizations, to meet the policy requirement. However, the

positions selected for review were not statistically representative and

officials were not able to tell us how many employees’ position

descriptions were affected by these reviews. In October 1999, after we met

to discuss the issue, court officials informed us that the Courts would

implement a systematic classification survey of all nonjudicial positions on
B-284121

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

a 5-year cycle. At least one-fifth of the positions are to be reviewed every

year starting in January 2000.

EEO policies and practices. The Courts have formal procedures for

processing EEO discrimination complaints, and the contracted-for

attorney who administers the EEO complaint process has drafted a

brochure to inform employees about the Courts’ EEO policies and aspects

of the complaint process. Additional communications may also be helpful

to employees. Posters are displayed informing employees about EEO

protections provided by federal statutes and which federal agencies to

contact if they believe they have been discriminated against under any of

the described protections. However, posters about the Courts’ EEO

program and complaint process are not displayed.4

 Such a poster would

help remind employees of the Courts’ EEO policies and complaint process,

although it would probably repeat to some extent information in the draft

brochure. In addition to telling employees who enter the Courts’ EEO

complaint process of their rights and responsibilities, the Courts could also

give them a written list, which is not a court practice.

The Courts did not have a procedural manual that identified what

documents to retain in EEO complaint files. This type of detail, that is

useful to supporting the Courts’ EEO program, is not included in the

Courts’ policy manual, which is the only collection of the Courts’ EEO

policies and procedures. Although the Courts are not required to display

posters, provide rights and responsibilities in writing, or create a

procedures manual, federal EEO regulations require all three of these

practices for federal agencies. The Courts are not subject to these

regulations.

The Courts collect EEO data for several purposes. They prepare an annual

report for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the

number of new hires, promotions, and terminations by race, national

origin, and gender. Separately from the EEOC-related collection, the

Courts collect data on the race, national origin, and gender of applicants

for competitive appointments and promotions and those who are

appointed and promoted. According to Personnel Division officials, they

keep these data on a job-announcement basis and analyze them to ensure

that each appointment or promotion process was fair to all EEO groups.

Finally, the Courts compare by EEO group the composition of their

workforce to the composition of the labor force in the Washington, D.C.,

 

4

We did not determine the extent to which the federal posters are displayed in the several buildings

that house the D.C. Courts.
B-284121

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

metropolitan area. This comparison (called a workforce utilization

analysis) is done for purposes of developing recruiting plans.

The Courts have not, however, done various other analyses that are

recommended, but not required, by Justice Department guidelines that the

Courts otherwise follow.5 For example, the Courts have not done analyses

of applicants for employment or promotion compared with those selected

for employment or promotion, employees who receive a corrective action,

and voluntary and involuntary terminations. These analyses are

recommended to ensure that equal opportunity principles are followed in

all employment phases. According to Personnel Division officials, certain

of these analyses have not been done, in part, due to limitations in the

computer software they use. The Courts’ Personnel Division plans to start

producing an annual package of such supplementary EEO analyses,

starting with 1999 data. It plans to produce the package using computergenerated data and manual methods.

Through our survey of court employees, we obtained a representative

sample of their perceptions on the Courts’ EEO complaint process and

efforts to eliminate workplace discrimination. About 56 percent of the

employees who answered our question about filing a formal EEO

discrimination complaint said they would be very or generally willing to

file a complaint if they believed they had been discriminated against, while

18 percent held the opposite view. Another 26 percent were undecided.

Employees were undecided or unwilling most often out of concern for the

fairness of the process. Almost as often as they were concerned with

fairness, unwilling employees also were fearful of reprisal for filing a

complaint. We do not know the exact reasons why these employees were

undecided and unwilling to file complaints. However, we were told during

our review that the Courts contracted with an attorney in 1997 to

administer the EEO complaint process in part because of a breakdown in

employees’ confidence in using the complaint process. Employees also had

varied opinions as to whether the Courts supported the elimination of

workplace discrimination. About 52 percent of the employees believed that

the Courts definitely or probably supported the elimination of

discrimination, 18 percent held the opposite view, and 29 percent were

unsure.

Employee reporting of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The D.C.

Courts have not adequately informed employees about the Courts’ process

for reporting fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. About 4 out of 5

 

5

28 C.F.R. 42.301, et. seq.
B-284121

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

employees who responded to our survey said they had not received

information on (1) where to report waste, fraud, abuse, or

mismanagement; (2) the process for reporting; or (3) the protections

provided to employees who make reports. The Courts reported that an

internal Quality Service Council has been available since 1994 to receive

employees’ allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement,

although none had been received. The council was established to explore

the possibility of implementing total quality management principles into

the court system. After we brought the issue of the Courts’ need to

adequately inform employees to the Courts’ attention, the Executive

Officer told us that a statement was being drafted as of mid-October 1999

to clarify for employees the process for reporting of alleged fraud, waste,

abuse, and mismanagement. Also, in late October 1999, the Executive

Officer appointed court officials to a new subcommittee of the Personnel

Advisory Committee to explore alternatives and draft a proposed policy on

the reporting of fraud, waste, and abuse in the court system. The Personnel

Advisory Committee makes recommendations for new policies to the Joint

Committee on Judicial Administration.

In a recent discussion draft on “human capital” in the federal government,

we noted that federal agencies depend on three enablers—people, process,

and technology—to attain the highest level of performance and

accountability.6

 An agency’s most important asset—its people or human

capital—defines its character and its capacity to perform, the discussion

draft said. The same is true for the D.C. Courts. While the Courts have

written personnel policies as a framework for managing and working with

employees, the Courts’ leadership has not always made certain that those

policies included all appropriate provisions (e.g., documents to retain for

competitive promotions) or that they were carried out. For that reason, we

are recommending the Courts’ leadership hold appropriate managers and

supervisors accountable for more effective implementation of the Courts’

personnel policies. We also are recommending enhancements to the

Courts’ training, EEO, and reporting of fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement efforts.

The District of Columbia Courts comprise the D.C. Superior Court, the

D.C. Court of Appeals, and the D.C. Court System. Judges of the Courts are

appointed by the President and are subject to confirmation by the Senate.

 

6

Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders (GAO/GGD-99-179, Sept. 1999). This

product was issued as a discussion draft to obtain further advice and feedback.

Background
B-284121

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

The D.C. Superior Court has general jurisdiction over virtually all local

legal matters. In addition to judicial members, the D.C. Superior Court has

divisions that process and dispose of cases, provide alternative dispute

resolution services, and handle the juvenile probation function. The D.C.

Court of Appeals is the highest court in the District of Columbia, and

appeals from it are taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. The D.C. Court

System does not process cases but provides administrative services to the

Superior Court and Court of Appeals, including personnel management

and education and training.

A Joint Committee on Judicial Administration—made up of five judges—is

the policymaking body for the D.C. Courts. The Chief Judges of the D.C.

Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals serve on this committee, with

the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals serving as committee chair. In

addition, another Court of Appeals judge elected by the Court of Appeals

judges, and two Superior Court judges elected by their colleagues, serve on

the Joint Committee.

An executive officer appointed by the Joint Committee is responsible for

the administration of the Courts, including the personnel management

function. The executive officer has authority to prescribe rules and

regulations to administer the personnel policies approved by the Joint

Committee. In addition, subject to regulations, the executive officer can

appoint and remove, with limited exception, D.C. Court personnel

(including the Clerks of the Superior Court and Court of Appeals) except

for the judges’ law clerks and secretaries and the D.C. Register of Wills.

The executive officer also chairs the Personnel Advisory Committee,

which advises the Joint Committee on personnel policies. To accomplish

this mission, the Advisory Committee is to make recommendations for

new policies or to revise existing policies based on regular review of the

Courts’ personnel policies and all proposed changes to those policies. The

Advisory Committee’s responsibility does not normally extend to

overseeing adherence to approved policies, according to court officials.

Nine individuals are to serve on the Advisory Committee. Six members,

including the executive officer and the personnel director, are to serve on

a permanent basis, and three members, who each represent a segment of

the Courts’ workforce, are to serve on a rotating basis.

The Courts’ personnel policies are contained in the District of Columbia

Courts Comprehensive Personnel Policies. The policies, which were

approved by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, apply to

nonjudicial employees, who numbered nearly 1,000 as of June 1999. These
B-284121

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

employees were individuals other than judges and their secretaries, law

clerks, and administrative assistants. Also excluded from the definition of

nonjudicial employees were the positions of special counsel to the chief

judges and hearing commissioners (judicially appointed).

For the six personnel activities and functions we reviewed, the D.C. Courts

had established policies that were generally consistent with commonly

accepted personnel management principles. However, the Courts did not

always adhere to and communicate those policies.

• While employees are to receive written performance evaluations on their

yearly anniversary dates with the Courts, relatively few received a written

evaluation at all in 1996 and 1997, and relatively few received written

evaluations near their anniversary dates in 1998. Although the Courts have

acted to improve compliance, the compliance rate for 1999 indicates that

the Courts still have a distance to go to timely comply with their stated

policy of providing employees with written evaluations on their yearly

anniversary dates.

• While the Courts collect and retain documents in connection with

competitive promotions, the policy manual does not identify what

documents should be collected and retained for the purpose of helping to

prove the process was fair.

• While a position review is to be conducted when a promotion results from

reorganization, we found that such reviews often did not occur due to a

lack of coordination between the Courts’ Executive Office and the

Personnel Division.

• While employees were to be informed of their right to review materials

that formed the basis for corrective action, they were not routinely

informed of that right.

• While court policy calls for systematic classification surveys on a periodic

basis, such surveys have not been conducted for a considerable time.

However, the Courts have announced plans to conduct systematic surveys

yearly.

In addition to following those policies in the personnel areas just

mentioned, we also saw opportunities for the Courts to enhance efforts in

the training and EEO areas as well as better informing employees about

reporting fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The Courts’ training

center has proposed a concept for better targeting the training employees

could receive. Various enhancements in the EEO area appear available and

appropriate, such as doing the kinds of analyses that applicable Justice

Department guidelines recommend. In addition, the percentages of court

employees who expressed uncertainty or negative views about the Courts’

Conclusions
B-284121

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

complaint process and efforts to eliminate discrimination, which totaled

approximately 45 percent for each question, indicates to us that many

employees may lack a sense of confidence in the Courts’ EEO efforts. The

Courts and employees addressing these perceptions together might

increase the number of employees with such confidence, which should

benefit both the Courts and employees. Finally, the responses to our

questionnaire very clearly indicate that the Courts have not adequately

informed employees of the procedures and protections for reporting fraud,

waste, abuse, and mismanagement.

In our view, the overriding and long-term solution for the problems we

identified is for the leadership of the D.C. Courts to consistently emphasize

the importance of complying with human resources policies and

principles, to ensure that policies are supported as necessary by

appropriate procedures, and to hold managers accountable for

compliance. We recognize that the Courts have acted or indicated they

would act to address a number of the issues we raised, and we commend

the Courts’ initiative. Nevertheless, the problems we identified in this

report, such as providing employees with annual performance appraisals

and surveying positions on a systematic and periodic basis, may well

persist if the level of emphasis placed by leadership on the importance of

personnel matters is unchanged. We believe increased attention and

emphasis is warranted because, as in any organization, human capital is

the Courts’ greatest asset, defining the Courts’ character and capacity to

perform.

We recommend that the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration,

working through the Courts’ Executive Officer, ensure that personnel

policies are more effectively documented, communicated, and

implemented. Specifically, the Joint Committee should direct the

Executive Officer to

• Hold appropriate managers and supervisors accountable for implementing

the Courts’ policies, such as providing employees with periodic feedback

on their performance, including annual written evaluations; undertaking

and documenting required position reviews; and doing periodic

classification surveys that are generalizable. One way in which to hold

appropriate managers and supervisors accountable is by evaluating their

performance on how well they implement policies, which the Courts plan

to do starting in fiscal year 2000 in connection with the policy of providing

employees annual written evaluations.

• Ensure that employees are informed of their right to review the basis for

corrective actions that may be taken against them.

Recommendations to

the Joint Committee

on Judicial

Administration
B-284121

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

• Develop formal written policies and procedures that identify what

documents to collect and retain for the Courts’ competitive promotion

process.

• Explore as proposed whether training curriculums and requirements can

be appropriately established for court positions.

• Enhance EEO communications with employees by displaying posters

about the Courts’ EEO program and complaint procedures and informing

employees who enter the complaint process of their rights and

responsibilities in writing. Develop a manual to better document

procedures necessary for supporting the EEO program and complaint

process. And make more analytical use of data collected for EEO

purposes, such as by performing analyses of applicant and hiring data

together.

• Work with employees to identify and implement ways to strengthen

employees’ confidence in the Courts’ EEO efforts and internal processes

for addressing complaints and appeals.

• Ensure that the actions being taken (e.g., drafting of policy) result in

employees being adequately informed regarding the reporting of waste,

fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

On March 13, 2000, the Acting Executive Officer of the D.C. Courts, on

behalf of the Courts’ Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, provided

the Courts’ written comments on a draft of this report (see app. III). The

Courts said that we had identified areas where their policies could be

enhanced and court personnel responsible for implementing them could

improve adherence to policies. The Courts also said that our findings have

assisted them in identifying where improvements can be made to enhance

performance. In addition, the Courts summarized actions they have taken

and plan to take to implement the recommendations we make in this

report.

To determine whether the Courts’ policies for the six personnel areas were

consistent with commonly accepted personnel management principles, we

reviewed the policies and compared them with personnel management

principles we identified in an earlier report on a federal personnel system.7

The principles we used were those we judged to be relevant to the six

personnel areas.

To determine whether the Courts’ were adhering to the applicable policies,

we interviewed program managers and executives of the D.C. Courts and

 

7

Federal Personnel: Architect of the Capitol’s Personnel System Needs Improvement (GAO/GGD-94-

121BR, Apr. 9, 1994).

Comments of the Joint

Committee on Judicial

Administration

Scope and

Methodology
B-284121

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

obtained documents and data, such as schedules of training courses,

relating to specific functions. In some instances, because the policies were

not specific enough, we asked the Executive Officer or officials of the

Personnel Division to document for us what the Courts’ practices were,

and we used those statements of practice to determine the Courts’

compliance. These instances involved competitive promotions (list of

documents the Courts collect and retain) and noncompetitive promotions

(when position reviews are to be performed). In gathering information on

the Courts’ EEO function, we also compared certain court practices with

practices that EEOC (in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614) and the Department of Justice

(in 28 C.F.R. 42.301 et. seq.) requires or recommends. These EEOC

regulations are for federal agencies, and the Courts are not subject to

them. These particular Justice Department regulations are for state or

local units of government that receive federal financial assistance for the

reduction and control of crime and delinquency.

We also analyzed

• random samples of Superior Court and Court System nonjudicial

employees’ personnel files—394 for 1998 and 220 for 1999—to determine

whether and when written performance evaluations were given to

employees in 1998 and 1999. For 1999, the employees were those with

anniversary dates through November 30, 1999, and the information we

reviewed was through December 15. The files were of employees who had

been employed for at least 1 year by the end of 1998. Some files examined

for 1999 were also examined for 1998.

• files on a random sample of 88 competitive promotions made in 1997 and

1998.

• files on all 79 noncompetitive promotions in 1997 and 1998.

• files on the 150 employees from 6 selected divisions receiving corrective

actions between July 1997 and June 1999. For those employees who

received more than one corrective action during the 2-year period, our

analysis focused on the most recent corrective action received. We

reviewed four of the eight key elements that the Courts’ corrective action

policy said should be addressed in corrective action correspondence.

The results of our analyses of the sampled files for 1998 performance

evaluations and for competitive promotions are generalizable to the

populations of such files during the covered time periods with a sampling

error of plus or minus 5 percent (or less) with 95 percent confidence. The

results of our analysis of the files for 1999 performance evaluations are

generalizable to the populations of such files in 1999 (through November)
B-284121

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

for staff employed at least 1 year by the end of 1998 with a sampling error

of plus or minus 6 percent (or less) with 95 percent confidence.

We relied on the Personnel Division to provide us with complete and

accurate information on such matters as the number and roster of

employees, the anniversary dates as to when employees should receive

written performance evaluations, the number and names of employees

who were promoted, and the number and names of employees who

received corrective actions. We did not as a matter of practice verify these

data. Although we did not investigate individual allegations that came to

our attention during our work, we designed our data gathering and

analytical efforts taking into account the allegations we received.

We also sent a questionnaire in February 1999 to a representative random

sample of the D.C. Courts nonjudicial employees to obtain their views

about their work environment. A questionnaire is a common means of

collecting information from large groups of individuals and is a technique

that contractors have used at the Courts. Of the 460 employees who were

sent a questionnaire, about 73 percent returned a completed questionnaire.

A copy of the questionnaire, annotated with the responses to each

question, is in appendix II. We used an October 1998 roster of nonjudicial

employees to identify those to whom we sent a questionnaire, and the

results of our questionnaire are generalizable to that universe of

employees. The October 1998 roster was the most current roster available

at the time we sent our questionnaire.

We did our work between December 1998 and January 2000 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are providing copies of this briefing report to Representatives C.W. Bill

Young, Chairman, and David Obey, Ranking Minority Member, Committee

on Appropriations; Delegate Eleanor Homes Norton, Ranking Minority

Member, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on

Government Reform; Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chairwoman, and

Richard Durbin, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the District

of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations; Senator George Voinovich,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental

Affairs; and Representative Julian Dixon. We are also providing copies to

the District of Columbia Courts, the National Center for State Courts, and

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. We will make copies available

to others on request.
B-284121

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

The major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix IV. If

you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8676.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director, Federal Management

and Workforce Issues
Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Contents

Letter 1

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

20

Implementation of

Personnel Policies or

Practices

22

Employees

Performance

Evaluations and

Feedback

26

All Required

Procedures Not

Documented

30

D.C. Courts Policy

Compliance

36

Employees

Perceptions of D.C.

Courts’ Efforts

44

Appendix I

Equal Employment

Workforce Statistics

District of Columbia

Courts, December

1998

48
Contents

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’

Employees

50

Appendix III

Comments From the

D.C. Courts’ Joint

Committee on Judicial

Administration

60

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

66

Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EEO equal employment opportunity

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

OPF Official Personnel Folder
Briefing Section I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

1

Objectives

• To determine whether

• the D.C. Courts’ applicable policies for six basic

personnel activities or functions were consistent with

commonly accepted personnel management principles

and

• the Courts generally adhered to their personnel

policies or practices when implementing the six

personnel activities or functions.
Briefing Section I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

2

Scope and Methodology

• The review focused on the D.C. Courts’ applicable policies

or practices for six personnel activities or functions and

process for employee reporting of fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement.

• To do this review we

• compared D.C. Courts’ personnel policies with commonly

accepted personnel management principles,

• interviewed program managers and court executives,

• obtained various documents and data,

• reviewed over 700 personnel files, and

• sent a questionnaire to a representative sample of 460

court employees.
Briefing Section II

Implementation of Personnel Policies or

Practices

Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

3

D.C. Courts’ Personnel Policies for Six Basic Personnel

Activities or Functions Are Generally Consistent With

Commonly Accepted Personnel Management Principles

D.C. Courts’ policies

regarding

Generally consistent with

commonly accepted

personnel principles?

Performance evaluation Yes

Promotions: competitive and

noncompetitive

Yes

Corrective actions Yes

Training Yes

Classification Yes

EEO Yes
Briefing Section II

Implementation of Personnel Policies or Practices

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

A comparison of the Courts’ personnel policies for six basic personnel

activities or functions (i.e., performance evaluation, competitive and

noncompetitive promotions, corrective actions, training, classification, and

EEO) with commonly accepted personnel management principles shared

by public and private sector organizations shows that they are consistent

with the principles. For example, one objective of the Courts’

performance management policy is “to provide employees with regular

performance feedback year round and a written evaluation on an annual

basis.” This objective is consistent with the general principle that

organizations should assess employee performance and provide periodic

feedback.

D.C. Courts’ Personnel

Policies for Six Basic

Personnel Activities or

Functions Are

Generally Consistent

With Commonly

Accepted Personnel

Management

Principles
Briefing Section II

Implementation of Personnel Policies or Practices

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

4

D.C. Courts Adherence to Personnel

Policies or Practices Varied

• D.C. Courts’ compliance with applicable

policies or practices for the six personnel

functions or activities we reviewed (i.e.,

performance evaluation, competitive and

noncompetitive promotions, corrective

actions, training, classification, and EEO)

varied.
Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Briefing Section III

Employees Performance Evaluations and

Feedback

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

5

D.C. Courts Have Not Given All Nonjudicial

Employees Required Timely Annual Performance

Evaluations

• Timely annual written evaluations not given to

nonjudicial employees as required by Courts’ policy.

• The Courts’ determined that 6 percent of employees

in 1996, 13.4 percent in 1997, 83.5 percent in 1998,

and 76 percent in 1999 (as of December 15)

received performance evaluations. Not all were

timely, however.

• We determined that 13 percent of employees in 1998

and 29 percent in 1999 received timely evaluations.

The Courts did not give all of their nonjudicial employees annual written

performance evaluations in calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999

(through December 15) as required by their performance management

policy. The policy requires that career employees be evaluated annually

on the anniversary date (i.e., date of last appointment, promotion, or

demotion). The objective of the Courts’ performance management policy

is “to provide a fair, consistent and job-related performance management

system that shall provide employees with regular performance feedback

year round and a written evaluation on an annual basis.”
Briefing Section III

Employees Performance Evaluations and Feedback

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

After we began our review in December 1998, the Courts, according to a

court official, inventoried the Official Personnel Folders (OPF) of all

Superior Court and Court System nonjudicial employees to determine if

they received written performance evaluations. The Courts reported the

results of this review in a June 24, 1999, response to congressional

inquiries about the Courts’ compliance with their policy on personnel

evaluations. The Courts said that written evaluations were in 6 percent of

the OPFs for 1996, 13.4 percent of the OPFs for 1997, and 83.5 percent of

the OPFs for 1998. However, we independently determined that a much

smaller percentage of nonjudicial employees actually received their 1998

performance evaluations within the time frame established by the Courts’

policy and practice. Using a representative sample of OPFs, we

determined that about 13 percent of performance evaluations due in 1998

were done on or within 30 days (before or after) of the employee’s

anniversary date.1

The Courts told us that 76 percent of Superior Court and Court System

nonjudicial employees with anniversary dates through November 30, 1999,

had received performance evaluations as of December 15. We

independently determined, based on a representative sample, that about 29

percent of the Courts’ nonjudicial employees actually received their 1999

performance evaluations timely as of December 15.2

 The discrepancy

between our findings for 1998 and 1999 and the Courts’ can be explained

by our different approaches to determining the compliance rate. While we

counted, as being in compliance, only evaluations that were signed by

supervisors on or within 30 days (before or after) of an employee’s

anniversary date, the Courts counted all evaluations that were done as of

December 15, 1999, regardless of the employee’s anniversary date.

To improve compliance with the written evaluation policy, the Courts have

implemented a procedure for checking each court division’s compliance

and said they would formally evaluate supervisors’ compliance with the

policy beginning in fiscal year 2000.

 

1

This percentage is accurate to plus or minus 5 percentage points with 95-percent confidence.

2

This percentage is accurate to plus or minus 6 percentage points with 95-percent confidence.
Briefing Section III

Employees Performance Evaluations and Feedback

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

6

Many Nonjudicial Employees of the D.C. Courts

Do Not Believe They Received Periodic Informal

Feedback as Required

• When asked “Within the past year, how often has

your supervisor talked to you, either formally or

informally, about your job performance?” employees

responded as follows:

• 9.4% About once a week

• 19.3% About once a month

• 19.2% 3 to 4 times in the past year

• 34.3% About once in the past year

• 11.9% Not at all in the past year

• 6.0% Never
Briefing Section III

Employees Performance Evaluations and Feedback

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

The Courts’ performance management policy requires that supervisors

review with the employee, his or her performance, optimally, on a

quarterly basis but at a minimum of every 6 months throughout the

evaluation period.

An analysis of the responses to our questionnaire indicates that

supervisors do not appear to have regularly followed the periodic feedback

policy. In answering our question about informal feedback, about 34

percent of the respondents said their supervisors talked to them about

their performance about once in the past year, about 12 percent said not at

all in the past year, and 6 percent said never.

We recognize that sometimes a supervisor can give performance feedback

that the employee does not perceive as feedback and, if this occurred at

the Courts, it could explain some of the responses we received. However,

our questionnaire results indicate that about half of the Courts’ employees

do not perceive that they have received timely performance feedback in

conformance with the Courts’ policy.

Many Nonjudicial

Employees of the D.C.

Courts Do Not Believe

They Received

Periodic Informal

Feedback as Required
Briefing Section IV

All Required Procedures Not Documented

Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

7

D.C. Courts Lack Procedures for Collection and

Retention of Competitive Selection Documentation

• The Courts lack procedures on collection and retention of

documentation to ensure the fairness of the competitive

promotion process.

• The Courts’ personnelists helped us develop a list of the

documentation that is maintained generally to demonstrate

merit selection.

• Most of the competitive promotions we reviewed were fully

documented.

• Inadequate documentation would make it impossible to

determine if all promotion decisions were fair.

The D.C. Courts do not have formal written procedures detailing the

documentation they believe are necessary to support the fairness of the

competitive promotion process. To do our review of the completeness of

documentation maintained in personnel files to support competitive

promotions, we had to develop a checklist with the help of court

personnelists of documentation that was generally maintained. According

to the personnelists, the Courts use the Uniform Guidelines on Employee

Selection Procedures (29 C.F.R. 1607, et. seq.) guidance on what
Briefing Section IV

All Required Procedures Not Documented

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

documents, forms, and other information to maintain in order to support

the fairness of competitive promotion decisions. However, the guidelines

are designed to ensure only that employers, both public sector and private

sector, do not discriminate on the basis of such characteristics as race,

color, or religion. And while the guidelines do require employers to

maintain documentation on what the adverse impact of their selection

process might be, they do not identify what documentation would be

necessary to ensure the fairness of a selection process under a merit

system. Federal regulations require federal agencies to keep records on a

temporary basis sufficient to allow reconstruction of each promotion

action, including documentation on how candidates were rated and

ranked. The D.C. Courts are not subject to this regulation.

Through our review of the documentation for 88 of 121 competitive

promotions made in 1997 and 1998, we found that 76 percent of them were

thoroughly documented in accordance with the checklist. One or more

documents were missing for the remaining 24 percent. The document

missing most often was a “referral panel certificate,” which would be

important in reconstructing a promotion process, as it would show where–

by points–panel members ranked promotion candidates. It was missing in

an estimated 14 percent of the files. Without the documentation necessary

to reconstruct the decisions made during the competitive process, it is not

possible to determine if all promotions were fair and followed the Courts’

policies. And without formal policies and procedures describing what

documentation to retain, it is difficult to know what documents the Courts

believe are necessary for ensuring and supporting a fair competitive

process. Nearly one in three of the Courts’ employees answering our

survey questions about the promotion process doubted its fairness. About

33 percent said that they have been treated unfairly in terms of decisions

about promotion and career advancement. About 31 percent said the

Courts regularly fail to use ability, knowledge, and skill as a basis to

promote people, and 34 percent said the Courts regularly fail to make

promotions based on fair and open competition. In comparison, there was

no statistically significant difference between the percentage of court

employees who answered the latter two questions on the promotion

process negatively and federal employees who answered similar questions

in a 1996 governmentwide study.1

 1

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) asked the three questions in a 1996 survey of a

representative sample of federal employees. We compared the responses we received from employees

of the D.C. Courts to responses MSPB received.
Briefing Section IV

All Required Procedures Not Documented

Page 32 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

8

D.C. Courts Frequently Did Not Follow Their

Practices for Noncompetitive Promotions

• Of 17 noncompetitive promotions for 1997 and

1998 that resulted from reorganizations, 11 lacked

the required position reviews. Ten of the 11

positions were not reviewed because of a lack of

coordination between the Personnel Division and

the Courts’ Executive Office.

• One of 40 career ladder promotions for 1997 and

1998, lacked the documentation required. It was

designated by the Courts’ Executive Officer.

We reviewed the personnel files for all 79 of the noncompetitive

promotions that occurred in 1997 and 1998. These promotions included

temporary and career ladder2

 promotions and those that resulted from

reclassifications, reassignments, and reorganizations. Not all of the

required documentation was included in the personnel files for the

 2

A career ladder is a series of developmental positions of increasing difficulty in the same line of work,

through which an employee may progress to a journeyman level on the basis of his or her personal

development and performance in that series.
Briefing Section IV

All Required Procedures Not Documented

Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

majority of reorganization promotions or for one noncompetitive

promotion that resulted when the Courts’ Executive Officer used his

authority to create a career ladder position to promote the position’s

incumbent.

Seventeen noncompetitive promotions in 1997 and 1998 resulted from

reorganizations, and the files for 11 did not indicate that the Personnel

Division had conducted the required position review. Position reviews are

done to ensure that a position’s pay grade is justified by its duties. There

are different requirements for when position reviews are to be done at the

Courts. According to the Executive Officer, reviews are to be done at the

time of the promotion, when new or revised positions result from

reorganization. This rule applies unless legislation, grants, new programs,

new projects, or operational emergencies triggered the reorganization, in

which case reviews are done within 1 year of the trigger’s inception.

According to a personnel official, a position review was not conducted in 1

of the 11 cases because of an oversight. This review was to have been

done at the time of promotion. The Personnel Division was unaware of the

need to conduct position reviews for the other 10 promotions, according to

the Personnel official, due to the lack of coordination between it and the

Courts’ Executive Office. The Executive Officer had used his authority to

initiate the reorganizations and these associated promotions. All 10

reviews were to have been done within 1 year, but were never done.

For the noncompetitive career ladder promotion in question, the Executive

Officer used his authority to create a career ladder from grade 14 to grade

15 for a particular position. The grade 14 incumbent was later promoted to

grade 15 through this career ladder. According to the Executive Officer,

the Courts’ practice is for career ladder promotions to be accompanied by

supervisory verification of the employee’s satisfactory job performance at

the lower grade. We found no evidence of supervisory verification in the

files to support the career ladder promotion to grade 15.

In addition to this promotion to grade 15, four promotions resulting from

reorganizations were to grade 14 positions. These four promotions were

among the 10 promotions for which no position reviews had been

conducted. The Courts do not appear to have followed another of their

practices that applied to these four promotions. As set out in a court

document on position classification, the Executive Officer is to designate

managerial positions that will be graded at grade 14 and above upon

consultation with the director of personnel. We found no evidence in the

files that this consultation occurred for the four positions, all of which

were managerial positions.
Briefing Section IV

All Required Procedures Not Documented

Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

9

D.C. Courts Usually Adhered to Their Corrective

Action Policy

• Required corrective action documentation was

usually contained in personnel files we reviewed,

but employees were not routinely notified of all key

elements regarding the corrective action.

• The Courts appeared to follow the corrective

action appeals process set out in policy.

The D.C. Courts’ corrective action policy requires that all corrective

actions be in writing and maintained in an employee relations file in the

Courts’ Personnel Division. To determine whether the Courts were

ensuring adequate retention of corrective action documentation, we

judgmentally selected six court divisions and asked them to provide us

with a list of corrective actions that the divisions’ supervisors had initiated

during the 2-year period from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1999. The six

divisions employed almost 50 percent of the Courts’ workforce. We found
Briefing Section IV

All Required Procedures Not Documented

Page 35 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

that for all six divisions during the 2-year period, the employee relations

files contained the required documentation in all but four corrective action

cases.

The Courts’ corrective action policy also requires that supervisors notify

employees of key elements regarding the corrective action. To determine

whether the Courts’ supervisors included key elements in the corrective

action notifications to employees, for 4 key elements, we reviewed the

case files for the 150 employees from the 6 divisions that the Courts had

reported received actions during the 2-year period that ended June 30,

1999. Our review of the files showed that these 150 employees were

typically notified of 3 key elements: (1) the nature of the misconduct or

performance problem, (2) the proposed disciplinary action, and (3) the

employee’s right to appeal the corrective action. However, for 112 of the

150 employees, the corrective action correspondence did not include the

required notification to the employee of his or her right to review any

materials that were the basis for the corrective action.

Our survey of court employees showed that the majority (about 65

percent) of those who answered the specific question said they had

received information indicating that employees can be disciplined for

committing various offenses or misconduct. However, a sizeable

percentage (35 percent) said they had not received this information. In

addition, about 40 percent responded that they had not received

information from the Courts that there is a range of disciplinary measures

that could be imposed for various offenses or misconduct.

Our survey also showed that some employees expressed a lack of

confidence in the Courts’ ability to deal appropriately with inadequate

performance. About 34 percent of court employees said that the Courts do

not regularly take appropriate steps to correct inadequate performance.

About 38 percent of court employees said that the Courts do not regularly

separate employees who cannot or will not improve their performance to

meet required standards. In comparison, significantly more federal

employees responding to MSPB’s 1996 survey answered these questions

negatively (i.e., 44 percent and 51 percent, respectively).

In addition, our survey found that about 41 percent of employees were

unsure whether corrective action appeals would be handled fairly or

unfairly. We reviewed the filed documentation for all 13 corrective action

appeals that were heard from January 1995 through June 1999, and we

found that the appeals appeared to follow the process provided for in the

Courts’ personnel policies.
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 36 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

10

D.C. Courts Comply With Training

Policy

• The Courts appear to have an active

training program.

• The Courts’ training center has formulated

a concept for further defining training

needs.
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 37 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Court employees receive training usually from the divisions that employ

them and the Courts’ Center for Education, Training, and Development. In

general, employees—with approval of supervisors—elect to attend courses

offered by the Center. In addition, all employees or groups of employees,

including managers, have been required to attend specific courses or

training. Also, for the positions of social worker and certified addiction

counselor, which have a continuing educational requirement for

recertification, the Center provides courses to assist employees in meeting

those requirements. Operating divisions may provide formal training

sessions in addition to those that the Center provides at their requests.

In general terms, the operating divisions are to provide the training,

including informal training, that employees need to do their jobs on an

everyday basis, while the Center offers formal courses to maintain and

enhance their knowledge, skills, and abilities. The Courts appear to us to

have an active training program to encourage the training and

development of employees, as called for by their training policy.

As a general matter, the Courts have not established, and we are unaware

of any requirement for them to establish, overall requirements on the

amounts of training or the training curriculums nonjudicial court

employees should receive or follow. However, the Center had formulated a

concept for further defining the training needs and curriculum of positions

that were to be identified. Under the concept, according to the Center’s

director, the knowledge, skills, and abilities of staff would be determined.

With that information, the Courts would then determine what training

should be offered to enable employees to reach performance expectations,

as set out in job descriptions. According to the director, funds to develop a

staff-assessment instrument were included in the Center’s budget request

for fiscal year 2001. A different instrument, the director said, would be

necessary for different job series. However, beyond this initial request, no

plan or timetable had been developed as of September 1999 for

implementing the concept. According to the director, the Center will

propose a plan and timetable in consultation with the newly appointed

director of personnel, since this effort is anticipated to be a joint project

with the Personnel Division. The new personnel director was appointed in

the fall of 1999.

D.C. Courts Comply

With Training Policy
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 38 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

11

D.C. Courts Did Not Comply With Policy Requiring

Periodic Classification Surveys

• Last systematic study of classification

system done in 1983.

• Nonsystematic review of court positions

from 1989 through 1999 does not support

the policy requirement to either survey all

positions or a representative sample to

ensure that employees receive equal pay

for substantially equal work.

• Courts plan to adopt systematic approach

for doing required classification surveys

beginning in January 2000.

The objective of the Courts’ position classification policy is to attain equal

pay for substantially equal work based upon complexity of assignment,

assigned duties, responsibilities, and the qualification requirements of

positions. The policy calls for periodic classification surveys ( i.e., a review

of existing positions to determine if changes should be made in position

descriptions). The policy specifies that these surveys shall be

accomplished either by surveying all positions or by surveying a

representative number of positions. We determined that the Courts had not
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 39 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

conducted a systematic review of their positions, as prescribed in their

policy, since 1983.

In October 1983, a classification study was done to determine whether the

D.C. Superior Court had an adequate process for setting pay and grades for

court clerk positions. The study recommended that the Court adopt federal

standards, which could be applied to Court positions and modify existing

federal Office of Personnel Management standards to apply to the court

clerk position series.

The Courts believe they have reviewed representative samples of court

positions on an ongoing basis from 1989 through 1999. These reviews,

officials said, were conducted because of reorganizations, new positions,

position reviews, new programs, grievances, job analyses, desk audits,1

 and

reclassification requests. The Courts reported reviewing 144 of 205 grade

13 and lower positions between 1989 and 1999. However, the positions

reviewed were not selected to be statistically representative, and officials

were not able to tell us how many employees’ position descriptions were

affected by these reviews.

In October 1999, the Courts notified us that they would begin a new

approach to doing classification surveys starting in January 2000.

According to Personnel Division officials, the Personnel Division will

implement a systematic review of at least one-fifth of the Courts’ positions

each year. All nonjudicial positions are to be reviewed over a 5-year

period, after which the cycle is to begin again. The review is to consist of

managerial distribution of classification questionnaires, review of position

descriptions, and desk audits (where necessary).

About 80 percent of the Courts’ employees who answered our survey

questions on classification said they had seen a current written description

of their job duties, and most of them thought those descriptions were

rather accurate. About 34 percent considered these descriptions to be very

accurate and 44 percent said the descriptions were more accurate than

inaccurate. About 15 percent said the descriptions were more inaccurate

than accurate, and another 6 percent considered the descriptions to be

very inaccurate.

 

1

A desk audit is a conversation or interview with the person in the job, with the supervisor of the

position, or sometimes with both, usually at the work location. The purpose of an audit is to gain as

much information as possible about the position. This information, combined with an analysis of other

available material about the job and the organization, can help to verify details and resolve questions.
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 40 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

12

D.C. Courts Have Acted to Further EEO

Policies, but Additional Means of Enhancement

Are Available

• The Courts added an EEO element to

performance evaluation plans.

• Formal process in place to investigate

complaints of discrimination.

• The Courts plan to amend the EEO policy

and distribute an EEO brochure.

• Additional communications with employees

and written procedures about the complaint

process could be helpful.

In response to a House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of

Columbia question, the Courts, in November 1999, added an EEO job

element to the performance plans of managers and supervisors. It requires

them to support and enforce the Courts’ EEO policies.

The Courts have had a formal process in place to address discrimination

complaints. Its administration was privatized in 1997 with the hiring (on a

part-time basis) of a contract attorney who specializes in EEO matters.

The contractor’s duties include determining whether there is reasonable
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 41 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

cause to believe that discrimination occurred. In addition, the Courts

opened a separate mediation office in 1998 to mediate disputes—-including

EEO issues—between employees.2

 Experienced mediators from outside

the Courts are to mediate disputes. In early January 2000, the Courts’

Standing Committee on Fairness and Access, an advisory committee of

principally judges, sent several recommendations for enhancing the

mediation function to the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. The

recommendations are intended, in part, to permit the mediation of

corrective actions and appeals from corrective actions and to establish a

more formal and integrated conflict resolution referral network. The

network is to better identify when referrals, including EEO referrals,

should be made to the mediation office.

In response to our inquiry, the Courts have drafted language to amend

their complaint processing policy to reflect that EEO counseling is

available (before or in conjunction with filing a formal complaint) and that

employees may file complaints with EEOC. Although not specifically

mentioned in the current policy, employees to some extent had been made

aware of both. The contract attorney has drafted a brochure to highlight,

for employees, the Courts’ EEO policies and certain elements of the

complaint process. The draft language and brochure were working through

the Courts’ approval process as of mid-November 1999. Additional formal

communications may also be helpful to employees. Although posters are

displayed informing court employees about federal EEO protections,

posters about the Courts’ EEO policies are not displayed. Such a poster

would help remind employees of the Courts’ EEO program and complaint

process, although it would probably repeat to some extent information in

the policy manual, which employees are to possess, and in the draft

brochure. Complainants are not provided with a written list of their rights

and responsibilities, although the contract attorney said he conveys them

verbally. In addition, the Courts did not have a procedures manual, for

example, to identify what documents to include in complaint files,

although the contract attorney had begun to outline such a guidebook.

This level of guidance is not in the Courts’ comprehensive personnel

manual. While the Courts are not required to do any of the three, each is a

practice federal agencies are to follow. Federal regulations require all

three in federal EEO programs. The Courts are not subject to these

regulations.

 

2

Regulations that took effect in November 1999 require federal agencies to establish or make available

an alternative dispute resolution program. Such programs, according to the regulations, must be

available for both the precomplaint and the formal complaint EEO process. Mediation is one

alternative dispute resolution technique.
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 42 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

13

More Extensive Data Analyses Could Be Useful to

Leadership of the D.C. Courts in Monitoring

Compliance With EEO Policies

• Additional analyses of EEO data could be

useful.

The Courts collect EEO data for several purposes. They prepare an annual

report for EEOC on the number of new hires, promotions, and

terminations by race, national origin, and gender. According to court

officials, the data are sent at least annually to the Courts’ Executive Officer

and through the District of Columbia Government to EEOC.
Briefing Section V

D.C. Courts Policy Compliance

Page 43 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Separately from the EEOC-related data collection, the Courts collect data

on the race, national origin, and gender of applicants for competitive

appointments and promotions and those who are appointed and promoted.

In making competitive appointments and promotions, the Courts follow

the federal government’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection

Procedures, which are designed to prevent unlawful discrimination in the

selection of employees. They also employ specialists to make certain that

selection criteria have a “business necessity” (that is, a clear connection to

performance on the job) and make analyses on a job-announcement-byjob-announcement basis.

For purposes of recruitment in general and affirmative employment

recruiting, the Courts compare by EEO group the composition of their

workforce to the composition of the labor force in the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area. Appendix I contains a comparison of the workforces as

of December 1998. According to court officials, these analyses go to the

Executive Officer and to the Courts’ Standing Committee on Fairness and

Access, which is charged in part, with enhancing fairness in the Courts’

human resources policies, practices, and procedures.

The Courts have not, however, done various other analyses that are

recommended, but not required, by Justice Department guidelines that the

Courts otherwise follow.3

 For example, the Courts have not done analyses

of applicants for employment or promotion compared with those selected

for employment or promotion, employees who receive a corrective action,

and voluntary and involuntary terminations. These analyses are

recommended to ensure that equal opportunity principles are followed in

all employment phases. According to Personnel Division officials, certain

of these analyses have not been done, in part, due to limitations in the

computer software they use. The Personnel Division, according to an

official of the division, plans to start producing an annual package of such

supplementary EEO analyses, starting with 1999 data. It plans to produce

the package using computer-generated data and manual methods. The

official said the package would also include a workforce utilization

analysis, and would be sent to the Executive Officer and the Standing

Committee.

 

3

28 CFR 42.301, et. seq.
Briefing Section VI

Employees Perceptions of D.C. Courts’

Efforts

Page 44 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

14

Employees’ Perceptions of D.C. Courts’

EEO Efforts Mixed

• A majority of employees expressed positive

views, while others expressed uncertainty

or negative views on the Courts’ complaint

process and efforts to eliminate

discrimination.
Briefing Section VI

Employees Perceptions of D.C. Courts’ Efforts

Page 45 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

About 56 percent of the employees who answered our question about filing

a formal EEO discrimination complaint said they would be very or

generally willing to file a complaint if they believed they had been

discriminated against, while 18 percent held the opposite view. Another 26

percent were undecided. Employees were undecided or unwilling most

often out of concern for the fairness of the process. Almost as often as

they were concerned with fairness, unwilling employees also were fearful

of reprisal for filing a complaint. We do not know the exact reasons why

these undecided and unwilling employees felt as they did. However, we

were told during our review that the Courts privatized the complaint

process in 1997 in part because of a breakdown in employee confidence in

using the complaint process.

Employees also had varied opinions on whether the Courts supported the

elimination of workplace discrimination. About 52 percent of the

employees believed that the Courts definitely or probably supported the

elimination of discrimination, 18 percent held the opposite view, and 29

percent were unsure.

Employees’

Perceptions of D.C.

Courts’ EEO Efforts

Mixed
Briefing Section VI

Employees Perceptions of D.C. Courts’ Efforts

Page 46 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

15

Most Employees Not Informed of the D.C. Courts’

Process for Reporting Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and

Mismanagement

• More than half of employees said they would be

willing to report fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement.

• About four out of five employees said the Courts

have not provided necessary information about the

process.

• Courts said they plan to draft a more formal

clarifying statement providing for the reporting of

allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement.
Briefing Section VI

Employees Perceptions of D.C. Courts’ Efforts

Page 47 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

According to the Courts, their Quality Service Council, which was

established in 1994 to explore the possibility of implementing total quality

management principles into the court system, is available along with

employees’ supervisors and managers to receive allegations of fraud,

waste, abuse, and mismanagement from court employees. However, as of

mid-October 1999, according to the Courts’ Executive Officer, the Council

has not received any such allegations. And a more formal clarifying

statement providing for reporting these types of allegations is in the

process of being drafted by the Personnel Advisory Committee for review

and approval by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. The

Courts’ Executive Officer also appointed court officials to a new

subcommittee of the Personnel Advisory Committee, in late October, to

explore alternatives and draft a proposed policy on the reporting of waste,

fraud, and abuse in the court system.

According to 54 percent of the Courts’ employees, who answered our

survey questions about fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, they

would be willing to report such incidents. But, about 80 percent also said

they had not received information on where to report, the process for

reporting, or the protections provided to employees who make reports.

Most Employees Not

Informed of the D.C.

Courts’ Process for

Reporting Fraud,

Waste, Abuse, and

Mismanagement
Appendix I

Equal Employment Workforce Statistics

District of Columbia Courts, December 1998

Page 48 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Male Total Black Asian Hispanic White Other

Managerial

 Courts 53 35 0 0 18 0

 Courts % 58% 38% 0% 0% 20% 0%

 Metro 5,3321 7,545 1,755 1,692 42,118 211

 Metro % 52% 7% 2% 2% 41% 0%

Professional

 Courts 111 61 8 4 38 0

 Courts % 46% 25% 3% 2% 16% 0%

 Metro 122,210 15,439 6,271 3,149 97,019 332

 Metro % 53% 7% 3% 1% 42% 0%

Technical

 Courts 32 23 0 1 8 0

 Courts % 41% 29% 0% 1% 10% 0%

 Metro 18,295 5,111 1,263 777 11,041 103

 Metro % 60% 17% 4% 3% 36% 0%

Paraprofessional

 Courts 15 13 0 1 1 0

 Courts % 26% 22% 0% 2% 2% 0%

 Metro 20,903 3,075 718 666 16,404 40

 Metro % 35% 5% 1% 1% 27% 0%

Clerical

 Courts 166 146 3 5 12 0

 Courts % 31% 27% 1% 1% 2% 0%

 Metro 38,052 14,706 2,004 1,703 19,496 143

 Metro % 17% 7% 1% 1% 9% 0%
Appendix I

Equal Employment Workforce Statistics District of Columbia Courts, December 1998

Page 49 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Female Total Black Asian Hispanic White Other Total M/F

38 24 0 1 13 0 91

42% 26% 0% 1% 14% 0%

49,317 12,743 1,153 1,383 33,817 221 102,638

48% 12% 1% 1% 33% 0%

130 97 2 6 25 0 241

54% 40% 1% 2% 10% 0%

106,797 24,548 5,449 3,131 73,368 301 229,007

47% 11% 2% 1% 32% 0%

46 34 1 0 11 0 78

59% 44% 1% 0% 14% 0%

12,293 4,956 603 478 6,223 33 30,588

40% 16% 2% 2% 20% 0%

43 36 1 1 5 0 58

74% 62% 2% 2% 9% 0%

39,648 8,265 1,398 1,404 28,414 167 60,551

65% 14% 2% 2% 47% 0%

377 353 5 4 15 0 543

69% 65% 1% 1% 3% 0%

183,714 64,336 6,400 7,214 105,054 710 221,766

83% 29% 3% 3% 47% 0%

Note 1: Some corrections to the data were made in 1999, which this table reflects.

Note 2: "Metro" refers to the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area, which consists of the

District of Columbia and areas of Maryland and Virginia. The metro labor force data, according to the

Personnel Division, are of those occupations within each major category (managerial, professional,

etc.) that the Personnel Division believes approximates the positions in the D.C. Courts. The metro

data were taken from a publication of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,

according to the Personnel Division. The publication compiles EEO data from the 1990 Census.

Note 3: Percents are rounded to the nearest whole percent.

Source: Personnel Division, D.C. Courts.
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 50 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 51 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 52 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 53 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 54 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 55 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 56 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 57 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 58 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix II

Survey of D.C. Courts’ Employees

Page 59 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix III

Comments From the D.C. Courts’ Joint

Committee on Judicial Administration

Page 60 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix III

Comments From the D.C. Courts’ Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

Page 61 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix III

Comments From the D.C. Courts’ Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

Page 62 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix III

Comments From the D.C. Courts’ Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

Page 63 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix III

Comments From the D.C. Courts’ Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

Page 64 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix III

Comments From the D.C. Courts’ Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

Page 65 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 66 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies

Michael Brostek (202) 512-8676

In addition to the above named, Richard W. Caradine, Domingo Nieves,

Anthony Assia, Kenneth S. Derrick, Gerard S. Burke, Brenda J. Lindsey,

Ernestine B. Burt-Sanders, Nelson S. Payne, Michael J. O’Donnell, and

Gregory H. Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments
Page 67 GAO/GGD-00-75BR D.C. Courts Implementation of Personnel Policies
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(410492)