D.C. Family Court: Operations and Case Management Have Improved, but Critical Issues Remain
Published: 2004-04-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Family Court, established by the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, was created in part to transition the former Family Division of the D.C. Superior Court into a court solely dedicated to matters concerning children and families. The act required the transfer of abuse and neglect cases by October 2003 and the implementation of case management practices to expedite their resolution in accordance with timeframes established by the Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA); a plan for space, equipment, and other needs; and that the Superior Court integrate its computer systems with those of other D.C. agencies. The act also reformed court practices and established procedures intended to improve interactions between the court and social service agencies in the District. One such agency, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), is responsible for protecting children at risk of abuse and neglect and ensuring that services are provided for them and their families. Both social service agencies and the courts play an important role in addressing child welfare issues. Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, asked GAO to assess the Family Court's efforts to comply with ASFA requirements and the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, and its efforts to improve communication with CFSA.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Family Court met timeframes for transferring cases and decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and neglect cases. As of October 2003, only 34 of the approximately 3,500 cases that were to be transferred to the Family Court from other divisions of the Superior Court remained outside the Family Court. For children removed from their homes, the median days to begin disposition hearings declined by 202 days to 39 days, or about 84 percent between 2001 and 2003. However, the Family Court has not met the ASFA requirement to hold permanency hearings within 12 months of a child's placement in foster care for all cases. Timely permanency hearings were held for 25 percent of cases in March 2001 and 55 percent in September 2002. Support from Family Court judges and top CFSA management has been a key factor in improving the working relationship between CFSA and the Family Court. However, Family Court judges and CFSA officials noted several hindrances that constrain their working relationship. For example, some CFSA caseworkers said that some Family Court judges overruled their service recommendations. Progress has also been made in acquiring permanent space for the Family Court and exchanging data with District agencies. According to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, all public functions of the Family Court and 76 percent of the support functions will be consolidated in the new space. The construction project is scheduled for completion in 2009 and will require timely renovations in existing court buildings. To comply with the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, the Superior Court and the District are exchanging some data and making progress toward developing the ability to exchange other data. In August 2003, the Superior Court began using a new computer system and is providing CFSA with information on scheduled court proceedings. Further, the District has developed a model to enable the exchange of data among several District agencies, but it has not yet resolved many critical systems issues.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to assist the Committee in its oversight of  operations and case management at the D.C. Family Court (Family Court).  The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 created the Family Court in part to  transition the former Family Division of the D.C. Superior Court into a  court solely dedicated to matters concerning children and families. Child  abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, and child  support are some of the issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Family  Court. To assist the Family Court in handling such matters, the D.C.  Family Court Act of 2001 included authorization for the Family Court to  hire associate judges and magistrate judges with expertise in family law  and required that the Family Court develop a transition plan to transfer all  family-related cases from other divisions of the Superior Court into the  Family Court and implement various case management practices to  expedite their resolution in accordance with timeframes established by the  Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997(ASFA).  The D.C. Family Court  Act of 2001 also required that the Superior Court integrate its computer  system with those of relevant District agencies to share information  regarding children and families.
My testimony will focus on the Family Court’s timeliness in transferring  family-related cases from other divisions of the Superior Court to the  Family Court and in meeting ASFA timeframes for resolving abuse and  neglect cases, and the working relationship between the Family Court and  D.C. Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). I will also discuss two  related, but longer-term efforts—the acquisition of permanent physical  space for the Family Court and the sharing of data between the Superior  Court and District agencies.
My comments today are based primarily on our January 2004  congressionally mandated report on the Family Court’s progress in  implementing its transition. In doing the work for that report, we analyzed  data provided by the Family Court on the status of child abuse and neglect  cases transferred into the Family Court from judges presiding elsewhere in  the Superior Court and the Family Court’s timeliness in resolving these  and other abuse and neglect cases. We also reviewed documents regarding  the acquisition of permanent physical space for the Family Court and  documents related to integrating the computer systems of the Superior  Court and the District and interviewed relevant District, Superior Court,  and Family Court officials as well as child welfare and court experts. For  that report and this testimony, we focused on abuse and neglect cases  because of congressional interest and the former Family Division’s past  problems in handling such cases. We conducted our work for the January  2004 report between April and December 2003 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. My comments on the  working relationship between the Family Court and CFSA are based on  interviews we had with Family Court judges and CFSA executives,  managers, and supervisors for the report that we issued in May 2003, at the  request of this committee, on CFSA’s performance. We conducted our  work for that report between September 2002 and May 2003 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, the Family Court has made progress in complying with the  child welfare provisions of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001. The Family  Court met established timeframes for transferring cases into the Family  Court and decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and neglect cases.  As of October 2003, only 34 of approximately 3,500 cases that were to be  transferred to the Family Court from other divisions of the Superior Court  remained outside the Family Court and had not been closed. Similarly, the  working relationship between the Family Court and CFSA has improved.  Support from Family Court judges and top CFSA management has been a  key factor in this improvement; however, Family Court judges and CFSA  officials noted several hindrances that constrain their working  relationship. Further, progress has been made in the procurement of  permanent space for the Family Court, and the Superior Court and the  District are exchanging some data and making progress toward developing  a broader capability to exchange data from their respective information  systems to comply with the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 fundamentally changed the way the  Superior Court handled its family cases. One of the central organizing  principles for establishing the Family Court was the one family/one judge  case management concept, whereby the same judge handles all matters  related to one family. To support the implementation of the Family Court a  total of about $30 million in federal funds was budgeted to fund the Family  Court’s transition from fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Several federal and District laws set timeframes for handling abuse and  neglect proceedings. The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, which  consolidated all abuse and neglect cases in the Family Court, required that  all pending abuse and neglect cases assigned to judges outside the Family  Court be transferred to the Family Court by October 2003. Additionally,  ASFA requires each child to have a permanency hearing within 12 months  of the child’s entry into foster care, defined as the earlier of the following  two dates: (1) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been  subjected to child abuse or neglect or (2) the date that is 60 days after the  date on which the child is removed from the home. The purpose of the  permanency hearing is to decide the goal for where the child will  permanently reside and set a timetable for achieving the goal. Permanency  may be accomplished through reunification with a parent, adoption,  guardianship, or some other permanent placement arrangement. To  ensure that abuse and neglect cases are properly managed, the Council for  Court Excellence, at the request of Congress, evaluates Family Court data  on these cases.
It is important that District social service agencies and the Family Court  receive and share information they need on the children and families they  serve. For example, CFSA caseworkers need to know from the court the  status of a child’s case, when a hearing is scheduled, and a judge’s ruling.  The Family Court needs case history information from caseworkers, such  as whether services have been provided and if there is evidence of abuse  or neglect. According to District officials, current plans to exchange  information between the Superior Court and District agencies and among  District agencies are estimated to cost about $66 million, of which about  $22 million would support initiatives outlined in the Mayor’s plan issued in  July 2002. According to District officials, about $36 million of the $66  million would come from capital funds that are currently available;  however, they would need to seek additional funding for the remaining $30  million. The Superior Court’s total cost for the system it is using to help  the Court better manage its caseload and automate the exchange of data  with District agencies—the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS)— is expected to be between $20 million and $25 million, depending on the  availability of funds for project-related infrastructure improvements and  other project initiatives. Funding for this project is being made available  through the capital budget of the D.C. Courts, which is comprised of all  components of the District’s judiciary branch.
section_title: The Court Was Timely in Transferring Cases and Conducting Other Court Proceedings
paragraphs: The Family Court met established timeframes for transferring cases into  the Family Court and decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and  neglect cases. While the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 generally required  the transfer of abuse and neglect cases to the Family Court by October  2003, it also permitted judges outside the Family Court to retain certain  abuse and neglect cases provided that their retention of cases met criteria  specified in the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001. Specifically, these cases  were to remain at all times in full compliance with ASFA, and the Chief  Judge of the Superior Court must determine that the retention of the case  would lead to a child’s placement in a permanent home more quickly than  if the case were to be transferred to a judge in the Family Court.
In its October 2003 progress report on the implementation of the Family  Court, the Superior Court reported that it had transferred all abuse and  neglect cases back to the Family Court, with the exception of 34 cases, as  shown in table 1. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court said that, as of  August 2003, a justification for retaining an abuse and neglect case outside  the Family Court had been provided in all such cases. According to the  Superior Court, the principal reason for retaining abuse and neglect cases  outside the Family Court was a determination made by non-Family Court  judges that the cases would close before December 31, 2002, either  because the child would turn 21, and thus no longer be under court  jurisdiction, or because the case would close with a final adoption,  custody, or guardianship decree. In the court’s October 2003 progress  report, it stated that the cases remaining outside the Family Court involve  children with emotional or educational disabilities.
While the Superior Court reported that 4 of the 34 abuse and neglect cases  remaining outside the Family Court had closed subsequent to its October  2003 progress report, children in the remaining 30 cases had not yet been  placed in permanent living arrangements. On average, children in these 30  cases are 14 years of age and have been in foster care for 8 years, nearly  three times the average number of years in care for a child in the District.  Table 2 provides additional information on the characteristics of the 30  cases that remained outside the Family Court as of November 2003.
The Superior Court also reported that the Family Court had closed 620 of  the 3,255 transferred cases, or 19 percent. Among the transferred cases  closed by the Family Court, 77 percent of the 620 cases closed when the  permanency goal was achieved following reunification of the child with a  parent, adoption, guardianship, or custody of the child by a designated  family member or other individual. In most of the remaining transferred  cases that had closed, the child had reached the age of majority, or 21  years of age in the District. Table 3 summarizes the reasons for closing  abuse and neglect cases transferred to the Family Court, as of October  2003.
In addition to transferred cases, the Family Court is responsible for the  routine handling of all newly filed cases. For alleged cases of abuse and  neglect, complainants file a petition with the Family Court requesting a  review of the allegation. After the filing of the petition, the Family Court  holds an initial hearing in which it hears and rules on the allegation.  Following the initial hearing, the court may resolve the case through  mediation or through a pretrial hearing.  Depending on the course of  action that is taken and its outcome, several different court proceedings  may follow to achieve permanency for children, thereby terminating the  court’s jurisdiction. Family Court abuse and neglect proceedings include  several key activities, such as adjudication, disposition, and permanency  hearings. Figure 1 shows the flow of abuse and neglect cases through the  various case activities handled by the D.C. Family Court.
Data provided by the court show that in the last 2 years there has been a  decrease in the amount of time to begin an adjudication hearing for  children in abuse and neglect cases. Figure 2 shows median times to begin  hearings for children removed from their homes and for children not  removed from their homes. As required by District law, the court must  begin the hearing within 105 days for children removed from their homes  and within 45 days for children not removed from their homes. Between  2001 and 2003, the median time to begin adjudication hearings in cases  when a child was removed from home declined by 140 days to 28 days, or  about 83 percent. Similarly, the decline in timeframes to begin hearings  was about as large in cases when children remained in their homes. In  these cases, median timeframes declined by about 90 percent during this  same period to 12 days. While the reduction in timeframes for these  hearings began prior to the establishment of the Family Court, median  days to begin hearings for children removed from their homes increased  immediately following the court’s establishment before declining again.  According to two magistrate judges, the increase in timeframes  immediately following establishment of the Family Court was attributable  to the volume and complexity of cases initially transferred to it.
Similarly, timeframes to begin disposition hearings, a proceeding that  occurs after the adjudication hearing and prior to permanency hearings,  declined between 2001 and 2003, as shown in figure 3. As required by  District law, the court must begin disposition hearings within 105 days for  children removed from their homes and within 45 days for children not  removed from their homes. The median days to begin disposition hearings  for children removed from their homes declined by 202 days to 39 days, or  about 84 percent, between 2001 and 2003. The median days to begin  disposition hearings for children not removed from their homes declined  by 159 days to 42 days, or about 79 percent. Therefore, the Superior Court  is also within the timeframes required by D.C. law for these hearings.  While the decline in the timeframes for disposition hearings began prior to  the Family Court, according to two magistrate judges we interviewed, the  time required to begin these hearings increased in the 7-month period  following the establishment of the Family Court because of the complexity  of these cases.
Despite declines in timeframes to begin adjudication and disposition  hearings, the Family Court has not achieved full compliance with the  ASFA requirement to hold permanency hearings within 12 months of a  child’s placement in foster care. The percentage of cases with timely  permanency hearings increased from 25 percent in March 2001 to 55  percent in September 2002, as shown in figure 4.
Although the presence of additional magistrate judges, primarily hired to  handle cases transferred into the Family Court from other divisions and to  improve the court’s timeliness in handling its cases, has increased the  Family Court’s ability to process additional cases in a timelier manner,  court officials said that other factors have also improved the court’s  timeliness. These factors included reminders to judges of upcoming  permanency hearing deadlines and the use of uniform court order forms.
However, other factors continue to impede the Family Court’s full  achievement of ASFA compliance. Some Family Court judges have  questioned the adequacy of federal ASFA timelines for permanency, citing  barriers external to the court, which increase the time required to achieve  permanency. Among these external barriers are lengthy waits for housing,  which might take up to a year, and the need for parents to receive mental  health services or substance abuse treatment before they can reunite with  the child. From January through May 2003, Family Court judges reported  that parental disabilities, including emotional impairments and treatment  needs, most often impeded children’s reunification with their parents. In  nearly half of these reported instances, the parent needed substance abuse  treatment. Procedural impediments to achieving reunification included the  lack of sufficient housing to fully accommodate the needs of the reunified  family. With regard to adoption and guardianship, procedural impediments  included the need to complete administrative requirements associated  with placing children with adoptive families in locations other than the  District. Financial impediments to permanency included insufficient  adoption or guardianship subsidies. Table 4 provides additional details on  impediments to achieving permanency goals.
Associate judges we interviewed cited additional factors that impeded the  achievement of the appropriate foster care placements and timely  permanency goals. For example, one judge said that the District’s Youth  Services Administration inappropriately placed a 16-year old boy in the  juvenile justice system because CFSA had not previously petitioned a  neglect case before the Family Court. As a result, the child experienced a  less appropriate and more injurious placement in the juvenile justice  system than what the child would have experienced had he been  appropriately placed in foster care. In other cases, an associate judge has  had to mediate disputes among District agencies that did not agree with  court orders to pay for services for abused and neglected children, further  complicating and delaying the process for providing needed services and  achieving established permanency goals.
To assist the Family Court in its management of abuse and neglect cases,  the Family Court transition plan required magistrate judges to preside over  abuse and neglect cases transferred from judges in other divisions of the  Superior Court, and these judges absorbed a large number of those cases.
In addition, magistrate judges, teamed with associate judges under the one  family/one judge concept, had responsibility for assisting the Family Court  in resolving all new abuse and neglect cases. Both associate and  magistrate judges cited other factors that have affected the court’s ability  to fully implement the one family/one judge concept and achieve the  potential efficiency and effectiveness that could have resulted. For  example, the Family Court’s identification of all cases involving the same  child depends on access to complete, timely, and accurate data in IJIS. In  addition, Family Court judges said that improvements in the timeliness of  the court’s proceedings depends, in part, on the continuous assignment of  the same caseworker from CFSA to a case and sufficient support of an  assigned assistant corporation counsel from the District’s Office of  Corporation Counsel. Family Court judges said the lack of consistent  support from a designated CFSA caseworker and lack of Assistant  Corporation counsels, have in certain cases, prolonged the time required  to conduct court proceedings.
In addition, several judges and court officials told us that they do not have  sufficient support personnel to allow the Family Court to manage its  caseload more efficiently. For example, additional courtroom clerks and  court aids could improve case flow and management in the Family Court.  These personnel are needed to update automated data, prepare cases for  the court, and process court documentation. Under contract with the  Superior Court, Booz Allen Hamilton analyzed the Superior Court’s  staffing resources and needs; this evaluation found that the former  Family Division, now designated as the Family Court, had the highest need  for additional full-time positions to conduct its work. Specifically, the  analysis found that the Family Court had 154 of the 175 full-time positions  needed, or a shortfall of about 12 percent. Two branches—juvenile and  neglect and domestic relations—had most of the identified shortfall in full- time positions. In commenting on a draft of the January 2004 report, the  Superior Court said that the Family Court, subsequent to enactment of the  D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, hired additional judges and support  personnel in excess of the number identified as needed in the Booz Allen  Hamilton study to meet the needs of the newly established Family Court.  However, several branch chiefs and supervisors we interviewed said the  Family Court still needed additional support personnel to better manage  its caseload.
The Superior Court has decided to conduct strategic planning efforts and  re-engineer business processes in the various divisions prior to making the  commitment to hire additional support personnel. According to the Chief  Judge of the Superior Court, intervening activities, such as the initial  implementation of IJIS and anticipated changes in the procurement of  permanent physical space for the Family Court, have necessitated a  reassessment of how the court performs its work and the related impact of  its operations on needed staffing. In September 2003, the Superior Court  entered into another contract with Booz Allen Hamilton to reassess  resource needs in light of the implementation of the D.C. Family Court Act  of 2001. According to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court as of April 19,  2004, a final report on these resource needs had not been issued.
section_title: The Family Court and CFSA Have Improved Their Working Relationship, but Hindering Factors Still Exist
paragraphs: The working relationship between the Family Court and CFSA has  improved; however, Family Court judges and CFSA officials noted several  hindrances that constrain their working relationship. They have been  working together to address some of these hindrances. For example, the  Family Court and CFSA participate in various planning meetings. In  addition, Family Court judges and CFSA caseworkers have participated in  training sessions together. These sessions provide participants with  information about case management responsibilities and various court  proceedings, with the intent of improving and enhancing their mutual  understanding about key issues. Also, since 2002, Office of Corporation  Counsel attorneys have been located at CFSA and work closely with  caseworkers—an arrangement that has improved the working relationship  between CFSA and the Family Court because the caseworkers and the  attorneys are better prepared for court appearances. Further, the Family  Court and CFSA communicate frequently about day-to-day operations as  well as long-range plans involving foster care case management and  related court priorities, and on several occasions expressed their  commitment to improving working relationships. To help resolve conflicts  about ordering services, Family Court judges and CFSA caseworkers have  participated in sessions during which they share information about their  respective concerns, priorities, and responsibilities in meeting the needs of  the District’s foster care children and their families.
Additionally, CFSA assigned a liaison representative to the Family Court  who is responsible for working with other District agency liaison  representatives to assist social workers and case managers in identifying  and accessing court-ordered services for children and their families at the  Family Court. The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 required the District’s  Mayor to ensure that representatives of appropriate offices, which provide  social services and other related services to individuals and families  served by the Family Court, are available on-site at the Family Court to  coordinate the provision of such services. A monthly schedule shows that  CFSA, the D.C. Department of Health, the D.C. Housing Authority, the D.C.  Department of Mental Health, Youth Services Administration, and the D.C.  Public Schools have representatives on-site.  However, the Department of  Human Services, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Income  Maintenance Administration are not on-site but provide support from off- site locations. According to data compiled by the liaison office, from  February 2003 to March 2004, the office made 781 referrals for services. Of  these referrals, 300 were for special education services, 127 were for  substance abuse services and 121 were related to housing needs.
Hindrances that constrain the working relationship between the Family  Court and CFSA include the need for caseworkers to balance court  appearances with other case management duties, an insufficient number  of caseworkers, caseworkers who are unfamiliar with cases that have  been transferred to them, and differing opinions about the responsibilities  of CFSA caseworkers and judges. For example, although CFSA  caseworkers are responsible for identifying and arranging services needed  for children and their families, some caseworkers said that some Family  Court judges overruled their service recommendations. Family Court  judges told us that they sometimes made decisions about services for  children because they believe caseworkers did not always recommend  appropriate ones or provide the court with timely and complete  information on the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the  Presiding Judge of the Family Court explained that it was the judges’ role  to listen to all parties and then make the best decisions by taking into  account all points of view.
section_title: Progress Has Been Made in Procuring Permanent Physical Space for the Family Court, but the New Space Will Not Consolidate All Court Operations
paragraphs: The D.C. Courts, comprised of all components of the District’s judiciary  branch, has made progress in procuring permanent space for the Family  Court, but all Family Court operations will not be consolidated under the  current plan. To prepare space for the new Family Court, the D.C. Courts  designated and redesigned space for the Family Court, constructed  chambers for the new magistrate judges and their staff, and relocated  certain non-Family Court-related components in other buildings, among  other actions.
The first phase of the Family Court construction project, scheduled for  completion in July 2004, will consolidate Family Court support services  and provide additional courtrooms, hearing rooms, and judges’ chambers.  In addition, the project will provide an expanded Mayor’s Liaison Office,  which coordinates Family Court services for families and provides families  with information on such services, and a new family waiting area, among  other facilities.
However, completion of the entire Family Court construction project,  scheduled for late 2009, will require the timely completion of renovations  in several court buildings located on the Judiciary Square Campus.  Because of the historic nature of some of these buildings, the Superior  Court must obtain necessary approvals for exterior modifications from  various regulatory authorities, including the National Capital Planning  Commission. In addition, some actions may require environmental  assessments and their related formal review process.
While many of the Family Court operations will be consolidated in the new  space, several court functions will remain in other areas. According to the  Chief Judge of the Superior Court, the new space will consolidate all  public functions of the Family Court and 76 percent of the support  functions and associated personnel. The current Family Court space plan  is an interim plan leading to a larger plan, intended to fully consolidate all  Family Court and related operations in one location, for which the D.C.  Courts has requested $6 million for fiscal year 2005 to design Family Court  space and $57 million for fiscal year 2006 to construct court facilities. If  the D.C. Courts does not receive funding for the larger Family Court space  plan, it will continue with the current interim plan.
section_title: The Superior Court and the District Are Making Progress Toward Exchanging Data among Their Computer Systems, but the District Has Not Resolved Several Critical Issues
paragraphs: The Superior Court and the District of Columbia are exchanging some data  and making progress toward developing a broader capability to share data  among their respective information systems. In August 2003, the Superior  Court began using IJIS to automate the exchange of data with District  agencies, such as providing CFSA and the Office of the Corporation  Counsel with information on the date, time, and location of scheduled  court proceedings. CFSA managers said that scheduling of court hearings  has improved. Scheduling information allows caseworkers to plan their  case management duties such that they do not conflict with court  appearances. Further, the District’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer  (OCTO), responsible for leading the information technology development  for the District’s data exchange effort, has developed a prototype, or  model, to enable the exchange of data among the police department, social  service agencies, and the Superior Court.
While the District has made progress, it has not yet fully addressed or  resolved several critical issues we reported in August 2002. These issues  include the need to specify the integration requirements of the Superior  Court and District agencies and to resolve privacy restrictions and data  quality issues among District agencies. The District is preparing plans and  expects to begin developing a data sharing capability and data warehouses  to enable data sharing among CFSA, the Department of Human Services’  Youth Services Administration, the Department of Mental Health, and the  Family Court in 2004. According to the Program Manager, OCTO will work  to resolve the issues we raised in our August 2002 report and incorporate  the solutions into its plans.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While the Superior Court, the Family Court, and the District have made  progress in implementing the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, several issues  continue to affect the court’s progress in meeting all requirements of the  act. Several barriers, such as a lack of substance abuse services, hinder the  court’s ability to more quickly process cases. While the Superior Court and  the District have made progress in exchanging information and building a  greater capability to perform this function, it remains paramount that their  plans fully address several critical issues we previously reported and our  prior recommendations. Finally, while progress has been made in  enhancing the working relationship between the Family Court and CFSA,  this is an area that requires continuous vigilance and improvement in  order to ensure the safety and well being of the District’s children and  families.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to  respond to any questions you or other members of the committee may  have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Cornelia  M. Ashby at (202) 512-8403. Individuals making key contributions to this  testimony include Carolyn M. Taylor, Anjali Tekchandani, and Mark E.  Ward.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its  Transition. GAO-04-234. Washington, D.C.: January 6, 2004.
D.C. Child and Family Services: Better Policy Implementation and  Documentation of Related Activities Would Help Improve Performance.  GAO-03-646. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2003.
D.C. Child and Family Services: Key Issues Affecting the Management of  Its Foster Care Cases. GAO-03-758T. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2003.
District of Columbia: Issues Associated with the Child and Family  Services Agency’s Performance and Policies. GAO-03-611T. Washington,  D.C.: April 2, 2003.
District of Columbia: More Details Needed on Plans to Integrate  Computer Systems With the Family Court and Use Federal Funds. GAO- 02-948. Washington, D.C.: August 7, 2002.
Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding  Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain.  GAO-02-585. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002.
D. C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition and  Interagency Coordination, but Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-797T.  Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2002.
D. C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully  Implement Its Transition. GAO-02-584. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2002.
D. C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but  Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2002.
D. C. Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System  Acquisition. GAO-02-316. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2002.
District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring  Children’s Well-Being. GAO-01-191. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000.
Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia’s Child Welfare System  Reform Efforts. GAO/T-HEHS-00-109. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000.
Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and  Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.