D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its Transition
Published: 2004-01-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The D.C. Family Court Act (P.L. 107-114) mandated that GAO examine the performance of the D.C. Family Court. GAO addressed the following objectives: (1) What procedures were used to make judicial appointments to the Family Court and what effect did qualification requirements have on appointment timeframes? (2) How timely was the Family Court in meeting established timeframes for transferring and resolving abuse and neglect cases, and what impact did magistrate judges have on the workload of judges and other personnel? (3) What progress has the D.C. Courts made in procuring permanent space? And (4) What progress have the Superior Court and District agencies made in sharing data from their computer systems? To address these objectives, GAO analyzed court data on its timeliness in resolving cases, reviewed the Family Court Act, applicable District laws, and reports required by the act; reviewed documents regarding the Family Court's progress in acquiring permanent space and those related to sharing data from the computer systems of the Superior Court and the District; and interviewed relevant District, Superior Court, and Family Court officials. In commenting on this report, the Superior Court agreed with our conclusions and cited additional progress. The Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders clarified the roles and responsibilities of various District offices.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Superior Court and the District of Columbia used established procedures to appoint magistrate and associate judges to the Family Court, but an issue related to qualification requirements and other factors delayed appointments. One nominee expressed some reluctance to meeting Family Court training requirements. A second nominee was found to have had delinquent tax filing issues a few years prior to his nomination. The Senate Committee charged with approving the nominees determined that these issues were adequately resolved, but chose to defer their confirmation until other Superior Court nominees were approved. The Family Court met its statutory deadlines for transferring cases into the court from other Superior Court divisions and closed 620, or 19 percent, of these cases. The court has also decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and neglect matters and magistrate judges have played a key role in handling cases. Several factors, however, such as shortages of substance abuse treatment services, posed barriers to achieving Family Court goals. To accommodate the operations of the Family Court, D.C. Courts--comprised of all components of the District's judiciary branch--has made progress in procuring permanent space for the Family Court. This new space, expected to be complete in late 2009, will consolidate 76 percent of the Family Court functions and associated personnel. The Superior Court and the District of Columbia have made progress in exchanging data from their respective information systems. In August 2003, the Superior Court implemented the Integrated Justice Information System, which is used to manage its cases and exchange data with other agencies. Although the District has developed a model to enable the exchange of data between various District agencies and the court, it has not fully resolved several critical issues we reported in August 2002. The District plans to address these issues as it incorporates solutions into the plans it is developing to modernize District agency computer systems.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Child abuse, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, and child support  are some of the issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Family  Court (Family Court). 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. To assist the court in the handling of  such matters, the Family Court Act authorized the Family Court to hire  associate judges and magistrate judges (formerly hearing commissioners)  with expertise in family law; required the court to 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 (ASFA) of 1997;  required a plan for space, equipment, and other needs; and required the  Superior Court to integrate its computer system with those of relevant  District of Columbia agencies to share information regarding children and  families.
To monitor the progress of the Family Court, the Congress established  three mandates requiring that we assess various aspects of the court’s  progress at different intervals. In response to the first mandate, requiring  that we assess the Superior Court’s plan to transition the Family Division  to a Family Court, we reported that the Family Court had made progress,  but faced challenges in acquiring space to house all of its personnel and  developing an automated information system to support its operations, as  well as other challenges. In response to the second mandate, requiring  that we evaluate the Mayor of the District of Columbia’s plan to integrate  the computer systems of relevant District agencies with the Superior  Court’s, we reported that successful implementation of the plan was  contingent on resolving several critical issues, such as ensuring  confidentiality of electronic records and the quality of data exchanged  with the court. This report responds to the third mandate and agreements  reached with cognizant congressional offices to address the following four  objectives:  1.  What procedures were used to make initial judicial appointments to  the Family Court and what effect did qualification requirements have  on the length of time to make appointments of magistrate judges and  associate judges?  2.  How timely was the Family Court in meeting established timeframes  for transferring and resolving abuse and neglect cases, and what  impact did magistrate judges have on the workload of judges and other  court personnel?  3.  What progress has the D.C. Courts made in procuring permanent  physical space?  4.  What progress have the Superior Court and relevant District of  Columbia agencies made in sharing data from their computer  systems?
To answer these questions, we analyzed data provided by the Family Court  on the status of transferred cases and its timeliness in resolving these and  other abuse and neglect cases. We also reviewed the Family Court Act,  applicable District laws, and the Family Court Transition Plan and  subsequent reports required by the act to identify qualification  requirements for judges and prescribed procedures for appointing  associate judges; reviewed documents regarding the Family Court’s  progress in acquiring permanent physical space and those related to  integrating the computer systems of the Superior Court and the District;  and interviewed relevant District, Superior Court, and Family Court  officials. In addition, we interviewed child welfare and court experts, as  well as court officials in other jurisdictions, to obtain information on  potential best practices and a perspective on court operations in other  jurisdictions. We focused our review 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 between April and  December 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Appendix I provides a more detailed discussion of our  scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The D.C. Family Court Act fundamentally changed the way the Superior  Court’s Family Division handled its family cases. To transition the Family  Division into a Family Court, the Family Court Act required that the  Superior Court prepare a transition plan describing such things as the  function of the presiding judge and the number of magistrate judges, the  flow and management of cases, and staffing needs. 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. Judges in other court  jurisdictions, such as Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati, Ohio,  report that implementing a one family/one judge approach in their courts  facilitated more efficient and effective court operations and improved  compliance with required timeframes of ASFA. The act re-established the  Family Division as a Family Court, which has jurisdiction over alleged  child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, child  support, and other family matters. The act also established specific  qualifications for judges and extended their term requirements and  established various case management practices to improve the Family  Court’s administration of cases and proceedings. Additionally, in creating  the new position of magistrate judge (formerly hearing commissioners),  the act specified that the magistrate judges would assist associate judges  in deciding how to dispose of cases and identifying cases that were to be  transferred from judges outside of the Family Court. To assist the Family  Court in meeting its responsibilities, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court  determined that the Family Court needed 15 associate judges and 17  magistrate judges. Twelve associate judges and 8 magistrate judges  initially joined the Family Court, creating the need to hire 3 additional  associate judges and 9 magistrate judges. The act specified that before  assigning individuals to serve as judges in the Family Court, the  individuals would certify to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court that they  intend to serve the full term of service and would participate in ongoing  training programs designated by the Family Court on various family- related topics.  The act also requires judges to have prior training or  expertise in family law.  New associate judges appointed to the Family  Court are required to serve a 5-year term, except for judges who  previously served in the Superior Court, who must serve 3-year terms.  Magistrate judges are required to serve a 4-year term. To support  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.
In addition to the D.C. Family Court Act, which required that all pending  abuse and neglect cases assigned to judges outside of the Family Court be  transferred to the Family Court by October 2003, other federal and District  laws establish required timeframes for handling abuse and neglect case  proceedings. 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  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. In  addition to ASFA’s requirements, District of Columbia law establishes  deadlines for conducting trials to determine the veracity of neglect or  abuse allegations and dispositions to determine the remedy for confirmed  abuse and neglect cases. The deadlines differ depending upon whether  children remain in their homes or are removed from their homes. In  general, if children are not removed from their homes, both the trial and  the disposition must begin within 45 days of the filing of the petition  requesting that the court review an alleged abuse and neglect case. If  children are removed from their homes and placed in foster care, the  statute requires that the trial and disposition begin within 105 days of  removal from their home. 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, Child and Family Services Agency (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. Recognizing the  need to share such information, the Family Court Act required that the  Family Court and the District government integrate their computer  systems to share essential information. 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. Currently, budget submissions are  being made to the District’s Office of Budget and Planning for the fiscal  year 2005 budget. In addition to the $66 million needed to fund District  data exchange efforts, the total cost of the IJIS project to the Superior  Court is expected to be between $20 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 D.C. Courts’ capital budget.
The Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders and the eight  District agencies identified in the District of Columbia Family Court Act or  by the Mayor are responsible for defining the program and operational  requirements for data sharing and integration. The Deputy Mayor  established the Children and Youth Program Coordinating Council,  comprising the Directors of the District agencies, the Mayor’s Court  Liaison, and the D.C. Public Schools, to lead the effort to define the  business and program requirements derived from the Family Court Act  and the Mayor’s July 2002 plan to integrate District social services and  related information systems with the information systems of the Family  Court. The planned Safe Passages Information Suite (SPIS) is expected to  link disparate health and human services databases across the District to  provide individual case managers with critical information regarding  cross-agency servicing of children, families, and individuals within the  District’s health and human services system. The effort to develop SPIS is  being conducted within a broader project to modernize the District’s  human services and related information systems.
OCTO is responsible for leading the technology development and system  deployment necessary to support the District’s health and human services  business process requirements. The Child and Family Program  Coordinating Council and affected agencies will have the opportunity to  review, adjust, and subsequently affirm the detailed plans, interim  milestones, decision points, and project phases prepared by OCTO for this  development.
section_title: Court and District Procedures Were Used to Appoint New Judges, but Three Issues—One Related to the Qualification Requirements— Delayed Some Appointments
paragraphs: Although the Superior Court and the District followed established  procedures to appoint new judges to the Family Court, an issue related to  the qualification requirements and two other factors deferred the  appointment of 2 of the 3 associate judges sought by the Superior Court.  The Superior Court had planned to appoint 3 new associate judges to the  Family Court by May 2003, but as of September 2003, only one nominee  had been appointed. The other two nominees recently received Senate  approval on October 24, 2003, and will likely begin hearing cases by  January 2004, according to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court.  According to a Senate staff member involved in the investigation of  judicial nominees, Senate approval was delayed in part by the additional  time required to investigate issues surrounding the nominees. For  example, one of the nominees was delayed because of further  investigation into the nominee’s reluctance to participate in training  specified by the Family Court Act.
subsections: section_title: The Superior Court Used Internal Procedures to Appoint Magistrate Judges
paragraphs: The Superior Court followed internal procedures to appoint the 9 new  magistrate judges to the Family Court. The Superior Court used a panel of  judges to recruit, interview, and make recommendations to the chief judge  to fill magistrate judge positions. The judicial panel consisted of 11 active  judges selected by the chief judge from different areas throughout the  Superior Court, including the presiding judge of the Family Court. The  Family Court Act established several specific qualification requirements  for magistrate judges. For example, the act required that magistrate judges  have not fewer than 3 years of training or experience in the practice of  family law as a lawyer or judicial officer.
The judicial panel began formally recruiting for magistrate judges in  January 2002 using a variety of recruitment media, including professional  legal organizations, newspapers, and the Superior Court’s Web site. To  assist the Superior Court in filling the initial magistrate judge vacancies,  the Family Court Act authorized the court to use expedited appointment  procedures. The panel received 115 applications for the first 5 magistrate  judge positions. According to the chair of the judicial panel, some  candidates did not meet the basic qualifications, while others had  qualifications that far exceeded the requirements. The judicial panel  ranked the candidates using a 5-point scale, with 5 representing  outstanding, and interviewed candidates determined to be best qualified.  The panel submitted its recommendations—three names for each  vacancy—to the chief judge using a rank-ordered listing. The chief judge  made selections from the list after obtaining input from judges throughout  the Superior Court who had some knowledge of the candidates’  qualifications.
The Superior Court appointed the first 5 magistrate judges in April 2002 in  accordance with its Transition Plan. The panel received an additional   15-20 applications for the second vacancy announcement for the   4 remaining magistrate judge positions and also considered the  applications of interested candidates in the first applicant pool. The  Superior Court appointed the remaining 4 magistrate judges in October  2002 as planned.
section_title: The District Used Established Procedures to Appoint Associate Judges, but A Qualification Related Issue and Two Other Factors Delayed Two Appointments
paragraphs: The District used procedures established by District laws to appoint  associate judges to the Family Court. In June 2002, the chief judge  requested that the JNC begin the process for appointing 3 additional  associate judges to the Family Court. JNC, comprised of academicians,  legal experts, and other District of Columbia residents, selects and  recommends to the President judicial nominees for the Superior Court and  D.C. Court of Appeals. JNC considered 37 applicants for the 3 vacancies,  29 of whom had previously applied for associate judge positions and 8 new  applicants. In considering each applicant, JNC queried applicants about  their ability to meet the qualification requirements outlined in the Family  Court Act, prior to nominating them to the President. In November 2002,  JNC forwarded its recommendations—three names for each vacancy—to  the President and in December 2002, the President nominated 3 candidates  to fill the Superior Court vacancies and forwarded their names to the  Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for confirmation. However,  one nominee later expressed reluctance to participate in the Family  Court’s training programs during discussions with the committee. The  other two candidates nominated by the President for the Family Court  included a magistrate judge serving in Family Court and an attorney with  the D.C. Public Defender Service, who was found during a Senate  background investigation to have had delinquent federal and District tax  filing issues a few years prior to his nomination, though this was not in  violation of the Family Court Act. After further questioning, the committee  determined that the training and delinquent tax issues were adequately  resolved.
The Senate held a confirmation hearing to consider the three candidates in  June 2003 and approved one of the candidates in July 2003. Following  Senate approval, the candidate was appointed to the Superior Court in  September 2003. However, the Senate delayed confirmation of the two  remaining candidates to allow it to first approve other pending Superior  Court judicial nominees for vacancies in other Superior Court divisions.  These two candidates were confirmed on October 24, 2003. According to a  Senate staff member, the process for appointing associate judges typically  takes less than 12 months from the time that JNC receives the request to  fill vacancies to the time that the Senate confirms the appointments.  However, because of the additional time required to investigate  outstanding issues and to confirm other Superior Court nominees, the  appointment process for the two remaining candidates will have taken  about 18 months by the time the new judges begin hearing cases,  scheduled for January 2004.
section_title: The Court Was Timely in Transferring Cases and Conducting Other Court Proceedings, but Magistrate Judges’ Effect on Reducing Workloads Has Been Limited
paragraphs: The Family Court met established timeframes for transferring cases into  the Family Court and decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and  neglect cases; however, magistrate judges’ effect on reducing the  workload of other court officials has been limited. For example,  magistrate judges have limited authority, which requires the involvement  of associate judges in many cases. The hiring of new magistrate judges has  also increased the need for additional support personnel to update  automated data, prepare cases for court, and process court  documentation. As a result, several associate and magistrate judges and  other court officials said the Family Court does not have sufficient support  personnel to manage its caseload more efficiently. According to the Chief  Judge of the Superior Court, the Superior Court hired additional support  personnel but will reassess staff needs as it completes a review of its  business processes.
subsections: section_title: Almost All Cases Have Been Transferred to the Family Court, and Timeframes for Resolving Pending Case Proceedings Have Decreased
paragraphs: To consolidate all abuse and neglect cases in the Family Court, the D.C.  Family Court Act required that judges in other divisions of the Superior  Court transfer their abuse and neglect cases into the Family Court. While  the act generally required the transfer of abuse and neglect cases 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 Family Court Act. 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 each 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 that  remained outside the Family Court, 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  of Columbia. Table 2 provides additional information on the  characteristics of the 30 cases that remain outside the Family Court.
The Superior Court also reported that the Family Court had closed 620 of  the 3,255 transferred cases, or 19 percent, as shown in table 3. Among the  transferred cases closed by the Family Court, 77 percent of the 620 cases  closed following reunification of the child with a parent or 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 of Columbia.
In addition to transferring cases to the Family Court, 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. ASFA requires that a permanency hearing be held within 12  months of a child’s placement in foster care. The objective of a  permanency hearing is to establish a permanency goal for the child, such  as adoption or reunification with a parent, and to establish a time for  achieving the specified permanency goal. Figure 1 depicts 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 home. As required by District law, the court must  begin the hearing within 105 days for children removed from their home  and placed in foster care and within 45 days for children not removed from  their home. 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 the hearings was about as large in cases when children remained  in their home. In these cases, median timeframes declined by about 90  percent during this same period to 12 days. In both cases, the Superior  Court is beginning the hearings within D.C. law requirements. 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 home increased immediately following the  court’s establishment before declining again in more recent months.  According to two magistrate judges, the increase in timeframes  immediately following establishment of the Family Court for children  removed from their homes was attributable to the 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 home and within 45 days for children not  removed from their home. The median days to begin disposition hearings  for children removed from their home 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 home 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 yet achieved full compliance with  ASFA’s 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.    result from the use of uniform court orders. However, other factors  continue to impede the Family Court’s full achievement of ASFA  compliance. Some D.C. Family Court judges have questioned the adequacy  of ASFA’s timelines for permanency, citing barriers external to the court,  which increase the time required to achieve permanency.
These barriers include 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. For  example, 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. Regarding 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 of Columbia. 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 facility 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 a juvenile justice facility  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.
section_title: Magistrate Judges Increased the Court’s Ability to Process Cases, but Several Factors Limited the Gains Achieved
paragraphs: 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 factors that have limited 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  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,  has in certain cases prolonged the time required to conduct court  proceedings. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Superior Court  indicated that the one family/one judge concept does not apply to all  proceedings, and as a result multiple judges may preside over cases  involving the same child and family.  After consultations with Family  Court stakeholders, the court chose to apply the concept to juvenile cases  only after adjudication of the case.  Therefore, in all instances, a different  associate or magistrate judge handles the adjudication phase of a juvenile  case from the one responsible for all other cases related to the same child  and family.
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, and 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 this report, the Superior Court  stated that the Family Court, subsequent to enactment of the D.C. Family  Court Act, hired additional judges and support personnel in excess of the  number identified as needed in the Booz, Allen, and 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  needs 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, and Hamilton to reassess  resource needs in light of the implementation of the D.C. Family Court  Act.
section_title: Progress Has Been Made in Procuring Permanent Physical Space for Family Court, but the New Space Will Not Consolidate All Court Operations
paragraphs: The D.C. Courts, comprising 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 for the new Family Court space, D.C. Courts  designated and redesigned space for the Family Court, constructed interim  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 provide new judges’ chambers,  a family waiting area, and many other components the court needs to  serve the public. 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 and coordination with several regulatory  agencies. While many of the Family Court operations will be consolidated  in the new space, several court functions will remain in other areas. The  current Family Court construction plan is an alternative to a larger plan  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. In the longer term, D.C. Courts is pursuing this larger-scale  plan in order to fully consolidate all Family Court and related operations  in one location.
subsections: section_title: D.C. Courts Has Designated Permanent Space for the Family Court and Has Undertaken Several Interim Actions and Renovations to Prepare for the New Family Court Space
paragraphs: D.C. Courts has designated the John Marshall (JM) level of the H. Carl  Moultrie I Courthouse (Moultrie Courthouse) as the base for the new  Family Court. The new court will consolidate many of the existing Family  Court operations currently spread among various levels of the Moultrie  Courthouse, on the JM, C Street, and Indiana Avenue levels of the  courthouse, and provide new facilities to create greater efficiency in court  operations and a more family friendly environment. The Family Court  construction project is part of the overall Judiciary Square Master Plan  intended to provide for the current and long-term space needs of D.C.  Courts located in buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus, including the  Moultrie Courthouse. Figure 5 provides a depiction of the buildings on the  Judiciary Square Campus.
Consolidating Family Court operations primarily on the JM and the C  Street levels of the Moultrie Courthouse is scheduled to begin in  December 2003 and is estimated to be completed by 2009. The project will  also provide space for some Family Court operations on the Indiana  Avenue level. The timely completion of the project will depend on timely  renovations and upgrades of existing buildings on the Judiciary Square  Campus and coordination with multiple regulatory authorities, such as the  National Capital Planning Commission.
To prepare for the new Family Court, the courts completed a number of  interim actions. For example, in March 2002, the courts completed  construction of chambers for the full complement of new magistrate  judges and their staff. Also in October 2002, the Courts completed  renovations in Building B to provide temporary hearing rooms for 4 of the  new magistrate judges and to renovate space for the Social Services  Division, already located in Building B, which includes counseling,  educational, and other services for families. In addition, in October 2003,  the courts completed additional renovations to Building B to relocate the  Landlord and Tenant and Small Claims Courts from the JM level.
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. Further actions required to complete the Family Court  consolidation project, scheduled for 2009, will require the movement of  several non-Family Court-related functions presently located on the JM  and C Street levels to other levels of the Moultrie Courthouse or to other  buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus. Table 5 provides a summary of  the various actions required to complete the Family Court consolidation  project and their impact on various facilities within the Judiciary Square  Complex. For example, as shown in table 5, the Superior Court’s  Information Technology Division, currently located on the C Street level,  will be relocated to Building C to allow for further consolidation of various  Social Service functions and other Family Court operations on that level.
Because of the historic nature of Buildings A, B, C, and D, which will  require significant repairs and renovations, 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.
section_title: The New Family Court Space Will Not Provide for Consolidation of All Court Operations
paragraphs: While the new Family Court space will consolidate many of the existing  Family Court operations dispersed among various levels of the Moultrie  Courthouse on the JM, C Street, and Indiana Avenue levels of the Moultrie  Courthouse, some Family Court operations will not be included. As  currently configured, the new Family Court space will consolidate   76 percent of the functions and associated personnel for the Family Court.  Some of the Family Court operations that will remain outside the new  space include the Juvenile Intake and Diagnostic Branch, which processes  juveniles into the Family Court and assesses their character and needs,  and some judges chambers. Appendix II provides additional details on the  final configuration of the Family Court that the D.C. Courts plans to  complete in 2009. The current Family Court space plan is an alternative to  a larger Family Court space plan that would provide for greater  consolidation of Family Court operations. The D.C. Courts has requested  $57 million in its fiscal year 2006 capital budget to construct an addition to  the C Street level of the Moultrie Courthouse to provide additional square  footage to accommodate Family Court operations. If the D.C. Courts does  not receive funding for the larger Family Court space plan, it will continue  with the current alternative plan.
section_title: Superior Court and the District Are Making Progress toward Exchanging Data among Their Computer Systems, but the District Has Not Yet 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 the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), which  is intended to help the Superior Court better manage its caseload and  share data with District agencies. The District has expanded and further  evolved the Mayor’s plan to integrate the information systems of eight  District agencies with the Superior Court. The expanded effort, called the  Human Service Modernization Program, is expected to enable the  exchange of data among the police department, social services agencies,  and the court. While the District has made progress, it has not yet fully  addressed or resolved several critical issues we reported in August 2002.  The District is preparing plans and expects to begin developing a data  sharing capability and data warehouses to enable data sharing among the  Child and Family Services Agency, Department of Human Services’ Youth  Services Administration, Department of Mental Health, and the Superior  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.
subsections: section_title: The Superior Court Has Begun Using a New Computer System to Manage Its Cases and Provide for Some Data Exchanges
paragraphs: The Superior Court has been implementing IJIS to help manage its  caseload and share data with District agencies. In August 2003, the  Superior Court launched the first phase of IJIS using a commercially  available case management system. The first phase of the implementation  was rolled out to 300 court users in the Juvenile and Neglect Branch of the  Family Court, as well as the Social Service Division and part of the Multi- Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court. In the next  phase, planned for November 2003, the Superior Court plans to expand  IJIS to the remaining components of the Family Court and some other  court users. This would include implementing IJIS in the Family Court’s  Domestic Relations, Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Paternity and  Child Support, and Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect branches and  Superior Court’s Domestic Violence Division and additional users in the  Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division. Future phases involve the  planned implementation of the system in the Superior Court’s Probate and  Civil Divisions in 2004 and the Criminal Division in 2005. IJIS is intended  to be Superior Court’s primary case and information management system.
According to D.C. Courts’ Director of Information Technology, the  implementation of IJIS provides new capabilities, such as the ability to  schedule events, record results of proceedings and document participants,  print orders, and create dockets in the courtroom. Superior Court  employees also have the capability to search all related cases for  individuals to determine what other issues the court should be aware of  during proceedings.
While the first phase of IJIS is being implemented and further adapted for  its use, the court has exchanged data with District agencies using IJIS and  the existing District of Columbia Justice Information System. This  includes exchanges of data to help meet information needs until the final  data exchange capability with District agencies is developed and  implemented. These exchanges include sharing with CFSA and the Office  of Corporation Counsel calendar information, which identifies the date,  time, and location of scheduled court proceedings. Other data exchanges  include general case information, drug testing orders and results, and  placement recommendations. In addition, CFSA staff stationed at the  Superior Court have been electronically scanning court orders directly  into the agency’s FACES information system. In discussing data  exchanges, the Director of Information Technology, D.C. Courts, noted  that the court is becoming concerned about its ability to continue funding  some of the interim data exchanges it has developed. The Director said  they will be meeting with the D.C. Chief Financial Officer to discuss how  to share the funding required for these data exchanges.
In the second phase of IJIS, the court will require District agencies to  provide information for its new system. The court has been discussing its  data requirements with District agencies and OCTO. According to the D.C.  Courts’ Director of Information Technology, during these meetings,  requirements are defined based on documents currently exchanged, users  requirements for additional information, and an overall understanding of  the business processes that each agency uses.
section_title: District Continues to Plan for Data Exchanges with the Family Court, but Has Not Yet Addressed Key Concerns to Ensure Successful Results
paragraphs: The District of Columbia has been seeking to develop capabilities and  evolve plans to integrate District agencies’ information systems with the  Superior Court. While the ultimate form of integration has not yet been  completely defined, integration over the next several years is expected to  occur primarily through the exchange of data using new capabilities.  OCTO has been developing a prototype to provide the capability to  exchange data among District law enforcement and social services  agencies and the Superior Court. This capability is expected to provide the  interconnection of systems through enterprise application integration  software and data warehouses, thus eliminating many of the current  technical barriers to data exchange. Combined with a citywide Internet  portal, OCTO officials expect that users in various District agencies and  the Superior Court will be able to access data that they are authorized to  view. According to the OCTO Program Manager, with the implementation  of the enterprise application integration software, data will be (1) readily  transformable into formats required by the Superior Court or any  participating District agency and (2) available as required by the Superior  Court.
The planning and development of the prototype are part of a broader  program to modernize the District’s human services agencies’ IT  capabilities and improve business processes to better serve clients.  OCTO plans to continue analyzing and designing the prototype through  2003 and begin developing full capabilities in 2004 for the District’s Child  and Family Services Agency, Youth Services Administration, Department  of Mental Health, Courts, and Office of the Corporation Counsel. OCTO  officials expect that full data exchange capabilities for other agencies will  be accomplished between 2004 and 2006, when the data exchange  capabilities are expected to be complete. Figure 6 shows a simplified view  of District agencies and the Superior Court exchanging data to meet their  needs and fulfill the data-sharing mandate of the D.C. Family Court Act.
The District has made progress on defining and designing a data exchange  solution to meet the needs of District agencies and the Superior Court, and  OCTO is preparing an overall program plan and detailed project plans to  develop and implement the solution. The OCTO Program Manager expects  the have the plans prepared by December 2003. According to the Deputy  Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders, affected District agencies  will have the opportunity to review, adjust, and subsequently affirm the  detailed plans, interim milestones, decision points, and project phases  prepared by OCTO for this development. It is expected that final plans for  upcoming phases will be confirmed later in the spring of 2004.
While the District is making progress toward exchanging data, it has not  yet fully resolved several key issues we reported in August 2002. In that  report, we stated that the Mayor’s plan contained useful information, but  did not contain important elements that are critical to assessing the  adequacy of the District’s strategy. These elements were: establishing  project milestones for completing activities, defining how and to what  extent the District will integrate the systems of the six specific offices  covered by the Family Court Act and the two offices added by the Mayor,  defining details on the type of data the District will be providing to the  Family Court and how this will be achieved, and defining how the District  will achieve the Mayor’s integration priorities. These elements are also  necessary to plan, develop, acquire, and implement the software,  hardware, and communications resources that are required to meet the  information and information processing needs of the Family Court and  participating District agencies. As noted below, the OCTO Program  Manager said that the District would address these key elements and  incorporate them into its plans.
In discussing how the District is addressing these issues, the OCTO  Program Manager provided the following information:    Establishing project milestones for completing activities—The definition,  scope, and structure of efforts to upgrade the health and human services  agencies’ information systems broadened significantly during fiscal year  2003 to provide data exchanges necessary to meet the needs of  participating agencies and the people who rely on them to provide support  services. The overall program plan for the human services modernization  project is being developed, and key project components have been defined  and are expected to be detailed in project plans by December 2003. OCTO  will establish milestones for activities, decision points, and project phases  as it develops plans for the modernization project.
Defining how and to what extent the District will integrate the systems  of the six specific offices designated by the Family Court Act and the two  offices added by the Mayor—OCTO, the Superior Court, and several  District agencies are conducting joint requirements sessions to finalize  detailed requirements on data and document exchanges and common  process functions. Mutual agreement exists that all data exchanges by  District agencies to the Superior Court will be accomplished through the  enterprise application integration capability being designed by OCTO.  From the Superior Court’s perspective, one gateway will exist for  accessing data from and providing data to all District agencies. OCTO has  documented its current understanding of data requirements for the Child  and Family Services Agency, Youth Services Administration, and Superior  Court. These requirements will be refined as OCTO proceeds with its  integration efforts in 2004. OCTO intends to finalize these requirements  and build the capability to meet them. These requirements and OCTO’s  plans will define how and to what extent OCTO will integrate the systems  of participating agencies.
Defining details on the type of data the District will be providing to the  Family Court and how this will be achieved—Initially, when resources  and time constraints limited the capability for a full-fledged process,  OCTO relied on the requirements gathering processes of the Superior  Court’s IJIS team. Information technology staff and contractors of key  agencies worked collaboratively with the Superior Court to begin  requirements definition, with the court’s team taking the lead. With the  emergence of the human services modernization program, the District’s  process will be more aggressive in fulfilling its requirements definition  needs. New analysts are being added to the modernization project team,  and a defined project team has been established to manage and coordinate  the multiagency, court-related integration efforts. As OCTO proceeds with  the modernization efforts, it will identify and define the data that the  District will provide to the Superior Court and how this will be achieved.
Defining how the District will achieve the Mayor’s integration  priorities—Regarding the calendar management, notification, and  electronic document management priorities, the Child and Family Services  Agency is receiving basic information from the Superior Court. The agency  is also providing the Superior Court with inquiry-level access to basic  information on active cases and scanning Family Court orders into  FACES. In the second phase of IJIS, a major shift from paper to electronic  business processes will be initiated among the Superior Court, CFSA, and  Office of the Corporation Counsel.
These priorities will also be addressed in the Human Services  Modernization Program. Regarding the inquiry-level access of information  and reporting priorities, OCTO has developed an initial prototype for a  “common case view” that would enable authorized users to view key  demographic information, elements of service plans, and service-related  events across multiagency case management activities. This prototype will  be used to identify the Superior Court’s requirements and user access  restrictions. CFSA has worked with the Superior Court to match records  and family member profiles to ensure accuracy of trend analysis and  progress reporting, both for the Superior Court and the District  government. The planned data warehouses are expected to facilitate  reporting across and among agencies and support reporting for court- related needs. Presently this work is in its embryonic stage, and as the  modernization program progresses, these priorities will be addressed in  OCTO’s plans and activities.
In addition, we previously reported that the effectiveness and ultimate  success of the Mayor’s plan hinged on resolving critical issues and  implementing disciplined processes. These critical issues were:  confidentiality and privacy issues governed by laws and regulations; data  accuracy, completeness, and timeliness problems that have hampered  program management and operations; current legacy systems’ limitations;  and human capital acquisition and management. Finally, we said another  key to the effectiveness of the Mayor’s plan was developing and using  disciplined processes in keeping with information technology management  best practices. In the past, we reported that the District had not used  disciplined practices and had difficulties developing, acquiring, and  implementing new systems. Disciplined processes include the use of a  life-cycle model, the development of an enterprise architecture, the use  of adequate security measures, and the use of a well-developed business  case that evaluates the expected returns against the cost of an investment.  These critical issues are necessary to plan, develop, acquire, and  implement the software, hardware, and communications resources that  are required to meet the information and information processing needs of  the Superior Court and participating District agencies. As noted below, the  OCTO Program Manager said that the District would address these critical  issues and incorporate them into its plans, except for human capital  issues. According to the Program Manager, OCTO has sufficient capability  to acquire people with the skills needed to accomplish the modernization.
In discussing how the District is addressing these issues, the OCTO  Program Manager provided the following information:    Confidentiality and privacy issues governed by laws and regulations— Confidentiality and privacy issues have posed significant challenges to the  District for many years and are recognized as one of the most complicated  domains that remain to be fully addressed. The District is beginning a  multifaceted process of determining program confidentiality requirements  and how they must be addressed. This effort is drawing upon staff in both  the Office of the Mayor and OCTO. OCTO has added to its team a  nationally renowned technology lawyer with broad experience in privacy,  security, and Freedom of Information Act and related issues, who will be  playing a central role in determining both requirements and solutions. As  the District resolves these issues, and agreements are reached, OCTO will  incorporate the solutions into its plans and activities.  In commenting on a  draft of this report, the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and  Elders said that the Children and Youth Program Coordinating Council has  established a subcommittee to evaluate the data-sharing issues, including  the relevant policies and laws governing that sharing. This subcommittee,  comprising agency program personnel, policy directors, legal support  teams—including Office of Corporation Counsel and outside counsel—and  OCTO staff, will make recommendations to the full Council for legislative  changes that may be necessary to support or allow some aspects of data  sharing.
Data accuracy, completeness, and timeliness problems that have  hampered program management and operations—Data quality concerns  are a high priority for the Mayor, and in turn, OCTO and its staff. Prior  studies have documented too many data errors resulting from human  error, inadequate business processes, inadequate controls and reviews,  and insufficient computer-assisted mechanisms that can identify errors or  inconsistencies. To correct these problems, OCTO is putting in place  infrastructure and software to support individual agency efforts to  improve data quality and reliability and strengthen their practices to  maintain higher levels of data quality and reliability. Once the  infrastructure is in place, OCTO will coordinate agency-specific efforts  within the overall Human Services Modernization Program initiative.  OCTO is putting together a comprehensive plan to perform a major data  cleanup with the key health and social services agencies and will provide  tools to help the agencies identify inconsistent data and potential data  errors. OCTO will work with agencies to identify data stewards who will  have ongoing responsibility for monitoring data accuracy. We note that  some agencies with critical child welfare roles, such as CFSA, have data  inaccuracies, as we previously reported.
Current legacy systems limitations—Several issues related to legacy  systems or certain agencies’ or departments’ business processes may  hamper integration implementation. For example, some information  systems do not reflect agencies’ business process or support integration;  some are outdated, difficult and costly to maintain, and difficult to  integrate fully within a citywide integration infrastructure; some systems  can support agencies’ business processes to some extent, but have severe  security limitations and cannot support interagency business processes.  OCTO plans to address these issues as part of its current efforts, and  incorporate the solutions into OCTO’s modernization plans and activities.
Human capital acquisition and management—OCTO does not anticipate  any issues with the acquisition or management of human capital. OCTO  has the option of contracting for specific tasks, functions, deliverables, or  system components; contracting for fulfillment of specific project tasks; or  contracting for various combinations of functions. Alternately, the District  can determine the roles or skills it requires for time-limited technical  support and hire temporary employees to satisfy these needs. This  flexibility enables OCTO to structure projects and programs most  appropriately to fit the District’s needs.
Developing and using disciplined processes in keeping with IT  management best practices. Disciplined processes include the use of a  life-cycle model, the development of an enterprise architecture, the use of  adequate security measures, and the use of a well-developed business  case that evaluates the expected returns against the cost of an  investment—The District will apply a system’s life-cycle model as it  proceeds with its modernization efforts. The lifecycle is based on the  Project Management Institute’s project life-cycle methodologies and  procedures. Also, OCTO is employing software engineering tools, risk  management and mitigation methods, and systems development  methodologies that are commonly used in the information technology  industry. Use of the lifecycle and other methods will be incorporated into  the plans that OCTO is developing.
Regarding the development of an enterprise architecture, OCTO said that  it has made great strides in creating an enterprise architecture framework  upon which enterprise architecture can evolve. The District is committed  to producing an enterprise architecture through an evolutionary manner  and has designated an Enterprise Architect. The architect will be working  with the modernization team to set technical standards and ensure the  modernization is aligned with the enterprise architecture.
As to the use of adequate security measures, the District’s approach to  security in a multiagency setting requires controls down to the data- element level. The development of this framework is in early stages. It  will be gradually developed as interagency protocols are developed. These  controls over data are in addition to the security the District has in place  to protect its computing environment. A comprehensive security  assessment is being planned as part of the modernization project.
Regarding using a business case that evaluates the expected returns  against the cost of an investment, the District’s Deputy Chief Technology  Officer said the District will prepare a benefit-cost analysis in 2004 for the  overall Human Services Modernization Program. The official added that  more detailed benefit-cost analysis would be prepared for each project  within the program to help in the selection of specific technical  alternatives. We agree that such analyses are important to evaluating  information technology investments as well as evaluating the relative cost  of alternative solutions to meet business needs. Typically, these analyses  are performed to evaluate alternatives before decisions are made, and the  analyses are periodically updated to support decision-making as  alternatives are considered during the course of a project.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While the Superior Court and the District of Columbia have made progress  in implementing the D.C. Family Court Act, 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments from the Chief Judge of the D.C. Superior  Court and the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia for Children,  Youth, Families, and Elders. These comments are reprinted as appendixes  III and IV, respectively. The Chief Judge agreed with our conclusion that  the Superior Court has made progress in implementing the D.C. Family  Court Act. In addition, the court cited several other areas in which it has  made progress. These areas include development of Family Court Self- Help Center for unrepresented individuals served by the Family Court, an  expanded child protection mediation program, and a new Family  Treatment Court for mothers with substance abuse problems. The  Superior Court also provided additional information on the court’s  compliance with ASFA, the role of magistrate judges, the hiring of support  personnel, and procurement of permanent physical space, which we  incorporated when appropriate. Although the court provided information  on its level of ASFA compliance, we did not use this information because  neither GAO nor CCE had verified the data. We used information reported  by CCE because CCE verified automated case data with information  contained in the paper case files.  Regarding the acquisition of permanent  physical space, the court commented that we had confused the D.C.  Courts’ space plans with a contingency alternative, stating that a less  costly contingency plan had been developed in the event that funding to  expand the Moultrie Courthouse is not provided. However, our analysis of  construction documents and discussions with the D.C. Courts’  Administrative Officer indicate that D.C. Courts is currently following the  alternative plan while it continues to pursue funding for the long-term  addition to the Courthouse.
The District government did not express agreement or disagreement with  the contents of the report. The District did, however, offer clarification of  the roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Mayor for  Children, Youth, Families, and Elders and the Office of the Chief  Technology Officer in implementing the Mayor’s plan to integrate the  information systems of the District’s human services agencies and the  Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
We are sending copies of this report to the Office of Management and  Budget, the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of  Columbia, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of  Columbia, the presiding judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court of  the District of Columbia, and the Executive Director of the Judicial  Nomination Commission. Copies of this report will also be made available  to others upon request.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on   (202) 512-8403. Other contacts and staff acknowledgements are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix discusses in more detail the scope and methodology for  assessing the progress of the Family Court since its transition from the  Family Division of the Superior Court, as mandated by the D.C. Family  Court Act, to determine: (1) the procedures used to make initial judicial  appointments to the Family Court and the effect of qualification  requirements on the length of time to make these appointments; (2) the  timeliness of the Family Court in meeting established timeframes for  transferring and resolving pending cases, and the impact of magistrate  judges on the workload of judges and other court personnel; (3) the D.C.  Court’s progress in procuring permanent physical space; and (4) the  Superior Court and relevant District of Columbia agencies’ progress in  sharing data from their computer systems.
To get an overall perspective on the Family Court’s progress and  applicable statutes, we reviewed past GAO reports, the Family Court Act,  the Family Court Transition Plan and subsequent reports required by the  Family Court Act, and applicable District of Columbia laws. Specifically, to  respond to the first objective, we reviewed the Family Court Act and the  D.C. Code for qualifications and tenure requirements for judges and  applications material for the judge positions and prescribed procedures  for appointing associate judges. We also interviewed Superior Court  officials involved in the recruitment and selection of magistrate judges, the  Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Judicial Nomination  Commission, and a Senate staff member regarding the confirmation  process for associate judges.
For objective two, we analyzed Family Court data on its timeliness in  meeting required timeframes for transferring cases back to the Family  Court from other divisions in the Superior Court and its timeliness in  resolving abuse and neglect cases in accordance with timeframes  established by the District of Columbia and federal Adoptions and Safe  Families Act requirements. We focused our review on abuse and neglect  cases because of congressional interest and the former Family Division’s  past problems in handling such cases. We analyzed the court’s  performance in meeting timeframes to begin court proceedings leading up  to permanency hearings. Specifically, we analyzed timeframes to begin  adjudication hearings for suspected abuse and neglect cases and to begin  disposition hearings to determine placement arrangements for children. In  addition, we analyzed the time required to initiate permanency hearings to  establish a goal for the permanent placement of a child (e.g., reunification  with parents or adoption) and a timeframe for achieving the goal. We  relied on a verification of the accuracy of the Family Court’s data  conducted by the Council for Court Excellence as part of its role in  overseeing the Family Court implementation. In addition, we analyzed  Family Court data on the barriers to finding permanent homes for  children. We also interviewed 5 associate judges to determine the impact  that magistrate judges had on their workload, and interviewed 5  magistrate judges to obtain information on their caseload assignments and  other responsibilities and other information regarding their experiences in  working with the Family Court. In addition, we interviewed 10 branch  chiefs and supervisors to determine the impact of magistrate judges and  reviewed related reports by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton.
For objective three, we obtained and reviewed documents on the Family  Court’s space plans and the Judiciary Square Master Facilities Plan to  determine how other buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus would be  affected by the Family Court space. We also interviewed Superior Court  officials, officials of the federal government’s General Services  Administration, and the lead design architects for the new Family Court  space to determine the timeframes for the Family Court construction  project, the challenges of meeting those timeframes, and the court  operations that would be consolidated in the new Family Court space. We  also spoke with an official at the National Capitol Planning Commission to  obtain information on issues regarding the Judiciary Square Master  Facilities Plan that could potentially interfere with the Family Court’s  timeframe for acquiring permanent space.
To respond to objective four, we reviewed documentation provided by  Superior Court and District officials. We interviewed officials in the  Superior Court’s Information Technology Division, the Office of the  Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families and Elders, and officials in the  District of Columbia’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer, responsible  for leading the District’s efforts to integrate the computer systems of  relevant district agencies with the Superior Court’s system. In addition, we  interviewed officials in all eight of the District agencies required by the  D.C. Family Court Act or by the Mayor of the District of Columbia to  exchange data with the Family Court. We interviewed these officials to  obtain their perspectives on their data exchange efforts. The eight  agencies included: the Child and Family Services Agency, D.C. Public  Schools, D.C. Housing Authority, Office of the Corporation Counsel, the  Metropolitan Police Department, D.C. Department of Mental Health, D.C.  Department of Health, and the D.C. Department of Human Services.
In addition, to gain an overall perspective on court practices in other  jurisdictions, we interviewed judges in family courts in Honolulu, Hawaii;  Louisville, Kentucky; and Cincinnati, Ohio, by telephone. We chose these  court jurisdictions because they served populations similar to the D.C.  Family Court’s and because of their experience in managing family court  operations. In addition, we interviewed court experts with the National  Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Center for State  Courts, Council for Court Excellence, and the American Bar Association,  to gain a perspective on court best practice standards. We conducted our  work from April through November 2003 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: D.C. Family Court Procurement of Physical Space Planned for 2009
paragraphs: The following architectural drawings depict the final configuration of the  D.C. Family Court. D.C. Courts plans to complete procurement of its  permanent physical space, configured on multiple floors of the Moultrie  Courthouse, in 2009.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the D.C. Superior Court
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: The following individuals also made important contributions to this report:  Steve Berke, Richard Burkard, Karen Burke, Mary Crenshaw, Patrick  diBattista, Linda Elmore, Nila Garces-Osorio, David G. Gill,   Joel Grossman, James Rebbe, and Norma Samuel.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.