D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully	 
Implement Its Transition (06-MAY-02, GAO-02-584).		 
                                                                 
The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 was enacted to 
(1) redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court as the 
Family Court of the Superior Court, (2) recruit trained and	 
experienced judges to serve in the Family Court, and (3) promote 
consistency and efficiency in the assignment of judges and the	 
courts actions and proceedings. The act requires the chief judge 
of the Superior Court to submit a transition plan outlining the  
proposed operation of the Family Court. The plan shows that the  
Superior Court has made progress transitioning its Family	 
Division to a Family Court, but challenges remain. The transition
plan addresses most, but not all, of the act's required elements.
For example, the plan identifies the number of judges and	 
magistrate judges needed and outlines an approach for closing or 
transferring cases from other divisions to the Family Court.	 
However, the plan does not include (1) a request that the	 
Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the president nominate
the additional judges the court believes are necessary, (2) the  
number of nonjudicial staff needed for the Family Court, (3)	 
information on the qualifications of the judges selected for the 
court, and (4) information on how the court determined the number
of magistrate judges to hire under the expedited process provided
for in the act. Although not specifically required by the act,	 
the plan includes information on performance management and	 
enumerates performance measures that are oriented more toward the
court's processes than on outcomes. Measures that focus on	 
outcomes for children and families could help to optimize the	 
court's performance. This testimony is based on a May report	 
(GAO-02-534).							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-584 					        
    ACCNO:   A03221						        
  TITLE:     D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to 
Fully Implement Its Transition					 
     DATE:   05/06/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Courts (law)					 
	     Judges						 
	     Judicial reform					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     District of Columbia Courts Integrated		 
	     Justice Information System 			 
                                                                 
	     SEI Software Acquisition Capability		 
	     Maturity Model					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-584
     
Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

May 2002 D. C. FAMILY COURT Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully
Implement Its Transition

GAO- 02- 584

Page i GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court Letter 1

Results In Brief 2 Background 4 The Transition Plan Reveals Progress and
Challenges in Planning

the Transition to the Family Court 7 The Transition Plan Reveals That
Challenges in Obtaining the

Necessary Physical Space and in Developing a New Information System Could
Impede Family Court Implementation 15 Conclusions 22 Recommendations 22
Agency Comments And Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I Comments from the Superior Court of the District Of Columbia 25

Appendix II GAO Contacts And Acknowledgments 31 GAO Contacts 31
Acknowledgments 31

Related GAO Products 32

Abbreviations

ASFA Adoption and Safe Families Act CFSA Child and Family Services Agency
GAO General Accounting Office IJIS Integrated Justice Information System RFP
Request for Proposal Contents

Page 1 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

May 6, 2002 The Honorable Mary Landrieu, Chairwoman The Honorable Mike
DeWine, Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg, Chairman The Honorable Chaka Fattah, Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives

In January 2002, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (P. L.
107- 114) was enacted to, among other things, (1) redesignate the Family
Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as the Family
Court of the Superior Court, (2) recruit trained and experienced judges to
serve in the Family Court, and (3) promote consistency and efficiency in the
assignment of judges to the Family Court and in the consideration of actions
and proceedings in the Family Court. The passage of this act represented the
first major overhaul of the Superior Court?s Family Division in 3 decades.
The Congress, in considering such an overhaul, found that poor communication
among participants in the child welfare system, a weak organizational
structure, and a lack of case management were serious problems plaguing the
Family Division.

As a first step in initiating changes to the Family Division, the Family
Court Act required the chief judge of the Superior Court to submit a
transition plan outlining the proposed operation of the Family Court. The
Congress also required that the chief judge submit the transition plan to
the U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and that, within 30 calendar days
after submission of the plan by the Superior Court, we prepare an analysis
of the contents and effectiveness of the plan in meeting the requirements of
the Family Court Act. To assess the statutory compliance of the transition
plan, we compared the plan?s contents to the

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

requirements of the act. We based our analysis of the transition plan, in
part, on discussions with court and child welfare experts, 1 juvenile and
family court judges across the country, and officials from the District of
Columbia Superior Court and the Family Court. To supplement our analysis of
the transition plan, we also asked several independent court experts to
examine the plan and highlight its strengths and areas that may need more
attention.

We conducted our work from February 2002 through April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The contents of the plan show that the Superior Court has made progress in
planning the transition of its Family Division to a Family Court, but the
plan also shows that some challenges remain. The Superior Court?s transition
plan addresses most, but not all, of the required elements outlined in the
act. For example, the plan identifies the number of judges and magistrate
judges the Family Court will need to conduct its work and outlines an
approach for closing or transferring cases from other divisions of the
Superior Court to the Family Court. However, the plan does not include (1) a
request that the Judicial Nomination Commission 2 recruit and the president
nominate the additional judges the court believes are necessary, (2) a
determination of the number of nonjudicial staff needed for the Family
Court, (3) information on whether the judges who have been selected for the
court meet all required qualifications, and (4) information on how the court
determined the number of magistrate judges to hire under the expedited
process provided for in the District of Columbia Family Court Act. In
addition, although not specifically required by the act, the plan includes
information on performance management. However, the plan enumerates
performance measures that are oriented more toward the court?s processes,
such as whether hearings are held on

1 We interviewed officials from a variety of organizations, such as the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; the National Center
for State Courts; the Center for Families, Children and the Courts at the
University of Baltimore; and the Child Welfare League of America.

2 The Commission is comprised of seven individuals, one of whom is a judge,
who by law must be a United States District judge. The commission is
responsible for recruiting potential judges for the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia and forwarding its recommendations to the president.
The president, in turn, nominates judges to serve on the Superior Court with
the advice and consent of the U. S. Senate. Results In Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

time, than on outcomes. Developing measures that focus on outcomes for
children and families could help to optimize the court?s performance.

Furthermore, the plan reveals two critical factors that affect the
transition to a Family Court. Full implementation of the transition hinges
on timely completion of a complex series of interdependent plans intended to
obtain and renovate physical space to house the court and its functions and
on developing automated systems. For example, the plan explains how the
abuse and neglect cases currently being heard by judges in other divisions
of the Superior Court will be closed or transferred to the Family Court;
however, the plan states that the complete transfer of these cases can only
occur if additional judges and magistrate judges are hired, trained, and
housed in appropriate space. All required space may not be available, as
currently planned, to support the additional judges the Family Court needs
to perform its work in accordance with the act, making it uncertain as to
when the court can complete its transition. In addition, the development and
application of the District of Columbia Courts? Integrated Justice
Information System (IJIS) 3 will be critical for the Family Court to be able
to operate effectively, evaluate its performance, and meet its judicial
goals in the context of the changes mandated by the Family Court Act. The
Family Court?s current reliance on nonintegrated automated systems hampers
its implementation. In February 2002, 4 we reported on a number of factors
that significantly increase the risks associated with developing IJIS.
Recognizing these challenges, the court has initiated significant actions
that, if properly implemented, will help reduce these risks, such as
providing the needed specificity for its system requirements. Still, the
court faces continued challenges, such as effectively implementing processes
that are necessary to reduce IJIS risks to acceptable levels and avoiding a
schedule- driven effort.

To ensure that the Superior Court complies with the requirements of the
Family Court Act and conducts an effective transition to the Family Court,
we are recommending that the Superior Court supplement its transition plan
by (1) identifying the number of nonjudicial staff needed for the

3 Faced with a myriad of nonintegrated systems that do not provide the
necessary information to support its overall mission, the DC Courts is in
the process of acquiring a replacement system called IJIS. See U. S. General
Accounting Office, DC Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful
System Acquisition, GAO- 02- 316, (Washington, D. C.: 2002) for more details
on the court?s planning of IJIS.

4 U. S. General Accounting Office, DC Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical
to Successful System Acquisition, GAO- 02- 316, (Washington, D. C.: 2002).

Page 4 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Family Court, (2) determining the number of individuals identified in the
plan that meet the qualifications for judges, and (3) providing an analysis
of how the court identified the number of magistrate judges needed under the
expedited appointment process. In addition, we are recommending that the
Superior Court identify performance measures to track progress toward
positive outcomes for children and families the Family Court services. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Superior Court concurred with our
recommendations and said that the transition plan is a working document that
will undergo continuous improvement and revision.

The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (P. L. 107- 114) was
enacted on January 8, 2002. The act stated that, not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment, the chief judge of the Superior Court shall
submit to the president and Congress a transition plan for the Family Court
of the Superior Court and shall include in the plan the following:

 The chief judge?s determination of the role and function of the presiding
judge of the Family Court.

 The chief judge?s determination of the number of judges needed to serve on
the Family Court.

 The chief judge?s determination of the number of magistrate judges 5 of
the Family Court needed for appointment under Section 11- 1732, District of
Columbia Code.

 The chief judge?s determination of the appropriate functions of such
magistrate judges, together with the compensation of and other personnel
matters pertaining to such magistrate judges.

 A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing needs (including the
needs for both judicial and nonjudicial personnel) for the Family Court,
including a description of how the Superior Court will handle the one
family/ one judge requirement pursuant to Section 11- 1104( a) for all cases
and proceedings assigned to the Family Court.

5 A magistrate judge is a local judicial official entrusted with
administration of the law, but whose jurisdiction may be limited. Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

 A plan for space, equipment, and other physical needs and requirements
during the transition, as determined in consultation with the Administrator
of General Services.

 An analysis of the number of magistrate judges needed under the expedited
appointment procedures established under Section 6( d) in reducing the
number of pending actions and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the
Family Court.

 A proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court of child
abuse and neglect actions pending as of the date of enactment of the act
(which were initiated in the Family Division but remain pending before
judges serving in other Divisions of the Superior Court as of such date) in
a manner consistent with applicable federal and District of Columbia law and
best practices, including best practices developed by the American Bar
Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

 An estimate of the number of cases for which the deadline for disposition
or transfer to the Family Court cannot be met and the reasons why such
deadline cannot be met.

 The chief judge?s determination of the number of individuals serving as
judges of the Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of the
Family Court and are willing and able to serve on the Family Court. If the
chief judge determines that the number of individuals described in the act
is less than 15, the plan is to include a request that the Judicial
Nomination Commission recruit and the president nominate additional
individuals to serve on the Superior Court who meet the qualifications for
judges of the Family Court, as may be required to enable the chief judge to
make the required number of assignments.

The Family Court Act states that the number of judges serving on the Family
Court of the Superior Court cannot exceed 15. These judges must meet certain
qualifications, such as having training or expertise in family law,
certifying to the chief judge of the Superior Court that he or she intends
to serve the full term of service and that he or she will participate in the
ongoing training programs conducted for judges of the Family Court. The act
also allows the court to hire and use magistrate judges to hear Family Court
cases. Magistrate judges must also meet certain qualifications, such as
holding U. S. citizenship, being an active member of the D. C. Bar, and
having not fewer than 3 years of training or experience in the practice of
family law as a lawyer or judicial officer. The act further states that the
chief judge shall appoint individuals to serve as magistrate

Page 6 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

judges not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the act. The
magistrate judges hired under this expedited appointment process are to
assist in implementing the transition plan and, in particular, assist with
the transition or disposal of child abuse and neglect proceedings not
currently assigned to judges in the Family Court.

The Superior Court submitted its transition plan on April 5, 2002. The plan
consists of three volumes. Volume I contains information on how the court
will address case management issues, including organizational and human
capital 6 requirements. Volume II contains information on the development of
IJIS and its planned applications. In volume III, the court addresses the
physical space it needs to house and operate the Family Court.

The D. C. Courts includes three main entities- the Superior Court, the Court
of Appeals, and the Court System- and provides the overall organizational
framework for judicial operations. The Superior Court contains five major
operating divisions: Civil Division, Criminal Division, Family Court,
Probate Division, and the Tax Division, as well as the following additional
divisions and units: Crime Victims Compensation Program, the Domestic
Violence Unit, the Multi- Door Dispute Resolution Division, and the Special
Operations Division. The Court of Appeals reviews all appeals from the
Superior Court, as well as decisions and orders of District of Columbia
government administrative agencies. The Executive Office performs various
administrative management functions, and directly supervises the Court
System divisions, which support both the Court of Appeals and the Superior
Court. Also, the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District
of Columbia serves as the policymaking entity for the D. C. Courts. The
chief judges of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals serve on this
committee. In addition, a second Court of Appeals judge, elected by the
Court of Appeals judges, and two Superior Court judges, elected by their
colleagues, serve on the Joint Committee.

Courts interact with various organizations and operate in the context of
many different programmatic requirements. In the District, the Family Court
frequently interacts with the District?s child welfare agency- the Child and
Family Services Agency (CFSA)- a key organization responsible for helping
children obtain permanent homes. CFSA must comply with federal laws and
other requirements, including the Adoption and Safe

6 Human capital refers to people within an organization.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Families Act (ASFA), which placed new responsibilities on child welfare
agencies nationwide. 7 ASFA introduced new time periods for moving children
who have been removed from their homes to permanent home arrangements and
penalties for noncompliance. For example, ASFA requires states to hold a
permanency planning hearing not later than 12 months after the child is
considered to have entered foster care. Permanent placements include return
home to the birth parents and adoption.

The Family Court transition plan provides information on most, but not all,
elements required by the Family Court Act; however, some aspects of case
management, training, and performance evaluation are unclear. For example,
the plan describes the Family Court?s method for transferring child abuse
and neglect cases to the Family Court, its one family/ one judge case
management principle, 8 and the number and roles of judges and magistrate
judges. 9 However, the plan does not (1) include a request for judicial
nomination, (2) indicate the number of nonjudicial staff needed for the
Family Court, (3) indicate if the 12 judges who volunteered for the Family
Court meet all of the qualifications outlined in the act, and (4) state how
the number of magistrate judges to hire under the expedited process was
determined. In addition, although not specifically required by the act, the
plan does not describe the content of its training programs and does not
include a full range of measures by which the court can evaluate its
progress in ensuring better outcomes for children.

7 For additional details on the challenges facing the District of Columbia?s
child welfare system and implementation of ASFA, see U. S. General
Accounting Office, District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long- Term Challenges
to Ensuring Children?s Well- Being,

GAO- 01- 191, (Washington, D. C.: 2000) and Foster Care: States? Early
Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act, GAO/ HEHS- 00-
1, (Washington, D. C.: 1999).

8 The Family Court Act requires the Family Court, to the greatest extent
practicable, feasible, and lawful, to assign one judge to handle a case from
initial filing to final disposition, as well as to handle related family
cases that are subsequently filed.

9 In the Family Court, two Family Court judges- the presiding and deputy
presiding judges- will primarily handle the administrative functions of the
court. Family Court judges are judges of the Superior Court who have
received training or have expertise in family law. These judges will hear a
variety of cases in the court. Family Court magistrate judges are qualified
individuals with expertise and training in family law. These magistrate
judges will also hear various Family Court cases. The Transition Plan

Reveals Progress and Challenges in Planning the Transition to the Family
Court

Page 8 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

The transition plan establishes criteria for transferring cases to the
Family Court and states that the Family Court intends to have all child
abuse and neglect cases pending before judges serving in other divisions of
the Superior Court closed or transferred into the Family Court by June 2003.
According to the plan, the court has asked each Superior Court judge not
serving in the Family Court to review his or her caseload to identify those
cases that meet the criteria established by the court for the first phase of
case transfer back to the Family Court for attention by magistrate judges
hired under the expedited process provided in the act. Cases identified for
transfer include those in which (1) the child is 18 years of age and older,
the case is being monitored primarily for the delivery of services, and no
recent allegations of abuse or neglect exist; and (2) the child is committed
to the child welfare agency and is placed with a relative in a kinship care
program. Cases that the court believes may not be candidates for transfer by
June 2002 include those the judge believes transferring the case would delay
permanency. The court expects that older cases will first be reviewed for
possible closure and expects to transfer the entire abuse and neglect
caseloads of several judges serving in other divisions of the Superior Court
to the Family Court. Using the established criteria to review cases, the
court estimates that 1,500 cases could be candidates for immediate transfer.

The act also requires the court to estimate the number of cases that cannot
be transferred into Family Court in the timeframes specified. The plan
provides no estimate because the court?s proposed transfer process assumes
all cases will be closed or transferred, based on the outlined criteria.
However, the plan states that the full transfer of all cases is partially
contingent on hiring three new judges.

The transition plan identifies the way in which the Family Court will
implement the one family/ one judge approach and improve its case management
practices; however, some aspects of case management, training, and
performance evaluation are unclear. The plan indicates that the Family Court
will implement the one family/ one judge approach by assigning all cases
involving the same family to one judicial team- comprised of a Family Court
judge and a magistrate judge. This assignment will begin with the initial
hearing by the magistrate judge on the team and continue throughout the life
of the case. Juvenile and family court experts indicated that this team
approach is realistic and a good model of judicial collaboration. One expert
said that such an approach provides for continuity if either team member is
absent. Another expert added that, given the volume of cases that must be
heard, the team The Transition Plan

Includes a Description of the Court?s Plan for Transferring Abuse and
Neglect Cases to the Family Court

The Transition Plan Describes the Family Court?s Approach to Managing Its
Cases, but the Court Could Consider Additional Approaches to Assessing
Implementation

Page 9 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

approach can ease the burden on judicial resources by permitting the
magistrate judge to make recommendations and decisions, thereby allowing the
Family Court judge time to schedule and hear trials and other proceedings
more quickly. Court experts also praised the proposed staggered terms for
judicial officials- newly hired judges, magistrate judges, and judges who
are already serving on the Superior Court will be appointed to the Family
Court for varying numbers of years- which can provide continuity while
recognizing the need to rotate among divisions in the Superior Court.

The plan also describes other elements of the Family Court?s case management
process, such as how related cases will be assigned and a description of how
many judges will hear which types of cases. For example, the plan states
that, in determining how to assign cases, preference will generally be given
to the judge or magistrate judge who has the most familiarity with the
family. In addition, the plan states that (1) all Family Court judges will
handle post- disposition child abuse and neglect cases; (2) 10 judges will
handle abuse and neglect cases from initiation to closure as part of a
judicial team; (3) 1 judge will handle abuse and neglect cases from
initiation to closure independently (not as part of a team); and (4) certain
numbers of judges will handle other types of cases, such as domestic
relations cases, mental health trials, and complex family court cases.
However, because the transition plan focuses primarily on child abuse and
neglect cases, this information does not clearly explain how the total
workload associated with the approximately 24,000 10 cases under the court?s
jurisdiction will be handled. One court expert we consulted commented on the
transition plan?s almost exclusive focus on child welfare cases, making it
unclear, the expert concluded, how other cases not involving child abuse and
neglect will be handled.

In addition to describing case assignments, the plan identifies actions the
court plans to take to centralize intake. According to the plan, a
centralized office will encompass all filing and intake functions that
various clerks? offices- such as juvenile, domestic relations, paternity and
support, and mental health- in the Family Court currently carry out. As

10 During 2001, court activity included 13, 132 filings, 13, 957
dispositions, and 24, 373 pending cases (including approximately 5,100 child
abuse and neglect cases- most of which were being handled by judges outside
of the Family Division).

Page 10 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

part of centralized intake, case coordinators 11 will identify any related
cases that may exist in the Family Court. To do this, the coordinator will
ensure that a new ?Intake/ Cross Reference Form? will be completed by
various parties to a case and also check the computer databases serving the
Family Court. As a second step, the court plans to use alternative dispute
resolution to resolve cases more quickly and expand initial hearings to
address many of the issues that the court previously handled later in the
life of the case. As a third step, the plan states that the Family Court
will provide all affected parties speedy notice of court proceedings and
implement strict policies for the handling of cases- such as those for
granting continuances 12 -although it does not indicate who is responsible
for developing the policies or the status of their development.

The plan states that the court will conduct evaluations to assess whether
components of the Family Court were implemented as planned and whether
modifications are necessary; the court could consider using additional
measures to focus on outcomes for children. One court expert said that the
court?s development of a mission statement and accompanying goals and
objectives frames the basis for developing performance standards. The expert
also said that the goals and standards are consistent with those of other
family courts that strive to prevent further deterioration of a family?s
situation and to focus decision- making on the needs of those individuals
served by the court. However, evaluation measures listed in the plan are
oriented more toward the court?s processes, such as whether hearings are
held on time, than on outcomes. According to a court expert, measures must
also account for outcomes the court achieves for children. Measures could
include the number of finalized adoptions that did not disrupt,
reunifications that do not fail, children who remain safe and are not abused
again while under court jurisdiction or in foster care, and the proportion
of children who successfully achieve permanency. In addition, the court will
need to determine how it will gather the data necessary to measure each
team?s progress in ensuring such outcomes or in meeting the requirements of
ASFA, and the court has not yet established a baseline from which to judge
its performance.

11 Coordinators will provide day- to- day liaison between judges and
magistrate judges, legal counsel, litigants, court clerks, and the child
welfare agency. They will also be responsible for monitoring the cases for
ASFA compliance.

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

Page 11 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

The transition plan states that the court has determined that 15 judges are
needed to carry out the duties of the court and that 12 judges have
volunteered to serve on the court, but does not address recruitment and the
nomination of the three additional judges. Court experts stated that the
court?s analysis to identify the appropriate number of judges is based on
best practices identified by highly credible national organizations and is,
therefore, pragmatic and realistic. However, the plan only provides
calculations for how it determined that the court needed 22 judges and
magistrate judges to handle child abuse and neglect cases. The transition
plan does not include a methodology for how it determined that the court
needed a total of 32 judges and magistrate judges for its total caseload of
child abuse and neglect cases, as well as other family cases, such as
divorce and child support, nor does it explain how anticipated increases in
cases will be handled. 13 In addition, the plan does not include a request
that the Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and the president nominate
the additional three individuals to serve on the Superior Court, as required
by the Family Court Act. At a recent hearing on the court?s implementation
of the Family Court Act, the chief judge of the Superior Court said that the
court plans to submit its request in the fall of 2002. 14

The Superior Court does not provide in the plan its determination of the
number of nonjudicial staff needed. The court acknowledges that while it
budgeted for a certain number of nonjudicial personnel based on current
operating practices, determining the number of different types of personnel
needed to operate the Family Court effectively is pending completion of a
staffing study. 15

Furthermore, the plan does not address the qualifications of the 12 judges
who volunteered for the court. Although the plan states that these judges

13 The transition plan states that three legislative proposals pending
before the District of Columbia City Council could increase the size of the
Family Court caseload- the Improved Child Abuse Investigations Amendment Act
of 2001, the Mental Health Commitment Amendments Act of 2001, and the
Standby Guardianship Act of 2001. However, no estimates of the anticipated
increases were provided.

14 The hearing was held before the Senate Subcommittee on DC Appropriations,
April 24, 2002. 15 D. C. Courts has hired Booz- Allen & Hamilton to conduct
a workforce planning analysis over a 6- month period. The analysis and the
development of a customized automated tool for ongoing workforce planning
and analysis are scheduled to be complete by May 15, 2002. The courts
contracted for this project in response to GAO?s report, D. C. Courts:
Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous (GAO/ GGD- 99- 162, Aug.
27, 1999). The Transition Plan

Addresses the Number and Role of Judicial Officers, but Other Human Capital
Issues Remain Unclear

Page 12 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

have agreed to serve full terms of service, according to the act, the chief
judge of the Superior Court may not assign an individual to serve on the
Family Court unless the individual also has training or expertise in family
law and certifies that he or she will participate in the ongoing training
programs conducted for judges of the Family Court. The act requires judges
who had been serving in the Superior Court?s Family Division at the time of
its enactment to serve for a term of not fewer than 3 years, and that the 3-
year term shall be reduced by the length of time already served in the
Family Division. Since the transition plan does not identify which of the 12
volunteers had already been serving in the Family Division prior to the act
and the length of time they had already served, the minimum remaining term
length for each volunteer cannot be determined from the plan. In commenting
on this report, the Superior Court said it will provide information on each
judge?s length of tenure in its first annual report to the Congress.

The transition plan describes the duties of judges assigned to the Family
Court, as required by the act. Specifically, the plan describes the roles of
the designated presiding judge, the deputy presiding judge, and the
magistrate judges. The plan states that the presiding and deputy presiding
judges will handle the administrative functions of the Family Court, ensure
the implementation of the alternative dispute resolution projects, oversee
grant- funded projects, and serve as back- up judges to all Family Court
judges. These judges will also have a post- disposition 16 abuse and neglect
caseload of more than 80 cases and will continue to consult and coordinate
with other organizations (such as the child welfare agency), primarily by
serving on 19 committees. 17 One court expert has observed that the list of
committees to which the judges are assigned seems overwhelming and said that
strong leadership by the judges could result in consolidation of some of the
committees? efforts.

The plan also describes the duties of the magistrate judges, but does not
provide all the information required by the act. Magistrate judges will be
responsible for initial hearings in new child abuse and neglect cases and

16 At the disposition hearing, a decision is made regarding who will have
custody and control of the child, and a review is conducted of the
reasonable efforts made to prevent the removal of the child from the home.

17 These committees include the Child Welfare Leadership Team, the Mayor?s
Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Mayor?s Advisory
Committee on Permanent Families for Children.

Page 13 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

the resolution of cases assigned to them by the Family Court judge to whose
team they are assigned. They will also be assigned initial hearings in
juvenile cases, noncomplex abuse and neglect trials, and the subsequent
review and permanency hearings, 18 as well as a variety of other matters
related to domestic violence, paternity and support, mental competency, and
other domestic relations cases. As noted previously, one court expert said
that the proposed use of the magistrate judges would ease the burden on
judicial resources by permitting these magistrate judges to make
recommendations and decisions. However, although specifically required by
the act, the transition plan does not state how the court determined the
number of magistrate judges to be hired under the expedited process. In
addition, while the act outlines the qualifications of magistrate judges, it
does not specifically require a discussion of qualifications of the newly
hired magistrate judges in the transition plan. As a result, no information
was provided, and whether these magistrate judges meet the qualifications
outlined in the act is unknown. In commenting on this report, the Superior
Court said that it considered the following in determining how many
magistrate judges should be hired under the expedited process: optimal
caseload size, available courtroom and office space, and safety and
permanency of children. In addition, the court determined, based on its
criteria, that 1,500 child abuse and neglect cases could be safely
transferred to the Family Court during the initial transfer period and that
a caseload of 300 cases each was appropriate for these judicial officers. As
a result, the court appointed five magistrate judges on April 8, 2002.

A discussion of how the court will provide initial and ongoing training for
its judicial and nonjudicial staff is also not required by the act, although
the court does include relevant information about training. For example, the
plan states that the Family Court will develop and implement a quarterly
training program for Family Court judges, magistrate judges, and staff
covering a variety of topics and that it will promote and encourage
participation in cross- training. 19 In addition, the plan states new judges
and magistrate judges will participate in a 2 to 3 week intensive training

18 Review hearings are held to review case progress to ensure children spend
the least possible time in temporary placement and to modify the family?s
case plan, as necessary. Permanency hearings decide the permanent placement
of the child, such as returning home or being placed for adoption.

19 Cross- training refers to the practice of bringing together various
participants in the child welfare system to learn each other?s roles and
responsibilities. The act requires the court to use the resources of lawyers
and legal professionals, social workers, and experts in the field of child
development and other related fields in developing its cross- training
program.

Page 14 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

program, although it does not provide details on the content of such
training for the five magistrate judges hired under the expedited process,
even though they were scheduled to begin working at the court on April 8,
2002. One court expert said that a standard curriculum for all court-
related staff and judicial officers should be developed and that judges
should have manuals available outlining procedures for all categories of
cases. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Superior Court said that
the court has long had such manuals for judges serving in each division of
the court. In our report on human capital, we said that an explicit link
between the organization?s training offerings and curricula and the
competencies identified by the organization for mission accomplishment is
essential. 20 Organization leaders can show their commitment to strategic
human capital management by investing in professional development and
mentoring programs that can also assist in meeting specific performance
needs. These programs can include opportunities for a combination of formal
and on- the- job training, individual development plans, and periodic formal
assessments. Likewise, organizations should make fact- based determinations
of the impact of its training and development programs to provide feedback
for continuous improvement and ensure that these programs improve
performance and help achieve organizational results. In commenting on this
report, the Superior Court said that- although not included in the plan- it
has an extensive training curriculum that will be fine- tuned prior to
future training sessions.

20 U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Self- Assessment
Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/ OCG- 00- 14G (Washington, D. C.: Sept.
2000).

Page 15 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Two factors are critical to fully transitioning to the Family Court in a
timely and effective manner: obtaining and renovating appropriate space for
all new Family Court personnel and developing and installing a new automated
information system, currently planned as part of the D. C. Courts IJIS
system. The court acknowledges that its implementation plans may be slowed
if appropriate space cannot be obtained in a timely manner. For example, the
plan addresses how the abuse and neglect cases currently being heard by
judges in other divisions of the Superior Court will be transferred to the
Family Court but states that the complete transfer of cases hinges on the
court?s ability to hire, train, and provide appropriate space for additional
judges and magistrate judges. In addition, the Family Court?s current
reliance on nonintegrated automated information systems that do not fully
support planned court operations, such as the one family/ one judge approach
to case management, constrains its transition to a Family Court.

The transition plan states that the interim space plan 21 carries a number
of project risks. These include a very aggressive implementation schedule
and a design that makes each part of the plan interdependent with other
parts of the plan. The transition plan further states that the desired
results cannot be reached if each plan increment does not take place in a
timely fashion. For example, obtaining and renovating the almost 30,000
occupiable square feet of new court space needed requires a complex series
of interrelated steps- from moving current tenants in some buildings to
temporary space, to renovating the John Marshall level of the H. Carl
Moultrie Courthouse by July 2003.

The Family Court of the Superior Court is currently housed in the H. Carl
Moultrie Courthouse, and interim plans call for expanding and renovating
additional space in this courthouse to accommodate the additional judges,
magistrate judges, and staff who will help implement the Family Court Act.
The court estimates that accommodating these personnel requires an
additional 29,700 occupiable square feet, plus an undetermined amount for
security and other amenities. Obtaining this space will require nonrelated
D. C. Court entities to vacate space to allow for renovations, as well as

21 The interim space plan addresses facility needs of the Family Court in
response to the act. D. C. Courts is also developing a comprehensive master
plan to address the courts? needs through 2012. The Transition Plan

Reveals That Challenges in Obtaining the Necessary Physical Space and in
Developing a New Information System Could Impede Family Court Implementation

The Plan for Obtaining the Necessary Space and Facilities Carries a Number
of Project Risks

Page 16 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

require tenants in other buildings to move in order to house the staff who
have been displaced.

The plan calls for renovations under tight deadlines, and all required space
may not be available, as currently planned, to support the additional judges
the Family Court needs to perform its work in accordance with the act,
making it uncertain as to when the court can fully complete its transition.
For example, D. C. Courts recommends that a portion of the John Marshall
level of the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, currently occupied by civil court
functions, be vacated and redesigned for the new courtrooms and court-
related support facilities. Although some space is available on the fourth
floor of the courthouse for the four magistrate judges to be hired by
December 2002, renovations to the John Marshall level are tentatively
scheduled for completion in July 2003- 2 months after the court anticipates
having three additional Family Court judges on board. Another D. C. Courts
building- Building B- would be partially vacated by non- Court tenants and
altered for use by displaced civil courts functions and other units
temporarily displaced in future renovations. Renovations to Building B are
scheduled to be complete by August 2002. Space for 30 additional Family
Court- related staff, approximately 3,300 occupiable square feet, would be
created in the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse in an as yet undetermined
location. Moreover, the Family Court?s plan for acquiring additional space
does not include alternatives that the court will pursue if its current
plans for renovating space encounter delays or problems that could prevent
it from using targeted space.

The Family Court Act calls for an integrated information technology system
to support the goals it outlines, but a number of factors significantly
increase the risks associated with attaining this goal, as we reported in
February 2002. For example,

 The D. C. Courts had not yet implemented the disciplined processes
necessary to reduce the risks associated with acquiring and managing IJIS to
acceptable levels. A disciplined software development and acquisition effort
maximizes the likelihood of achieving the intended results (performance) on
schedule using available resources (costs). Reducing Risks in

Developing the New Information System Critical to Meeting Family Court Goals

Page 17 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

 The requirements 22 contained in a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for
the information system lacked the necessary specificity to ensure that any
defects in these requirements had been reduced to acceptable levels 23 and
that the system would meet its users? needs. Studies have shown that
problems associated with requirements definition are key factors in software
projects that do not meet their cost, schedule, and performance goals.

 The requirements contained in the draft RFP did not directly relate to
industry standards. As a result, inadequate information was available for
prospective vendors and others to readily map systems built upon these
standards to the needs of the D. C. Courts.

Prior to issuing our February 2002 report, we discussed our findings with D.
C. Courts officials who generally concurred with our findings. The officials
said that the D. C. Courts would not go forward with the project until the
necessary actions had been taken to reduce the risks associated with
developing the new information system. In our report, we made several
recommendations designed to reduce the risks. In April 2002, we met with D.
C. Courts officials to discuss the actions taken on our recommendations and
found that significant actions have been initiated that, if properly
implemented, will help reduce the risks associated with developing the new
system. For example, D. C. Courts is

 beginning the work to provide the needed specificity for its system
requirements. This includes soliciting requirements from the users and
ensuring that the requirements are properly sourced (e. g., traced back to
their origin). According to D. C. Courts officials, this work has identified
significant deficiencies in the original requirements that we discussed in
our February report. These deficiencies relate to new tasks D. C. Courts
must undertake. For example, the Family Court Act requires D. C. Courts to
interface IJIS with several other District government computer systems.
These tasks were not within the scope of the original requirements that we
reported on in our

22 Requirements represent the blueprint that system developers and program
managers use to design, develop, and acquire a system. Requirements should
be consistent with one another, verifiable, and directly traceable to
higher- level business or functional requirements.

23 Although all projects of this size can be expected to have some
requirements- related defects, the goal is to reduce the number of such
defects so that they do not significantly affect cost, schedule, or
performance.

Page 18 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

February 2002 report.  issuing a Request for Information to obtain
additional information on

commercial products that should be considered by the D. C. Courts during its
acquisitions. This helps the requirements management process by identifying
requirements that are not supported by commercial products so that the D. C.
Courts can reevaluate whether it needs to (1) keep the requirement or revise
it to be in greater conformance with industry practices or (2) undertake a
development effort to achieve the needed capability.

 developing a systems engineering life- cycle process for managing the D.
C. Courts information technology efforts. This will help define the
processes and events that should be performed from the time that a system is
conceived until the system is no longer needed. Examples of processes used
include requirements development, testing, and implementation.

 developing policies and procedures that will help ensure that the D. C.
Courts? information technology investments comply with the requirements of
the Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996 (P. L. 104- 106). 24

 developing the processes that will enable the D. C. Courts to achieve a
level 2 rating- this means basic project management processes are
established to track performance, cost, and schedule- on the Software
Engineering Institute?s 25 Capability Maturity Model. 26

24 D. C. Courts has decided to apply the Clinger- Cohen Act to its
investments even though it is not required to do so. The act requires
federal executive agencies to establish a process to maximize the value and
assess and manage the risks of information technology investments. This
process is to provide for, among other things, identifying for a proposed
investment quantifiable measurements for determining the net benefits and
risks of the investment, and minimum criteria for undertaking a particular
investment, including specific quantitative and qualitative criteria for
comparing and prioritizing alternative systems investment projects. Only by
comparing the costs, benefits, and risks of a full range of technical
options can agencies ensure that the best approaches are selected.

25 The Software Engineering Institute is recognized for its experience in
software development and acquisition processes. It has also developed
methods and models that can be used to define disciplined processes and
determine whether an organization has implemented them.

26 Capability Maturity ModelSM (a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University
and CMM is registered in the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office) provides a
logical and widely accepted framework for baselining an organization?s
current process capabilities (i. e., strengths and weaknesses) and assessing
whether an organization has the necessary process discipline in place to
repeat earlier successes on similar projects.

Page 19 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

In addition, D. C. Courts officials told us that they are developing a
program modification plan that will allow the use of the existing (legacy)
systems while the IJIS project proceeds. Although they recognize that
maintaining two systems concurrently is expensive and causes additional
resource needs, such as additional staff and training for them, these
officials believe that they are needed to mitigate the risk associated with
any delays in system implementation.

Although these are positive steps forward, D. C. Courts still faces many
challenges in its efforts to develop an IJIS system that will meet its needs
and fulfill the goals established by the act. The following sections discuss
the challenges the D. C. Courts face.

Ensuring that the Systems Interfacing with IJIS Do Not Become the Weak Link

The Family Court Act calls for effectively interfacing information
technology systems operated by the District government with IJIS. According
to D. C. Courts officials, at least 14 District government systems will need
to interface with IJIS. However, several of our reviews have noted problems
in the District?s ability to develop, acquire, and implement new systems. 27
The District?s difficulties in effectively managing its information
technology investments could lead to adverse impacts on the IJIS system. For
example, the interface systems may not be able to provide the quality of
data necessary to fully utilize IJIS?s capabilities or provide the necessary
data to support IJIS?s needs. The D. C. Courts will need to ensure that
adequate controls and processes have been implemented to mitigate the
potential impacts associated with these risks.

Effectively Implementing the Disciplined Processes Needed to Reduce the
Risks Associated with IJIS

The key to having a disciplined effort is to have disciplined processes in
multiple areas. This is a complex task and will require the D. C. Courts to
maintain its management commitment to implementing the necessary

27 For example, see U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia:
Weaknesses in Financial Management System Implementation, GAO- 01- 489,
(Washington, D. C.: Apr. 30, 2001); District of Columbia: The District Has
Not Adequately Planned for and Managed Its New Personnel and Payroll System,
GAO/ AIMD- 00- 19, (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 17, 1999); and District of
Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for A New Financial Management
System, GAO/ AIMD- 98- 88, (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 30, 1998).

Page 20 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

processes. In our February 2002 report, we highlighted several processes,
such as requirements management, risk management, and testing that appeared
critical to the development of IJIS.

Ensuring that the Requirements Used to Acquire IJIS Contain the Necessary
Specificity to Reduce Requirement- Related Defects to Acceptable Levels

Although D. C. Courts officials have said that they are adopting a
requirements management process that will address the concerns expressed in
our February 2002 report, maintaining such a process will require management
commitment and discipline.

Ensuring that Users Receive Adequate Training

As with any new system, adequately training the users is critical to its
success. As we reported in April 2001, 28 one problem that hindered the
implementation of the District?s financial management system was its
difficulty in adequately training the users of the system. In commenting on
this report, the Superior Court said that $800,000 has been budgeted for
staff training during the 3 years of implementation.

Avoiding a Schedule- Driven Effort

According to D. C. Courts officials, the Family Court Act establishes
ambitious timeframes to convert to a family court. Although schedules are
important, it is critical that the D. C. Courts follow an event- driven
acquisition and development program rather than adopting a scheduledriven
approach. Organizations that are schedule- driven tend to reduce or
inadequately complete activities such as business process reengineering and
requirements analysis. These tasks are frequently not considered ?important?
since many people view ?getting the application in the hands of the user? as
one of the more productive activities. However, the results of this approach
are very predictable. Projects that do not perform planning and requirements
functions well typically have to redo that work later. However, the costs
associated with delaying the critical planning and

28 U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Weaknesses in
Financial Management System Implementation, GAO- 01- 489, (Washington, D.
C.: Apr. 30, 2001).

Page 21 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

requirements activities is anywhere from 10 to 100 times the cost of doing
it correctly in the first place. 29

With respect to requirements, court experts report that effective
technological support is critical to effective family court case management.
One expert said that, at a minimum, the system should include the (1)
identification of parties and their relationships; (2) tracking of case
processing events through on- line inquiry; (3) generation of orders, forms,
summons, and notices; and (4) production of statistical reports. The State
Justice Institute?s report on how courts are coordinating family cases 30
states that automated information systems, programmed to inform a court
system of a family?s prior cases, are a vital ingredient of case
coordination efforts. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges echoes these findings by stating that effective management systems
(1) have standard procedures for collecting data; (2) collect data about
individual cases, aggregate caseload by judge, and the systemwide caseload;
(3) assign an individual the responsibility of monitoring case processing;
and (4) are user friendly. 31 While anticipating technological enhancements
through IJIS, Superior Court officials said that the current information
systems do not have the functionality required to implement the Family
Court?s one family/ one judge case management principle. In providing
technical clarifications on a draft of this report, the Superior Court
reiterated a statement that the presiding judge of the Family Court made at
the April 24, 2002, hearing. The presiding judge said that the Family Court
is currently implementing the one family/ one judge principle, but that
existing court technology is cumbersome to use to identify family and other
household members. Nonetheless, staff are utilizing the different databases,
forms, intake interviews, questions from the bench, and other
nontechnological means of identifying related cases within the Family Court.

29 Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Bruce McConnell,
(Microsoft Press). 30 Flango, Carol R., Flango, Victor E., and Rubin, H.
Ted, ?How are Courts Coordinating Family Cases??, State Justice Institute,
National Center for State Courts (Alexandria, VA: 1999).

31 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Information
Management: A Critical Component of Good Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect
Cases, Technical Assistance Bulletin, Vol. II, No. 8 (Reno, NV: Dec. 1998).

Page 22 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Basically, even though some important issues are not discussed, the Superior
Court?s transition plan represents a good effort at outlining the steps it
will take to implement a Family Court. While the court has taken important
steps to achieve efficient and effective operations, it still must address
several statutory requirements included in the Family Court Act to achieve
full compliance with the act. In addition, opportunities exist for the court
to adopt other beneficial practices to help ensure it improves the
timeliness of decisions in accordance with ASFA, that judges and magistrate
judges are fully trained, and that case information is readily available to
aid judges and magistrate judges in their decision making. Acknowledging the
complex series of events that must occur in a timely way to achieve optimal
implementation of the family court, the court recognizes that its plan for
obtaining and renovating needed physical space warrants close attention to
reduce the risk of project delays. In addition, the court has initiated
important steps that begin to address many of the shortcomings we identified
in our February 2002 report on its proposed information system. The effect
of these actions will not be known for some time. The court?s actions
reflect its recognition that developing an automated information system for
the Family Court will play a pivotal role in the court?s ability to
implement its improved case management framework. By following through on
the steps it has begun to take and by evaluating its performance over time,
the court may improve its implementation of the Family Court Act and provide
a sound basis for assessing the extent to which it achieves desired outcomes
for children.

To help ensure that the District of Columbia Superior Court complies with
all statutory requirements contained in the District of Columbia Family
Court Act, we recommend that the chief judge of the District of Columbia
Superior Court supplement the court?s transition plan by providing the
following information:

 A determination of the number of nonjudicial staff needed for the Family
Court when the staffing study is complete.  A determination of the number
of individuals identified in the

transition plan to serve on the Family Court that meet the qualifications
for judges on the Family Court.  An analysis of how the Family Court
identified the number of

magistrate judges needed under the expedited appointment procedures.

While not required by the Family Court Act to be included in the Family
Court?s transition plan, the practices of courts in other jurisdictions, if
Conclusions

Recommendations

Page 23 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

fully adopted, could optimize the court?s performance. Toward achieving more
efficient and effective operations, we recommend that the chief judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia consider identifying performance
measures to track progress toward positive outcomes for the children and
families the Family Court serves.

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the chief judge of the
Superior Court. These comments are reproduced in appendix I. The court also
provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated when appropriate.

The Superior Court generally agreed with the findings of our report and
concurred with our recommendations. Regarding our recommendation on the
number of nonjudicial staff needed for the Family Court, the Superior Court
said that the results of the staffing study will be available shortly and
will assist the Family Court in finalizing its staffing request. With regard
to providing a determination of the number of individuals identified in the
plan that meet the qualifications for judges on the Family Court, the
Superior Court said that assignments are based on the judges? expressed
preferences, an evaluation of judicial competencies, and the court?s needs.
The court also said that the chief judge had determined that all 12 Family
Court judges were qualified, either through experience or training, or both,
to serve on the Family Court. Regarding our recommendation that the Superior
Court provide its analysis of how the Family Court identified the number of
magistrate judges needed under the expedited appointment procedures, the
Superior Court provided an explanation that we incorporated in this report.
In commenting on the need to develop a training plan, the court said that it
has developed training programs that are closely aligned with the mission,
goals, and objectives of the Family Court. Therefore, we deleted this
recommendation in our final report. Finally, regarding the development of
outcome measures, the court said that it will include information on child-
related outcomes and agrees that this type of information would contribute
to a greater understanding of how children and families before the court are
faring.

The Superior Court also commented that the presiding judge of the Family
Court, in consultation with the chief judge of the Superior Court, is
responsible for implementation of all aspects of the Family Court Act. In
addition, the court said that, while the court has not yet completed its
development of baseline data for all components of the Family Court, it has
data in two critical areas- case processing times for abuse and neglect
cases prior to the implementation of ASFA and after its implementation.
Agency Comments

And Our Evaluation

Page 24 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

We are sending copies of this report to the Office of Management and Budget,
the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and
the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; and the
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on Government
Reform. We are also sending copies to 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 District of Columbia Courts. 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 acknowledgments are listed in appendix II.

Cornelia M. Ashby Director, Education, Workforce, and

Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 25 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 26 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 27 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 28 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 29 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Appendix I: Comments from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 30 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Appendix II: GAO Contacts And Acknowledgments

Page 31 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

Diana Pietrowiak, (202) 512- 6239, pietrowiakd@ gao. gov Mark E. Ward, (202)
512- 7274, wardm@ gao. gov

The following individuals made important contributions to this report:
Steven J. Berke, Richard Burkard, William Doherty, Nila Garces- Osorio, John
C. Martin, Susan Ragland, James Rebbe, and Norma Samuel. Appendix II: GAO
Contacts And

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

Related GAO Products Page 32 GAO- 02- 584 DC Family Court

DC Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but Some
Challenges Remain. Washington, D. C.: 2002.

DC Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System Acquisition.
Washington, D. C.: 2002.

District of Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial Management System
Implementation. Washington, D. C.: 2001.

District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long- Term Challenges to Ensuring
Children?s Well- Being. Washington, D. C.: 2000.

Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia?s Child Welfare System
Reform Efforts. Washington, D. C.: 2000.

Foster Care: States? Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe
Families Act. Washington, D. C.: 2000.

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

Washington, D. C.: 2000.

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

Washington, D. C.: 1999.

District of Columbia: The District Has Not Adequately Planned for and
Managed Its New Personnel and Payroll System. Washington, D. C.: 1999.

Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Efforts.

Washington, D. C.: 1999.

District of Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for A New Financial
Management System. Washington, D. C.: 1998. Related GAO Products

(130132)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***