D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but  
Some Challenges Remain (24-APR-02, GAO-02-660T).		 
                                                                 
The District of Columbia Family Act of 2001 was enacted to (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 its consideration
of actions and proceedings. GAO found the Superior Court made	 
progress in planning the transition of its Family Division to a  
Family Court, but some challenges remain. The transition requires
the timely completion of a series of interdependent plans to	 
obtain and renovate physical space for the court and its	 
functions. Adequate space may not be available to support the	 
additional judges the Family Court needs. Furthermore, the	 
development of the Integrated Justice Information System will be 
critical for the Family Court's operational effectiveness, its	 
ability to evaluate its performance, and to meet the judicial	 
goals mandated by the Family Court Act. 			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-660T					        
    ACCNO:   A03175						        
  TITLE:     D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned	      
Transition, but Some Challenges Remain				 
     DATE:   04/24/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Courtroom proceedings				 
	     Courts (law)					 
	     Families						 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Judges						 
	     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-02-660T
     
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
Appropriations, U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 9: 30 a. m. DST Wednesday, April 24,
2002 D. C. FAMILY COURT

Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but Some Challenges Remain

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues

GAO- 02- 660T

Page 1 GAO- 02- 660T

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

As a first step in initiating changes to the Family Division, the Family
Court Act required the chief judge of the Superior Court to submit to the
president and the Congress a transition plan outlining the proposed
operation of the Family Court. The Congress also required that the chief
judge submit the transition plan to the U. S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) and that, within 30 calendar days after submission of the plan by the
Superior Court, we submit to the president and the Congress an analysis of
the contents and effectiveness of the plan in meeting the requirements of
the Family Court Act. My testimony is based on our analysis of the
transition plan, including discussions with court and child welfare experts,
1 juvenile and family court judges across the country, and officials from
the District of Columbia Superior Court and the Family Court. To supplement
our analysis of the transition plan, we also asked several court experts to
examine the plan and highlight its strengths and areas that may need more
attention. Our final report will be submitted to the president and the
Congress by May 5, 2002.

In summary, the District of Columbia Superior Court has made progress in
planning the transition of its Family Division to a Family Court, but some
challenges remain. The Superior Court?s transition plan addresses most,

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

Page 2 GAO- 02- 660T

but not all, of the required elements outlined in the act. Significantly,
the completion of the transition hinges on timely completion of a complex
series of interdependent plans intended to obtain and renovate physical
space to house the court and its functions. For example, the plan explains
how the abuse and neglect cases currently being heard by judges in other
divisions of the Superior Court will be closed or transferred to the Family
Court; however, the plan states that the complete transfer of these cases
can only occur if additional judges and magistrates are hired, trained, and
housed in appropriate space. All required space may not be available, as
currently planned, to support the additional judges the Family Court needs
to perform its work in accordance with the act, making it uncertain as to
when the court can fully complete its transition. Finally, the development
and application of the District of Columbia Courts? 2 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 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.

2 The D. C. Courts includes three main entities- the Superior Court, the
Court of Appeals, and the Executive Office- and provides the overall
organizational framework for judicial operations. The Superior Court
contains five components: Civil Division, Criminal Division, Family Court,
Probate Division, and the Tax Division. The Court of Appeals, among other
responsibilities, handles appellate functions referred to it from the
Superior Court. The Executive Office performs various administrative
management functions.

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

Page 3 GAO- 02- 660T

 The chief judge?s determination of the number of magistrates 4 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
magistrates, together with the compensation of and other personnel matters
pertaining to such magistrates.

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

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

 An analysis of the number of magistrates 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

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

Page 4 GAO- 02- 660T

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 magistrates to hear family court
cases. Magistrates 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 magistrates not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of the act. The magistrates 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 requirements. Volume II contains information on the development of
IJIS and its planned applications. Volume III addresses the physical space
the court needs to house and operate the Family Court.

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

Page 5 GAO- 02- 660T

agencies nationwide. 5 ASFA introduced new time periods for moving children
who have been removed from their homes to permanent home arrangements and
penalties for noncompliance. For example, the act requires states to hold a
permanency planning hearing not later than 12 months after the child is
considered to have entered foster care. Permanent placements include the
child?s return home and the child?s adoption.

The Family Court transition plan provides information on most, but not all,
of the elements required by the Family Court Act. 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, 6 and the number and roles of judges and magistrates. 7 However,
the plan does not (1) indicate if the 12 judges who volunteered for the
Family Court meet all of the qualifications outlined in the act, (2) include
a request for judicial nomination, and (3) state how the number of
magistrates to hire under the expedited process was determined. In addition,
the court could consider taking additional actions, such as using a full
range of measures by which the court can evaluate its progress in ensuring
better outcomes for children.

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

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

6 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.

7 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 magistrates are qualified
individuals with expertise and training in family law. These magistrates
will also hear various Family Court cases. Transition Plan

Contains Most, But Not All, Required Elements of the Family Court Act

Page 6 GAO- 02- 660T

The transition plan establishes criteria for transferring cases to the
Family Court and states that the Family Court intends to have all child
abuse and neglect cases pending before judges serving in other divisions of
the Superior Court closed or transferred into the Family Court by June 2003.
According to the plan, the court has asked each Superior Court judge to
review his or her caseload to identify those cases that meet the criteria
established by the court for transferring or not transferring cases. 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 with respect to which the
judge believes transferring the case would delay permanency. The court
expects that older cases will first be reviewed for possible closure and
expects to transfer the entire abuse and neglect caseloads of several judges
serving in other divisions of the Superior Court to the Family Court. Using
the established criteria to review cases, the court estimates that 1,500
cases could be candidates for immediate transfer.

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

The transition plan identifies the way in which the Family Court will
implement the one family/ one judge approach and improve its case management
practices; however, the evaluation measures developed to assess the court?s
progress in reforming its operations could include additional measures that
reflect outcomes for children. 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. This assignment will begin with the initial hearing
by the magistrate 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 said that, given the volume of cases that must be heard, the
team approach can ease the burden on judicial resources by permitting the
magistrate to make 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 7 GAO- 02- 660T

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, magistrates, 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.

In addition, the plan identifies actions the court plans to take to improve
case management. First, the Family Court plans to centralize intake.
According to the plan, a central office will encompass all the functions
that various clerks? offices- such as juvenile, domestic relations,
paternity and support, and mental health- in the Family Court currently
carry out. As part of centralized intake, case coordinators 8 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 18 current
computer systems serving the Family Court. Second, 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. Last, 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- 9 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. For example, 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

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

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

Page 8 GAO- 02- 660T

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.

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 said 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. The plan, however, 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.

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. 10

Furthermore, the plan does not address the qualifications of the 12 judges
who volunteered for the court. Although the plan states that these judges
have agreed to serve full terms of service, according to the act, the chief
judge of the Superior Court may not assign an individual to serve on the
Family Court unless the individual also has training or expertise in family
law and certifies that he or she will participate in the ongoing training
programs conducted for judges of the Family Court.

10 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 is
scheduled to be complete by May 15, 2002. The courts contracted for this
project in response to our report, D. C. Courts: Staffing Level
Determination Could Be More Rigorous, GAO/ GGD- 99- 162, (Washington, D. C.:
Aug. 27, 1999). The Transition Plan

Addresses the Number and Roles of Judicial Officers, But Other Human Capital
Issues Remain Unclear

Page 9 GAO- 02- 660T

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
magistrates. 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 11 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. 12 One court expert has observed that the list of
committees to which the judges are assigned seems overwhelming and added
that strong leadership by the judges could result in the consolidation of
some of the committees? efforts.

The plan also describes the duties of the magistrates, but does not provide
all the information required by the act. Magistrates will be responsible for
initial hearings in new child abuse and neglect cases, and the resolution of
cases assigned to them by the Family Court judge to whose team they are
assigned. They will also be assigned initial hearings in juvenile cases,
noncomplex abuse and neglect trials, and the subsequent review and
permanency hearings, 13 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 magistrates would ease the burden on judicial
resources by permitting these magistrates 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
magistrates to be hired under the expedited process. In addition, while the
act outlines the required qualifications of magistrates, it does not
specifically require a discussion of qualifications of the newly hired

11 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 removal of the child from the home.

12 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.

13 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.

Page 10 GAO- 02- 660T

magistrates in the transition plan. As a result, none was provided and
whether these magistrates meet the qualifications outlined in the act is
unknown.

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, magistrates, and staff covering a
variety of topics and that it will promote and encourage participation in
cross- training. 14 In addition, the plan states new judges and magistrates
will participate in a 2 to 3 week intensive training program, although it
does not provide details on the content of such training for the five
magistrates 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 a September 2000 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. 15 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.

14 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.

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

Page 11 GAO- 02- 660T

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 the development and installation of 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 magistrates. 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 16 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,
magistrates, and staff who will help implement the D. C. Family Court Act.
The court estimates that accommodating these judges, magistrates, and staff
requires an additional 29,700 occupiable square feet, plus an undetermined
amount for security and other amenities. Obtaining this space will require
nonrelated D. C. Courts entities to vacate space to allow

16 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 needs of the courts through 2012. 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 12 GAO- 02- 660T

renovations, as well as require tenants in other buildings to move to house
the staff who have been displaced.

The plan calls for renovations under tight deadlines and all required space
may not be available, as currently planned, to support the additional judges
the Family Court needs to perform its work in accordance with the act,
making it uncertain as to when the court can fully complete its transition.
For example, D. C. Courts recommends that a portion of the John Marshall
level of the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, currently occupied by civil court
functions, be vacated and redesigned for the new courtrooms and court-
related support facilities. Although some space is available on the fourth
floor of the courthouse for the four magistrates 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.

The Family Court act calls for an integrated information technology system
to support the goals it outlines, but a number of factors significantly
increase the risks associated with this effort, as we reported in February
2002. 17 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).

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

Developing the New Information System Critical to Meeting Family Court Goals

Page 13 GAO- 02- 660T

 The requirements 18 contained in a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) lacked
the necessary specificity to ensure that any defects in these requirements
had been reduced to acceptable levels 19 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 D. C. Courts? 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 and stated
their commitment to only go forward with the project when the necessary
actions had been taken to reduce the risks to acceptable levels. In that
report, we made several recommendations designed to reduce the risks
associated with this effort to acceptable levels. In April 2002, we met with
D. C. Courts officials to discuss the actions taken on our recommendations
and found that significant actions have been initiated that, if properly
implemented, will help reduce the risks associated with this effort. For
example, D. C. Courts is

 beginning the work to provide the needed specificity for its system
requirements. This includes soliciting requirements from the users and
ensuring that the requirements are properly sourced (e. g., traced back to
their origin). According to D. C. Courts officials, this work has identified
significant deficiencies in the original requirements that we discussed in
our February 2002 report.

 issuing a Request for Information to obtain additional information on
commercial products that should be considered by the D. C. Courts during its
acquisition efforts. This helps the requirements management

18 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.

19 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 14 GAO- 02- 660T

process by identifying requirements that are not supported by commercial
products so that the 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 courts?
information technology investments are consistent with the requirements of
the Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996 (P. L. 104- 106); 20 and

 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 21 Capability Maturity Model. 22

In addition, D. C. Courts officials told us that they are developing a
separate transition plan that will allow them to use the existing (legacy)
systems should the IJIS project experience delays. We will review the plan

20 D. C. Courts has decided to apply this act to its investments even though
it is not required to do so. The Clinger- Cohen 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.

21 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.

22 Capability Maturity Model SM (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 15 GAO- 02- 660T

once it is made available to us. Although they recognize that maintaining
two systems concurrently is expensive and causes additional resource needs,
such as additional staff and training for them, these officials believe that
they are needed to mitigate the risk associated with any delays in system
implementation.

Although these are positive steps forward, D. C. Courts still faces many
challenges in its efforts to develop an IJIS system that will meet its needs
and fulfill the goals established by the act. Examples of these include:

Ensuring that the systems interfacing with IJIS do not become the weak link:
The act calls for effectively interfacing information technology systems
operated by the District government with IJIS. According to D. C. Courts
officials, at least 14 District systems will need to interface with IJIS.
However, several of our reviews have noted problems in the District?s
ability to develop, acquire, and implement new systems. 23 The District?s
difficulties in effectively managing its information technology investments
could lead to adverse impacts on the IJIS system. For example, the interface
systems may not be able to provide the quality of data necessary to fully
utilize IJIS?s capabilities or provide the necessary data to support IJIS?s
needs. The D. C. Courts will need to ensure that adequate controls and
processes have been implemented to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with these risks.

Effectively implementing the disciplined processes necessary to reduce the
risks associated with IJIS to acceptable levels: The key to having a
disciplined effort is to have disciplined processes in multiple areas. This
is a complex task and will require the D. C. Courts to maintain its
management commitment to implementing the necessary processes. In our
February 2002 report, we highlighted several processes, such as requirements
management, risk management, and testing that appeared critical to the IJIS
effort.

23 For example, see U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia:
Weaknesses in Financial Management System Implementation, GAO- 01- 489,
(Washington, D. C.: April 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.: April 30, 1998).

Page 16 GAO- 02- 660T 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.

Court experts report that effective technological support is critical to
effective family court case management. One expert said that minimal system
functionality should include the identification of parties and their
relationships; the tracking of case processing events through on- line
inquiry; the generation of orders, forms, summons, and notices; and
statistical reports. The State Justice Institute?s report on how courts are
coordinating family cases 24 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. 25 While
anticipating technological enhancements through IJIS, Superior Court
officials stated that the current information systems do not have the
functionality required to implement the Family Court?s one family/ one judge
case management principle.

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, 26 one problem that hindered the implementation of the
District?s financial management system was its difficulty in adequately
training the users.

24 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).

25 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).

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

Page 17 GAO- 02- 660T Avoiding a schedule- driven effort: According to D. C.
Courts officials,

the act establishes ambitious timeframes to convert to a family court.
Although schedules are important, it is critical that the D. C. Courts
follows an event- driven acquisition and development program rather than
adopting a schedule- driven approach. Organizations that are scheduledriven
tend to cut out or inadequately complete activities such as business process
reengineering and requirements analysis. These tasks are frequently not
considered ?important? since many people view ?getting the application in
the hands of the user? as one of the more productive activities. However,
the results of this approach are very predictable. Projects that do not
perform planning and requirements functions well typically have to redo that
work later. However, the costs associated with delaying the critical
planning and requirements activities is anywhere from 10 to 100 times the
cost of doing it correctly in the first place. 27

On the whole, 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. However, the court still
faces key challenges in ensuring that its implementation will occur in a
timely and efficient manner. 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 taken
important steps that begin to address many of the shortcomings we identified
in our February 2002 report on its proposed information system. The court?s
actions reflect their 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. Our final report on the
transition plan may discuss some additional actions the court might take to
further enhance its ability to implement the Family Court Act as required.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.

27 Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Bruce McConnell,
(Microsoft Press). Concluding

Observations

Page 18 GAO- 02- 660T

For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia M. Ashby
at (202) 512- 8403. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
included Diana Pietrowiak, Mark Ward, Nila Garces- Osorio, Steven J. Berke,
Patrick DiBattista, William Doherty, John C. Martin, Susan Ragland, and
Norma Samuel. GAO Contact And

Acknowledgments

Page 19 GAO- 02- 660T

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

(130151)
*** End of document. ***