D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its	 
Transition (06-JAN-04, GAO-04-234).				 
                                                                 
The D.C. Family Court Act (P.L. 107-114) mandated that GAO	 
examine the performance of the D.C. Family Court. GAO addressed  
the following objectives: (1) What procedures were used to make  
judicial appointments to the Family Court and what effect did	 
qualification requirements have on appointment timeframes? (2)	 
How timely was the Family Court in meeting established timeframes
for transferring and resolving abuse and neglect cases, and what 
impact did magistrate judges have on the workload of judges and  
other personnel? (3) What progress has the D.C. Courts made in	 
procuring permanent space? And (4) What progress have the	 
Superior Court and District agencies made in sharing data from	 
their computer systems? To address these objectives, GAO analyzed
court data on its timeliness in resolving cases, reviewed the	 
Family Court Act, applicable District laws, and reports required 
by the act; reviewed documents regarding the Family Court's	 
progress in acquiring permanent space and those related to	 
sharing data from the computer systems of the Superior Court and 
the District; and interviewed relevant District, Superior Court, 
and Family Court officials. In commenting on this report, the	 
Superior Court agreed with our conclusions and cited additional  
progress. The Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and	 
Elders clarified the roles and responsibilities of various	 
District offices.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-234 					        
    ACCNO:   A09048						        
  TITLE:     D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing
Its Transition							 
     DATE:   01/06/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Child abuse					 
	     Computer matching					 
	     Computer networks					 
	     Courts (law)					 
	     Government facilities				 
	     Government job appointments			 
	     Judges						 
	     Legal information systems				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Personnel qualifications				 
	     Timeliness 					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-234

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Committees

January 2004

D.C. FAMILY COURT

             Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its Transition

GAO-04-234

Highlights of GAO-04-234, a report to Congressional Committees

The D.C. Family Court Act (P.L. 107-114) mandated that GAO examine the
performance of the D.C. Family Court. GAO addressed the following
objectives: (1) What procedures were used to make judicial appointments to
the Family Court and what effect did qualification requirements have on
appointment timeframes? (2) How timely was the Family Court in meeting
established timeframes for transferring and resolving abuse and neglect
cases, and what impact did magistrate judges have on the workload of
judges and other personnel? (3) What progress has the D.C. Courts made in
procuring permanent space? (4) What progress have the Superior Court and
District agencies made in sharing data from their computer

January 2004

D.C. FAMILY COURT

Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its Transition

The Superior Court and the District of Columbia used established
procedures to appoint magistrate and associate judges to the Family Court,
but an issue related to qualification requirements and other factors
delayed appointments. One nominee expressed some reluctance to meeting
Family Court training requirements. A second nominee was found to have had
delinquent tax filing issues a few years prior to his nomination. The
Senate Committee charged with approving the nominees determined that these
issues were adequately resolved, but chose to defer their confirmation
until other Superior Court nominees were approved. The Family Court met
its statutory deadlines for transferring cases into the court from other
Superior Court divisions and closed 620, or 19 percent, of these cases
(see table). The court has also decreased the timeframes for resolving
abuse and neglect matters and magistrate judges have played a key role in
handling cases. Several factors, however, such as shortages of substance
abuse treatment services, posed barriers to achieving Family Court goals.

Frequency of Reasons for Closing Abuse and Neglect Cases Transferred to
the Family Court

Reason for case closure Number of cases Percent of cases

Permanency goal achieved

Reunification 210

systems? To address these objectives, GAO analyzed court data on its
timeliness in resolving cases, reviewed the Family Court Act, applicable
District laws, and reports required by the act; reviewed documents
regarding the Family Court's progress in acquiring permanent space and
those related to sharing data from the computer systems of the Superior
Court and the District; and interviewed relevant District, Superior Court,
and Family Court officials.

In commenting on this report, the Superior Court agreed with our
conclusions and cited additional progress. The Deputy Mayor for Children,
Youth, Families, and Elders clarified the roles and responsibilities of
various District offices.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-234.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby at (202)
512-8403 or [email protected].

                           Adoption                        174         28 
                         Guardianship                       52          8 
                            Custody                         42          7 
         Child reached age of majority (21 years old)       79         13 
                      Emancipated childa                    43          7 
           Court case closed/continued for servicesb        15          2 
                        Child deceased                      5           1 
                             Total                         620        100 

Source: D.C. Superior Court.

aAn emancipated child is a youth who know longer wants, or who refuses to
accept, services.

bIncludes cases where the court has reached an agreement with the
District's Child and Family Services Agency to continue the provision of
services after the court case is closed.

To accommodate the operations of the Family Court, D.C. Courts- comprised
of all components of the District's judiciary branch-has made progress in
procuring permanent space for the Family Court. This new space, expected
to be complete in late 2009, will consolidate 76 percent of the Family
Court functions and associated personnel. The Superior Court and the
District of Columbia have made progress in exchanging data from their
respective information systems. In August 2003, the Superior Court
implemented the Integrated Justice Information System, which is used to
manage its cases and exchange data with other agencies. Although the
District has developed a model to enable the exchange of data between
various District agencies and the court, it has not fully resolved several
critical issues we reported in August 2002. The District plans to address
these issues as it incorporates solutions into the plans it is developing
to modernize District agency computer systems.

Contents

     Letter                                                                 1 
                                    Results in Brief                        3 
                                       Background                           6 
                    Court and District Procedures Were Used to Appoint New 
                                                                   Judges, 
                   but Three Issues-One Related to the Qualification       
                         Requirements-Delayed Some Appointments             9 
                 The Court Was Timely in Transferring Cases and Conducting 
                                                                     Other 
              Court Proceedings, but Magistrate Judges' Effect on Reducing 
                               Workloads Has Been Limited                  12 
              Progress Has Been Made in Procuring Permanent Physical Space 
              for Family Court, but the New Space Will Not Consolidate All 
                                    Court Operations                       26 
               Superior Court and the District Are Making Progress toward  
                 Exchanging Data among Their Computer Systems, but the     
                 District Has Not Yet Resolved Several Critical Issues     33 
                                      Conclusions                          42 
                           Agency Comments and Our Evaluation              43 
Appendix I                    Scope and Methodology                     

Appendix II	D.C. Family Court Procurement of Physical Space Planned for
2009

Appendix III Comments from the D.C. Superior Court

Appendix IV	Comments from the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia for
Children, Youth, Families, and Elders

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 59

GAO Contacts 59 Acknowledgments 59

                            Related GAO Products 60

Tables

Table 1: Status of Abuse and Neglect Cases Outside the Family Court as of
October 2003 Table 2: Characteristics of Abuse and Neglect Cases Remaining
Outside the Family Court (Nov. 2003) Table 3: Frequency of Reasons for
Closing Abuse and Neglect Cases Transferred to the Family Court (Oct.
2003) Table 4: Impediments to Permanency by Current Permanency Goal,
January through May 2003

Table 5: Summary of District of Columbia Facilities Master Plan Actions
Required for the Consolidation of the Family Court and Their Impact on
Various Facilities within the Judiciary Square Complex

13 14 15 24

30

Figures

Figure 1: Flow of D.C. Family Court Steps for Managing Child Abuse and
Neglect Cases 17

Figure 2: Median Days to Begin Adjudication Hearings for Children Removed
and Not Removed from Home, January 2001 through May 2003 19

Figure 3: Median Days to Disposition for Children Removed and Not Removed
from Home, January 2001 though May 2003 21

Figure 4: Percent of Cases in Compliance with ASFA's Permanency Hearing
Requirement, March 2001 through September 2002 22

Figure 5: Depiction of the Buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus 28
Figure 6: Simplified Representation of Data Exchanges between the Superior
Court and District Agencies 36 Figure 7: Family Court Floor Plan for the
John Marshall Level of the Moultrie Courthouse 49 Figure 8: Family Court
Floor Plan for the C Street Level of the Moultrie Courthouse 50 Figure 9:
Family Court Floor Plan for the Indiana Avenue Level of the Moultrie
Courthouse 51

Abbreviations

ASFA Adoption and Safe Families Act
CCE Council for Court Excellence
CFSA Child and Family Services Agency
IJIS Integrated Justice Information System
JNC Judicial Nomination Commission
OCTO Office of the Chief Technology Officer
SPIS Safe Passages Information Suite

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

January 6, 2004

Congressional Committees

Child abuse, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, and child support
are some of the issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Family
Court (Family Court). The Family Court, established by the D.C. Family
Court Act of 2001, was created in part to transition the former Family
Division of the D.C. Superior Court into a court solely dedicated to
matters concerning children and families. To assist the court in the
handling of such matters, the Family Court Act authorized the Family Court
to hire associate judges and magistrate judges (formerly hearing
commissioners)1

with expertise in family law; required the court to develop a transition
plan to transfer all family-related cases from other divisions of the
Superior Court into the Family Court and implement various case management
practices to expedite their resolution in accordance with timeframes
established by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997;2
required a plan for space, equipment, and other needs; and required the
Superior Court to integrate its computer system with those of relevant
District of Columbia agencies to share information regarding children and
families.

To monitor the progress of the Family Court, the Congress established
three mandates requiring that we assess various aspects of the court's
progress at different intervals. In response to the first mandate,
requiring that we assess the Superior Court's plan to transition the
Family Division to a Family Court, we reported that the Family Court had
made progress, but faced challenges in acquiring space to house all of its
personnel and developing an automated information system to support its
operations, as well as other challenges.3 In response to the second
mandate, requiring that we evaluate the Mayor of the District of
Columbia's plan to integrate

1In the D.C. Family Court, magistrate judges have authority to preside
over several proceedings, including abuse and neglect, and matters related
to child support orders. Family Court associate judges preside over
matters, such as trials involving juveniles, adoptions, and other
proceedings.

2ASFA establishes specific timeframes for making permanent living
arrangements for children removed from their homes.

3U.S. General Accounting Office, D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions
Should be Taken to Fully Implement Its Transition, GAO-02-584 (Washington,
D.C.: May 2002).

the computer systems of relevant District agencies with the Superior
Court's, we reported that successful implementation of the plan was
contingent on resolving several critical issues, such as ensuring
confidentiality of electronic records and the quality of data exchanged
with the court.4 This report responds to the third mandate and agreements
reached with cognizant congressional offices to address the following four
objectives:

1. 	What procedures were used to make initial judicial appointments to the
Family Court and what effect did qualification requirements have on the
length of time to make appointments of magistrate judges and associate
judges?

2. 	How timely was the Family Court in meeting established timeframes for
transferring and resolving abuse and neglect cases, and what impact did
magistrate judges have on the workload of judges and other court
personnel?

3. 	What progress has the D.C. Courts made in procuring permanent physical
space?

4. 	What progress have the Superior Court and relevant District of
Columbia agencies made in sharing data from their computer systems?5

To answer these questions, we analyzed data provided by the Family Court
on the status of transferred cases and its timeliness in resolving these
and other abuse and neglect cases. We also reviewed the Family Court Act,
applicable District laws, and the Family Court Transition Plan and
subsequent reports required by the act to identify qualification
requirements for judges and prescribed procedures for appointing associate
judges; reviewed documents regarding the Family Court's progress in
acquiring permanent physical space and those related to integrating the
computer systems of the Superior Court and the District;

4U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: More Details Needed
on Plans to Integrate Computer Systems with the Family Court and Use
Federal Funds, GAO-02-948 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2002).

5To fulfill the Family Court Act requirement to integrate the computer
systems of appropriate District of Columbia agencies with the Superior
Court's, the District has embarked on a modernization program to enable
the Family Court and relevant District agencies to access and share data
with each other.

Results in Brief

and interviewed relevant District, Superior Court, and Family Court
officials. In addition, we interviewed child welfare and court experts, as
well as court officials in other jurisdictions, to obtain information on
potential best practices and a perspective on court operations in other
jurisdictions. We focused our review on abuse and neglect cases because of
congressional interest and the former Family Division's past problems in
handling such cases. We conducted our work between April and December 2003
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I provides a more detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology.

Procedures established by the Superior Court and the District of Columbia
were used to appoint judges to the Family Court, but an issue related to
the qualification requirements and two other factors slowed the
appointment of two of the three associate judges sought by the Superior
Court. The procedures included using an internal panel of Superior Court
judges to recommend magistrate judge candidates for appointment by the
Chief Judge of the Superior Court and using the District's Judicial
Nomination Commission (JNC) to recommend associate judge candidates for
nomination by the President. The D.C. Family Court Act, among other
qualification requirements, requires that candidates certify that they
will serve a specified term and participate in training programs
designated by the Family Court before being assigned. The JNC queried
applicants about their ability to meet these requirements prior to
nominating them to the President. However, one applicant-whose name was
forwarded by the President to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs for approval-later expressed reluctance to participate in the
Family Court's training programs during discussions with the Committee. In
addition, though not related to a requirement of the Family Court Act, a
Senate background investigation disclosed that another candidate was
delinquent in filing prior year federal and District tax returns. After
further questioning, the Committee determined that the training and
delinquent tax issues were adequately resolved. According to a Senate
staff member involved in the investigation of the judicial nominees, the
additional time required to investigate these issues, as well as the
Committee's desire to first approve pending Superior Court judicial
nominees for other Superior Court divisions, delayed the Senate approval
of the two Family Court nominees.

The Family Court met established timeframes for transferring cases into
the Family Court and decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and
neglect cases; however, magistrate judges' effect on reducing the workload
of other court officials has been limited. In November 2003, the Superior
Court reported that the vast majority of cases had been transferred from
other divisions of the Superior Court by the statutory deadline of October
2003. According to Family Court officials, the 30 cases remaining outside
the Family Court primarily represent children who would soon become 21 and
no longer be in the care of the Family Court or have mental health or
educational issues that complicate their placement in a permanent home.
Although the presence of additional magistrate judges, primarily hired to
handle cases transferred into the Family Court from other divisions and to
improve the Court's timeliness in handling its cases, has increased the
Family Court's ability to process additional cases in a more timely
manner, court officials said that other factors have also improved the
Court's timeliness. They noted, however, that several factors have
constrained the effect of magistrate judges reducing the workload of other
court personnel. For example, court officials said that shortages in
substance abuse treatment services, housing, and other barriers posed
significant impediments to the timely placement of children in permanent
homes, resulting in cases remaining open for longer periods of time. In
addition, several associate and magistrate judges and other court
officials said that the Family Court has not hired sufficient support
personnel to update automated data, prepare cases for court, and process
court documentation. Similarly, a June 2002 Booz, Allen, and Hamilton
study of the Superior Court's staffing needs found that the Family Court
had the largest staffing shortage of any division in the Superior Court.
According to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, the Superior Court has
hired additional support personnel but will reassess staff needs as it
completes a review of its business processes.

The D.C. Courts, comprised of all components of the District's judiciary
branch, has made progress in procuring permanent space for the Family
Court, but the new space will not consolidate all Family Court operations.
To prepare for construction of the new Family Court, the D.C. Courts
designated space for the exclusive use of the Family Court in the H. Carl
Moultrie I Courthouse and made several interim renovations to provide for
consolidation of Family Court operations. The first phase of the Family
Court construction project, scheduled for completion in July 2004, will
provide the Family Court with many court components, including new judges'
chambers, a family waiting area, and a children's play area. However,
completion of the entire Family Court construction project, scheduled for
late 2009, depends on the renovations of several court

buildings located on the Judiciary Square Campus and coordination with
several regulatory agencies, such as the National Capital Planning
Commission. As currently configured, the new Family Court space will
consolidate 76 percent of the functions and associated personnel of the
Family Court on the John Marshall and C Street levels of the H. Carl
Moultrie I Courthouse. Other Family Court components will be located on
other levels of the Moultrie Courthouse. The current Family Court space
plan is an alternative to a larger plan, which would provide the Family
Court with greater consolidation. The larger plan would replace the
current plan if funding is approved by the Congress.

The Superior Court and the District of Columbia are exchanging some data
and making progress toward developing a broader capability to exchange
data from their respective information systems to comply with the Family
Court Act. In August 2003, the Superior Court began implementing the
Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), which is intended to help
the court better manage its caseload and exchange data with District
agencies. The Superior Court is using IJIS to automate the exchange of
data with District agencies, such as providing the Child and Family
Services Agency and the Office of the Corporation Counsel with information
on the date, time, and location of scheduled court proceedings. The
District's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), responsible for
leading the information technology development for the District's data
exchange effort, has developed a prototype or model to enable the exchange
of data among the police department, social services agencies, and the
court. While the District has made progress toward exchanging data, it has
not yet fully resolved several critical issues we reported in August 2002.
These issues include the need to specify the integration requirements of
the Superior Court and District agencies, and resolve privacy restrictions
and data quality issues among District agencies. OCTO is developing plans
to provide the capability for sharing data to comply with the Family Court
Act and meet the information needs of participating agencies. According to
OCTO's Program Manager, the agency will work to resolve the issues we
raised and incorporate the solutions into its plans.

In commenting on this report, the D.C. Superior Court agreed with our
conclusion that it has made progress in implementing the D.C. Family Court
Act and cited additional progress in other areas required by the D.C.
Family Court Act. In addition, the court clarified its implementation of
one judge/one family and provided additional information on its compliance
with permanency hearing requirements and on its efforts to provide
appropriate space. The court also provided technical clarifications, which
we incorporated when appropriate. The Deputy Mayor for Children,

Background

Youth, Families, and Elders also provided comments, but did not express
agreement or disagreement with the contents of the report. The District
did, however, clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Office of the
Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders and the Office of
the Chief Technology Officer in implementing the Mayor's plan to integrate
the information systems of the District's human services agencies and the
D.C. Superior Court.

The D.C. Family Court Act fundamentally changed the way the Superior
Court's Family Division handled its family cases. To transition the Family
Division into a Family Court, the Family Court Act required that the
Superior Court prepare a transition plan describing such things as the
function of the presiding judge and the number of magistrate judges, the
flow and management of cases, and staffing needs. One of the central
organizing principles for establishing the Family Court was the one
family/one judge case management concept, whereby the same judge handles
all matters related to one family. Judges in other court jurisdictions,
such as Hamilton County Juvenile Court in Cincinnati, Ohio, report that
implementing a one family/one judge approach in their courts facilitated
more efficient and effective court operations and improved compliance with
required timeframes of ASFA. The act re-established the Family Division as
a Family Court, which has jurisdiction over alleged child abuse and
neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, child support, and other
family matters. The act also established specific qualifications for
judges and extended their term requirements and established various case
management practices to improve the Family Court's administration of cases
and proceedings. Additionally, in creating the new position of magistrate
judge (formerly hearing commissioners), the act specified that the
magistrate judges would assist associate judges in deciding how to dispose
of cases and identifying cases that were to be transferred from judges
outside of the Family Court. To assist the Family Court in meeting its
responsibilities, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court determined that
the Family Court needed 15 associate judges and 17 magistrate judges.
Twelve associate judges and 8 magistrate judges initially joined the
Family Court, creating the need to hire 3 additional associate judges and
9 magistrate judges. The act specified that before assigning individuals
to serve as judges in the Family Court, the individuals would certify to
the Chief Judge of the Superior Court that they

intend to serve the full term of service6 and would participate in ongoing
training programs designated by the Family Court on various familyrelated
topics. The act also requires judges to have prior training or expertise
in family law. New associate judges appointed to the Family Court are
required to serve a 5-year term, except for judges who previously served
in the Superior Court, who must serve 3-year terms.7 Magistrate judges are
required to serve a 4-year term. To support implementation of the Family
Court, a total of about $30 million in federal funds was budgeted to fund
the Family Court's transition from fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

In addition to the D.C. Family Court Act, which required that all pending
abuse and neglect cases assigned to judges outside of the Family Court be
transferred to the Family Court by October 2003, other federal and
District laws establish required timeframes for handling abuse and neglect
case proceedings. ASFA requires each child to have a permanency hearing
within 12 months of the child's entry into foster care, defined as the
earlier of the following two dates: (1) the date of the first judicial
finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect or (2)
the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from
the home. The permanency hearing is to decide the goal for where the child
will permanently reside and set a timetable for achieving the goal.
Permanency may be accomplished through reunification with a parent,
adoption, guardianship, or some other permanent placement arrangement. In
addition to ASFA's requirements, District of Columbia law establishes
deadlines for conducting trials to determine the veracity of neglect or
abuse allegations and dispositions to determine the remedy for confirmed
abuse and neglect cases. The deadlines differ depending upon whether
children remain in their homes or are removed from their homes. In
general, if children are not removed from their homes, both the trial and
the disposition must begin within 45 days of the filing of the petition
requesting that the court review an alleged abuse and neglect case. If
children are removed from their homes and placed in foster care, the
statute requires that the trial and disposition begin within 105 days of

6The Family Court Act makes exceptions for the full service term
requirement for senior judges (which include retired judges who provide
assistance to the court), individuals serving as temporary judges, and
judges from other Superior Court divisions serving in the Family Court on
an emergency temporary basis.

7The 3-year term is reduced for associate judges who previously served in
the Family Division by the period of time they served in the Family
Division immediately prior to the enactment of the Family Court Act.

removal from their home. To ensure that abuse and neglect cases are
properly managed, the Council for Court Excellence, at the request of
Congress, evaluates Family Court data on these cases.8

It is important that District social service agencies and the Family Court
receive and share information they need on the children and families they
serve. For example, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) caseworkers
need to know from the court the status of a child's case, when a hearing
is scheduled, and a judge's ruling. The Family Court needs case history
information from caseworkers, such as whether services have been provided
and if there is evidence of abuse or neglect. Recognizing the need to
share such information, the Family Court Act required that the Family
Court and the District government integrate their computer systems to
share essential information. According to District officials, current
plans to exchange information between the Superior Court and District
agencies and among District agencies are estimated to cost about $66
million, of which about $22 million would support initiatives outlined in
the Mayor's plan issued in July 2002.9 According to District officials,
about $36 million of the $66 million would come from capital funds that
are currently available; however, they would need to seek additional
funding for the remaining $30 million. Currently, budget submissions are
being made to the District's Office of Budget and Planning for the fiscal
year 2005 budget. In addition to the $66 million needed to fund District
data exchange efforts, the total cost of the IJIS project to the Superior
Court is expected to be between $20 and $25 million, depending on the
availability of funds for project-related infrastructure improvements and
other project initiatives. Funding for this project is being made
available through the D.C. Courts' capital budget.

The Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders and the eight
District agencies identified in the District of Columbia Family Court Act
or by the Mayor are responsible for defining the program and operational
requirements for data sharing and integration. The Deputy Mayor
established the Children and Youth Program Coordinating Council,
comprising the Directors of the District agencies, the Mayor's Court

8The Council for Court Excellence is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, civic
organization that works to improve the administration of justice in the
local and federal courts and related agencies in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area and in the nation.

9Supporting the Vision: Mayor's Plan to Integrate the District of
Columbia's Social Services Information Systems with the Family Court of
the DC Superior, July 8, 2002.

Liaison, and the D.C. Public Schools, to lead the effort to define the
business and program requirements derived from the Family Court Act and
the Mayor's July 2002 plan to integrate District social services and
related information systems with the information systems of the Family
Court. The planned Safe Passages Information Suite (SPIS) is expected to
link disparate health and human services databases across the District to
provide individual case managers with critical information regarding
cross-agency servicing of children, families, and individuals within the
District's health and human services system. The effort to develop SPIS is
being conducted within a broader project to modernize the District's human
services and related information systems.

OCTO is responsible for leading the technology development and system
deployment necessary to support the District's health and human services
business process requirements. The Child and Family Program Coordinating
Council and affected agencies will have the opportunity to review, adjust,
and subsequently affirm the detailed plans, interim milestones, decision
points, and project phases prepared by OCTO for this development.

Although the Superior Court and the District followed established
procedures to appoint new judges to the Family Court, an issue related to
the qualification requirements and two other factors deferred the
appointment of 2 of the 3 associate judges sought by the Superior Court.
The Superior Court had planned to appoint 3 new associate judges to the
Family Court by May 2003, but as of September 2003, only one nominee had
been appointed. The other two nominees recently received Senate approval
on October 24, 2003, and will likely begin hearing cases by January 2004,
according to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court. According to a Senate
staff member involved in the investigation of judicial nominees, Senate
approval was delayed in part by the additional time required to
investigate issues surrounding the nominees. For example, one of the
nominees was delayed because of further investigation into the nominee's
reluctance to participate in training specified by the Family Court Act.

Court and District Procedures Were Used to Appoint New Judges, but Three
Issues-One Related to the Qualification Requirements- Delayed Some
Appointments

The Superior Court Used The Superior Court followed internal procedures to
appoint the 9 new Internal Procedures to magistrate judges to the Family
Court. The Superior Court used a panel of Appoint Magistrate Judges judges
to recruit, interview, and make recommendations to the chief judge

to fill magistrate judge positions. The judicial panel consisted of 11
active judges selected by the chief judge from different areas throughout
the Superior Court, including the presiding judge of the Family Court. The

Family Court Act established several specific qualification requirements
for magistrate judges. For example, the act required that magistrate
judges have not fewer than 3 years of training or experience in the
practice of family law as a lawyer or judicial officer.

The judicial panel began formally recruiting for magistrate judges in
January 2002 using a variety of recruitment media, including professional
legal organizations, newspapers, and the Superior Court's Web site. To
assist the Superior Court in filling the initial magistrate judge
vacancies, the Family Court Act authorized the court to use expedited
appointment procedures. The panel received 115 applications for the first
5 magistrate judge positions. According to the chair of the judicial
panel, some candidates did not meet the basic qualifications, while others
had qualifications that far exceeded the requirements. The judicial panel
ranked the candidates using a 5-point scale, with 5 representing
outstanding, and interviewed candidates determined to be best qualified.
The panel submitted its recommendations-three names for each vacancy-to
the chief judge using a rank-ordered listing. The chief judge made
selections from the list after obtaining input from judges throughout the
Superior Court who had some knowledge of the candidates' qualifications.

The Superior Court appointed the first 5 magistrate judges in April 2002
in accordance with its Transition Plan. The panel received an additional
15-20 applications for the second vacancy announcement for the 4 remaining
magistrate judge positions and also considered the applications of
interested candidates in the first applicant pool. The Superior Court
appointed the remaining 4 magistrate judges in October 2002 as planned.10

10In October 2003, the Family Court was below its authorized ceiling of 17
magistrate judges because one of the magistrate judges was appointed as an
associate judge in another division of the Superior Court.

The District Used Established Procedures to Appoint Associate Judges, but
A Qualification Related Issue and Two Other Factors Delayed Two
Appointments

The District used procedures established by District laws to appoint
associate judges to the Family Court. In June 2002, the chief judge
requested that the JNC begin the process for appointing 3 additional
associate judges to the Family Court. JNC, comprised of academicians,
legal experts, and other District of Columbia residents, selects and
recommends to the President judicial nominees for the Superior Court and
D.C. Court of Appeals.11 JNC considered 37 applicants for the 3 vacancies,
29 of whom had previously applied for associate judge positions and 8 new
applicants. In considering each applicant, JNC queried applicants about
their ability to meet the qualification requirements outlined in the
Family Court Act, prior to nominating them to the President. In November
2002, JNC forwarded its recommendations-three names for each vacancy-to
the President and in December 2002, the President nominated 3 candidates
to fill the Superior Court vacancies and forwarded their names to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for confirmation. However, one
nominee later expressed reluctance to participate in the Family Court's
training programs during discussions with the committee. The other two
candidates nominated by the President for the Family Court included a
magistrate judge serving in Family Court and an attorney with the D.C.
Public Defender Service, who was found during a Senate background
investigation to have had delinquent federal and District tax filing
issues a few years prior to his nomination, though this was not in
violation of the Family Court Act. After further questioning, the
committee determined that the training and delinquent tax issues were
adequately resolved.

The Senate held a confirmation hearing to consider the three candidates in
June 2003 and approved one of the candidates in July 2003. Following
Senate approval, the candidate was appointed to the Superior Court in
September 2003. However, the Senate delayed confirmation of the two
remaining candidates to allow it to first approve other pending Superior
Court judicial nominees for vacancies in other Superior Court divisions.12
These two candidates were confirmed on October 24, 2003. According to a

11The members of the JNC are appointed by the President, the D.C. Mayor,
the D.C. City Council, the D.C. Bar Association, and the Chief Judge of
the U.S. District Court to serve 6-year terms, except for certain lesser
specified terms. The JNC is responsible for selecting and recommending
judicial nominees to the President for D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court
of Appeals vacancies.

12As mandated by a statutory cap, the Superior Court is limited to the
Chief Judge and 58 associate judges and may not exceed the cap except to
make additional appointments, after meeting certain procedural
requirements, to the Family Court.

The Court Was Timely in Transferring Cases and Conducting Other Court
Proceedings, but Magistrate Judges' Effect on Reducing Workloads Has Been
Limited

Senate staff member, the process for appointing associate judges typically
takes less than 12 months from the time that JNC receives the request to
fill vacancies to the time that the Senate confirms the appointments.
However, because of the additional time required to investigate
outstanding issues and to confirm other Superior Court nominees, the
appointment process for the two remaining candidates will have taken about
18 months by the time the new judges begin hearing cases, scheduled for
January 2004.

The Family Court met established timeframes for transferring cases into
the Family Court and decreased the timeframes for resolving abuse and
neglect cases; however, magistrate judges' effect on reducing the workload
of other court officials has been limited. For example, magistrate judges
have limited authority, which requires the involvement of associate judges
in many cases. The hiring of new magistrate judges has also increased the
need for additional support personnel to update automated data, prepare
cases for court, and process court documentation. As a result, several
associate and magistrate judges and other court officials said the Family
Court does not have sufficient support personnel to manage its caseload
more efficiently. According to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, the
Superior Court hired additional support personnel but will reassess staff
needs as it completes a review of its business processes.

Almost All Cases Have Been Transferred to the Family Court, and Timeframes
for Resolving Pending Case Proceedings Have Decreased

To consolidate all abuse and neglect cases in the Family Court, the D.C.
Family Court Act required that judges in other divisions of the Superior
Court transfer their abuse and neglect cases into the Family Court. While
the act generally required the transfer of abuse and neglect cases by
October 2003, it also permitted judges outside the Family Court to retain
certain abuse and neglect cases provided that their retention of cases met
criteria specified in the Family Court Act. Specifically, these cases were
to remain at all times in full compliance with ASFA, and the Chief Judge
of the Superior Court must determine that the retention of each case would
lead to a child's placement in a permanent home more quickly than if the
case were to be transferred to a judge in the Family Court.

In its October 2003 progress report on the implementation of the Family
Court, the Superior Court reported that it had transferred all abuse and

neglect cases back to the Family Court, with the exception of 34 cases
that remained outside the Family Court, as shown in table 1.13 The Chief
Judge of the Superior Court said that, as of August 2003, a justification
for retaining an abuse and neglect case outside the Family Court had been
provided in all such cases. According to the Superior Court, the principal
reason for retaining abuse and neglect cases outside the Family Court was
a determination made by non-Family Court judges that the cases would close
before December 31, 2002, either because the child would turn 21, and thus
no longer be under court jurisdiction, or because the case would close
with a final adoption, custody, or guardianship decree. In the court's
October 2003 progress report, it stated that the cases remaining outside
the Family Court involve children with emotional or educational
disabilities.

Table 1: Status of Abuse and Neglect Cases Outside the Family Court (Oct.
2003)

                                                       Number of   Percent of 
                                       Status of cases      cases       cases 
              Cases transferred to Family Court judges      3,255 
           Cases retained by judges outside the Family            
                                      Court and closed        182 
           Cases retained by judges outside the Family            
                                  Court and not closed         34 
                                                 Total      3,471         100 

Source: D.C. Superior Court.

While the Superior Court reported that 4 of the 34 abuse and neglect cases
remaining outside the Family Court had closed subsequent to its October
2003 progress report, children in the remaining 30 cases had not yet been
placed in permanent living arrangements. On average, children in these 30
cases are 14 years of age and have been in foster care for 8 years, nearly
three times the average number of years in care for a child in the
District of Columbia. Table 2 provides additional information on the
characteristics of the 30 cases that remain outside the Family Court.

13The Superior Court completed an initial transfer of 1,554 abuse and
neglect cases to the Family Court in June 2002 and began transferring the
additional abuse and neglect cases outside the Family Court in November
2002.

Table 2: Characteristics of Abuse and Neglect Cases Remaining Outside the
Family Court (Nov. 2003)

                              Number of cases  Average age     Average number 
              Permanency goal        (percent)     of child  of years in care 
            aAlternative plan          16 (53)           18 
                     Adoption          11 (37)            9 
                Reunification           3 (10)           16 
          Total for all cases         30 (100)           14 

Source: D.C. Superior Court and GAO analysis.

aAlternative plans include permanency goals other than reunification,
adoption, custody, and guardianship, such as independent living.

The Superior Court also reported that the Family Court had closed 620 of
the 3,255 transferred cases, or 19 percent, as shown in table 3. Among the
transferred cases closed by the Family Court, 77 percent of the 620 cases
closed following reunification of the child with a parent or adoption,
guardianship, or custody of the child by a designated family member or
other individual. In most of the remaining transferred cases that had
closed, the child had reached the age of majority, or 21 years of age in
the District of Columbia.

Table 3: Frequency of Reasons for Closing Abuse and Neglect Cases
Transferred to the Family Court (Oct. 2003)

Number of Percent of Reason for case closure cases cases

                            Permanency goal achieved

Reunification 210

Adoption 174

Guardianship 52

Custody 42

Child reached age of majority (21 years old) 79

Emancipated childa 43

Court case closed/continued for CFSA
services b 15

Child deceased 5

                                 Total 620 100

Source: D.C. Superior Court.

aAn emancipated child is a youth who no longer wants, or who refuses to
accept, services.

bIncludes cases where the court has reached an agreement with CFSA to
continue the provision of services after the court case is closed.

In addition to transferring cases to the Family Court, the Family Court is
responsible for the routine handling of all newly filed cases. For alleged
cases of abuse and neglect, complainants file a petition with the Family
Court requesting a review of the allegation. After the filing of the
petition, the Family Court holds an initial hearing in which it hears and
rules on the allegation. Following the initial hearing, the court may
resolve the case through mediation or through a pretrial hearing.14
Depending on the course of action that is taken and its outcome, several
different court proceedings may follow to achieve permanency for children,
thereby terminating the court's jurisdiction. Family Court abuse and
neglect proceedings include several key activities, such as adjudication,
disposition,15 and permanency hearings. ASFA requires that a permanency
hearing be held within 12

14Mediation procedures, involving judges, family members, attorneys, and
others, attempt to mitigate alleged matters of abuse and neglect cases
before conducting subsequent court proceedings. The court conducts
periodic review hearings on the status of abuse and neglect cases.

15Adjudication hearings determine whether allegations of abuse or neglect
are sustained by the evidence and disposition hearings establish where a
child will be placed.

months of a child's placement in foster care.16 The objective of a
permanency hearing is to establish a permanency goal for the child, such
as adoption or reunification with a parent, and to establish a time for
achieving the specified permanency goal. Figure 1 depicts the flow of
abuse and neglect cases through the various case activities handled by the
D.C. Family Court.

16Similarly, the District requires that permanency hearings be held within
12 months of a child's placement in foster care.

Figure 1: Flow of D.C. Family Court Steps for Managing Child Abuse and
Neglect Cases

                          Source: D.C. Superior Court.

Data provided by the court show that in the last 2 years there has been a
decrease in the amount of time to begin an adjudication hearing17 for
children in abuse and neglect cases. Figure 2 shows median times to begin
hearings for children removed from their homes and for children not
removed from their home. As required by District law, the court must begin
the hearing within 105 days for children removed from their home and
placed in foster care and within 45 days for children not removed from
their home. Between 2001 and 2003, the median time to begin adjudication
hearings in cases when a child was removed from home declined by 140 days
to 28 days, or about 83 percent. Similarly, the decline in timeframes to
begin the hearings was about as large in cases when children remained in
their home. In these cases, median timeframes declined by about 90 percent
during this same period to 12 days. In both cases, the Superior Court is
beginning the hearings within D.C. law requirements. While the reduction
in timeframes for these hearings began prior to the establishment of the
Family Court, median days to begin hearings for children removed from
their home increased immediately following the court's establishment
before declining again in more recent months. According to two magistrate
judges, the increase in timeframes immediately following establishment of
the Family Court for children removed from their homes was attributable to
the complexity of cases initially transferred to it.

17These hearings are also known as trials/stipulations.

Figure 2: Median Days to Begin Adjudication Hearings for Children Removed
and Not Removed from Home, January 2001 through May 2003

Children removed

Median days

1/01 8/01 3/02 11/02

Timeframe

                          Source: D.C. Superior Court.

                              Children not removed

Median days 25

0 1/01 8/01 3/02 11/02 5/03

Timeframe

                          Source: D.C. Superior Court.

Similarly, timeframes to begin disposition hearings, a proceeding that
occurs after the adjudication hearing and prior to permanency hearings,
declined between 2001 and 2003, as shown in figure 3. As required by
District law, the court must begin disposition hearings within 105 days
for children removed from their home and within 45 days for children not
removed from their home. The median days to begin disposition hearings for
children removed from their home declined by 202 days to 39 days, or about
84 percent, between 2001 and 2003. The median days to begin disposition
hearings for children not removed from their home declined by 159 days to
42 days, or about 79 percent. Therefore, the Superior Court is also within
the timeframes required by D.C. law for these hearings. While the decline
in the timeframes for disposition hearings began prior to the Family
Court, according to two magistrate judges we interviewed the time required
to begin these hearings increased in the 7-month period following the
establishment of the Family Court because of the complexity of these
cases.

Figure 3: Median Days to Disposition for Children Removed and Not Removed
from Home, January 2001 though May 2003

Children removed

Median days

1/01 8/01 3/02 11/02

Timeframe

                          Source: D.C. Superior Court.

                              Children not removed

Median days 50

25 Establishment of Family Court

0 1/01 8/01 3/02 11/02 5/03 Timeframe

Source: D.C. Superior Court.

Despite declines in timeframes to begin adjudication and disposition
hearings, the Family Court has not yet achieved full compliance with
ASFA's requirement to hold permanency hearings within 12 months of a
child's placement in foster care. The percentage of cases with timely
permanency hearings increased from 25 percent in March 2001 to 55 percent
in September 2002, as shown in figure 4.18

Figure 4: Percent of Cases in Compliance with ASFA's Permanency Hearing
Requirement, March 2001 through September 2002

                         Percent of cases in compliance

3/01 9/01 3/02

Source: Council for Court Excellence.

Note: These data on ASFA compliance apply to cases filed in 2000 and 2001
for which 12 months had expired since the time the child was placed in
foster care.

Several factors affected the timeliness of Family Court permanency
hearings. Factors that contributed to the decrease in the time required to
conduct these hearings included reminders to judges of upcoming permanency
hearing deadlines and the use of uniform court order forms. In addition,
the Council for Court Excellence (CCE) reported that higher rates of
compliance with timely permanency hearing deadlines should

18In commenting on a draft of this report, the Superior Court reported an
84 percent compliance rate with the ASFA permanency hearing requirement
for cases filed between January and June 2002. However, we did not use
this court-reported data in reporting the court's compliance with ASFA
because neither GAO nor CCE had verified the data. In reporting the
information in figure 4, CCE verified automated case data with information
contained in the paper case file.

result from the use of uniform court orders. However, other factors
continue to impede the Family Court's full achievement of ASFA compliance.
Some D.C. Family Court judges have questioned the adequacy of ASFA's
timelines for permanency, citing barriers external to the court, which
increase the time required to achieve permanency.

These barriers include lengthy waits for housing, which might take up to a
year, and the need for parents to receive mental health services or
substance abuse treatment before they can reunite with the child. For
example, from January through May 2003, Family Court judges reported that
parental disabilities, including emotional impairments and treatment
needs, most often impeded children's reunification with their parents. In
nearly half of these reported instances, the parent needed substance abuse
treatment. Procedural impediments to achieving reunification included the
lack of sufficient housing to fully accommodate the needs of the reunified
family. Regarding adoption and guardianship, procedural impediments
included the need to complete administrative requirements associated with
placing children with adoptive families in locations other than the
District of Columbia. Financial impediments to permanency included
insufficient adoption or guardianship subsidies. Table 4 provides
additional details on impediments to achieving permanency goals.

Table 4: Impediments to Permanency by Current Permanency Goal, January
through May 2003

Current permanency goal (percent of hearings in which barrier impeded
permanency)a

 Barriers to                                              Alternative  Goal not  
 permanency   Reunification Adoption Guardianship Custody       planb designated    Total 
                                                                                 hearings 
 Permanency                                                                      
options            8 (1)   19 (1)        3 (0)   0 (0)    101 (10)      2 (4)  133 (3) 
  declined                                                                       
Disabilities       340 (24) 313 (19)      96 (11)  8 (11)    409 (39)    12 (23)    1,178 
(child)                                                                           (23) 
Disabilities                                                                     
  (parent/                                                                       
 caretaker)        531 (37)   36 (2)       54 (6)  8 (11)      19 (2)      4 (8) 652 (13) 
 Procedural                                                                      
 impediments       205 (14) 824 (51)     456 (52) 45 (59)      12 (1)    15 (28)    1,557 
                                                                                     (30) 
Agency                                                                        
 impediments         32 (2) 193 (12)       57 (7)  8 (11)      28 (3)      1 (2)  319 (6) 
  Financial                                                                      
 impediments          1 (0)   78 (5)      91 (10)   0 (0)       0 (0)      3 (6)  173 (3) 
    Legal            19 (1)   14 (1)       12 (1)    3(4)      23 (2)      1 (2)   72 (1) 
 impediments                                                                     
    Other                                                                        
circumstances      305 (21)  148 (9)     107 (12)   4 (5)    466 (44)    15 (28)    1,045 
                                                                                     (20) 
Totalc                   1,625                   76                              5,129 
                 1,441(100) (100)        876 (99)  (101)  1,058 (101)  53 (101)      (99) 

Source: D.C. Superior Court.

aAssociate and magistrate judges reported barriers to specified permanency
goals using a questionnaire distributed by the Family Court. Judges
reported information on barriers to permanency in 74 percent of the
hearings held between January and May 2003.

bAlternative plans include permanency goals other than reunification,
adoption, custody, and guardianship, such as independent living.

cAll percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding error.

Associate judges we interviewed cited additional factors that impeded the
achievement of the appropriate foster care placements and timely
permanency goals. For example, one judge said that the District's Youth
Services Administration inappropriately placed a 16-year old boy in the
juvenile justice facility because CFSA had not previously petitioned a
neglect case before the Family Court. As a result, the child experienced a
less appropriate and more injurious placement in a juvenile justice
facility than what the child would have experienced had he been
appropriately placed in foster care. In other cases, an associate judge
has had to mediate disputes among District agencies that did not agree
with court orders to pay for services for abused and neglected children,
further complicating and delaying the process for providing needed
services and achieving established permanency goals.

Magistrate Judges Increased the Court's Ability to Process Cases, but
Several Factors Limited the Gains Achieved

To assist the Family Court in its management of abuse and neglect cases,
the Family Court transition plan required magistrate judges to preside
over abuse and neglect cases transferred from judges in other divisions of
the Superior Court, and these judges absorbed a large number of those
cases. In addition, magistrate judges, teamed with associate judges under
the one family/one judge concept, had responsibility for assisting the
Family Court in resolving all new abuse and neglect cases. Both associate
and magistrate judges cited factors that have limited the court's ability
to fully implement the one family/one judge concept and achieve the
potential efficiency and effectiveness that could have resulted. For
example, the court's identification of all cases involving the same child
depends on access to complete, timely, and accurate data in IJIS. In
addition, Family Court judges said that improvements in the timeliness of
the court's proceedings depends, in part, on the continuous assignment of
the same caseworker from CFSA to a case and sufficient support of an
assigned assistant corporation counsel from the District's Office of
Corporation Counsel. Family Court judges said the lack of consistent
support from a designated CFSA caseworker and lack of assistant
corporation counsels, has in certain cases prolonged the time required to
conduct court proceedings. In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Superior Court indicated that the one family/one judge concept does not
apply to all proceedings, and as a result multiple judges may preside over
cases involving the same child and family. After consultations with Family
Court stakeholders, the court chose to apply the concept to juvenile cases
only after adjudication of the case. Therefore, in all instances, a
different associate or magistrate judge handles the adjudication phase of
a juvenile case from the one responsible for all other cases related to
the same child and family.

In addition, several judges and court officials told us that they do not
have sufficient support personnel to allow the Family Court to manage its
caseload more efficiently. For example, additional courtroom clerks and
court aids could improve case flow and management in the Family Court.
These personnel are needed to update automated data, prepare cases for the
court, and process court documentation. Under contract with the Superior
Court, Booz, Allen, and Hamilton analyzed the Superior Court's staffing
resources and needs; this evaluation19 found that the former Family
Division, now designated as the Family Court, had the highest need

19District of Columbia Courts: Phase I Final Report, Booz, Allen, and
Hamilton (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002).

for additional full-time positions to conduct its work. Specifically, the
analysis found that the Family Court had 154 of the 175 full-time
positions needed, or a shortfall of about 12 percent. Two
branches-juvenile and neglect and domestic relations-had most of the
identified shortfall in fulltime positions. In commenting on a draft of
this report, the Superior Court stated that the Family Court, subsequent
to enactment of the D.C. Family Court Act, hired additional judges and
support personnel in excess of the number identified as needed in the
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton study to meet the needs of the newly established
Family Court. However, several branch chiefs and supervisors we
interviewed said the Family Court still needs additional support personnel
to better manage its caseload.

The Superior Court has decided to conduct strategic planning efforts and
re-engineer business processes in the various divisions prior to making
the commitment to hire additional support personnel. According to the
Chief Judge of the Superior Court, intervening activities, such as the
initial implementation of IJIS and anticipated changes in the procurement
of permanent physical space for the Family Court, have necessitated a
reassessment of how the court performs its work and the related impact of
its operations on needed staffing. In September 2003, the Superior Court
entered into another contract with Booz, Allen, and Hamilton to reassess
resource needs in light of the implementation of the D.C. Family Court
Act.

The D.C. Courts, comprising all components of the District's judiciary
branch, has made progress in procuring permanent space for the Family
Court, but all Family Court operations will not be consolidated under the
current plan. To prepare for the new Family Court space, D.C. Courts
designated and redesigned space for the Family Court, constructed interim
chambers for the new magistrate judges and their staff, and relocated
certain non-Family Court-related components in other buildings, among
other actions. The first phase of the Family Court construction project,
scheduled for completion in July 2004, will provide new judges' chambers,
a family waiting area, and many other components the court needs to serve
the public. However, completion of the entire Family Court construction
project, scheduled for late 2009, will require the timely completion of
renovations in several court buildings located on the Judiciary Square
Campus and coordination with several regulatory agencies. While many of
the Family Court operations will be consolidated in the new space, several
court functions will remain in other areas. The current Family Court
construction plan is an alternative to a larger plan for which the D.C.
Courts has requested $6 million for fiscal year 2005 to

Progress Has Been Made in Procuring Permanent Physical Space for Family
Court, but the New Space Will Not Consolidate All Court Operations

design Family Court space and $57 million for fiscal year 2006 to
construct court facilities. In the longer term, D.C. Courts is pursuing
this larger-scale plan in order to fully consolidate all Family Court and
related operations in one location.

D.C. Courts Has Designated Permanent Space for the Family Court and Has
Undertaken Several Interim Actions and Renovations to Prepare for the New
Family Court Space

D.C. Courts has designated the John Marshall (JM) level of the H. Carl
Moultrie I Courthouse (Moultrie Courthouse) as the base for the new Family
Court. The new court will consolidate many of the existing Family Court
operations currently spread among various levels of the Moultrie
Courthouse, on the JM, C Street, and Indiana Avenue levels of the
courthouse, and provide new facilities to create greater efficiency in
court operations and a more family friendly environment. The Family Court
construction project is part of the overall Judiciary Square Master Plan
intended to provide for the current and long-term space needs of D.C.
Courts located in buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus, including the
Moultrie Courthouse. Figure 5 provides a depiction of the buildings on the
Judiciary Square Campus.

Figure 5: Depiction of the Buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus

    Source: Metropolitan Architects & Planners, Inc. and Gruzen Samton, LLP,
 Alexandria, Virginia, District of Columbia Courts, Master Plan for Facilities,
                                (December 2002).

Consolidating Family Court operations primarily on the JM and the C Street
levels of the Moultrie Courthouse is scheduled to begin in December 2003
and is estimated to be completed by 2009. The project will

also provide space for some Family Court operations on the Indiana Avenue
level. The timely completion of the project will depend on timely
renovations and upgrades of existing buildings on the Judiciary Square
Campus and coordination with multiple regulatory authorities, such as the
National Capital Planning Commission.

To prepare for the new Family Court, the courts completed a number of
interim actions. For example, in March 2002, the courts completed
construction of chambers for the full complement of new magistrate judges
and their staff. Also in October 2002, the Courts completed renovations in
Building B to provide temporary hearing rooms for 4 of the new magistrate
judges and to renovate space for the Social Services Division,20 already
located in Building B, which includes counseling, educational, and other
services for families. In addition, in October 2003, the courts completed
additional renovations to Building B to relocate the Landlord and Tenant
and Small Claims Courts from the JM level.

The first phase of the Family Court construction project, scheduled for
completion in July 2004, will consolidate Family Court support services,
and provide additional courtrooms, hearing rooms, and judges' chambers. In
addition, the project will provide an expanded Mayor's Liaison Office,
which coordinates Family Court services for families and provides families
with information on such services, and a new family waiting area, among
other facilities. Further actions required to complete the Family Court
consolidation project, scheduled for 2009, will require the movement of
several non-Family Court-related functions presently located on the JM and
C Street levels to other levels of the Moultrie Courthouse or to other
buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus. Table 5 provides a summary of
the various actions required to complete the Family Court consolidation
project and their impact on various facilities within the Judiciary Square
Complex. For example, as shown in table 5, the Superior Court's
Information Technology Division, currently located on the C Street level,
will be relocated to Building C to allow for further consolidation of
various Social Service functions and other Family Court operations on that
level.

20This Social Services Division was relocated to provide construction
space on the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse and will later be
relocated back to the courthouse.

Table 5: Summary of District of Columbia Facilities Master Plan Actions
Required for the Consolidation of the Family Court and Their Impact on
Various Facilities within the Judiciary Square Complex

                  Estimated    Building                                
                  construction                                         
                                         Other         C street        
        D.C.                             levels                        
     Facilities                            of          level of Leased 
       Master       Completion                                         
        Plan       Start Date  A B C D  Moultrie  JM   Moultrie space  aAnnex 
                      Date                       level                 
    Reconfigure                                                        
    4th Floor of   Completed                                           
      Moultrie       March                                             
Courthouse to                                                       
     house new        2002                                             
     magistrate                                                        
     judges and                                                        
    their staff                                                        
      Renovate                                                         
Building B to   Completed                                           
      provide       October                                            
     temporary                                                         
hearing rooms      2002                                             
    for four of                                                        
the magistrate                                                      
       judges                                                          
      Renovate                                                         
Building B to   Completed                                           
    provide for     October                                            
      interim                                                          
consolidation      2002                                             
     of Social                                                         
      Services                                                         
      Division                                                         
      Relocate                    +                -                   
    Landlord and   Completed                                           
     Tenant and     November                                           
    Small Claims                                                       
     Courts to        2003                                             
    Building Bb                                                        
      Renovate      12/2003                                            
     partial JM     07/2004                                            
      Level of                                                         
      Moultrie                                                         
    Courthouse c                                                       
      Relocate      03/2004       -                               +    
Administrative   05/2004                                            
    Services to                                                        
    leased space                                                       

Relocate Probate, Multi-        06/2004      03/2005   +         -     - 
Door Functions and two                                             
hearing rooms from                                                 
Moultrie Courthouse to                                             
Building Ad                                                        

Relocate Juvenile 10/2004 08/2005 -+ Holding to Annex

Expand, Renovate the         10/2004     03/2007         +    - 
Old Courthouse (Building                                   
D) to relocate DC Court                                    
of Appeals                                                 

Modify C Street Cafeteria 10/2004 06/2005
Space for Social
Servicesc

Relocate civil functions 05/2005      09/2005              +     -   
and hearing rooms from                                               
JM Level                                                             
Relocate US Attorneys to 08/2005      11/2005        +                   - 
Building B                                                           

    Estimated construction Building                                    
                                      Other            C street        
D.C. Facilities Master           levels of          level of Leased 
         Completion                                                    
    Plan Start Date Date   A B C D  Moultrie  JM level Moultrie space  aAnnex 
      Relocate selected                 -        +                     
Family 12/2005 04/2006                                              
    Court functions to JM                                              
            Level                                                      
Relocate Social Service    -                           +            
       03/2006 06/2006                                                 
    Elements to former US                                              
     Attorneys C Street                                                
            Space                                                      
Relocate Social Service    -         +                              
       02/2007 05/2007                                                 
Elements from Building                                              
              B                                                        
      to 4th Floor East                                                
Relocate Chambers from                        -                     
       02/2007 05/2007                  +                              
     JM to 6th Floor and                                               
            build                                                      
     three New Chambers                                                

Relocate Counsel for          07/2007       02/2008             -      + 
Child Abuse and Neglect                                           
on JM and Renovate 4th                                            
Floor                                                             

Relocate Marriage            07/2007     09/2007                      
cBureau on 4th Floor                                                  
Relocate Family Court        07/2007     10/2007                      
Immediate Office on 4th                                               
Floor c                                                               
Relocate Social Services     11/2007     02/2008         -        +   
Immediate Office from                                                 
Building B to 4th Floor                                               
South                                                                 
Relocate the Information     08/2007     06/2008           +             - 
Technology Division and                                               
Multi-Door to Building C                                              

Relocate Central                  08/2008    02/2009          -          + 
Reporting and                                                      
Administrative Services                                            
to C Street                                                        

Relocate three Hearing 03/2009 11/2009 -+
Rooms From Building B
to Moultrie 2nd Floor

Relocate Remaining             03/2009       11/2009       -             + 
Social Services to C                                               
Street and Build Lawyers                                           
Lounge                                                             

Source: D.C. Superior Court. (+) Indicates the facility where the unit
will be relocated. ( -) Indicates the facility from which the unit will be
relocated.

aThe Annex is comprised of two levels on the JM and the C Street levels of
the Moultrie Courthouse located in the northeast quadrant of the building.
Juvenile Holding is currently located in the northwest quadrant of the JM
level.

bSupport functions for the Small Claims Court still occupy the JM level of
the Moultrie Courthouse, but will later be moved to the 5th floor of the
Courthouse when Probate, currently located on the 5th floor, moves to
Building A in June 2004.

cAction does not require movement to another level of Moultrie Courthouse
or another building.

dProbate will be temporarily relocated to swing space until major
renovations are completed for Building A.

Because of the historic nature of Buildings A, B, C, and D, which will
require significant repairs and renovations, the Superior Court must
obtain necessary approvals for exterior modifications from various
regulatory authorities, including the National Capital Planning
Commission. In addition, some actions may require environmental
assessments and their related formal review process.

The New Family Court Space Will Not Provide for Consolidation of All Court
Operations

While the new Family Court space will consolidate many of the existing
Family Court operations dispersed among various levels of the Moultrie
Courthouse on the JM, C Street, and Indiana Avenue levels of the Moultrie
Courthouse, some Family Court operations will not be included. As
currently configured, the new Family Court space will consolidate 76
percent of the functions and associated personnel for the Family Court.
Some of the Family Court operations that will remain outside the new space
include the Juvenile Intake and Diagnostic Branch, which processes
juveniles into the Family Court and assesses their character and needs,
and some judges chambers. Appendix II provides additional details on the
final configuration of the Family Court that the D.C. Courts plans to
complete in 2009. The current Family Court space plan is an alternative to
a larger Family Court space plan that would provide for greater
consolidation of Family Court operations. The D.C. Courts has requested
$57 million in its fiscal year 2006 capital budget to construct an
addition to the C Street level of the Moultrie Courthouse to provide
additional square footage to accommodate Family Court operations. If the
D.C. Courts does not receive funding for the larger Family Court space
plan, it will continue with the current alternative plan.

Superior Court and the District Are Making Progress toward Exchanging Data
among Their Computer Systems, but the District Has Not Yet Resolved
Several Critical Issues

The Superior Court and the District of Columbia are exchanging some data
and making progress toward developing a broader capability to share data
among their respective information systems. In August 2003, the Superior
Court began using the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), which
is intended to help the Superior Court better manage its caseload and
share data with District agencies. The District has expanded and further
evolved the Mayor's plan to integrate the information systems of eight
District agencies with the Superior Court.21 The expanded effort, called
the Human Service Modernization Program, is expected to enable the
exchange of data among the police department, social services agencies,
and the court. While the District has made progress, it has not yet fully
addressed or resolved several critical issues we reported in August 2002.
The District is preparing plans and expects to begin developing a data
sharing capability and data warehouses22 to enable data sharing among the
Child and Family Services Agency, Department of Human Services' Youth
Services Administration, Department of Mental Health, and the Superior
Court in 2004. According to the Program Manager, OCTO will work to resolve
the issues we raised in our August 2002 report and incorporate the
solutions into its plans.

The Superior Court Has Begun Using a New Computer System to Manage Its
Cases and Provide for Some Data Exchanges

The Superior Court has been implementing IJIS to help manage its caseload
and share data with District agencies. In August 2003, the Superior Court
launched the first phase of IJIS using a commercially available case
management system. The first phase of the implementation was rolled out to
300 court users in the Juvenile and Neglect Branch of the Family Court, as
well as the Social Service Division and part of the Multi-Door Dispute
Resolution Division23 of the Superior Court. In the next phase, planned
for November 2003, the Superior Court plans to expand IJIS to the
remaining components of the Family Court and some other court users. This
would include implementing IJIS in the Family Court's

21The Family Court Act lists six District offices that the Mayor's plan
was to address regarding accessing and sharing information on individuals
and families served by the Family Court: the D.C. Public Schools, D.C.
Housing Authority, Child and Family Services Agency, Office of the
Corporation Counsel, Metropolitan Police Department, and Department of
Health. In addition, the Mayor determined that the plan should address the
Department of Human Services and Department of Mental Health.

22A data warehouse is a collection of data from many different databases.

23The Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division administers the Small Claims
Mediation Program, Family Mediation Program, Civil Dispute Resolution
Program, and Community Family Information and Referral Center.

Domestic Relations, Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Paternity and
Child Support, and Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect branches and
Superior Court's Domestic Violence Division and additional users in the
Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division. Future phases involve the planned
implementation of the system in the Superior Court's Probate and Civil
Divisions in 2004 and the Criminal Division in 2005. IJIS is intended to
be Superior Court's primary case and information management system.

According to D.C. Courts' Director of Information Technology, the
implementation of IJIS provides new capabilities, such as the ability to
schedule events, record results of proceedings and document participants,
print orders, and create dockets in the courtroom. Superior Court
employees also have the capability to search all related cases for
individuals to determine what other issues the court should be aware of
during proceedings.

While the first phase of IJIS is being implemented and further adapted for
its use, the court has exchanged data with District agencies using IJIS
and the existing District of Columbia Justice Information System.24 This
includes exchanges of data to help meet information needs until the final
data exchange capability with District agencies is developed and
implemented. These exchanges include sharing with CFSA and the Office of
Corporation Counsel calendar information, which identifies the date, time,
and location of scheduled court proceedings. Other data exchanges include
general case information, drug testing orders and results, and placement
recommendations. In addition, CFSA staff stationed at the Superior Court
have been electronically scanning court orders directly into the agency's
FACES information system.25 In discussing data exchanges, the Director of
Information Technology, D.C. Courts, noted that the court is becoming
concerned about its ability to continue funding some of the interim data
exchanges it has developed. The Director said they will be meeting with
the D.C. Chief Financial Officer to discuss how to share the funding
required for these data exchanges.

In the second phase of IJIS, the court will require District agencies to
provide information for its new system. The court has been discussing its

24An information system that allows 13 participating criminal justice
agencies in Washington, D.C., to access and contribute data for the
benefit of the D.C. justice community. This system is commonly known as
JUSTIS.

25FACES is the Child and Family Services Agency's case management system.

data requirements with District agencies and OCTO. According to the D.C.
Courts' Director of Information Technology, during these meetings,
requirements are defined based on documents currently exchanged, users
requirements for additional information, and an overall understanding of
the business processes that each agency uses.

District Continues to Plan for Data Exchanges with the Family Court, but
Has Not Yet Addressed Key Concerns to Ensure Successful Results

The District of Columbia has been seeking to develop capabilities and
evolve plans to integrate District agencies' information systems with the
Superior Court. While the ultimate form of integration has not yet been
completely defined, integration over the next several years is expected to
occur primarily through the exchange of data using new capabilities. OCTO
has been developing a prototype to provide the capability to exchange data
among District law enforcement and social services agencies and the
Superior Court. This capability is expected to provide the interconnection
of systems through enterprise application integration software26 and data
warehouses, thus eliminating many of the current technical barriers to
data exchange. Combined with a citywide Internet portal, OCTO officials
expect that users in various District agencies and the Superior Court will
be able to access data that they are authorized to view. According to the
OCTO Program Manager, with the implementation of the enterprise
application integration software, data will be (1) readily transformable
into formats required by the Superior Court or any participating District
agency and (2) available as required by the Superior Court.

The planning and development of the prototype are part of a broader
program to modernize the District's human services agencies' IT
capabilities and improve business processes to better serve clients.27
OCTO plans to continue analyzing and designing the prototype through 2003
and begin developing full capabilities in 2004 for the District's Child
and Family Services Agency, Youth Services Administration, Department of
Mental Health, Courts, and Office of the Corporation Counsel. OCTO
officials expect that full data exchange capabilities for other agencies
will be accomplished between 2004 and 2006, when the data exchange
capabilities are expected to be complete. Figure 6 shows a simplified view

26A commercial software product that uses a type of software called
middleware to permit two or more incompatible systems to exchange data
from different databases.

27The program is known as the District of Columbia Human Services
Modernization Program.

of District agencies and the Superior Court exchanging data to meet their
needs and fulfill the data-sharing mandate of the D.C. Family Court Act.

Figure 6: Simplified Representation of Data Exchanges between the Superior Court

and District Agencies

                                  Data stores

                                  and linkages

                                  to District

                                    agencies

                                  information
                         Data flows systems. Data flows

                                   Security,

                                  access, and

                                 privacy rules

                                  govern right

                                  of entry and

                                      use.

Source: GAO analysis.

aDistrict agencies identified in the D.C. Family Court Act.

bDistrict agencies included at the discretion of the Mayor.

Superior Court

The District has made progress on defining and designing a data exchange
solution to meet the needs of District agencies and the Superior Court,
and OCTO is preparing an overall program plan and detailed project plans
to develop and implement the solution. The OCTO Program Manager expects
the have the plans prepared by December 2003. According to the Deputy
Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders, affected District
agencies will have the opportunity to review, adjust, and subsequently
affirm the detailed plans, interim milestones, decision points, and
project phases prepared by OCTO for this development. It is expected that
final plans for upcoming phases will be confirmed later in the spring of
2004.

While the District is making progress toward exchanging data, it has not
yet fully resolved several key issues we reported in August 2002. In that
report, we stated that the Mayor's plan contained useful information, but
did not contain important elements that are critical to assessing the
adequacy of the District's strategy. These elements were: establishing
project milestones for completing activities, defining how and to what
extent the District will integrate the systems of the six specific offices
covered by the Family Court Act and the two offices added by the Mayor,
defining details on the type of data the District will be providing to the
Family Court and how this will be achieved, and defining how the District
will achieve the Mayor's integration priorities. These elements are also
necessary to plan, develop, acquire, and implement the software, hardware,
and communications resources that are required to meet the information and
information processing needs of the Family Court and participating
District agencies. As noted below, the OCTO Program Manager said that the
District would address these key elements and incorporate them into its
plans.

In discussing how the District is addressing these issues, the OCTO
Program Manager provided the following information:

o  	Establishing project milestones for completing activities-The
definition, scope, and structure of efforts to upgrade the health and
human services agencies' information systems broadened significantly
during fiscal year 2003 to provide data exchanges necessary to meet the
needs of participating agencies and the people who rely on them to provide
support services. The overall program plan for the human services
modernization project is being developed, and key project components have
been defined and are expected to be detailed in project plans by December
2003. OCTO will establish milestones for activities, decision points, and
project phases as it develops plans for the modernization project.

o  	Defining how and to what extent the District will integrate the
systems of the six specific offices designated by the Family Court Act and
the two offices added by the Mayor-OCTO, the Superior Court, and several
District agencies are conducting joint requirements sessions to finalize
detailed requirements on data and document exchanges and common process
functions. Mutual agreement exists that all data exchanges by District
agencies to the Superior Court will be accomplished through the enterprise
application integration capability being designed by OCTO. From the
Superior Court's perspective, one gateway will exist for accessing data
from and providing data to all District agencies. OCTO has

documented its current understanding of data requirements for the Child
and Family Services Agency, Youth Services Administration, and Superior
Court. These requirements will be refined as OCTO proceeds with its
integration efforts in 2004. OCTO intends to finalize these requirements
and build the capability to meet them. These requirements and OCTO's plans
will define how and to what extent OCTO will integrate the systems of
participating agencies.

o  	Defining details on the type of data the District will be providing to
the Family Court and how this will be achieved-Initially, when resources
and time constraints limited the capability for a full-fledged process,
OCTO relied on the requirements gathering processes of the Superior
Court's IJIS team. Information technology staff and contractors of key
agencies worked collaboratively with the Superior Court to begin
requirements definition, with the court's team taking the lead. With the
emergence of the human services modernization program, the District's
process will be more aggressive in fulfilling its requirements definition
needs. New analysts are being added to the modernization project team, and
a defined project team has been established to manage and coordinate the
multiagency, court-related integration efforts. As OCTO proceeds with the
modernization efforts, it will identify and define the data that the
District will provide to the Superior Court and how this will be achieved.

o  	Defining how the District will achieve the Mayor's integration
priorities-Regarding the calendar management, notification, and electronic
document management priorities, the Child and Family Services Agency is
receiving basic information from the Superior Court. The agency is also
providing the Superior Court with inquiry-level access28 to basic
information on active cases and scanning Family Court orders into FACES.
In the second phase of IJIS, a major shift from paper to electronic
business processes will be initiated among the Superior Court, CFSA, and
Office of the Corporation Counsel.

These priorities will also be addressed in the Human Services
Modernization Program. Regarding the inquiry-level access of information
and reporting priorities, OCTO has developed an initial prototype for a
"common case view" that would enable authorized users to view key
demographic information, elements of service plans, and service-related

28Inquiry-level access and sharing of critical case information would
enable caseworkers from one agency to view relevant information about a
client contained in another agency's system.

events across multiagency case management activities. This prototype will
be used to identify the Superior Court's requirements and user access
restrictions. CFSA has worked with the Superior Court to match records and
family member profiles to ensure accuracy of trend analysis and progress
reporting, both for the Superior Court and the District government. The
planned data warehouses are expected to facilitate reporting across and
among agencies and support reporting for courtrelated needs. Presently
this work is in its embryonic stage, and as the modernization program
progresses, these priorities will be addressed in OCTO's plans and
activities.

In addition, we previously reported that the effectiveness and ultimate
success of the Mayor's plan hinged on resolving critical issues and
implementing disciplined processes. These critical issues were:
confidentiality and privacy issues governed by laws and regulations; data
accuracy, completeness, and timeliness problems that have hampered program
management and operations; current legacy systems' limitations; and human
capital acquisition and management. Finally, we said another key to the
effectiveness of the Mayor's plan was developing and using disciplined
processes in keeping with information technology management best
practices. In the past, we reported that the District had not used
disciplined practices and had difficulties developing, acquiring, and
implementing new systems.29 Disciplined processes include the use of a
life-cycle model,30 the development of an enterprise architecture,31 the
use of adequate security measures, and the use of a well-developed
business case that evaluates the expected returns against the cost of an
investment. These critical issues are necessary to plan, develop, acquire,
and implement the software, hardware, and communications resources that
are required to meet the information and information processing needs of
the Superior Court and participating District agencies. As noted below,
the OCTO Program Manager said that the District would address these
critical

29GAO-01-489, 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).

30A life-cycle model provides a means for defining expectations for
managing IT investments from conception, development, and deployment
through maintenance and support.

31An enterprise architecture is a well-defined and enforced blueprint for
operational and technological change, which provides a clear and
comprehensive picture of an entity or a functional or mission area that
cuts across more than one organization.

issues and incorporate them into its plans, except for human capital
issues. According to the Program Manager, OCTO has sufficient capability
to acquire people with the skills needed to accomplish the modernization.

In discussing how the District is addressing these issues, the OCTO
Program Manager provided the following information:

o  	Confidentiality and privacy issues governed by laws and regulations-
Confidentiality and privacy issues have posed significant challenges to
the District for many years and are recognized as one of the most
complicated domains that remain to be fully addressed. The District is
beginning a multifaceted process of determining program confidentiality
requirements and how they must be addressed. This effort is drawing upon
staff in both the Office of the Mayor and OCTO. OCTO has added to its team
a nationally renowned technology lawyer with broad experience in privacy,
security, and Freedom of Information Act and related issues, who will be
playing a central role in determining both requirements and solutions. As
the District resolves these issues, and agreements are reached, OCTO will
incorporate the solutions into its plans and activities. In commenting on
a draft of this report, the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families,
and Elders said that the Children and Youth Program Coordinating Council
has established a subcommittee to evaluate the data-sharing issues,
including the relevant policies and laws governing that sharing. This
subcommittee, comprising agency program personnel, policy directors, legal
support teams-including Office of Corporation Counsel and outside
counsel-and OCTO staff, will make recommendations to the full Council for
legislative changes that may be necessary to support or allow some aspects
of data sharing.

o  	Data accuracy, completeness, and timeliness problems that have
hampered program management and operations-Data quality concerns are a
high priority for the Mayor, and in turn, OCTO and its staff. Prior
studies have documented too many data errors resulting from human error,
inadequate business processes, inadequate controls and reviews, and
insufficient computer-assisted mechanisms that can identify errors or
inconsistencies.32 To correct these problems, OCTO is putting in place
infrastructure and software to support individual agency efforts to
improve data quality and reliability and strengthen their practices to
maintain higher levels of data quality and reliability. Once the

32U.S. General Accounting Office, D.C. Child and Family Services: Better
Policy Implementation and Documentation of Related Activities Would Help
Improve Performance, GAO-03-646, (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2003).

infrastructure is in place, OCTO will coordinate agency-specific efforts
within the overall Human Services Modernization Program initiative. OCTO
is putting together a comprehensive plan to perform a major data cleanup
with the key health and social services agencies and will provide tools to
help the agencies identify inconsistent data and potential data errors.
OCTO will work with agencies to identify data stewards who will have
ongoing responsibility for monitoring data accuracy. We note that some
agencies with critical child welfare roles, such as CFSA, have data
inaccuracies, as we previously reported.

o  	Current legacy systems limitations-Several issues related to legacy
systems or certain agencies' or departments' business processes may hamper
integration implementation. For example, some information systems do not
reflect agencies' business process or support integration; some are
outdated, difficult and costly to maintain, and difficult to integrate
fully within a citywide integration infrastructure; some systems can
support agencies' business processes to some extent, but have severe
security limitations and cannot support interagency business processes.
OCTO plans to address these issues as part of its current efforts, and
incorporate the solutions into OCTO's modernization plans and activities.

o  	Human capital acquisition and management-OCTO does not anticipate any
issues with the acquisition or management of human capital. OCTO has the
option of contracting for specific tasks, functions, deliverables, or
system components; contracting for fulfillment of specific project tasks;
or contracting for various combinations of functions. Alternately, the
District can determine the roles or skills it requires for time-limited
technical support and hire temporary employees to satisfy these needs.
This flexibility enables OCTO to structure projects and programs most
appropriately to fit the District's needs.

o  	Developing and using disciplined processes in keeping with IT
management best practices. Disciplined processes include the use of a
life-cycle model, the development of an enterprise architecture, the use
of adequate security measures, and the use of a well-developed business
case that evaluates the expected returns against the cost of an
investment-The District will apply a system's life-cycle model as it
proceeds with its modernization efforts. The lifecycle is based on the
Project Management Institute's project life-cycle methodologies and
procedures. Also, OCTO is employing software engineering tools, risk
management and mitigation methods, and systems development methodologies
that are commonly used in the information technology industry. Use of the
lifecycle and other methods will be incorporated into the plans that OCTO
is developing.

Regarding the development of an enterprise architecture, OCTO said that it
has made great strides in creating an enterprise architecture framework
upon which enterprise architecture can evolve. The District is committed
to producing an enterprise architecture through an evolutionary manner and
has designated an Enterprise Architect. The architect will be working with
the modernization team to set technical standards and ensure the
modernization is aligned with the enterprise architecture.

As to the use of adequate security measures, the District's approach to
security in a multiagency setting requires controls down to the
dataelement level.33 The development of this framework is in early stages.
It will be gradually developed as interagency protocols are developed.
These controls over data are in addition to the security the District has
in place to protect its computing environment. A comprehensive security
assessment is being planned as part of the modernization project.

Regarding using a business case that evaluates the expected returns
against the cost of an investment, the District's Deputy Chief Technology
Officer said the District will prepare a benefit-cost analysis in 2004 for
the overall Human Services Modernization Program. The official added that
more detailed benefit-cost analysis would be prepared for each project
within the program to help in the selection of specific technical
alternatives. We agree that such analyses are important to evaluating
information technology investments as well as evaluating the relative cost
of alternative solutions to meet business needs. Typically, these analyses
are performed to evaluate alternatives before decisions are made, and the
analyses are periodically updated to support decision-making as
alternatives are considered during the course of a project.

Conclusions 	While the Superior Court and the District of Columbia have
made progress in implementing the D.C. Family Court Act, several issues
continue to affect the court's progress in meeting all requirements of the
Act. Several barriers, such as a lack of substance abuse services, hinder
the court's ability to more quickly process cases. While the Superior
Court and the District have made progress in exchanging information and
building a greater capability to perform this function, it remains
paramount that their

33A data element is a unit of data, such as name, address, city, state, or
account number.

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

plans fully address several critical issues we previously reported and our
prior recommendations.

We received written comments from the Chief Judge of the D.C. Superior
Court and the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia for Children,
Youth, Families, and Elders. These comments are reprinted as appendixes
III and IV, respectively. The Chief Judge agreed with our conclusion that
the Superior Court has made progress in implementing the D.C. Family Court
Act. In addition, the court cited several other areas in which it has made
progress. These areas include development of Family Court Self-Help Center
for unrepresented individuals served by the Family Court, an expanded
child protection mediation program, and a new Family Treatment Court for
mothers with substance abuse problems. The Superior Court also provided
additional information on the court's compliance with ASFA, the role of
magistrate judges, the hiring of support personnel, and procurement of
permanent physical space, which we incorporated when appropriate. Although
the court provided information on its level of ASFA compliance, we did not
use this information because neither GAO nor CCE had verified the data. We
used information reported by CCE because CCE verified automated case data
with information contained in the paper case files. Regarding the
acquisition of permanent physical space, the court commented that we had
confused the D.C. Courts' space plans with a contingency alternative,
stating that a less costly contingency plan had been developed in the
event that funding to expand the Moultrie Courthouse is not provided.
However, our analysis of construction documents and discussions with the
D.C. Courts' Administrative Officer indicate that D.C. Courts is currently
following the alternative plan while it continues to pursue funding for
the long-term addition to the Courthouse.

The District government did not express agreement or disagreement with the
contents of the report. The District did, however, offer clarification of
the roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Mayor for
Children, Youth, Families, and Elders and the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer in implementing the Mayor's plan to integrate the
information systems of the District's human services agencies and the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

We are sending copies of this report to the Office of Management and
Budget, the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
Columbia, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, the presiding judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia, and the Executive Director of the Judicial
Nomination Commission. Copies of this report will also be made available
to others upon request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8403. Other contacts and staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix
V.

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

List of Congressional Committees �

The Honorable George V. Voinovich
Chairman
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the

Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Member
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Mike DeWine
Chairman
The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen
Chairman
The Honorable Chaka Fattah
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
House of Representatives

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

This appendix discusses in more detail the scope and methodology for
assessing the progress of the Family Court since its transition from the
Family Division of the Superior Court, as mandated by the D.C. Family
Court Act, to determine: (1) the procedures used to make initial judicial
appointments to the Family Court and the effect of qualification
requirements on the length of time to make these appointments; (2) the
timeliness of the Family Court in meeting established timeframes for
transferring and resolving pending cases, and the impact of magistrate
judges on the workload of judges and other court personnel; (3) the D.C.
Court's progress in procuring permanent physical space; and (4) the
Superior Court and relevant District of Columbia agencies' progress in
sharing data from their computer systems.

To get an overall perspective on the Family Court's progress and
applicable statutes, we reviewed past GAO reports, the Family Court Act,
the Family Court Transition Plan and subsequent reports required by the
Family Court Act, and applicable District of Columbia laws. Specifically,
to respond to the first objective, we reviewed the Family Court Act and
the D.C. Code for qualifications and tenure requirements for judges and
applications material for the judge positions and prescribed procedures
for appointing associate judges. We also interviewed Superior Court
officials involved in the recruitment and selection of magistrate judges,
the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Judicial Nomination
Commission, and a Senate staff member regarding the confirmation process
for associate judges.

For objective two, we analyzed Family Court data on its timeliness in
meeting required timeframes for transferring cases back to the Family
Court from other divisions in the Superior Court and its timeliness in
resolving abuse and neglect cases in accordance with timeframes
established by the District of Columbia and federal Adoptions and Safe
Families Act requirements. We focused our review on abuse and neglect
cases because of congressional interest and the former Family Division's
past problems in handling such cases. We analyzed the court's performance
in meeting timeframes to begin court proceedings leading up to permanency
hearings. Specifically, we analyzed timeframes to begin adjudication
hearings for suspected abuse and neglect cases and to begin disposition
hearings to determine placement arrangements for children. In addition, we
analyzed the time required to initiate permanency hearings to establish a
goal for the permanent placement of a child (e.g., reunification with
parents or adoption) and a timeframe for achieving the goal. We relied on
a verification of the accuracy of the Family Court's data conducted by the
Council for Court Excellence as part of its role in

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

overseeing the Family Court implementation. In addition, we analyzed
Family Court data on the barriers to finding permanent homes for children.
We also interviewed 5 associate judges to determine the impact that
magistrate judges had on their workload, and interviewed 5 magistrate
judges to obtain information on their caseload assignments and other
responsibilities and other information regarding their experiences in
working with the Family Court. In addition, we interviewed 10 branch
chiefs and supervisors to determine the impact of magistrate judges and
reviewed related reports by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton.

For objective three, we obtained and reviewed documents on the Family
Court's space plans and the Judiciary Square Master Facilities Plan to
determine how other buildings on the Judiciary Square Campus would be
affected by the Family Court space. We also interviewed Superior Court
officials, officials of the federal government's General Services
Administration, and the lead design architects for the new Family Court
space to determine the timeframes for the Family Court construction
project, the challenges of meeting those timeframes, and the court
operations that would be consolidated in the new Family Court space. We
also spoke with an official at the National Capitol Planning Commission to
obtain information on issues regarding the Judiciary Square Master
Facilities Plan that could potentially interfere with the Family Court's
timeframe for acquiring permanent space.

To respond to objective four, we reviewed documentation provided by
Superior Court and District officials. We interviewed officials in the
Superior Court's Information Technology Division, the Office of the Deputy
Mayor for Children, Youth, Families and Elders, and officials in the
District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Technology Officer, responsible
for leading the District's efforts to integrate the computer systems of
relevant district agencies with the Superior Court's system. In addition,
we interviewed officials in all eight of the District agencies required by
the D.C. Family Court Act or by the Mayor of the District of Columbia to
exchange data with the Family Court. We interviewed these officials to
obtain their perspectives on their data exchange efforts. The eight
agencies included: the Child and Family Services Agency, D.C. Public
Schools, D.C. Housing Authority, Office of the Corporation Counsel, the
Metropolitan Police Department, D.C. Department of Mental Health, D.C.
Department of Health, and the D.C. Department of Human Services.

In addition, to gain an overall perspective on court practices in other
jurisdictions, we interviewed judges in family courts in Honolulu, Hawaii;
Louisville, Kentucky; and Cincinnati, Ohio, by telephone. We chose these

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

court jurisdictions because they served populations similar to the D.C.
Family Court's and because of their experience in managing family court
operations. In addition, we interviewed court experts with the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Center for State
Courts, Council for Court Excellence, and the American Bar Association, to
gain a perspective on court best practice standards. We conducted our work
from April through November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Appendix II: D.C. Family Court Procurement of Physical Space Planned for
2009

The following architectural drawings depict the final configuration of the
D.C. Family Court. D.C. Courts plans to complete procurement of its
permanent physical space, configured on multiple floors of the Moultrie
Courthouse, in 2009.

 Figure 7: Family Court Floor Plan for the John Marshall Level of the Moultrie
                                   Courthouse

Appendix II: D.C. Family Court Procurement of Physical Space Planned for
2009

    Figure 8: Family Court Floor Plan for the C Street Level of the Moultrie
                                   Courthouse

Appendix II: D.C. Family Court Procurement of Physical Space Planned for
2009

 Figure 9: Family Court Floor Plan for the Indiana Avenue Level of the Moultrie
                                   Courthouse

Appendix III: Comments from the D.C. Superior Court

Appendix III: Comments from the D.C. Superior Court

Appendix III: Comments from the D.C. Superior Court

Appendix III: Comments from the D.C. Superior Court

Appendix III: Comments from the D.C. Superior Court

Appendix IV: Comments from the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia
for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders

Appendix IV: Comments from the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia
for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts 	Diana M. Pietrowiak (202) 512-6239, [email protected]
Mark. E. Ward, (202) 512-7274, [email protected]

Acknowledgments 	The following individuals also made important
contributions to this report: Steve Berke, Richard Burkard, Karen Burke,
Mary Crenshaw, Patrick diBattista, Linda Elmore, Nila Garces-Osorio, David
G. Gill, Joel Grossman, James Rebbe, and Norma Samuel.

Related GAO Products

D.C. Child and Family Services: Better Policy Implementation and
Documentation of Related Activities Would Help Improve Performance.
GAO-03-646. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2003.

D.C. Child and Family Services: Key Issues Affecting the Management of Its
Foster Care Cases. GAO-03-758T. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2003.

District of Columbia: Issues Associated with the Child and Family Services
Agency's Performance and Policies. GAO-03-611T. Washington, D.C.: April 2,
2003.

District of Columbia: More Details Needed on Plans to Integrate Computer
Systems With the Family Court and Use Federal Funds. GAO-02-948.
Washington, D. C.: August 7, 2002.

Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent
Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-02-585.
Washington, D. C.: June 28, 2002.

D. C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition and
Interagency Coordination, but Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-797T.
Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2002.

D. C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully Implement
Its Transition. GAO-02-584. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2002.

D. C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but Some
Challenges Remain. GAO-02-660T. Washington, D. C.: April 24, 2002.

D. C. Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System
Acquisition. GAO-02-316. Washington, D. C.: February 28, 2002.

District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring
Children's Well-Being. GAO-01-191. Washington, D. C.: December 29, 2000.

Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia's Child Welfare System
Reform Efforts. GAO/T-HEHS-00-109. Washington, D. C.: May 5, 2000.

Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe
Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D. C.: December 22, 1999.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	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

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***