D.C. Courts: Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous (Letter
Report, 08/27/1999, GAO/GGD-99-162).
This report provides information on personnel management in the District
of Columbia courts. Specifically, GAO discusses staffing and workload
levels for the courts from 1989 through 1998, assesses how the courts
evaluate the sufficiency of the levels of nonjudicial staff who work on
the processing and the disposition of cases, and compares the D.C.
courts' staffing methodology to other available methodologies.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-99-162
TITLE: D.C. Courts: Staffing Level Determination Could Be More
Rigorous
DATE: 08/27/1999
SUBJECT: Municipal employees
Comparative analysis
Human resources utilization
Personnel management
Productivity in government
Courts (law)
Evaluation methods
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to Congressional Requesters August 1999 D.C. COURTS Staffing
Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous GAO/GGD-99-162 United
States General Accounting Office
General Government Division Washington, D.C. 20548 B-282696
August 27, 1999 The Honorable Ernest J. Istook Jr. Chairman,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives The Honorable James P.
Moran Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives This
report responds in part to your request for information concerning
personnel management in the District of Columbia courts.
Specifically, this report provides information about staffing and
workload levels for the courts from 1989 through 1998, assesses
how the courts evaluate the sufficiency of the levels of
nonjudicial staff who work on processing and disposition of cases,
and compares the D.C. courts' staffing methodology to other
available methodologies. We will respond to the other parts of
your request in a future report. Overall staffing levels in the
D.C. courts increased between 1989 and 1990, Results in Brief
declined slightly with some fluctuations through 1997, and then
decreased below the 1989 level in 1998. Cases available for
disposition increased slightly during this time in the D.C.
Superior Court, the largest part of the courts, while its backlog
increased substantially. The cases available for disposition, and
the backlog, of the far smaller D.C. Court of Appeals increased
steadily over this period. In both courts, the mix of different
types of cases has changed over this period. District of Columbia
court officials said that they consider caseload data, along with
other data, in judging whether staffing levels are appropriate.
For example, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court said that if
the number of filings and case dispositions increased in a given
branch, while the case backlog decreased, the implication is that
the staffing level is appropriate. Page 1
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 According to court
officials, staffing decisions are made on a year-by-year basis and
are made individually for each division of the Superior Court and
Court of Appeals. The courts' methodology does not provide a
comprehensive review of what staffing levels should be because it
does not consider the amount of staff time and resources that are
needed for case processing. Caseload trends alone do not show
whether a unit is overstaffed or understaffed because they do not
account for how much time is needed to process differing types of
cases or for productivity improvements. For example, if a court's
caseload remained constant, but the types of cases shifted from
those taking relatively smaller amounts of time to cases requiring
much more time, the court could be understaffed for the amount of
work required to process the cases. Methodologies that consider
the amount of staff time and resources required to process
different types of cases in determining the sufficiency of
staffing levels do exist. The National Center for State Courts
(NCSC) has devised a databased system to determine staffing levels
needed for a given workload, and the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts (AOUSC) uses a databased system to distribute
resources among the federal courts. We make a recommendation in
this report that the D.C. courts review the amount of time needed
to process cases to determine what staffing levels are sufficient
to process the courts' caseload. The District of Columbia Court
Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of Background 1970
established the D.C. courts in their present form. The courts
consist of the D.C. Superior Court, the D.C. Court of Appeals, and
the D.C. Court System. Judges of the D.C. courts are appointed by
the President and are subject to confirmation by the Senate. The
D.C. Superior Court has general jurisdiction over virtually all
local legal matters. It consists of 59 active full-time judges,
several senior judges who work part-time, and 15 hearing
commissioners who exercise limited judicial functions. The D.C.
Superior Court has several divisions that process and dispose of
cases, including divisions for civil, criminal, probate, and
family cases. The court also has divisions that do not process
cases but provide alternative dispute resolution services and
handle the juvenile probation function. There are also divisions
that perform support functions for the court, such as the
personnel division. The D.C. Court of Appeals is the highest court
in the District of Columbia. It has nine active full-time judges,
and several senior judges serving part- Page 2
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 time, who usually
sit in three-judge panels. Appeals from the D.C. Court of Appeals
are taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. The D.C. Court System does
not process cases but provides administrative services to the
Superior Court and Court of Appeals, including fiscal services,
education and training, data processing, personnel management, and
court reporting. A Joint Committee on Judicial Administration
governs the D.C. Courts. The Chief Judges of the D.C. Superior
Court and D.C. Court of Appeals (both designated by the D.C.
Judicial Nominations Commission from among the active judges for a
4-year term) serve on this committee, with the Chief Judge of the
Court of Appeals serving as committee chair. In addition, another
Court of Appeals judge elected by the Court of Appeals judges, and
two Superior Court judges elected by their colleagues, serve on
the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee appoints an executive
officer who serves at the pleasure of the Joint Committee. The
executive officer is responsible for the administration of the
courts and can appoint and remove, with the consent of the Joint
Committee, all D.C. court personnel (including the Clerks of the
Superior Court and Court of Appeals) except for the judges' law
clerks and secretaries and the D.C. Register of Wills. Until
fiscal year 1998, the D.C. courts' budget was submitted by the
Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, through the D.C. Mayor
and Council, to the President and Congress. The budget was
forwarded by the Mayor and Council without revision but subject to
recommendations. The D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33)
changed this process so that the Joint Committee now submits its
budget directly to the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Courts' estimates are included in the President's budget
submission to Congress, without revision but subject to the
President's recommendations. Our objectives were to provide
information on staffing and workload Objectives, Scope, and levels
for the D.C. courts from 1989 through 1998, assess how the D.C.
Methodology courts evaluate the sufficiency
of their nonjudicial case processing staff levels, and compare the
D.C. courts' methodologies to other available methodologies. For
the purpose of this review, we defined staff as personnel who
perform case processing and disposition functions for the D.C.
Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals, such as clerks,
bailiffs, court reporters, administrators, and so on. This
definition does not include judges or their law clerks and
secretaries. Page 3
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 To achieve the first
objective, we obtained from the courts copies of their annual
reports from 1989 through 1998, which contain workload data. We
obtained staffing level data for 1989 through 1998 from the
Executive Office of the D.C. Courts. We did not independently
verify data obtained from the courts. To achieve the second
objective, we obtained relevant reports and documents from the
D.C. courts and interviewed the clerks of the Superior Court and
the Court of Appeals and the acting personnel director for the
D.C. courts. We subsequently sent a letter to the Chief Judges of
the Superior Court and Court of Appeals, asking for a statement of
how staff levels were determined and for a statement of the
courts' position concerning the possibility of a databased study
of staffing levels. We received separate replies from the Chief
Judges of the Superior Court and Court of Appeals, the contents of
which are discussed in this report. We also surveyed a
representative sample of D.C. court employees in February 1999 on
their perceptions of personnel management in the D.C. courts;
several of the questions in the survey referred to staffing. To
achieve the third objective, we held discussions with officials of
AOUSC and reviewed documents provided by these officials. We also
discussed state court staffing with officials of NCSC, which is a
clearinghouse for state court information and which provides
consulting, conference, and educational services to the state
courts. We obtained documents from NCSC concerning its methodology
for state court staffing reviews and information on actual reviews
done in several states. We did our work from January through June
1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. We requested comments from the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration of the D.C. courts. The comments are
discussed near the end of this letter and reprinted in appendix I.
As shown in table 1, staffing levels in the D.C. courts, excluding
judges and Trends in D.C. Courts' their law clerks and
secretaries, as measured by full-time equivalents Staffing and
Workload (FTE), were 5.7 percent lower in fiscal year 1998 than in
fiscal year 1989. There was about a 10 percent increase in FTE
levels for 1990 compared with 1989. FTE levels fluctuated between
1,231 and 1,187 during the period from fiscal year 1990 through
fiscal year 1997. There was a decrease of about 11 percent in FTE
levels in fiscal year 1998. Page 4
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 Table 1: D.C.
Court FTEs, Fiscal Years 1989 Through 1998 FY 1989 FY 1990
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY
1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997
FY 1998 Superior Courta 1,005 1,100 1,090
1,063 1,082 1,071
1,057 1,058 1,032
889 Court of Appealsa 34 41 41
41 43 47 43
42 44 47 Court System
77 90 93 98
93 103 106 102
111 116 Total 1,116 1,231
1,224 1,202 1,218 1,221
1,206 1,202 1,187 1,052
aExcludes judges and their law clerks and secretaries. Source:
Executive Office of the D.C. Courts. FTEs in the Superior Court
increased by approximately 10 percent between fiscal years 1989
and 1990; declined, with some fluctuations, by about 6 percent
through fiscal year 1997; then decreased by about 14 percent in
fiscal year 1998. According to a court official, most of the
increase in FTEs in 1990 was due to staff associated with eight
additional judgeships that were filled in that year. Much of the
1998 decrease in FTEs was attributed to the removal from the
courts of the responsibility for adult probation by the D.C.
Revitalization Act of 1997.1 The FTEs for the Court of Appeals
increased by approximately 21 percent between fiscal years 1989
and 1990 and then remained relatively constant thereafter. The
stability in FTEs after 1990 was associated with the institution
of a case management system in 1990 that was aimed at enhancing
the efficiency of processing appeals. The Court System, although
not directly involved in case processing or disposition, was the
only part of the courts to show FTE increases during almost all of
this period, with the fiscal year 1998 FTE level 50.6 percent
above that of 1989. The rise in staffing levels in the Court
System, according to the Executive Officer of the D.C. courts, was
due to an increase from 51 to 59 Superior Court judges in 1990,
the assumption by the courts (from the D.C. Department of
Administrative Services) of responsibility for janitorial services
in court buildings in 1993, and the assumption by the courts (from
the D.C. Department of Public Works) of responsibility for all
maintenance of court buildings in 1996. Table 2 shows the workload
of the Superior Court during the calendar year period from 1989
through 1998. Cases available for disposition in the 1According to
a D.C. courts official, the decrease in the Superior Court's FTEs
from 1,032 in fiscal year 1997 to 889 in fiscal year 1998 resulted
from the Superior Court's transferring 163 filled positions to the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Trustee for the District
of Columbia, created by the D.C. Revitalization Act, and the
normal fluctuation in staffing (i.e., filling vacant authorized
positions). This resulted in a net loss of approximately140 FTEs
between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. Page 5
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 Superior Court
decreased 2.8 percent during this period, while cases pending
increased 36.5 percent. Table 2: Superior Court Workload, 1989
Through 1998 1989 1990 1991 1992
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
1998 Cases available for dispositiona 244,405 241,204
248,752 255,194 247,186 243,141 242,885
241,131 241,201 237,612 Percent change N/Ab
(1.3) 3.1 2.6 (3.1) (1.6)
(0.1) (0.7) 0.0 (1.5) Cases pending
(year end) 39,925 39,509 49,501
47,896 45,229 52,219 43,834 52,087
53,786 54,513 Percent change 5.6 (0.7)
25.1 (2.4) (5.1) 15.5 (16.1)
17.7 3.3 1.4 aIncludes cases pending at
the beginning of the year, cases filed in current year, and cases
filed in previous years that were reactivated or became "at issue"
during the year. bN/A represents not applicable. Sources: Annual
Reports of the D.C. Courts and Executive Office of the D.C.
Courts. The overall workload statistics shown in table 2 are
combinations of different types of cases, and the mix of case
types in the workload can vary over time. For example, of cases
filed in 1989, 13.0 percent were felony cases, and 15.9 percent
were misdemeanor or traffic cases. In 1998, 5.8 percent of filings
were felony cases, and 19.9 percent were misdemeanor or traffic
cases. Court officials pointed out several factors that have the
potential of affecting their pending caseload, in addition to
changes in the mix of cases over time. For example, the use of
therapeutic case processing alternatives, such as those used in
drug court or with domestic violence cases, may extend the life of
a case on a pending caseload while they also result in the
rehabilitation of the offender. The caseload of the D.C. Court of
Appeals significantly increased during this same period, as shown
in table 3. Table 3: D. C. Court of Appeals Workload, 1989
Through 1998 1989 a 1990 1991 1992
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
1998 Cases available for dispositionb 3,881 3,887
3,616 3,463 3,646 3,680 3,925
4,454 4,763 4,592 Percent change (2.3)
0.0 (7.0) (4.2) 5.3 0.1
6.7 13.5 6.9 (3.6) Cases pending (year-
end) 2,283 2,089 1,853 1,945
1,991 2,093 2,443 2,671 2,634
2,694 Percent change (2.7) (8.5) (11.3)
5.0 2.4 5.1 16.7 9.3
(1.4) 2.3 a In 1994 the Court of Appeals revised its
data reporting to exclude rehearings from its case totals. The
Court made this revision for prior year data, from 1990 through
1993 but not for 1989 data. There were 19 rehearings granted in
1989, 27 in 1990, 40 in 1991, 33 in 1992, and 23 in 1993.
bIncludes cases pending at the beginning of the year, cases filed
during the year, and cases reinstated. Sources: Annual Reports of
the D.C. Courts and Executive Office of the D.C. Courts. Page 6
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 The total number of
Court of Appeals cases available for disposition in 1998 was 18.3
percent greater than in 1989, and the number of pending cases at
year-end was 18.0 percent greater. In 1989, 42.3 percent of the
court's new filings were criminal cases, and 32.1 percent were
civil cases; of 1998 filings, 39.4 percent were criminal, and 23.2
percent were civil. In both years, the balance of the cases fell
into a number of categories, including family or agency
proceedings. Overall appeal filings were 28 percent higher in 1998
than in 1989. In three reports issued from 1980 through 1990,2 we
recommended to How the D. C. Courts certain federal
agencies increased emphasis on workforce planning and set Evaluate
Sufficiency of forth the basic elements of such planning. Among
these elements was that of identifying the number of employees
needed to accomplish agency Staffing Levels goals.
We specifically identified collecting and analyzing data on staff
time required to fulfill agency goals as an important element of
workforce planning. We asked D.C. court officials how they
evaluate staffing needs. Officials of the D.C. courts said that
workload data are used to assess the staffing needs of the courts.
The Chief Judge of the Superior Court said that he monitors the
court's case inventory and case processing and relies on actual
observation of service delivery and review of customer complaints
and compliments. According to the chief judge, if customers are
being "courteously, fairly, accurately, and expeditiously
serviced," the court's workforce is considered appropriate for its
needs. The chief judge gave several examples of such assessments.
One example referred to the Felony Branch of the Criminal
Division, for which filings and dispositions had declined from
1994 through 1998, and cases pending and the backlog had decreased
in the same period. According to the chief judge, this implied
that case processing is within acceptable limits and that
therefore the branch's workforce is appropriate. The chief judge
also noted, however, that other branches' backlogs have increased,
indicating that their staffing was not sufficient. He cited as an
example the Misdemeanor and Traffic Branch of the Criminal
Division, for which the backlog increased substantially, from 1996
through 1998, although case filings and dispositions went up and
down in volume from year to year. 2Federal Work Force Planning:
Time for Renewed Emphasis (FPCD-81-4, Dec. 30,1980); Managing
Human Resources: Greater OPM Leadership Needed to Address Critical
Challenges (GAO/GGD-89-19, Jan. 19, 1989); U.S. Department of
Agriculture: Need for Improved Workforce Planning (GAO/RCED-90-
97, Mar. 6, 1990). Page 7
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 The Clerk of the
Superior Court told us that decisions on changes in staffing from
the previous year are made separately for each division of the
court. If a division director indicates more staff is needed, the
clerk will try to meet those needs by moving members of the
workforce around between working units while maintaining the same
overall workforce numbers.3 The clerk said that he will usually
approve new hiring only for a new function or program. The clerk
is to send staffing recommendations to the executive officer and
the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration for inclusion in
the budget. Similar to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, the
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals also said that the court uses
indicators such as case filings, number and types of dispositions,
cases pending, time involved in various stages of the process, and
general mix of cases. With these data, according to the chief
judge, the clerk and staff of the court identify staffing needs
and possible management efficiencies. The Clerk of the Court of
Appeals said that, as with the Superior Court, staffing decisions
are made on a functional basis for each division of the court,
rather than for the court as a whole. We also obtained the
perspective of D.C. court employees concerning court staffing. As
part of our overall review of personnel practices in the D.C.
courts, we mailed out a questionnaire in February 1999 to a
random, representative sample of court employees to get their
views on the courts' personnel practices. More than 70 percent of
those employees in the sample who were working for the courts
answered our questionnaire. In addition to their perceptions
regarding selected personnel practices, we asked for their views
on the adequacy of staffing levels. We estimated that about 40
percent of the courts' employees would agree or strongly agree
that their work unit had a sufficient number of employees to do
its job and about 49 percent would disagree or strongly disagree,
while the remaining percentage would neither agree nor disagree,
not be sure, or have no basis to judge. A similar question was
asked of federal employees in a 1996 governmentwide survey. About
43 percent said their work unit had a sufficient number of
employees, while about 47 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed
and the remaining percentage neither agreed nor disagreed.
3According to the Executive Office of the D.C. courts, transfers
of personnel between the Superior Court, Court of Appeals, and
Court System are possible, but rarely happen in practice. Page 8
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 The federal court
system and some state court systems use formulas based Methods
Used by on court workload data to determine satisfactory levels
of staffing and Other Courts resources. The federal court
system uses a databased system to distribute resources to the U.S.
Appellate, District, and Bankruptcy Courts, and the Probation and
Pretrial Services Offices. Prior to the adoption of this system,
these courts had received resources on the basis of total number
of people employed and cases heard in a given year. However, court
administrators came to realize that this system did not distribute
resources efficiently because it did not take into account that
certain types of court activities will take more time and
resources than other types of activities. The system is based on a
large number of various workload statistics, which are fed into
"work measurement formulas." Based on the statistics and the
formulas, a specific number of "work units" are allocated to each
federal judicial district and circuit. Such work units consider
tasks associated with the nature and types of cases, given a
standard rate of efficiency (how much time and resources such
cases should take). Each work unit is equal to a certain amount of
money, the exact amount depending on overall budget levels. The
managers of each court can use their allocation to hire or retain
staff or to make capital purchases to improve court productivity.
NCSC has developed and promulgated a "weighted caseload" system.
Under this system, officials determine how much time is taken up
by different types of cases in the court or courts under study.
The officials then determine how much judge or staff time is taken
up by the court's caseload as "weighted" by the time factor and
compare total judge or staff years, as calculated, with the actual
judges or staff available. How much time is taken up by a certain
type of case can be determined by actual measurement of cases in
court or by the "Delphi" method of getting judges, staff, or
outside experts to estimate the length of time certain cases would
take. For example, if a court had five full-time staff members
(and thus 5 staff years), and it was determined that the court's
annual workload would take 7 staff years to complete, there would
be a need for two additional staff members. However, it could also
be found that the court's workload required only 4 staff years, in
which case there would be one more staff member than needed. This
system was developed to give state government decisionmakers an
independent, objective way to evaluate the need for court
personnel, based on the actual amount of time and resources
different court activities should take. It has been used in at
least 11 states, in most instances to determine how many judges
are needed in a state. However, the method has been used to
determine appropriate levels of court staff in New Jersey, Page 9
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 Colorado, and
Kentucky. In Colorado, a weighted caseload study led to the
addition of 30 to 40 court staffers statewide. In Kentucky, NCSC
found that the level of case processing staff was appropriate in
rural counties but that urban areas may need more staff. In
promulgating this method and advocating its use, NCSC acknowledges
that decisions on the size of a court or court staff cannot, and
should not, be based solely on results obtained by a statistical
model. Data from the model, according to NCSC, must be interpreted
in a social, cultural, and political context, and factors peculiar
to each court and court circuit should be considered. We asked the
D.C. courts for their views on having a databased analysis done on
the staffing of the courts, what advantages or disadvantages there
would be in such an analysis, and whether there were features and
qualities of the D.C. courts that would preclude such an analysis.
The Chief Judge of the Superior Court had no objection to
databased analysis of the court's support staff, based on the work
protocols used in the federal courts, provided that the actual
instrument used was developed under the court's supervision. He
believed such an analysis could be helpful to more accurately
measure the appropriate workforce for divisions that did not
process cases and to check the present case processing measurement
used in the clerk's office. The Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals, in her response, indicated that NCSC has had a great deal
of experience with methodologies that might be effectively used
for such a study and, therefore, is in a better position to
identify the advantages and disadvantages of each. According to
the chief judge, the primary determinants for a court system in
doing such studies are resource related, and such studies seem to
address discrete components of the court. The chief judge pointed
out that the D.C. courts were a two-tiered system as opposed to
the three-tiered system that exists in most states.4 She said that
whether there are unique features that would impede such an
analysis in the D.C. courts might depend upon which area of the
courts is selected for study. The chief judge added that, given
the small size of the Court of Appeals, the cost of any study of
it would likely outweigh the benefits. 4The D.C. courts have two
levels-the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. Eleven state
systems also have two levels; the remaining state systems have a
lower court, an intermediate court, and a court of final appeal.
Page 10
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 While D.C. court
officials apparently consider caseload data in judging Conclusion
whether staffing levels are adequate, they have not measured the
amount of time required by case processing staff to process
differing types of cases nor used such data to determine whether
the size of the courts' workforce is inadequate, adequate, or
excessive for the work of the courts. Workload and formula-based
methods of assessing the adequacy of case processing staffing
levels do exist and are in use in the federal and state courts.
Whether the D.C. courts have too many or too few case processing
staff for their caseload is a question that cannot be answered
without a systematic study. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court
believed that such a study employing the work measurement protocol
used in the federal judiciary could be helpful. The Chief Judge of
the Court of Appeals questioned whether the small size of the
appeals court would make a study of the court cost-beneficial.
While we believe that the results of such a study could serve as a
baseline for the courts and Congress to evaluate court staffing in
the future, we recognize that in planning such a project the D.C.
courts should weigh potential costs and benefits in determining
the project's scope, including the components that should or
should not be covered. We recommend that the D.C. courts review
the amount of time required to Recommendation process
different types of cases and analyze other elements of the courts'
workload to determine what staffing levels are sufficient to
process the D.C. courts' caseload. We recommend that, before
planning or implementing such a review (including selecting
components to be covered and balancing costs and benefits), the
courts consult with others who have used workload-based
methodologies to evaluate court case processing staffing levels.
The Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration of the
D.C. D.C. Courts' Courts provided the courts' written
comments on a draft of this report. The Comments and Our courts
said that they had no objection to conducting a study of staffing
levels using a workload-based methodology, provided that funds are
Evaluation available. They asked that we include a
request for such funds in our recommendation. The courts also
pointed out that the methodology employed by NCSC, as explained in
the draft, has been used in only three states and suggested that
we make clear that the courts use a number of factors in assessing
the need for staff, most of which are used in other jurisdictions.
Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C.
Courts' Staffing B-282696 We recognize that the determinants for
doing such a study include resource issues. Once the necessary
planning for such a study is completed, including determining its
scope, we believe it would be appropriate for the courts to
consult with Congress on the matter of funding. To the best of our
knowledge and that of NCSC, only three states have done such a
study. However, this is not to say that other jurisdictions have
not conducted databased studies to assess the adequacy of their
staffing levels using similar methodologies. We did not examine
that issue. Our objective was to point out that workload-based
methodologies exist. The courts said that our description of its
methodology for determining staffing needs was inaccurate,
apparently because we did not refer to internal budget requests
that are prepared by court divisions. We did not do so because the
budget requests dealt with staffing needs only in an incremental
manner. Where division managers requested individual staff, they
did so to meet an increase in workload from the previous year,
such as when the court took on a new statutory responsibility; in
these cases, there was no attempt to review whether a division's
staffing level was appropriate for its overall workload. Our
depiction of the courts' methodology for assessing the adequacy of
staffing levels was based on descriptions provided by officials of
the Superior Court and Court of Appeals. The courts took exception
to our reference in the draft report to previous reports issued by
GAO recommending increased emphasis on workload planning by
federal agencies. The courts believed that our reference to these
reports is misleading and gives the impression that the courts
were mandated to follow these earlier recommendations. The courts
were not mandated to follow these earlier recommendations. We
believe these reports provide useful context for our
recommendations, and we specifically point out in the text of this
report that the recommendations were made to certain federal
agencies. The courts elaborated on the staffing and workload data
provided in the draft report. They also provided technical
clarifications as well as suggestions for the report's
presentation. We incorporated these as appropriate. Page 12
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing B-282696 We are providing a
copy of this report to Representatives C.W. Bill Young, Chairman,
and David Obey, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Appropriations; Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
Government Reform; Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chairwoman, and
Richard Durbin, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations; Senator George
Voinovich, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee
on Governmental Affairs; and Representative Julian Dixon. We are
also providing copies to the District of Columbia courts, the
National Center for State Courts, and the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts. We will make copies available to others on
request. If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
8676. Key contributors to the report included Richard W. Caradine,
Domingo D. Nieves, and Steven J. Berke. Michael Brostek Associate
Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues Page 13
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Contents 1 Letter 16 Appendix
I GAO Comments
24 Comments From the D.C. Courts Table 1: D.C. Court FTEs, Fiscal
Years 1989 Through 5 Tables
1998 Table 2: Superior Court Workload, 1989 Through 1998
6 Table 3: D. C. Court of Appeals Workload, 1989 Through
6 1998 Abbreviations AOUSC Administrative Office of the
United States Courts FTE full-time equivalent NCSC
National Center for State Courts Page 14
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-162
D.C. Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the D.C. Courts
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear
at the end of this appendix. Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C.
Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the D.C. Courts See p.
12. See comment 1. Now p. 1. Page 17
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the
D.C. Courts Now p. 1. See comment 2. Now pp. 1-2. See p. 12. See
comment 3. See comment 4. Now p. 2. Now p. 2. Now pp. 2-3. Now p.
3. Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts'
Staffing Appendix I Comments From the D.C. Courts Now p. 3. Now p.
3. Now p. 3. Now p. 5. See comment 5. See p. 5. Now p. 6. See
comment 6. Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C.
Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the D.C. Courts Now p.
6. See comment 7. Now p. 7. Page 20
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the
D.C. Courts See p. 12. See comment 8. Page 21
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the
D.C. Courts Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C.
Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the D.C. Courts Page 23
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Appendix I Comments From the
D.C. Courts The following are GAO's comments on the letter from
the Chair of the GAO Comments Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration of the D.C. Courts, dated August 17, 1999: 1. The
courts recommended a change in the title of our report. We believe
that the title is objective and accurately reflects our
conclusions and recommendation. 2. The courts noted an
inconsistency between our characterization of the D.C. Court of
Appeals caseload on page 1 and elsewhere in the body of the
report. We have corrected page 1. 3. The courts suggested that
wording used in the body of the report to discuss Court of Appeals
staffing methodology be reproduced in the Results in Brief. The
purpose of Results in Brief is to summarize the discussion in the
body of the report; replicating the entire discussion in the body
would be redundant. 4. The courts made a number of suggestions
for technical revisions in the Background section of our report.
We have made these revisions in the Background section of our
report where appropriate. 5. The courts provided FTE data
exclusive of judges and their law clerks and secretaries. We have
adjusted table 1 on page 5 to reflect this data. 6. The courts
commented that our presentation of workload data did not present a
complete picture in that it did not reflect the causal factors
that account for increased backlog. We included some of the
courts' explanation on page 6. 7. The courts suggested we include
data on appeal filings in our presentation of Court of Appeals
caseload data. We have done so in the text on page 7. 8. The
Courts said that our recommendation should include a request that
funds be appropriated to cover the cost of a databased study. We
address this issue on page 12. Page 24
GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing Ordering Information The
first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional
copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following
address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard
credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Order by
mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC
20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts.
NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also
be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202)
512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of
newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies
of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call
(202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will
provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send e-mail message
with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit GAO's World
Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United States General
Accounting Office Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty
for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested (410415)
*** End of document. ***