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. ***