The act reformed court practices and established procedures intended to improve interactions between the court and social service agencies in the District. On July 8, 2002, the Mayor issued the required plan: Supporting the Vision: Mayor’s Plan to Integrate the District of Columbia’s Social Services Information Systems with the Family Court of the D.C. Superior Court. District IT officials noted that they have not yet completed essential analyses, such as an analysis of requirements that would provide the basis for this additional information. Although the Mayor’s plan discusses a variety of short- and long-term integration strategies, it does not contain milestones for completing these activities. Current legacy system limitations. The act requires the Mayor, in consultation with the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, to ensure that representatives of the appropriate offices of the District of Columbia government that provide social services and other related services to individuals served by the Family Court are available on- site at the Family Court; to provide information to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court and to the Presiding Judge of the Family Court regarding the services of the District government that are available for the individuals and families served by the Family Court; and to appoint an individual to serve as a liaison between the Family Court and the District government for ensuring that the representatives of the appropriate offices are available on-site at the Family Court. However, the plan does not describe how the funded activities involve the use of social workers to implement family court reform. Furthermore, it is not clear in the plan how the $500,000 in appropriated funds are to be used for CFSA’s social workers to implement family court reform, as required by law. More details regarding the liaison, on-site coordination, and border agreement activities are needed to ensure that appropriated funds are used as Congress intended. To analyze the Mayor’s spending plans for integrating computer systems and supporting Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) social workers’ efforts to implement family court reform, we (1) reviewed the District’s spending plans, (2) interviewed and obtained information from officials in the District’s Office of Chief Technology Officer and CFSA, and (3) reviewed legislation related to the $700,000 in federal funds provided in the District’s Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. Washington, D.C.: April 30,  2001.
What GAO Found

Congress passed the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 to reform court practices and establish procedures to improve interactions between the District of Columbia's Family Court, of D.C. Superior Court, and social service agencies in the District. The act directed the Mayor to prepare a plan to integrate the computer systems of District agencies with those of the Court. The fiscal year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act authorized $200,000 for integrating the computer systems and $500,000 for social workers to implement family court reform. The act also required the Mayor to prepare a plan for these funds and mandated that the plan be issued on July 8, 2002. The Mayor's plan provides such useful information as (1) an outline of the District's current health and human services information technology environment and its information needs and limitations regarding the Family Court, (2) planned and possible short- and long-term initiatives to integrate the District's computer systems with those of the Family Court, (3) five technological integration priorities, and (4) how the $200,000 in appropriated funds will be spent. However, the District has not yet completed essential analyses, such as a requirements analysis, that would provide the basis for additional information. Based on GAO's analysis of the Mayor's plan for using the $500,000 in appropriated funds, it is not clear how the funds are to be used for social workers to implement family court reform, as required by law. The plan discusses the District's use of funds for service liaison, on-site coordination, and border agreement activities, but provides no detail on whether and how these activities involve social workers.