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

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

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. 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. While the District has made progress, it has not yet fully  addressed or resolved several critical issues we reported in August 2002. This  includes exchanges of data to help meet information needs until the final  data exchange capability with District agencies is developed and  implemented. OCTO plans to address these issues as part of its current efforts, and  incorporate the solutions into OCTO’s modernization plans and activities. Other contacts and staff acknowledgements are listed in  appendix V.

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. In addition, we analyzed  Family Court data on the barriers to finding permanent homes for  children.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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. 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. 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.