Detailed Information on the
District of Columbia Courts Assessment

Developing ambitious targets and time frames for the Courts' performance measures.

Determining a process for ensuring timely financial audits.

Measure: Clearance Rate--Court of Appeals

Explanation:The clearance rate reflects the total number of cases disposed divided by the total number of cases added (including new filings, cases at issue, reactivations, cases certified into the unit from another unit, and cases transferred) during a given time period, generally one year. This measure indicates whether the D.C. Courts are resolving pending cases in an expeditious and timely manner relative to incoming cases. It addresses Goal 1.1 of the Courts' Strategic Plan, the Courts will administer justice promptly and efficiently.

Measure: Clearance Rate--Superior Court

Explanation:The clearance rate reflects the total number of cases disposed divided by the total number of cases added (including new filings, cases at issue, reactivations, cases certified into the unit from another unit, and cases transferred) during a given time period, generally one year. This measure indicates whether the D.C. Courts are resolving pending cases in an expeditious and timely manner relative to incoming cases. It addresses Goal 1.1 of the Courts' Strategic Plan, the Courts will administer justice promptly and efficiently.

Measure: Juror Utilization

Explanation:Juror utilization refers to the number of jurors sent to courtrooms for jury panel selection compared to the total number of prospective jurors qualified and available to serve, expressed as a percentage. It addresses whether the Courts are ensuring the fairness and integrity of the jury process by maximizing the availability of a diverse and representative pool of jurors for trial selection.

Measure: Juror Yield

Explanation:Juror yield refers to the number of citizens selected for jury duty who are qualified and report to serve as a percentage of the total number of prospective jurors available, expressed as a percentage. It addresses whether the Courts are ensuring the fairness and integrity of the jury process by maximizing the availability of a diverse and representative pool of jurors for trial selection.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The District of Columbia Courts (D.C. Courts) comprise the Judicial Branch of the District of Columbia government. The mission of the D.C. Courts is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly and effectively in the Nation's Capital. The District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, PL 91-358 created the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals is the highest court of the District of Columbia, and the Superior Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. The Act defines in detail the jurisdiction for each court. The Court System provides administrative support to both the Court of Appeals and the Superior Court.

Evidence: The D. C. Courts were established in their present form by the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, PL 91-358, which is codified in Title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code (http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000). Provisions relating to the purpose of the Courts include: Section 11-101 (vesting judicial power in the District), Section 11-102 (Status of District of Columbia Court of Appeals), Sections 11-721 - 723 (jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals), and Sections 11-921 - 925 (jurisdiction of the Superior Court). The mission of the D.C. Courts is contained in Committed to Justice in the Nation's Capital, the Strategic Plan of the D.C. Courts, available at http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/strategic.pdf.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts fill the need for a local court to "Protect Rights and Liberties, Uphold and Interpret the Law, and Resolve Disputes Peacefully, Fairly and Effectively in the Nation's Capital." This need is ongoing, and will continue indefinitely.

Evidence: Under the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000), the District of Columbia government is comprised of three branches, one of which is the Judicial Branch.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts fill a unique role in that the judicial power of the District is vested in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and in no other entity. The Federal courts have jurisdiction over different matters, although, as with other state-level courts, there is concurrent jurisdiction in some cases. No private entity can assume the judicial power of the District government.

Evidence: District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Part C relates to the Judicial Branch of the District. In addition, Title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code, particularly Sections 11-721 - 723 and Sections 11-921 - 925 describe the jurisdiction of the D.C. Courts.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There is no evidence of major flaws in the design of the D.C. Courts and no indication that a different design would better accomplish their purposes. This unified structure is designed to facilitate efficiency by simplifying jurisdiction and centralizing decisions on budgeting, personnel, and resource allocation as well as ensuring uniform rules and policies and clear lines of administrative authority. The District of Columbia Courts were created by Congress in 1970 as a unified and consolidated court system, modeled after a state court system. The Courts' structure remains the standard in terms of court organization, as indicated by the continuing movement of state courts across the nation toward unification and consolidation of administrative functions under a single Court Executive at the trial level. The D.C. Courts, like all courts, do not control the number, types and complexity of cases brought before them. The size of the caseload and matters to be addressed fluctuate over time. As a result, the Courts often must shift resources to address changing caseloads or ensure access to justice for litigants with special needs. Fortunately, the Courts' unified structure permits such shifts and this flexibility has allowed the Superior Court in recent years to address changing needs and mandates by establishing new operational units to handle, for example, quality of life crimes, alternative dispute resolution and domestic violence.

Evidence: Unification has been the standard for court organization since the ABA Standards were established in 1974. See Standard 1.10, American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Division (rev. 1990) Standards Relation to Court Organization. See "D.C. Court Reorganization Act," (Public Law 91-358 (1970) which establishes the District's Court System. Specifically, see the provisions codified at D.C. Code §§11-701 et seq. and 11-901 et seq. relating to the organization and jurisdiction of the D.C. Court of Appeals and Superior Court. See, District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-114) for the establishment of the Family Court within the structure of the D.C. Superior Court. National Center for State Courts (1996) Trial Court Structure and Performance at 12 for a recent discussion of values of court unification. The current structure of the D.C. Courts is set out at page 16 of the 2005 annual report. See www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/DCC2005AnnualReport.pdf.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The purpose of the D.C. Courts, as expressed in their mission statement, is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly and effectively in the Nation's Capital. The "beneficiaries" of the D.C. Courts thus include the litigants before the courts, the residents of the District of Columbia, and the many visitors to the nation's capital. The design/structure of the D.C. Courts both facilitates and ensures that resources will directly address its purpose and that beneficiaries will be reached. The Superior Court is organized into divisions, with resources and procedures tailored and targeted to meet the needs of different types of cases -- civil, criminal, family, probate, tax. The D.C. Courts are constantly reviewing and assessing the needs of the community and established "best practices," responding, as appropriate, as needs change. These reassessments have led to initiatives that have established the following: Appellate Mediation Pilot Project; Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division; Domestic Violence Unit; Community Courts; Family Treatment Court; Juvenile Drug Court; and the Domestic Violence Satellite Intake Center. The D.C. Courts are required by law to address all matters that come before it. In most instances, the Courts are the only forum for declaring the meaning of laws, establishing rights, and determining status. For that reason, the Courts have been proactive in ensuring that the courts are accessible and easy to use. To that end, the Courts have developed new services and programs for the self-represented, the non-English-speaking, the elderly, crime victims, and the deaf and hard of hearing.

Evidence: The Courts' current Strategic Plan, covering 2003-2007, may be found at (www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/strategic.pdf); FY 2007 Budget request describes court programs. See the website of the D.C. Courts at www.dccourts.gov for the special initiatives identified in the statements of the Chief Judges in the 2005 Annual Report [at 3 (Statement of Chief Judge Washington as Chair of the Joint Committee), at 25 (Chief Judge Washington for the Court of Appeals), and at 55 (Chief Judge King for the Superior Court); and links to on-line services for jurors as well as materials to assist litigants. The juror services web page was accessed more than 24,000 times in 2005.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The long-term outcome of the D.C. Courts is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly and effectively. To measure this outcome, the D.C. Courts have two long-term output oriented performance measures and one efficiency measure: 1)number of case dispositions compared to number of case filings, expressed as a percentage (clearance rate), tracked for both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals; 2) the number of citizens selected for jury duty who are qualified and report to serve as a percentage of the total number of prospective jurors available (juror yield); and 3) the number of jurors actually used (juror utilization). These measures reflect key components of the Courts' mission and key outcomes related to that mission: (1) resolving cases in an expeditious and timely manner;and (2) ensuring equality, fairness and integrity in the jury process. The first measure, number of case dispositions compared to number of case filings, or "clearance rate", is an efficiency measure that directly supports the Courts' goal of resolving pending cases expeditiously relative to incoming cases. This measure is tracked for both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. Juror utilization and juror yield address whether the Courts are ensuring equality, fairness and integrity of the case outcomes by maximizing the availability of a diverse and representative pool of jurors for trial selection, by ensuring the participation of citizens as jurors, and by maintaining the efficacy of the juror source list, the excuse and postponement policies and the number of exemptions allowed. The jury selection process attempts to create a comprehensive juror pool that is representative of the population and large enough to ensure that citizens are not burdened with frequent jury service requests. The Court is encumbered in this process due to the highly transient population in the District of Columbia and the lack of a single, centralized database or source list from which to draw potential jurors. There is interplay between juror utilization and juror yield that requires the Courts to balance each against the other. Unexpectedly high juror yields affect the ability of the court to utilize all of the citizens who report for duty. On the other hand, a shortage of prospective jurors due to low juror yield may result in high utilization, but may also delay trials and adversely affect trial date certainty. The Courts are implementing ten additional performance measures approved by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in 2005. These measures reflect national court performance standards endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Center for State Courts, and the American Bar Association. They address key outcomes such as time to disposition (another aspect of expeditious case processing), access to court facilities and services, courtesy and responsiveness of court personnel, community outreach, and strategic use of human resources, technology, and capital funds. The Courts will begin implementing these measures and collecting baseline data in 2007.

Evidence: The Courts' long-term performance measures are reported in the Annual Report (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp), Budget Requests, and annual Financial Audit Reports. The measures also conform to national Trial Court Performance standards (http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS/index.html) and Appellate Court Performance Standards.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Courts have targets and timeframes for their long-term performance measures. The first measure, dispositions as a percentage of case filings, indicates whether the Courts dispose of cases timely given the number of incoming cases, which is constantly changing. The Courts do not control the number, types, or complexity of cases filed before them, which results in fluctuating workloads from year to year. The Courts' long-term goal is to to resolve one pending case for every new case filed for an overall target clearance rate of 100% for all outyears (i.e. 2007, 2008, 2009, etc.). This goal, while constant from year to year, is at the same time the most ambitious performance target that is sustainable over time, and is recommended by the Trial Court Performance Standards. For the second measure, juror yield, the Superior Court has set a target of 20% for FY 06, 22% for FY 07, and 24% for FY 08. These are ambitious targets as evidenced in G. Thomas Munsterman's March 2006 report, Improving Juror Response Rates in the District of Columbia: "A yield of 19.5% is comparable to other metropolitan jurisdictions. The yield in Baltimore City is currently about 20%." For the third measure, juror utilization, the Superior Court has set an annual target of 75% or greater, balancing the two measures??to use 3 out of every 4 jurors for at least one jury examination while increasing the number of jurors brought into the courthouse to mirror the population. In 2004, the Court achieved an 85% juror utilization rate; however, a higher utilization rate means that some days there are not enough jurors, leading to delays as judges, litigants, attorneys, and witnesses wait for jury panels. With 2.3 incoming cases per judge, the District of Columbia Superior Court is third busiest among the 12 unified court systems in the country. Targets and timeframes will be implemented for the additional ten measures the Courts are developing.

Evidence: D.C. Courts' Annual Report (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp); Special Operations/Jurors' Office Map #14.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Courts' annual performance measures mirror the long-term measures. By tracking the achievement of long-term goals on an annual basis, the Courts can closely measure their progress and make operational and programmatic adjustments as needed to ensure that long-term goals are met. For example, in order to achieve the long-term goal of resolving cases in an expeditious and timely manner, it is necessary for both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals to track annually (and more frequently) the number of cases being disposed compared to the number of new cases being filed. All divisions collect and report data throughout the year for this performance measure, so that adjustments can be made to ensure that annual and long-term performance targets are met. Additional annual measures are being developed as the Courts work to implement measures adopted by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration.

Evidence: D.C. Courts' Annual Report (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp); Independent Financial Audit Reports; Independent Financial Audit Reports

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The Courts have set baselines and targets for their annual performance measures. The baseline year for all three measures is 2001. As discussed in question 2.2, the Courts have established annual targets which are constant from year to year: 1) 100% courtwide clearance rate (dispositions as a percentage of case filings; it is not possible to sustain over time a greater than 100% clearance rate); baseline is 2001; 2) 75% juror utilization rate; baseline year is 2001; 3) juror yield (the companion measure to juror utilization) targets increase from 20% in 2006 to 22% and 24% respectively for 2007 and 2008; baseline year is 2003.

Evidence: DC Courts' Annual Reports (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp), Special Operations/Jurors' Office Map #14.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: As the Judicial Branch of the District Government, the D.C. Courts must be independent and free from bias or any perception of bias. Thus, while the D.C. Courts have extensive collaborative relationships with other entities (see Question 3.5), the Courts have no "partners" who perform the same functions as the courts in the justice system and whose missions and mandates, by necessity and design, are fully compatible with those of the Courts. However, numerous contractors support the Courts in fulfilling their mission and reaching their goals. From security to capital facility projects to information technology to independent financial audits, contractors provide expertise and support services to the Courts. D.C. Courts' contracts are written with specific deliverables that reflect the goals of the program. These performance-based contracts undergo periodic reviews to ensure satisfactory execution of specified services or products. Designated court staff members, known as Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs), verify satisfactory execution of services for each contract and sign off on services before payment is completed.

Evidence: Evidence includes contracts with vendors who provide services to the D.C. Courts.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope, rigor and quality have been conducted at multiple levels of the D.C. Courts to improve operations, better deploy resources and assess the effectiveness of the Courts' administration of justice. During the past five years, multiple process and outcome evaluations have been conducted. Examples of independent evaluations with sufficient scope, rigor, and quality initiated by the Courts include an evaluation of the use of interpreter services, conducted by the National Center for State Courts; a ten-year follow-up study of civil delay reduction, conducted by the Council for Court Excellence; and an evaluation of the Family Court, Abuse and Neglect Branch, conducted by the Council for Court Excellence.

Evidence: Other examples of independent evaluations with sufficient scope, rigor, and quality initiated by the Courts include: 1)An Evaluation of Mediation at the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Program of the D.C. Superior Court: Summary and Recommendations, and related reports on Civil Mediation, Family Mediation and Small Claims Mediation, February 2006, Center for Policy Research, Denver, Colorado; and 2)Evaluation of the Social Services' Programs of the D.C. Superior Court, National Center for State Courts, forthcoming April 2006. Other evaluations of court functions conducted by organizations independent of the Courts include: 1)Best Practices in the Use of Interpreter Services, National Center for State Courts, Summer 2005 2)Superior Court Success Story: Civil Case Reform in the District of Columbia, Council for Court Excellence, October 2002 3)IJIS Requirements Analysis, National Center for State Courts and NAID 4)D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing its Transition, U.S. General Accounting Office, January 2004 5)Mediation in Child Protection Cases: An Evaluation of the Washington, D.C. Family Court Child Protection Mediation Program, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2002 6)D.C. Courts' Training Needs Assessment, Melinda Ostermeyer, October 2003 7)Final Report: Superior Court of the District of Columbia: Recommendations on the East of the River Community Court, Center for Court Innovation, June 2005. 8)Community Court: Needs Assessment of the D.C. Misdemeanor and Traffic Court of Superior Court, Council for Court Excellence, October 2005. 9)Report of the Probate Review Task Force, D.C. Bar, American Association of Retired Persons, Probate Division and the Office of the Auditor Master, February 2004. Evaluations of grant-funded programs initiated by the Courts with grant funds include: an Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Court, Shippensburg State University, 2001; Evaluation of the Cooperative Permanency Resolution Program, Center for Policy Research, September 2004; operations procedural manuals; requests for proposals; negotiated services contracts with independent evaluators; memoranda of understanding; grant award documents; Procurement Guidelines of the District of Columbia Courts; Court Executive Service quarterly reports; Annual Budgets; Division MAPs.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts' annual budget requests link their budget request to the Courts' mission and goals, but do not tie the request to performance. As appropriate, each division section includes workload data, including the clearance rate. The key objectives are drawn from the divisions' Management Action Plans (MAPs) which tie the activities of each division to the broad issues and goals of the Strategic Plan. All court costs, including facilities and overhead, are included in the D.C. Courts' budget request.

Evidence: D.C. Courts' FY 2007 Budget Request, http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp, budget testimony before Congress, and budget submittal instructions

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts have implemented a comprehensive strategic planning process that is integrated as a core business function throughout the Judicial Branch. In 2002, the Courts' policy-making body, the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, established a Strategic Planning Leadership Council to develop the Courts' enterprise-level Strategic Plan every five years. The Council is comprised of judges from the Court of Appeals and Superior Court, the Courts' Executive Officer and Deputy Executive Officer, Clerks of Court, and division directors from the Court of Appeals, Superior Court, and Court System. The Council meets at a minimum monthly to identify emerging issues impacting the Courts, to develop the Strategic Plan with input from stakeholders and/or monitor the Plan's implementation, to identify gaps in the Courts' strategic planning and management process and implement improvements, and to communicate results. In 2004, the Courts established an Office of Strategic Management, which has full-time responsibility for leading and coordinating the Courts' strategic planning and organizational performance assessment activities. While the Strategic Plan establishes courtwide goals every five years, the Courts' planning process is cascaded throughout the organization through division-level strategic plans, called Management Action Plans (MAPs) that establish specific objectives and performance targets designed to collectively achieve the courtwide goals of the Strategic Plan. Divisions update their MAPs annually, and are required to link their budget requests to their MAP objectives and performance goals. To promote competence, professionalism and civility (Strategic Issue 3), the Courts implemented a new employee performance management system in 2004 which links staff performance plans to division MAP objectives, thereby aligning the Courts' strategic goals to the day-to-day job duties of individual managers and employees. Together, the Strategic Planning Leadership Council and the Office of Strategic Management constantly monitor and implement improvements to the Courts' strategic planning and management function, even in the absence of identified weaknesses.

Evidence: D.C. Courts' Strategic Plan (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp), Division MAPs, Annual Budget (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/documents.jsp), and Strategic Planning Leadership Council Meeting Summaries

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: The Courts' capital facilities projects are guided by the Courts Master Plan for Facilities, which includes extensive analysis of alternative solutions to meet the Courts' space requirements, including the Family Court, recently established by Congress. The alternatives studied renovations and additions to existing structures in Judiciary Square and leasing or construction of off-site space. Considerations in the alternatives analysis included, for example, cost, schedule, constructability, risk, efficient use of existing facilities, and compliance with functional requirements. The Courts annually assess the capital requirements essential to performing statutory and constitutionally mandated functions that: (1) address essential public health and safety conditions and (2) meet the Courts' space requirements for conducting their business. The D.C. Courts' Renovation and Family Court Consolidation Program is a series of coordinated capital projects whose purpose is to keep all components of the Courts fully operational while upgrading existing facilities, consolidating Family Court functions, and meeting facility needs of the Court of Appeals and the Superior Court. The overall Program is re-analyzed on a quarterly basis to ensure that the multi-year plan remains responsive to the changing needs of the Courts. The original facilities' program of requirement (POR) is re-validated, the quantity of space needed by each user group is confirmed, and the master restacking is verified to ensure that operational effectiveness and available floor space efficiency is maintained throughout the Program. Trade-offs are analyzed in the Design Intent phase of each project through the use of independent estimates of cost, constructability reviews, and schedule impact analysis. During the Bidding Phase, alternative pricing options are analyzed for both initial and long term cost impacts.

Evidence: Family Court Re-Stack Master Schedule for Option 3.2; Old Courthouse; D.C. Courts Master Facilities Plan, Option 3.2 (March 2006)

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts collect and use performance information on multiple levels and have invested in developing an IT system to support the collection and use of performance data to manage programs effectively. The Joint Committee receives monthly fiscal reports and periodically reviews performance data for capital, technology, and human resources projects to determine whether actions are necessary to improve performance or realign resources. The Executive Officer and Clerks of Court review quarterly reports prepared by division directors, which outline their progress in achieving strategic objectives contained in their performance contracts and division Management Action Plans (MAPs). These reports provide information on results achieved, changes in scope, approach, budget, schedules, and performance measures. Court committees regularly review and use performance information to make adjustments in projects and initiatives. The committee overseeing implementation of the Facilities Master Plan meets monthly to discuss performance on capital projects in progress. Capital projects are implemented using rigorous project management methodologies (Project Management Institute's Project Management Body of Knowledge) that incorporate risk management strategies and performance measures addressing project requirements, scope, and budget. The Courts collect performance data through automated systems, wherever possible, and through surveys, random sampling of case files, and other methods. The Courts also have a dedicated research division with expertise in quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods which provides technical assistance to divisions and court committees to ensure that performance measures are meaningful and valid and that data collection procedures produce reliable results. As an independent branch of government, the D.C. Courts do not have partners, except for contractors retained to assist with certain projects. Contracts with vendors contain measurable performance requirements and require that contractors submit performance information and participate in meetings to discuss progress and results.

Evidence: Joint Committee meeting minutes, Court Executive Service Quarterly Reports, Division MAPs, IT Steering, Space Planning and other court committee meeting minutes, D.C. Courts' Strategic Plan; Annual Budget Request; Procurement Guidelines

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Court's Executive Service program (CES), implemented in 2003, is specifically designed to ensure that the executive management of the District of Columbia Courts is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Courts and their customers and stakeholders. Executives occupying CES positions are responsible for achieving key program results. As part of the program, executives are held accountable for performance through a performance contract that incorporates the use of clearly defined or quantifiable performance targets for evaluation purposes, and provides a means for rewarding or correcting executive performance. The awarded vendor for the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) has in place a project manager who operates in concert with the Court IJIS project manager to ensure accountability for costs, schedule, and performance standards. Weekly meetings to address these specific issues are held with the Management Implementation Team (MIT). The D.C. Courts' hold its program partners that are vendors/contractors accountable through cost schedules, and quality results through specified contract requirements. Every contract awarded by the D.C. Courts is based upon a set of detailed specifications, which establish the minimum requirements for services, goods, and equipment. All contracts set a required fixed completion date and provisions for a contractor's non-performance. In construction contracts, if viable, an early delivery bonus is set for particular projects.

Evidence: Personnel Policy 1900 (Court Executive Service) of the District of Columbia Courts' Comprehensive Personnel Policies. Personnel Policy 1900 identifies executive positions responsible for achieving key program results and details a system for managing the performance of each individual occupying a CES position. Court Executive Service Performance Planning and Evaluation Form. This form, or contract, incorporates the use of clearly defined or quantifiable performance targets that are linked to the Courts' Strategic Plan or to division or program-wide management action plans. 1. IT Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 2. IJIS Contract Meeting minutes 3. IJIS Contract Meeting minutes 4. Management Implementation Team Meeting Minutes 5. IJIS Risk Meeting minutes 6. Independent Verification and Validation vendor reports 7. Procurement Guidelines of the District of Columbia Courts 8. D.C. Courts Standard Contract for Construction

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts have business practices which encompass the development of proposed spending plans by the beginning of October, so they are ready for execution within 15-21 business days after the Courts' appropriation is enacted. Division directors then track and monitor year-to-date commitments and obligations. The Courts use the General Services Administration's (GSA) Pegasys (general ledger) and the Financial Management Information System (FMIS) for their accounting and budgetary controls; obligate funds within the quarterly apportionment guidelines defined by OMB; and provide Congress with monthly reports on the status of funds.

Evidence: Monthly and quarterly Pegasys obligations, commitment and payment reports evidence these statements.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts have various procedures in place to achieve enhanced efficiencies and cost effectiveness. The D.C. Courts examine options to outsource appropriate functions, and examples of recently outsourced functions include initial identity consolidation work for the Courts' case management program, microfilming court records, and janitorial services. The D.C. Courts have detailed business practices in place to ensure that proposals are assessed by technical evaluation teams to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. Proposals are evaluated on the basis of best value and in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the applicable solicitation. An example of the Courts' methodology in measuring and achieving efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution can be found with the Capital Projects Program. In this program area, the Courts established a design standard for all workspaces throughout the organization. Each project is then designed and implemented following these standards. Through these standards, efficiencies are gained through bulk purchasing, ease of maintenance, and a fixed use of space per occupant. During the Design Phase, independent cost estimates are developed to track the cost of the projects as the construction details are finalized. All primary Capital construction projects are competitively bid and then analyzed by a Source Selection and Evaluation Board (SSEB) to ensure that the Courts achieve the best value for each project. The D.C. Courts also have an efficiency measure for their case clearance rate, which has an established a goal of 100%.

Evidence: 1. CMMi assistance and training - KPMG LLP 2. CMMi Level 2 certification - Cyber Solutions (November 2005) 3. Procurement Guidelines of the District of Columbia Courts 4. SSEB Source Selection Plan

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The D.C. Courts have close, appropriate, productive, and effective interagency relationships with the wide range of entities working in the criminal and civil justice arenas. For example, activities include: data sharing and collaboration of criminal information; development and implementation of District-wide justice initiatives; drug treatment and diversion opportunities (e.g., Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, JUSTIS, Pretrial Services Agency); initiation of best practices (e.g., Domestic Violence Implementation Committee); and approaching issues relating to access to court data (e.g., Public Access Committee). The Courts also have productive relationships with their neighbors, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, regarding development of the Judiciary Square area. The Courts are implementing the Judiciary Square Master Plan, developed in collaboration with their neighbors and other stakeholders.

Evidence: Final Report of the Probate Review Task Force (2005) http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/ProbateReviewTaskForce10-05.pdf); discussion of the JSMP in the 2007 Capital Budget: http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/fy2007/CapitalBudgetIntroduction-CJ-07.pdf (also cite to 2005 Annual Report - WS report as Chair of Joint Committee. Access to Justice Commission: http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/orders/m-220-04_amend.pdf Family Court Implementation Committee: http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/02-04.pdf Criminal Justice: MOU with PDS re: certification of investigators, pro bono representation; CLE courses for CJA list Cite to CJCC: http://www.cjcc.dc.gov/cjcc/site/default.asp

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Courts' independent financial audits have been free of material weaknesses for the years 2001 - 2003. However, the audits are not timely, and the audits for 2004, 2005, and 2006 are pending. The Courts have established business practices in place to ensure that fund certification and spending occurs in accordance with the established spending plan; that monthly financial information is recorded accurately and timely in accordance with applicable accounting and other financial standards; that monthly spending reports are prepared and disseminated to directors by the 15th day of the following month; and that accurate projections are provided to the Executive Officer and Clerk of the Court on budget surpluses and deficits on a quarterly basis. The Courts' financial management is also subject to Joint Committee oversight through monthly monitoring and review.

Evidence: The D.C. Court's CAFR evidences these strong financial management practices. Further evidence, is the D.C. Courts' use of Pegasys to manage financial data and to meet budget and funding control requirements

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Courts have a number of systems in place to identify and correct various program management deficiencies. For example, the Courts' policy-making body meets monthly to monitor the Courts' adherence to the spending plan, to ensure the Courts operate within budget and to discuss policy matters affecting the Courts. The Board of Judges in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals also meet monthly to discuss outstanding judicial operations issues. Within the Superior Court, presiding judges of each division meet regularly with the judges assigned to their division to discuss operational issues. The Executive Officer and Clerks of the Courts meet monthly with division directors to discuss administrative issues and management strategies.

Evidence: Annual Reports of the D.C. Courts; Strategic Plan 2003-2007; Comprehensive Personnel Policies; Notes from Management Training Committee, D.C. Courts Senior Leadership Development Program, Judicial and Management Training Conferences, Minutes from the Joint Committee, Minutes from the Division Directors Meetings, Minutes from Board of Judges Meetings.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: The Courts' case management program, IJIS, was initiated on the basis of a contractual agreement clearly defined by cost, capability, performance, and schedule goals. Program implementation and management is carefully monitored by the project managers (both Court and vendor) through operational, schedule, and financial cost reviews on a weekly basis. A review by the IT Steering Committee, comprised of major Court stakeholders, is mandated. The awarded vendor was required in the Request for Proposal (RFP) to operate on a CMMi Level 3 certification status. The D.C. Courts also include well-defined deliverables, performance characteristics and credible cost and schedule goals in their contracts for the Capital Project Program to renovate the Courts facilities and consolidate the Family Court. This program has three phases of work, Phase I: Planning, Phase II: Validation/Design and Phase III: Implementation/Construction. Phase I (completed) defined deliverables and performance characteristics for each D.C. Courts project; Phase II (underway) defines the capability of projects to meet the performance criteria of the Courts' Facilities Master Plan (2001 - 2010), the project scope of work, program of requirements, independent cost estimates, as well as the evaluation of alternatives relative to program performance, cost and schedule. The D.C. Courts are also currently involved in Phase III of the program, Implementation and Construction. Program goals have successfully been met through the completion of a number of projects, all completed within their individual schedules and budgets.

Evidence: 1. CMMi Level 3 certification of Bearing Point Inc. 2. Weekly and monthly review meeting minutes of the IT Steering Committee, Management Implementation Team, and Contracting Officer. 3. Facilities Master Plan (2001-2010), the Judiciary Square Master Plan 4. D.C. Courts Strategic Plan (2003-2007) 5. Final Project Costs for completed projects that includes project budgets, project schedules, program documents, design intent documents, construction document reviews at 50%, 90% and 100% benchmarks, independent government estimates, and contractor support.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: For the Courts' goal of disposing of one case for every new case filed, data from 2001 (baseline) and subsequent years indicate that the D.C. Courts met or exceeded their goal of a 100% clearance rate for three of the past five years. A decline in 2005 is due to the transition to a new case management system, which required the development of new business processes, training of judicial and non-judicial staff, and some unavoidable down time, as judges and staff were taken off-line to learn how to use the new system. In addition, data converted from the old to the new system unavoidably negatively impacted the Courts' ability to calculate accurate clearance rates in 2005. Regarding the Superior Court's 75% juror utilization goal, statistical reports indicate that the Court increased juror utilization from 69% in 2001 (baseline) to 70% in 2002, to 76% in 2003, to 85% in 2004, followed by a decline to 76% in 2005. The decrease in the past year is attributed to re-engineered processes designed to reduce waiting time for jury panels. The juror yield was 15% in 2003, 19% in 2004, and 15% in 2005. In recent years, the Courts have enhanced customer service with online juror services, expanded the source lists for jurors, and enforced summonses with show cause hearings.

Evidence: D.C. Courts' Annual Reports (2001 - 2005), court reports.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: For the Courts' goal of disposing of one case for every new case filed, data from 2001 (baseline) and subsequent years indicate that the D.C. Courts are below their goal of a 100% clearance rate in 2005 but met or exceeded the goal in three of the past five years. This is due to the transition to a new case management system, which required the development of new business processes, preparation for data conversion, training of judicial and non-judicial staff, and some unavoidable down time, as judges and staff were taken off-line to learn how to use the new system. Regarding the Superior Court's 75% juror utilization goal, statistical reports indicate that the Court increased juror utilization from 69% in 2001 (baseline) to 70% in 2002, to 76% in 2003, to 85% in 2004, followed by a decline to 76% in 2005. The decrease in the past year is attributed to re-engineered processes designed to reduce waiting time for jury panels. Juror yield was 15% in 2003, 19% in 2004, and 15% in 2005. In recent years, the Courts have enhanced customer service with online juror services, expanded the source lists for jurors, and enforced summonses with show cause hearings.

Evidence: D.C. Courts' Annual Reports (2001 - 2005), court reports.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Courts did not meet their performance goal for their efficiency measure, case clearance rate, in 2005, but have met or exceeded the goal for three of the past five years. The Courts continuously seek other means of enhancing cost effectiveness and efficiency, including examining operations. For example, the IT Division developed a web-based voucher system to pay court appointed attorneys and expert witnesses. This system is more cost-effective by expediting the voucher approval process and reducing paper consumption. E-filing, which is currently available for some civil cases and will be available more broadly in the near future, also enhances efficiency and cost effectiveness by permitting litigants to file cases without traveling to the courthouse. On-line juror services permit jurors to fill out questionnaires, change service dates, and get information through the Courts' website, thereby freeing staff to assist persons with more difficult problems. In IJIS, court papers are scanned into the computer system, reducing paper and time lost to locating paper case files. In addition, managers use various reports to gauge resource needs and reallocate resources within each division.

Evidence: Web voucher system, management reports, e-filing administrative order http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/05-04.pdf

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The National Center for State Courts advises that jurisdictions should not undertake cross-court comparisons, but, rather, should focus on their own operating histories, assess local community and justice system needs, and monitor and improve performance accordingly. Moreover, there is no comparable organization nationally to the D.C. Courts, which are a third branch of the District of Columbia government, and there exists no comparable federal, state, local government or private sector entity to the D.C. Courts. The D.C. Courts' reputation as a model of case management and case processing while preserving rights and liberties has led many groups and jurisdictions, nationally and internationally, to seek technical assistance from the Courts to establish similar procedures in their jurisdictions. The D.C. Courts have hosted groups from around the nation and the world who have come to observe operations, meet with judicial officers and other court officials, and assess operational procedures in order to establish similar operations. The Courts have also been recognized for achievements. For example, for its successes in the area of managing child dependency cases (i.e., child abuse and neglect), the Family Court of the D.C. Courts was designated a Model Court of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The Superior Court's Domestic Violence Unit has been recognized as a recipient of the Potter Stewart Justice Achievement Award. The Courts' website was named one of the top ten court websites worldwide by Justice Served. Numerous judges have been recognized for their achievements as jurists.

Evidence: Reports of the Center for Education and Training; Award documents; Justice Served website http://www.justiceserved.com/top10sites.cfm; satisfaction survey assessments

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The results of independent evaluations of the Courts' components, explained in 2.6, have shown that the D.C. Courts' operations have been effective in achieving results and, where warranted, evaluation recommendations have been effectively used by the Courts to make operational changes. For example, a study of domestic violence case filings revealed that 60% of new petitions are filed by victims who live east of the Anacostia River. The Domestic Violence Unit used this finding to open a Satellite Intake Center located at Greater Southeast General Hospital for the filing of initial petitions for civil protection orders.

Evidence: Court Executive Service quarterly progress reports; final reports from evaluations; contractor (i.e., independent evaluator) progress reports

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: The Courts case management system, IJIS, was achieved substantially within budget and established schedules. The D.C. Courts program of Renovation and Family Court Consolidation has clearly achieved goals within budgeted costs and established schedules. This comprehensive program includes capital assets and service acquisitions. There are individual projects; each with specific target goals that are tracked to assure that the entire program remains coordinated, on schedule, and within budget. Individual projects that have been completely implemented include: 1. Family Court Consolidation - The Interim Family Court Renovation in the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse JM Level was completed on schedule and within budget. 2. Building B Renovation - Completed on schedule and within budget, major high volume Courts relocated with no downtime to Court operations. 3. Gallery Place Renovation - completed 2 months ahead of schedule with net change orders effectively <1%. Individual projects that are currently in the implementation phase: 1. Family Court Consolidation - Renovation of the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse Annex for Juvenile Holding is currently 1 month ahead of schedule. Estimates have shown the project to be under budget. 2. Building A Renovation - Space for the Multi-Door Alternative Dispute Resolution Section (Phase 1) will be completed in September 2006. The project is currently one month ahead of schedule and on budget. 3. Fire Security & Alarm Systems Project - Phased fire sprinkler installation in the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse will be completed over a 6-year period. The project is on schedule and below budget.

Evidence: 1.Acceptance Test Plan - KPMG LLP 2.IV&V vendor review - McDonald Bradley, Inc. 3.300B Submission for IJIS Capital expenditures 4.D.C. Courts Master Facilities Plan, Option 3.2 (March 2006) 5.Old Courthouse Value Engineering Study (March 23, 2006) 6.D.C. Courts Family Court Re-Stack Master Schedule for Option 3.2;)