Skip to main content

D.C. Courts: Staffing Level Determination Could Be More Rigorous

GGD-99-162 Published: Aug 27, 1999. Publicly Released: Aug 27, 1999.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on personnel management in the District of Columbia (D.C.) courts, focusing on: (1) staffing and workload levels for the courts from 1989 through 1998; (2) how the courts evaluate the sufficiency of the levels of nonjudicial staff who work on processing and disposition of cases; and (3) a comparison of the D.C. courts' staffing methodology to other available methodologies.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Superior Court The District of Columbia courts should review the amount of time required to 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.
Closed – Implemented
The D.C. Courts contracted with Booz Allen Hamilton for a study of D.C. Courts staffing levels. This study began in August 2001. In June 2002, Booz Allen delivered a report to the D.C. Courts concerning staffing levels. In this report, Booz Allen described a weighted caseload model it had developed to determine court staffing requirements, and, based on the model, set forth FTEs required by each component of the Courts to manage workload.
District of Columbia Circuit The District of Columbia courts should review the amount of time required to 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.
Closed – Implemented
The D.C. Courts contracted with Booz Allen Hamilton for a study of D.C. Courts staffing levels. This study began in August 2001. In June 2002, Booz Allen delivered a report to the D.C. Courts concerning staffing levels. In this report, Booz Allen described a weighted caseload model it had developed to determine court staffing requirements, and, based on the model, set forth FTEs required by each component of the Courts to manage workload.
Superior Court Before planning or implementing such a review (including selecting components to be covered and balancing costs and benefits), the courts should consult with others who have used workload-based methodologies to evaluate court case processing staffing levels.
Closed – Implemented
The D.C. Courts consulted with the National Center for State Courts and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts prior to commissioning a study of court staffing levels.
District of Columbia Circuit Before planning or implementing such a review (including selecting components to be covered and balancing costs and benefits), the courts should consult with others who have used workload-based methodologies to evaluate court case processing staffing levels.
Closed – Implemented
The D.C. Courts consulted with the National Center for State Courts and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts prior to commissioning a study of court staffing levels.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Comparative analysisCourts (law)Evaluation methodsStaff utilizationMunicipal employeesPersonnel managementProductivity in governmentLaw courtsAppealsHuman resources management