H.R. 2657. District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on November 14, 2001



Similar documents
S Safe Explosives Act

S. 534 National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2013

H.R Five Nations Indian Land Reform Act

H.R CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE. Asbestos Compensation Act of July 13, 2000

H.R Small Business Loan Modification Program

H.R Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013

H.R Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012

H.R Disaster Response, Recovery, and Mitigation Enhancement Act of 2008

S Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

S CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE. International Monetary Stability Act of May 23, As introduced on February 24, 2000.

S. 720 Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2015

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE. Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015

S Responsible Homeowner Refinancing Act of 2012

H.R. 475 GI Bill Processing Improvement and Quality Enhancement Act of 2015

H.R Mark-to-Market Extension and Enhancement Act of 2007

1st Session ALTO LEE ADAMS, SR., UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

1st Session AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2013

S Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2005

2d Session DANIEL WEBSTER CONGRESSIONAL CLERKSHIP ACT OF 2008

H.R Veterans Employment, Education, and Healthcare Improvement Act

H.R. 5 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003

FEDERALISM THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

1st Session Part 1 FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2013

How To Determine The Cost Of A Juror Retirement Plan

Mission, Organization and Functions of Administrative Office s Space and Facilities Division

1st Session Part 1 HOMELAND SECURITY UNIVERSITY-BASED CENTERS REVIEW ACT

STRENGTHENING ABUSE AND NEGLECT COURTS ACT OF 2000

WikiLeaks Document Release

2d Session RESPA HOME WARRANTY CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2012

1st Session CONTRACTING AND TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

" SENATE PROVIDING FOR CONTINUED HEALTH BENE- FITS COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES R E P O R T OF THE

2d Session DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGY FOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS ACT

1st Session AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND

June 6, Honorable Elizabeth Warren United States Senate Washington, DC Dear Senator:

Statement of Vision and Leadership For the Courts of the District of Columbia

1st Session STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

1st Session DHS IT DUPLICATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE TO H.B. 750 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

November 18, Honorable Harry Reid Majority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC Dear Mr. Leader:

How To Pass A Bill To Make A Bone Marrow Donation Register

APPLICATIONS FOR A FINANCIAL REMEDY

Native American Language Preservation and Programs

CHAPTER 2. COLORADO COURT SYSTEM Updated by Honorable Julie E. Anderson

UNIFORM COLLABORATIVE LAW ACT S.B. 714: ANALYSIS AS ENACTED

State and Local Government

S Veterans Choice of Representation and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2006

H.R. 702 A bill to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions

GAO BANKRUPTCY REFORM. Dollar Costs Associated with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005

The Pros and Cons of Small Business Loan Debt

NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACT OF 2002

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE. H.R Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010

2d Session AMENDING THE NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT TO EXTEND THE TERMINATION DATE

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

PUBLIC LAW AUG. 3, 1996 NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION ACT

One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE

The Texas Judicial System. Criminal Appeals, in Courts of Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in

: : before this court (the Court Annexed Mediation Program ); and

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 14-23

Subject: DCPS: Attorneys Fees for Access to Special Education Opportunities

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FAMILY COURT MEDIATION PROGRAM

2d Session TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2006

District of Columbia Courts Shutdown Plan. Updated September 30, 2013

STUDENT STUDY GUIDE CHAPTER NINE

Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Retaliation Act of 2002

PUBLIC LAW AUG. 6, 1996 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ACT OF 1996

2d Session PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT OF 2010

1st Session Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on Finance, submitted the following R E P O R T. [To accompany S. 905]

Judicial Branch Overview

A BIPARTISAN PLAN TO REDUCE OUR NATION S DEFICITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2d Session EXPORT WORKING CAPITAL LOAN IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

This briefing paper summarizes the measures the Montana Legislature has put into place to improve the state's medical liability climate.

HO-CHUNK NATION CODE (HCC) TITLE 1 ESTABLISHMENT ACTS SECTION 13 HO-CHUNK INSURANCE REVIEW COMMISSION ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANIZATION ACT

This Case Management Order has been: ed to: Hand Delivered to: Mailed to: Date: Judicial Assistant/Deputy Clerk:

Finance Education: Jury Services Other:

The Judiciary FY 2017 Congressional Budget Summary. PREPARED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS WASHINGTON, DC February 2016

Public Law th Congress An Act

June 4, Honorable Elizabeth Warren United States Senate Washington, DC Dear Senator:

Title V Preventing Fraud and Abuse. Subtitle A- Establishment of New Health and Human Services and Department of Justice Health Care Fraud Positions

JUSTICE AUTOMATION U.S. Trustees Bankruptcy Case Management System

1st Session FDIC ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT

Councilmembers Jim Graham and Tommy Wells introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on.

1. As of August 31, 2014, there were 27,588 cases pending before the Court. The petitioners were self-represented in 19,721 (71%) of those cases.

SENATE, No. 754 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 215th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2012 SESSION

" SENATE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015 R E P O R T OF THE

2d Session AVIATION MEDICAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1998

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2015

2d Session RURAL HEALTH CARE CAPITAL ACCESS ACT OF 2006

Alaska Court System Class Specification AREA COURT ADMINISTRATOR I. Range: 22 EEO4: 01 SOC: Code: C4201

GAO GOVERNMENTWIDE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT. Views on the Proposed Travel Reform and Savings Act

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The United States Specialized Bankruptcy Courts

2 of 2 DOCUMENTS. MARYLAND RULES Copyright (c) 2005 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.

Program History. Prior Law and Policy

Montana Legislative Fiscal Division. September 15, Prepared by Greg DeWitt, Senior Fiscal Analyst Pamela Joehler, Senior Fiscal Analyst

REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! 2d Session VETERANS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1998

WHEREAS, the Troup County Board of Commissioners and the Probate. Judge of Troup County desire local legislation for the imposition of certain

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JOHN A

Housing Bill Introduced to State Committee

Transcription:

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE November 27, 2001 H.R. 2657 District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on November 14, 2001 SUMMARY H.R. 2657 would redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as a distinct entity called the Family Court of the Superior Court. The act would require that all proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Family Division be heard by that new entity. Under current law, other divisions of the Superior Court regularly handle proceedings of the Family Division when necessary. In addition, the act would authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary to the District of Columbia to implement the act. CBO estimates that implementing the act would cost $92 million over the 2002-2006 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Because the act would not affect direct spending or governmental receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 2657 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) but CBO estimates that the costs to comply with those requirements would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($56 million in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation). Further, H.R. 2657 would authorize appropriations to carry out the provisions of the act, so the District of Columbia would face no net costs. The act contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. MAJOR PROVISIONS In addition to designating the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as the Family Court, H.R. 2657 would:

Require that representatives of social services and other related services for individuals and families served by the Family Court be available on-site at the location of the Family Court; Require one family, one judge for cases and proceedings to the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and lawful; Designate the jurisdiction of the Family Court to include divorces, child support, custody, adoptions, and various other proceedings; Establish certain requirements for judges who would serve on the Family Court; Direct the court to establish and operate an electronic tracking system for cases and proceedings in the Family Court and expand the system to cover all divisions of the Superior Court; Require that representatives from the departments of the District government related to social and family services be available on-site at the location of the Family Court; Authorize the Mayor of the District of Columbia to appoint a liaison between the Family Court and the District government; Designate all hearing commissioners of the Superior Court as magistrate judges with the full duties of that position and establish certain requirements for magistrate judges serving the Family Court; and Authorize the appropriation of such sums as are necessary to support the additional judges and staff authorized under the act. Other provisions would require the court to develop a master plan for the Family Court, and would require several reports from the District of Columbia Courts. ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2657 would cost $92 million over the 2002-2006 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 2

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION Judges and Support Staff Estimated Authorization Level 3 6 6 6 6 Estimated Outlays 3 6 6 6 6 Integrated Justice Information System Estimated Authorization Level 2 3 2 a a Estimated Outlays 2 3 2 a a Capital Improvements and Rental Costs Estimated Authorization Level 12 21 8 6 6 Estimated Outlays 3 11 16 13 7 Computer Integration Plan Estimated Authorization Level 3 a a a a Estimated Outlays 3 a a a a D.C. Services Representatives and Liaison Estimated Authorization Level 1 1 1 1 1 Estimated Outlays 1 1 1 1 1 Total Discretionary Changes Estimated Authorization Level 21 31 17 13 13 Estimated Outlays 12 21 25 20 14 a. Less than $500,000. BASIS OF ESTIMATE For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 2657 will be enacted by the end of 2001 and that the amounts necessary to implement the act will be provided each fiscal year. All spending would be subject to future appropriation actions. Section 3 would require that most proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Family Court be held in that court and that all family law cases pending in other divisions of the Superior Court (except for certain specific circumstances) be transferred into the Family Court. The majority of family law cases are neglect and abuse cases, and about 4,500 such cases are currently pending. Of those cases, 3,600 are pending before a judge outside the Family Division of the Superior Court. In addition, about 1,500 new cases come before the court 3

each year. Most of the estimated cost to implement this legislation would be required to fund the additional workload that would be imposed on the Family Court and the capital costs of expanding work space to accommodate the additional judges and support staff. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2657 would cost about $92 million over the 2002-2006 period. The components of that estimate are described below. Additional Superior Court Judges and Support Staff H.R. 2657 would set requirements for judges that serve the Family Court, including a minimum length of service. Under the act, judges currently serving on the court may choose to transfer to the Family Court from all divisions of the Superior Court. Assuming that all 12 of the current Family Division judges choose to transfer, CBO expects that three additional judges would be necessary to implement the act. CBO estimates that the salaries and benefits of the judges and judicial support staff would cost about $1 million each year over the five-year period. The act would designate all Superior Court hearing commissioners as magistrate judges and would authorize the court to appoint additional magistrate judges if needed. Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO expects that nine additional magistrates would be required to implement the act. Based on the historical ratio of magistrate judges to support staff, CBO estimates that the additional magistrate judges and staff would cost about $3.4 million each year over the five-year period. Section 4 would require cases and proceedings in the Family Court to be resolved through alternative dispute resolution procedures to the greatest extent practical. Based on information from the court, CBO expects that the court would request that about 1,500 new cases each year enter the alternative dispute resolution process. Based on the operation of the current alternative dispute resolution program, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $500,000 each year over the five-year period for stipends and training for mediators and additional court support staff. Section 4 also would require the Family Court to develop an ongoing program to train judges and other staff in matters related to family law, such as child development, family dynamics, and risk factors for child abuse. Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $50,000 in 2002 and $100,000 each year over the 2003-2006 period. In addition, CBO estimates that security and office supplies for the additional judges and staff would cost about $500,000 each year over the five-year period. 4

Integrated Justice Information System Section 4 would require the District of Columbia Courts to establish and operate an electronic tracking and management system for cases and proceedings in the Family Court and to expand this system to all divisions of the Superior Court. Based on information from the court, CBO estimates that the complete system would cost $7 million. The court has received a grant of over $1 million for the system; therefore, CBO estimates that an additional $6 million would be needed to complete the system. In addition, CBO estimates that additional support staff would be necessary to administer the Integrated Justice Information System and analyze the data for the various reports required under the act. CBO estimates that the new staff would cost about $300,000 each year over the 2002-2006 period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. Capital Improvements Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO expects that implementing the act would require the court to construct new courtrooms and upgrade electrical, plumbing, and other systems within existing court buildings. In addition, the District Courts expect to rent office space in commercial buildings to accommodate the staff increases authorized by the act. Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $25 million over the 2002-2006 period for construction and renovation, and about $6 million per year for the rental of office space. We estimate that capital improvements and rental payments authorized by H.R. 2657 would cost about $2 million in 2002 and $53 million over the 2002-2006 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Computer Integration Plan H.R. 2657 would require the District government to submit to the Congress a plan for integrating certain computer systems of the District government not more than six months after the date of enactment. Under the planned computer system, the Family Court and the relevant social services agencies in the District would be able to access and share information related to the individuals and families they serve. Based on information from the District government, CBO estimates that preparing this plan would cost $3 million in 2002. 5

D.C. Services Representatives and Liaison H.R. 2657 would require that representatives from the departments of the District government related to social and family services be available on-site at the location of the court. Based on information from the District government, CBO expects that 10 representatives would be required to implement this provision of the act. The act also would require the Mayor of the District of Columbia to appoint a liaison between the Family Court and the District government. CBO estimates that the additional personnel would cost about $1 million each year over the five-year period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS: None. ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS H.R. 2657 would place new requirements on the Superior Court and the Mayor of the District of Columbia as part of redesignating the court s Family Division as Family Court. Among these requirements, the Superior Court would be required to develop a transition plan that would address appointment and qualification of judges, case flow management, and disposition of actions pending before the Family Division. The court also would be required to prepare status reports, provide certain training to judges serving on the Family Court, and update its data management systems. The Mayor would be required to make representatives of certain city agencies available to individuals served by the court, and to develop a plan for integrating certain city data systems with data systems of the court. Those requirements would be mandates under UMRA but CBO estimates that the cost to comply would not exceed the threshold established in the act ($56 million in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation). H.R. 2657 would authorize appropriations to pay for the mandates, so the District of Columbia would face no net costs as a result of the act if those appropriations are provided. ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR This act contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 6

PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE On September 12, 2001, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, as approved by the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform on August 13, 2001. The two versions of the bill are similar, but the full committee version would require a lesser workload for the Family Court, which would lower staffing costs. In addition, because we are now assuming a later enactment date, costs over the 2002-2006 period would be $7 million lower. On November 27, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for S. 1382, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on November 14, 2001. H.R. 2657 and S. 1382 are identical, as are the estimated costs. ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford and Lanette J. Walker Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: Robert A. Sunshine Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 7