MANAGING BUDGET CUTBACKS
by
Robert W. Tobin Kenneth G. Pankey, Jr.
March 1994
National Center for State Courts
State Justice Institute
©1994 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-139-9 National Center Publication Number R-160
This Report was developed under Grant SJI-93-05C-B-017 from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is one of a series of reports that are designed to elaborate and expand upon sections of the NACM Trial Court Financial Management Guide. A special acknowledgment is due the National Association for Court Management which has promoted and supported the effort to provide useful management materials.
This report was made possible by the cooperation and assistance of many persons who took the time to coordinate site visits, to provide information, and to review drafts. Editorial comment on the main body of the report was provided by Sally Hillsman, Vice President, Research, National Center for State Courts. Gene Flango and Bill Hewitt of the National Center provided information on research reports which relate to this project. Alex Aikman of the National Center provided comment on Appendix J, Total Quality Management/Reinventing Government: Relevance to Court Administration. Production assistance was provided by Bill Fishback, Stevalynn Adams, Mary McCall, and Joe Kueser of the National Center.
The cooperation was excellent at each of the sites visited by the staff. These visits were coordinated through the chief executive officer of the court and normally involved interviews with the chief executive officer, various members of his or her staff, officials of the other branches, and judges exercising administrative functions. We extend our thanks to all persons who took time to provide us with information and to review our work. We particularly thank the managers who bore the brunt of our visit and the administrative judges under whose aegis we operated.
North Dakota
The Honorable Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chief Justice; the Honorable Ralph Erikstad, Chief Justice (retired); Keithe Nelson, State Court Administrator.
Maine
The Honorable Daniel E. Wathen, Chief Justice; James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator; Robert Freeman, Deputy State Court Administrator.
19th Judicial Circuit, Illinois (Lake County)
The Honorable John A. Goshgarian, Chief Judge; Robert A. Zastany, Court Administrator.
iii iv • Managing Budget Cutbacks
First Judicial District, Pennsylvania, (Philadelphia)
Dr. Geoff Gallas, Executive Administrator.
Connecticut Judicial Department
The Honorable Ellen Ash Peters, Chief Justice; The Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court Administrator; James O. Cavanaugh, Executive Director, Administrative Services; Joseph D. D'Alesio, Esq., Director of Operations, Superior Court.
Sacramento County, California (Superior and Municipal Courts)
The Honorable Roger K. Warren, Presiding Judge; Dennis B. Jones, Court Executive Officer; Charles H. Robuck, Administrative Services Officer.
Ventura County, California
The Honorable Steven Z. Perren, Presiding Judge, Ventura Superior Court; the Honorable Bruce A. Clark, Presiding Judge, Ventura Municipal Court; Sheila Gonzalez, Executive Officer/Jury Commissioner, Ventura Superior and Municipal Courts; Vince Ordoñez, Jr., Assistant Executive Officer; Florence Prushan, Assistant Executive Officer.
Broward County, Florida (17th Judicial Circuit)
The Honorable Dale Ross, Chief Judge; Carol Lee Ortman, Court Administrator; Thomas Furst, Deputy Court Administrator; Cheryl Anderson, Deputy Court Administrator.
Special thanks go to Brian Lynch who, as a National Center employee, conceived the idea for the project and who returned as a consultant to assist the project in its early stages.
Robert W. Tobin, Project Director
Kenneth G. Pankey, Jr.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments...... iii
Summary of Findings and Conclusions ...... ix
Introduction: Goals, Methodology, and Products...... 1
A. Goals...... 1
B. Advisory Committee...... 1
C. Project Methodology ...... 1
1. Site Visits...... 2
2. COSCA Survey ...... 3
3. Application of Financial Management Innovations to Courts ...... 4
4. Bibliography...... 4
D. Report Description...... 4
E. Appendices...... 4
Part I: Prospects for Funding State Courts in the 90s ...... 6
A. Overview ...... 6
B. Indicators of State Financial Condition ...... 6
1. Year-End Balances...... 6
2. Expenditure Growth...... 7
3. Expenditure Policies ...... 8
4. Revenue...... 9
C. Summary...... 10
Part II: Approaches to Cutback Management ...... 11
A. Overview ...... 11
v vi • Managing Budget Cutbacks
B. Fundamental Changes...... 11
1. Changes in the Organizational and Geographical Configuration of Courts...... 11
a. The New Push for Unification...... 11
b. Unification Experience at Project Sites...... 12
c. Organizational Unification and Efficiency...... 13
d. Geographic Unification...... 16
2. Changes in Interbranch Relations...... 17
3. Management Style, the Public Sector Entrepreneur...... 19
4. Changing Judicial Roles...... 20
5. Alternative Means of Financing Court Operations...... 21
a. Funding of Educational and Rehabilitative Programs for Substance Abusers and Errant Drivers...... 23
b. Fees for Probation Services...... 23
c. Jury Demand Fee...... 24
d. Family Services and Alternative Dispute Resolution...... 24
e. Automation Fees...... 24
f. Youth Homes ...... 25
g. Facilities...... 25
h. Indigent Defense and Legal Aid...... 25
i. Court Education ...... 26
j. Law Libraries ...... 26
k. Court Improvement Trust Funds ...... 26
l. Security...... 26
6. Revenue Enhancement ...... 26
7. Facilities and Technology-Drivers of Fundamental Change...... 29
Table of Contents• vii
a. Facilities...... 29
b. Technology ...... 31
8. Planning ...... 32
C. Tactical Changes ...... 33
1. Reducing the Level of Court Operations or the Scope of Court Responsibilities...... 33
a. Reducing Services...... 33
b. Eliminating Specific Programs or Reducing Scope of Court Operations...... 34
c. Downsizing the Judiciary and Judicial Staff...... 34
d. Cutting Back in Marginal Areas and Retaining Core Services...... 35
2. Delay in Expenditures or Temporary Cuts ...... 36
3. Increasing Workload and Hours of Existing Staff or Use of Volunteers...... 37
4. Seeking More Flexible Use of Budgeted Funds to Maximize Their Use ...... 37
5. Attempting to Increase Grants and Reimbursements...... 37
6. Imposing Stringent Controls Over Expenditures...... 38
D. Conclusion ...... 39
viii • Managing Budget Cutbacks
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Site Visit Report, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
APPENDIX B: Site Visit Report, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois (Lake County)
APPENDIX C: Site Visit Report, Sacramento County, California
APPENDIX D: Site Visit Report, Ventura County, California
APPENDIX E: Site Visit Report, Connecticut
APPENDIX F: Site Visit Report, Maine
APPENDIX G: Site Visit Report, Circuit and County Courts of Broward County, Florida
APPENDIX H: Site Visit Report, North Dakota
APPENDIX I: National Budget Survey Conference of State Court Administrators
APPENDIX J: Total Quality Management/Reinventing Government: Relevance to Court Administration
APPENDIX K: Bibliography
APPENDIX L: Budgetary Control Steps by Object of Expenditure
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of States Reporting High and Low Year-End Net Balances...... 7
Table 2: Summary of State General Fund Revenues and Expenditures, FY 1991 to FY 1993...... 7
Table 3: Disposition of State Appropriations for FY 1993 ...... 8
Table 4: Percent Change in Appropriations for Education, Welfare, Corrections, and AFDC, FY 1992-1993...... 9
Table 5: Forecasts of State General Fund Revenue Growth Rates: (FY 1994 Estimate Compared to FY 1993 Expected Collections) ...... 10
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
he advisory committee set the tone for the project when it advised the staff to focus on fundamental long-term changes to deal with scarcity of resources rather than to emphasize T short-term tactical steps to cope with tight budgets. Guided by this advice, the staff identified some fundamental changes that are being adopted by trial courts. The basic findings and conclusions are noted below:
• In the foreseeable future most courts will be in a "flat budget" situation in which they will be fortunate to have their appropriations increase at the rate of inflation.
• There is a renewed trend to structural, administrative, fiscal and geographic unification in trial court systems, the purpose being to make better use of scarce resources. Some trial court systems will move from two-tier courts to one-tier courts and will consolidate cases in a reduced number of locations.
• Judicial independence will be guaranteed less by mandate than by enhancing court managerial credibility to the point where the other branches will accord a wide latitude to courts in financial and budgetary management.
• The above-referenced credibility will be obtained in large part by a more entrepreneurial type of court management, one that is flexible, imaginative, and results-oriented.
• The budgetary needs of courts will be profoundly affected by the changed nature of the judicial role and the creation of a more efficient and less costly range of dispute resolution mechanisms. • There is considerable ingenuity being employed in the development of alternative resources, making the courts less dependent on the level of appropriations.
• Courts are enhancing their budget position with appropriating bodies by more effectively collecting money due the courts.
• Technology and improved facility management and design are proving to be major factors in promoting efficiency and rendering courts less labor-intensive.
• Shortage of funds has caused a higher degree of prioritization and strategic planning with the result that courts are better focused on achieving goals by alternate means rather than budgeting as usual and waiting for budget upturns that may never occur.
ix
INTRODUCTION Goals, Methodology, and Products
A. Goals
he project, as the title indicates, deals with how to manage in a budget situation where resources are declining or have leveled off. The principal purpose of the project is to T identify fundamental changes and basic management strategies that help courts to maximize their efficiency and to maintain, if not increase, their productivity in the face of resource limitations. Some attention is also addressed to revenue enhancement.
Although the target audience is composed largely of courts that are in a tight budget situation, the ideas advanced in the report have application to any court. Sound structures, intelligent initiatives, and good management practices are certainly not restricted to courts that are in a pinched financial condition.
B. Advisory Committee
The project was performed with the assistance and guidance of six-person advisory committee composed of:
Honorable Patrick Sheedy, Chief Judge, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Circuit Court
Honorable Paul R. Zavarella, Orphans Court Division, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas
Mr. Fred Lickteig, Assistant Budget Officer, Anne Arundel County, Maryland
James F. Lynch, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, New Hampshire
Mr. John A. Clarke, Trial Court Administrator, Essex County, New Jersey
Mr. John J. Radford Administrator, Accounting Division, State of Oregon
C. Project Methodology
The project was designed to produce useful management and planning models for emulation in courts attempting to function in a tight budget environment. The methodology consisted of reviewing likely sources for emulation and selecting those examples that appeared to have a very basic and general application in courts. There were four main sources of information. The use of these four sources is outlined below.
-1- 2 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
1. Site Visits
The eight sites selected for visitation represent a cross-section of courts. Since the project is a result of recent budgetary downturns, it not surprising that the hardest hit regions, California and the Northeast provide five of the eight sites. There is also diversity in geographic location, demographics, the mix of state and local funding for courts, and court structures. Three of the sites, Connecticut, Maine, and North Dakota, are states, as the object of analysis in each case was an entire state court system. The main criterion for choice was the existence of programs, procedures, or initiatives that would benefit other courts. Below are listed the eight sites, their characteristics, and the date of visitation:
SITE VISIT MATRIX
State Court(s) Funding Sources Dates of Visit California Superior and Municipal County funding with June 28,29 Courts of Ventura County substantial state block grant and some direct state payments.
California Superior and Municipal County funding with June 24,25 Courts of Sacramento County substantial state block grant and some direct state payments and federal grants.
Connecticut All state trial courts Almost totally June 17,18 state-funded.
Maine All state trial courts Almost totally June 14-17 state-funded.
North Dakota All state trial courts Primarily state-funded; county June 28-30 funding being phased out.
Illinois Circuit Court of Lake County Largely county-funded, some June 22-24 state funds; number of special funds.
Florida Circuit Court and County Largely county; some state July 7,8 Court of Broward County funds; number of special funds.
Pennsylvania Trial courts of First Judicial Largely City of Philadelphia; June 1-3 District some state funding and substantial IV D funding.
Introduction • 3
The site reports, which are contained in Appendices A-H, follow the same general format, but some variations were required due to variations among the sites. Below is the general format that was used.
SITE REPORT FORMAT
SECTION DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS Introduction The introduction provides the rationale for visiting the site and the dates of the visit.
I The Setting This section covers: (A) demographic and geographic details; (B) the governmental system and interbranch relations; (C) the structure and organization of the court.
II The Fiscal Situation This section addresses: (A) the way in which the court is financed; (B) the fiscal position of the funding agency or agencies; (C) the budgetary position of the courts; and (D) the steps being taken to cope with the budget situation (this is the core of the project).
III Court Operations The relationship of caseload processing to fiscal considerations, if any, is addressed in this section. Reduction in court services is covered, if this occurred.
IV Summary of Steps This section describes the principal cutback management steps taken by Taken by Courts the courts with emphasis on fundamental changes such as: changing funding sources for trial courts, major changes in court organization or responsibilities, deliberate downsizing, major shifts in geographic or subject matter jurisdiction, major changes in the role of judges or in their deployment, changes in management philosophy, privatization, and fundamental changes in interbranch relations.
Conclusion This section is a summation of the most important and innovative steps taken by the particular court, primarily those which appear to bear replication.
2. COSCA Survey
The Conference of State Court Administrators, at its mid-year meeting in December 1992, had a post-meeting session on the budget situation of courts. In preparation for this meeting states were surveyed on their budget problems. Some responses dealt not only with the state fiscal situation, but also with local budget problems, usually in major urban centers. Project staff attended the meeting and kept records of the oral comments. Project staff also received the report put together for the meeting.
4 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The COSCA material provided a very good overview of the fiscal situation of courts from the state level. The action steps reported by the respondents tended to be tactical in nature and were categorized by the project staff by state, type of step taken, and expenditure category. These data are arrayed in spread sheet form and are aggregated in various ways in Appendix I.
3. Application of Financial Management Innovations to Courts
The project staff reviewed two major works in public administration, specifically: Reinventing Government by Osborne and Gaebler and Excellence in Government by Carr and Lippman, a publication of Coopers and Lybrand on the subject of Total Quality Management. Appendix J contains a 28-page article on the application of Total Quality Management to courts and the application to courts of the principles set forth in Reinventing Government. The article employs footnotes to suggest ways in which courts are being or could be improved by employing more efficient or more entrepreneurial methods.
4. Bibliography
The project methodology included the task of identifying written materials relevant to cutback management. In a sense, any effective management practice is germane to cutback management. Thus, as a practical matter, judgments had to be made on the scope of inclusion. In general, the selected works deal specifically with cutback management or emphasize efficiency, such as some of the standard works on Total Quality Management. The bibliography is contained in Appendix K.
D. Report Description
Following this introductory section, the report contains two substantive sections that are described below:
I Prospects for Funding State Courts in the 90s. A basic assumption of the project is that the fiscal situation for courts will continue to be tight for the foreseeable future. Section II provides some factual basis for this assumption.
II Approaches to Cutback Management. This section is the core of the report. It summarizes the principal findings about cutback management, emphasizing fundamental changes but also including tactical considerations. The latter changes are treated in summary form in Section 3, but are listed in detail in Appendices I and L.
E. Appendices
Appendices A-H. This part of the report contains site reports for visits to: North Dakota; Maine; Connecticut; Ventura County and Sacramento County, California; Broward County, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Lake County, Illinois . Appendix I. This appendix contains a summary of the COSCA budget survey.
Introduction • 5
Appendix J. This appendix contains a 28-page article on the court applications of the principles and techniques of Total Quality Management and of Reinventing Government.
Appendix K. This appendix contains a bibliography.
Appendix L. This appendix contains a summary of budgetary control steps by object of expenditure.
PART I Prospects for Funding State Courts in the 90s
A. Overview
he financing of state courts varies with the economic fortunes of the state and local governments which provide the funding for courts. During the recent recession, which T lingers on in some states, a number of court systems were strongly affected by governmental budget woes. The key question is whether the budgetary travails of the early 90s will continue over the course of the decade.
Forecasting the fiscal conditions of states and localities is an inexact art. The variables affecting the economy are infinite and their effect on government finances is not always clear. Moreover, changes in state and local tax structure and new federal mandates can greatly affect revenue projections. However, it is possible to look at data for recent years and to make some reasonable speculations about trends and probabilities.
The National Council of State Legislatures tracks state fiscal trends and regularly makes assessments of the fiscal position of states. What emerges from these reports is the picture of a slow return to relative fiscal stability with no great likelihood of a dramatic upturn in the financial well-being of states. What appears is a pattern of budgetary increase which, on the average, will match the rate of inflation, essentially a flat funding pattern. For states still in the throes of the recession, this rate of increase would be an aspiration; some states will exceed it.
B. Indicators of State Financial Condition
1. Year-End Balances
A standard indicator of state fiscal condition is the year-end net balance as a percentage of general fund spending. The public administration bench mark for adequacy was for many years set at 5 % and used as a point of reference for analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). In FY 1991 the actual aggregate percentage was 1.2%; in 1992 the estimated percentage was .7%; in FY 1993 the estimated percentage was 1.2 %. The 1992 percentage was the lowest in history according to the NCSL.
Based on the assumption that a percentage of 5% is normative and that any percentage less than 1 % indicates a weak reserve position, there has been a clear trend among states to a weaker position. For three consecutive fiscal years almost 50 % of the states have reported weak reserves. Meanwhile, the number of states with a strong reserve position has dropped steadily.
-6- Prospects for Funding State Courts in the 90s •7
Table 1
Percentage of States Reporting High and Low Year-End Net Balances as a Percentage of General Fund Spending
Fiscal Year % of Reporting States % of Reporting States Under 1 % 5 % or More 1990 21 % 41%
1991 48 % 38 %
1992 (Est.) 49 % 21 %
1993 (Projected) 47 % 12 %
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Actions 1992, page 9, Figure 1.
2. Expenditure Growth
As indicated in Table 2, projected expenditures for FY 1993 are 3% above FY 1992 expenditures. This is the lowest nominal growth rate since 1983 and below the rate of inflation. In other words, there is no real growth occurring.
Table 2
Summary of State General Fund Revenues and Expenditures FY 1991 to FY 1993 (billions of dollars)
Actual Estimated Projected FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 Revenues $276.5 $295.8 $309.8
Revenue change from previous fiscal year --- $19.3 $14.0 Percent change from previous fiscal year 3.2% 7.0% 4.8%
Expenditures $283.2 $299.3 $308.3
Expenditure change from previous fiscal --- $16.1 $9.0 year Percent change from previous fiscal year 5.2% 5.7% 3.0%
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Actions 1992, page 11, Table 3. (Excludes Illinois)
8 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
As also indicated in Table 2, expenditures did not match revenues in FY 1991 and FY 1992. The FY 1993 projections, if they hold up, will produce a small excess of revenues over expenditures. The NCSL analysts report that, on the whole, surpluses will be used to cover deficits accumulated in previous years, rather than for additional spending. This further confirms the probability that there will not be much, if any, real expenditure growth.
3. Expenditure Policies
State expenditure policies are heavily influenced by such factors as federal mandates, health care costs, and welfare caseloads. Roughly 65% of state general fund appropriations fall into the areas of education, health, welfare, and corrections. Many state correctional facilities are operating under federal court orders to meet federal prison standards, a factor which has great implications for courts.
Table 3
Distribution of State Appropriations for FY 1993
Cumulative Percent of Total Percentage K-12 Education 33.8% 33.8%
Medicaid 12.3% 46.1%
Higher Education 12.2% 58.3%
Corrections 4.5% 62.8%
Aid to Dependent Children 2.8% 65.6%
All Other (including Courts) 34.4% 100%
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Actions 1992, page 19, Figure 2.
For most states educational spending is a major priority. However, in FY 1992 a number of states cut back projected expenditures on K-12 education to make ends meet, but the rate of increase for K-12 education expenditures was still above the average nominal increase in overall expenditures. In terms of state priorities, courts fall into the area of expenditure that may have to shrink in order to maintain a budget equilibrium, which is to say that courts are not a high priority item compared to health, welfare, corrections, and education which consume a lot of budget resources. The courts have probably never been a high-priority item at the state level but have, for the most part, avoided major budget cuts until the recent recession. A major reason for this is that the court budget is typically less than 2% of the state budget and often enjoys a special status as the funding source for a separate branch of government.
Prospects for Funding State Courts in the 90s •9
The special priority of health, K-12 education, welfare, and corrections is demonstrated by comparing the projected rate of expenditure increase in these areas to the overall rate of increase for general fund expenditures. From FY 1992 to FY 1993, the overall rate of increase in general fund expenditures was 3%. Table 4 shows that the rate of increase in priority areas exceeded 3%.
Table 4
Percent Change In Appropriations for Education, Welfare, Corrections, and AFDC
FY 1992-1993
Rate of Increase (Compared to 3%) K-12 Education 4.3%
Medicaid 6.2%
Corrections 4.5%
Aid to Dependent Children 4.7%
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Actions 1992, page 23-27, Tables 7 and 8, December 1992.
4. Revenue
A projected rate of revenue increase is a factor in projecting the level of government spending. General fund revenue collections in the first half of 1993 showed substantial improvement over the previous year. In February 1993, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that 29 states were within 1% of their revenue estimates; 15 states were more than 1% above target; and 6 states were more than 1% below target. This last group included California and Michigan, both economically hard-hit states.
Most states were projecting modest revenue increases for 1994 based on an expectation of slow national economic growth. Large states, such as New York and California, were projecting an increase in revenues less than the rate of inflation. Texas was projecting an absolute decline in revenues. States anticipating large increases (Arkansas and Ohio) were those that recently increased taxes. Table 5 below indicates the 1994 forecasts for 43 states that responded to an NCSL survey.
10 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 5
Forecasts of State General Fund Revenue Growth Rates: (FY 1994 Estimate Compared to FY 1993 Expected Collections)
Revenue Growth Rate Number of States (N=43) No growth 3
Growth less than rate of inflation 10
Growth from rate of inflation to twice the rate 20 of inflation Growth that is more than twice the rate of 10 inflation
Total 43
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, State Fiscal Update, February, 1993 page 4, Table 2. NCSL relied on the inflation rate projections of the Congressional Budget Office for 1994 (2.85%).
The NCSL survey indicated that general fund revenue increases by means of new taxation would be used sparingly. In the states with 1993 shortfalls, the principal device for balancing the budget was spending cuts. Little change in this practice was anticipated in 1994.
C. Summary
The fiscal indicators do not augur well for courts. Yet, there is no basis for general panic; the overall situation does not appear dire. What appears to be in store nationally is a period of limited growth in expenditures and revenues. Favored state programs will probably increase at the expense of programs of lesser priority. Courts will do well to hold their own and can probably not expect increases that exceed the rate of inflation. In short, the probability is that courts will go through a period, perhaps a prolonged period, in which the maintenance of court operations at an acceptable level will require a lot of management ingenuity.
PART II Approaches to Cutback Management
A. Overview
his section summarizes the project findings on what has been helpful to courts dealing with tight budget situations. Resource limitations tend to encourage innovative and sometimes T far-reaching changes. Not infrequently, these changes were thought of prior to the budget difficulties but could not be effected until sheer necessity made them acceptable. It is important to note that while budget shortages may drive important changes, the resulting innovations are also beneficial to courts which are not in a tight budget situation. In other words, sound practices and structures have an intrinsic value which transcends current fiscal conditions.
This section categorizes budgetary changes in two ways: (1) fundamental changes; and (2) tactical changes.1 The emphasis is on fundamental changes.
B. Fundamental Changes
1. Changes in the Organizational and Geographical Configuration of Courts
a. The New Push for Unification.
Financial vicissitudes have caused courts to once more reexamine their organizational and geographic structure to ascertain whether efficiencies might result from a reconfiguration. The increased desire for efficiency has started a trend to further court unification. This unification takes some or all of the following forms: (1) administrative unification leading to control of budgeting, personnel and other basic administrative functions through a central management office or perhaps just through central management policy; (2) fiscal unification, that is the funding of a court system from one primary source, the state general fund; or (3) structural unification which entails increased consolidation and uniformity in trial court structure, perhaps to the point of having a single-tier court. Unification can also take the form of creating administrative districts which transcend local government boundaries and which serve as venue districts as well as management districts.
In earlier periods of state court history, unification was driven by three principal goals: (1) court reform, most commonly making lower courts more professional and bringing them under more direct administrative control of the upper judiciary; (2) more even-handed and reliable financing, which usually took the form of an increased state responsibility for trial court funding;
1 In addition, Appendix I categorizes budgetary changes by state; Appendix L categorizes budgetary changes by object of expenditure.
-11- 12 • Managing Budget Cutbacks and (3) more professional management of courts and strengthened lines of administrative accountability. What we are witnessing now is a new round of unification steps driven largely by the realization that scarcity of resources may persist for a number of years and that some fundamental steps will have to be taken in order to increase efficiency. This is not to say that efficiency was not advanced as a reason for some of the earlier unification efforts, only that this was seldom a dominant reason since most courts were on a steady upward path in funding and not, for the most part, in a situation which forced major management innovations in the use of resources.
b. Unification Experience at Project Sites.
In the course of the project, the staff visited eight jurisdictions which represent varying degrees of unification. Two jurisdictions, Lake County, Illinois and Connecticut (the state constitutes a single state-funded jurisdiction), have single-tier court systems although Illinois still distinguishes between circuit judges and associate judges and has independently elected circuit clerks. These two jurisdictions had far less trouble adapting to budgetary constraints than the other jurisdictions we visited. They are simply freer to adapt since there are fewer structural or organizational barriers to the movement or reallocation of resources.
Five of the other six jurisdictions have moved to unification as a means of achieving greater efficiency. In North Dakota, the legislature has required transformation of the existing two-tier trial court system into a single-tier system on January 1, 1995. In the few urban jurisdictions of North Dakota, clerks of the county court and clerks of the district court have started the process of merging staffs and record systems. In addition, the judiciary has been told to reduce the overall number of trial judges from 53 to 42 over a 10-year period. The legislature has not specified the details, leaving this to the courts. In practice, the Supreme Court holds a hearing every time there is a vacancy and determines whether to fill it. Three judgeships have been eliminated, well illustrating that organizational consolidation is seen as a means to more efficiency To facilitate supreme court achievement of efficiency in the state courts, the North Dakota legislature has also permitted the highest court to shape administrative districts, which are also election districts. The probability is that the number of administrative districts will be reduced from the current level of seven.
Philadelphia has been in the throes of municipal bankruptcy. The city is the principal funding source for three trial courts within the city: the Court of Common Pleas; the Municipal court; and the Traffic Court. The courts were generally perceived as highly inefficient and unresponsive to the problems of the city. The Supreme Court intervened and entered into a 5-year no growth budget agreement with the city and unified the administration of all three courts under a single non-judge administrator who has responsibility for the budget and personnel of all three courts. It is a further purpose of the unification to unite the Traffic Court and Municipal Court, and as a first step in that direction, the court administrator for the Municipal Court has been named the administrator for the Traffic Court.
The state-funded Maine court system has probably been the most hard-hit of any court system in the United States. The state has a two-tier trial court system. Most of the judges are in the limited jurisdiction District Court, but most of the case processing problems are in the Superior Court. In addition to inefficiencies in the use of judges, the Maine Futures Commission pointed out
Approaches to Cutback Management • 13 the inherent inefficiencies of having separate court administration offices and separate clerical support systems for the two courts.2 The Commission urged elimination of separate pay and separate titles for trial judges, total interchangeability in the use of judges, and virtual merger of the two courts in every administrative detail. But the Commission stopped just short of recommending consolidation because of entrenched political opposition. In fact, the chief justice plans to make extensive cross-assignments until every one gets used to the idea, and the new state court administrator has eliminated horizontal administration of each court and installed a single trial court administrator in the four administrative regions.
The California legislature has placed pressure on courts to coordinate their activities across organization lines in order to achieve efficiency, pursuant to the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991. A number of counties have taken steps to do this, among them Ventura County and Sacramento County, two of the project sites. These counties have undertaken administrative unification and judicial cross-assignment with results indicating the organizational barriers between trial courts constitute an unnecessary obstacle to efficient operation. There is serious consideration being given to asking the voters to approve a constitutional amendment creating a single-tier trial court.
c. Organizational Unification and Efficiency.
Unification of two trial courts does not automatically produce efficiencies. It may even lead to some short term expenditure increases: (1) higher salaries and higher fringe benefit and retirement contributions for judges and employees of a limited jurisdiction court being absorbed into a general jurisdiction court; and (2) additional expenditures in support of judges being elevated to the status of a general jurisdiction judge, such as enhancements in chambers and court rooms and entitlement to personal employees (e.g., court reporters, bailiffs, and secretaries).
However, unification of two trial courts (even de facto unification by cross-assignment of judges and other personnel) can, if well-managed, produce a number of efficiencies. Recent experience indicates the opportunity for efficiencies in any or all of the following areas.
Better use of judges: It is rare that both courts in a two-tier system are operating at the same level of effort. Generally, one is far busier that the other. The immediate effect of unification is to create a single pool of judges who can be assigned to areas of need without reference to jurisdictional boundaries between courts. The pooling of judges usually reduces backlog, if such exists, and also reduces the need for additional judges. Some jurisdictions visited by the project staff conceded that they could absorb cuts in the number of authorized judicial positions as the result of unification. The immediate downside effect of pooling is that judges may start to function in unfamiliar areas, but this is usually a short-term phenomenon. Over the long term, unification permits more accommodation of particular interests and skills among judges and probably greater productivity as a result.
In two-tier courts, a judge of a limited jurisdiction court and a judge of a general jurisdiction court may schedule themselves into the same county to hear some minor matters when
2 New Dimensions in Justice, Report of the Commission to Study the Future of Maine's Courts, Portland, 1993, p. 67.
14 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
one judge could easily handle both if the court were unified. Unification means that double visitation is rendered unnecessary.
Great efficiencies are obtained by having one judge hear criminal cases all the way through. In a two-tier court, limited jurisdiction judges may handle a preliminary hearing in a felony case but may not be empowered to take a plea or impose sentence. Similar restrictions may exist on their ability to hear motions to suppress. This constraint leads to double handling of cases, wholesale transfer of cases from one court to another, and rescheduling. In a unified court, this redundancy is eliminated.
Unification leads to less expense for use of retired judges. The tendency in a two-tier trial court is for each court to recall retired judges of their particular court rather than to use cross- assignment from another trial court in their county. Similarly, unification tends to reduce the need of transferring judges in from other counties or the use of pro tem judges.
Better use of parajudicial officers: A principal criticism of unification is that it will lead to proliferation of parajudicial officers because judges of the higher court will not want to be burdened with minor matters, and judges of the lower court will be fleeing from these cases. There may be an increase in such officers, which is not necessarily bad if this produces efficient and capable handling of the many routine and uncontested matters before a trial court. In jurisdictions where each court in a two-tier court system has its own parajudicial officers, unification can provide some efficiencies in their use, perhaps creating one generic category of parajudicial officers instead of two or more.
One beneficial effect of unification is that it does cause a reexamination of appropriate judicial roles and often leads to an improved deployment of judges and parajudicial officers. The cost of a court system will depend in large part on whether the judges personally adjudicate the great majority of cases or whether they preside over a variegated dispute resolution system, reserving for themselves adjudication of major cases and serving as reviewer of those cases which bubble up through the dispute resolution process. Parajudicial officers play a large role in the latter model.
Tighter management structure: There is rarely any justification for two adjacent courts having their own management structure: two presiding judges, two court administrators, and two sets of supervisors. Unification produces a single administrative structure, which not only reduces costs of operation but can also provide a more effective decision-making process. Unification also tends to reduce the number of supervisors in proportion to the number of employees, reducing middle management costs.
Unification of administrative structures has the effect of creating a unitary budget which should increase the control over expenditures and savings from pooling common expenditures and collapsing two contingency budget items into one. The fact that there is one budget does not prevent decentralized authority for budget management. In fact, decentralization is easier to achieve if there is only one prevailing budget policy instead of two.
Administrative unification almost invariably produces savings in the purchases of goods and services. This arises not only from savings of scale but also from pooling of needs.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 15
A frequently overlooked benefit of unification is the reduction in the number of persons with whom managers must maintain contact. There are fewer meetings, fewer coordination problems due to the increased simplicity of the structure.
Case management: Having two courts with different subject matter jurisdiction creates an arbitrary division of workload which often bears no relation to the resources of the two courts and which creates problems of redundancy, transfer, jurisdictional squabbling, and delay. One beneficial feature of unification is that it ends this intrinsically inefficient division by creating one court of general jurisdiction. The benefits of unification for case management are numerous:
• there are fewer steps in case processing and fewer opportunities for delay;
• filing of papers can be at one point, facilitating case control and reducing clerical needs;
• cases are not transferred between courts for jurisdictional reasons or held up by jurisdictional disputes;
• tracking cases and developing case management information systems is greatly simplified;
• where the courts have areas of concurrent jurisdiction, the opportunity for forum-shopping is reduced;
• attorneys operate under one set of court rules, and the public finds it easier to deal with one court;
• a common scheduling system places case management under common goals and procedures, facilitating caseflow management;
• the incidence of attorney scheduling conflict is reduced because attorneys are not subject to two or more separate court calendars; and
• disposition reporting to a state repository will be easier as there will not have to be two dispositions reported in the same case and less likelihood that a case cannot be matched to a person through fingerprints.
Staffing efficiencies: Unification leads to consolidation of two court staffs which generally have very similar functions. This is particularly true of clerical staff. Assuming that collective bargaining and civil service regulations permit, staffs can be cross-trained and deployed more efficiently. This may lead to some diminution in the number of authorized positions, but the most likely benefit is in cost avoidance by being able to handle increased workload without having to increase staff.
Record systems and automation: Very often two or more adjacent courts in the same county have very different approaches to computers and record keeping and operate in splendid isolation. The limited jurisdiction court is often the most automated as it is a high-volume court and has the most to offer in terms of technology, but the reverse may also be true. The unification of the systems may create efficiencies in personnel staffing and cost of computer usage. It may lead to the adoption of the best of the two existing systems, or perhaps the creation of a third
16 • Managing Budget Cutbacks system which integrates the two courts and replaces the separate systems. One of the most obvious savings is reduction in the number of lists and other outputs required of the computer system.
One of the great inefficiencies of a two-tier system is the maintenance of redundant record systems. A felony may be processed through a misdemeanor court with one set of papers, then moved to a felony court where the case is refiled and a whole new paper process started. The waste involved in double record-keeping is enormous.
Facilities: In a two-tier court it is not unusual for one court to have vacant courtrooms while the other court is deferring cases for lack of space. The pooling of facilities increases the management resources of the court and also the ability of court managers to move trial and hearings around. Thus, for example, one of two adjacent courts may have better jury rooms, holding facilities and security systems than the other court, permitting more serious cases to be handled in the superior facility. More important savings occur when outdated or leased facilities can simply be closed down because pooling of space permits this.
Ripple effect: Unification affects court-related agencies. Sheriff offices may enjoy savings from reduced prisoner transportation and reduced service of process (there is almost invariably a reduction in paper as the result of unification). Prosecutors and defenders may have fewer court rooms to cover and fewer steps in the process to deal with. Law enforcement agencies have lower witness costs due to unified scheduling and earlier case disposition.
The most likely beneficiaries of unification are the general funds of the governments that finance the trial courts. It is therefore no surprise that county officials and state officials with financial responsibilities often favor unification.
Conclusion: None of the above benefits are absolutely automatic. Unification presents opportunities, not panaceas. A court system with poor management will not benefit greatly from organizational unification.
d. Geographic Unification.
State trial courts tend to built around the county unit in most states. The county serves as a venue district, and the county seat is the principal courthouse site. In some large counties, there may be branch courts to better serve the public.
County lines date back many years and are, in large part, based on transportation conditions and demographic patterns which no longer exist. In rural areas of the United States there are many counties which are so sparsely populated that they cannot really provide a full range of government services, but these counties are almost invariably entitled by law to be treated as a court site.
The pattern in rural states is to institute regional court administration. However, the use of regional court facilities is still not seriously considered because of strong attachment to the county unit and the concept of convenient public service. The question is the price that a system can afford for convenience. Sending judges to sparsely settled areas is costly and is being weighed against the possibility of bringing parties into regional "full service" facilities, either in person, given the realities of modern transportation, or electronically. The use of FAX machines and electronic filing also militates against decentralization of court facilities.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 17
There is obviously some trade-off between public convenience and efficiency. In some urban counties or extremely large rural counties, branch courts may be a necessity and may actually be the most efficient means of service. In some rural areas, the most efficient means of court operation may be to transcend the county and serve the area through regional court centers, with the region serving as venue unit. Economic scarcity tends to drive changes which may run counter to the traditional political culture.
2. Changes in Interbranch Relations
Relations of the judicial branch to the other branches of government at both the state and local level are so varied that it is hard to discuss them in generic terms. Constitutional provisions, political traditions, personalities, and the internal dynamics of the judicial branch and the other two branches are some of the many factors affecting interbranch relations. There are also tensions caused when the judiciary must render decisions directly affecting the political composition of the other branches, for example decisions on term limits for legislators and the configuration of election districts. Yet underneath this diversity are some fundamental issues which are common to most jurisdictions. The site visits made it clear that court budgets are affected not just by the economic climate but by the level of management credibility that the judiciary has earned with officials of the other branches, who are not impressed with budget requests supported largely by assertions about judicial independence.
Over the years, state courts have emphasized the importance of judicial independence. The principle that courts should not be subject to control of the other branches in the performance of their adjudication function can be extended into the fiscal realm. State courts have often claimed that failure to provide adequate resources has reduced their ability to perform constitutionally mandated functions and impaired judicial independence by making courts subject to retaliation and control of the other branches. Courts have occasionally pushed this principle to the point of mandating financial support from an appropriating body, most commonly a county board. As financial responsibilities have switched to the state government, recourse to mandamus actions under some claim of inherent power has diminished; most courts find it imprudent to challenge a state legislature or the governor on a budget issue, although this has happened in New York, West Virginia, and, indirectly, Pennsylvania.
Empirically, mandamus actions do not work very well and are normally a last resort in a situation where interbranch relations have deteriorated to an extreme degree. Moreover, it is very hard for a court to invoke inherent powers in a period when all public entities are suffering cutbacks as the result of diminishing resources. Is a court more crucial than a school or a hospital? Can a court realistically invoke the constitution to extract a budget that penalizes other governmental bodies with important public missions? There was a time when courts could take refuge in the fact that they consumed a very small portion of the appropriations of the body which funds them. In a time of scarcity, however, the court segment of the budget is substantial enough to draw scrutiny, particularly inasmuch as court budgets in the last 10-15 years have tended to expand rapidly in response to a myriad of new social obligations. By and large, judicial leaders
18 • Managing Budget Cutbacks have accepted these realities and avoided confrontational dialogue in dealing with the other branches on matters of financing.3
What is emerging is a recognition that courts can use the principle of judicial independence to fend off micro-management by the other branches with a promise to effect efficiencies through good management. To win this latitude to manage their own affairs, courts have to establish management credibility, which is seriously lacking in many jurisdictions, thereby encouraging legislative skepticism about court budgets. If this credibility is established, courts often discover that they can achieve major savings and also cost avoidance. In short, it is better to view judicial independence as a means to managerial freedom in use of resources than as a means to compel higher appropriations by exercise of judicial power.
The indicia of this newer judicial approach are listed below. While every court has some of these indicia, most lack some or many of them.
• judicial presence in budget and appropriation matters is minimized to make it clear that the interbranch relationship is to be placed on a peer basis, manager dealing with manager in a strictly professional mode;
• contact with the other branches is ongoing and not confined to an annual budget blitz;
• the court initiates, proposals for efficiencies and savings and accepts budget ceilings based on realistic assessment of savings and cost avoidance;
• to the extent the court is saving general fund money, the court asks for a share in the savings, such share to be used flexibly without regard to fiscal year;
• the court demonstrates a serious attitude toward collection of court-generated revenues and sets goals for enhancing revenues;
• to the extent that the court enhances revenues, the court asks for some share in the revenues, such share to be used flexibly without regard for fiscal year;
• the court accepts a fair share of budget cutbacks but demands some freedoms in return;
• among the freedoms which might be requested, if they are perceived as advancing efficiency, are:
(1) freedom from the executive branch purchasing and contracting system; (2) freedom from the executive branch accounting and accounts payable system; (3) freedom from the executive branch agency which manages facilities; (4) freedom from executive branch personnel regulations; (5) freedom to conduct collective bargaining negotiations;
3 There are times, however, when there is some need for arbitration of interbranch disputes which reach an impasse stage. In King County, Washington, for example, the prosecutor offered to mediate a dispute between the courts and the county and eventually worked out an understanding which was reduced to writing.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 19
(6) freedom to freely allocate appropriated funds without reference to object of expenditure categories or at least freedom to transfer funds among non- personnel accounts and to move lapsed personnel funds into non-personnel accounts; (7) freedom to move funds from one court to another; (8) freedom to carry over unexpended funds into the next fiscal year; and (9) freedom to control computer support for the courts.
• at a state-wide level the courts should seek freedom to shape administrative districts and circuits, to change venue based on these changes, and to freely allocate resources among these districts and circuits.
The lesson to be learned from the budget cutback experience is that courts can take advantage of budget deficiencies to increase their administrative independence. This managerial latitude permits courts to take the steps necessary to produce efficiency savings to offset cuts. However, this latitude can only be achieved if management credibility is first established and the concept of the imperial court abandoned or at least held in deep reserve.
3. Management Style, the Public Sector Entrepreneur
The site visits revealed the importance of enterprising management as a key factor in permitting courts to cope with budget shortages. Although entrepreneurs are found in the ranks of the judiciary, it may not be appropriate for judges to exercise these skills directly. It falls largely to court mangers to assume the entrepreneurial role. Having people in court administration who can play this role effectively is probably more important to efficiency and successful cutback management than any specific management step.
The budget crises of recent years have produced a breed of government administrators who are less wedded to traditional bureaucratic methods and more inclined to "wheel and deal" and to think of faster and cheaper ways to accomplish objectives. Such individuals have always been in the ranks of government managers, but their skills were not highly appreciated in a government environment where budgets tended to increase in steady increments without serious challenge. But today is the age of the public sector entrepreneur.
What type of court manager would qualify as a public sector entrepreneur? The characteristics are not easily defined but observation of such individuals produces the following portrait:
• they are deal-makers, which is to say that they understand the executive branch and legislative officials with whom they interact and have a facility for making budget compromises that achieve court goals while satisfying some political or fiscal need of the people they are dealing with;
• they can form a broad political consensus if this is necessary to obtain legislation or the consent of many groups for some needed court program;
20 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• they have an eye for available pots of money other than their general fund appropriation and do not feel constrained from seeking access to other resources;
• they have an eye for evading red tape and zeroing in on regulations and procedures which inhibit operational efficiency;
• they are tough contract negotiators, whether it be with contractors providing some service or with a labor union;
• they have an eye out for free or cheap services and can often tie such services into a contract they are negotiating;
• they are constantly reviewing contracts and government-provided services and are not afraid to make changes to save money or improve services;
• they have an eye for padded payrolls and wasteful expenditures and will force managers to prioritize rather than to protect the status quo;
• they are competitive and put others in a competitive mode;
• they are not averse to privatization if government employees fail;
• they delegate easily and broadly but set very definite goals which they enforce;
• they do not accept any procedure just because it is time-honored, and they seek empirical justification for continuing procedures which appear inefficient; and
• public sector entrepreneurs are first and foremost "can do" persons who will figure out ways to meet court goals within whatever resources they can assemble.
Although the above portrait is subjective, it is indisputable that the current government climate puts a premium on innovative and adventurous management, traits not normally associated with the civil service. Techniques mean nothing unless the manager has this entrepreneurial attitude.
4. Changing Judicial Roles
Court systems are built around judges. Therefore, expenditure levels are keyed not only to the expenses of judges themselves, but also to the cost of their support systems. However, the role of judges differs from state-to-state and even within states, so that the expenditures per judge (the judge and the immediate support system) tend to be widely variant. The expenditure patterns of a court system can be dramatically changed by altering the role of judges.
In the traditional adjudication model, judges are the primary adjudicators and the supporting system and its costs are geared to this reality. This model is giving way to a different model with different costs. In this newer model, the primary role of judges is to ensure that disputes are fairly resolved, but not necessarily to resolve all cases themselves. In this newer
Approaches to Cutback Management • 21 characterized by speed and informality and by a relatively high degree of pro se representation, as is now common in family courts. The judge's primary role is to oversee this diversified process, handling only those cases that require error correction or that by their nature require the direct exercise of judicial responsibility. This model has been used in juvenile courts for a number of years.
The diversified dispute resolution model, sometimes called the "multi-door court", suggests an alternative to the addition of judges as caseloads rise or change in composition. No longer are caseload figures translated into a certain number of new judgeships. The old weighted caseload methods have limited application in a multi-door court using a mixture of parajudicial officers, counselors, neighborhood conciliators, and attorneys serving as arbitrators.4 Moreover, legislatures are increasingly loath to create new judgeships, leaving courts little choice but to experiment with less costly, more flexible models of dispute resolution. The "multi-door court" also undermines the rationale for a two-tier trial court system. Legislators and the general public perceive that there is little need for a cadre of highly paid limited jurisdiction judges when there appear to be so many acceptable, cheaper alternatives. In short, the diversified adjudication model requires one type of judge, who sits at the peak of a dispute resolution pyramid and focuses on those cases which, of necessity, demand the attention of a jurist.
Arguments arise as to "access to justice." Does a system of true justice demand a high level of judicial presence? The answer to this question is beyond the purview of this report, but as is so often the case, this issue is being resolved by economic considerations. Resource constraints are dictating a less expensive, but not necessarily less just, system of adjudication.
The implications of this newer model for court financing are enormous. Yet many states are drifting into it more or less piecemeal, creating a hybrid of structures and operating strategies that do necessarily not achieve the potential efficiencies of the change. The reason is that most courts, for a variety of reasons, are loath to accept a system in which the role of judges is explicitly and substantially altered. However, at some point, the changed model must find its way into planning. This will affect interior space configurations, including chamber space, the types of facilities courts require, and the location of these facilities. The new model will also affect staffing patterns and caseflow management, now largely geared to traditional adjudication models. In short, one of the first steps in cutback management is to look at emerging adjudication models. Changes in the fundamental operations of courts are more likely to produce savings than changes in the narrower but more publicized areas of cost-cutting.
5. Alternative Means of Financing Court Operations
Courts, for a variety of understandable reasons, have not been not been particularly entrepreneurial or aggressive in seeking resources beyond those available through the normal processes of general fund appropriations and special grants.5 Courts have traditionally resisted
4 It is, of course possible to include parajudicial officers in a weighted caseload formula if their duties are well- defined and fairly constant. This is occurring in Wisconsin where the NCSC is conducting a study of judgeship needs. Determining Judgeship Needs (SJI-92-05C-B-158).
5 An interesting aspect of the study was the difference in attitudes towards the Federal IV-D Program. Illinois courts have by and large stayed away from it. Maine was just starting to get into the program and to take advantage of the substantial funding opportunities. In Florida the clerks collect a substantial administrative fee
22 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
being transformed into collection agencies or being viewed in terms of their "profitability." However, the recent budget problems have caused some reappraisal of the role of courts as: (1) collector of court-imposed financial sanctions; (2) recipient of revenue earmarked for court purposes; and (3) collector of charges for services rendered by the court or services used by the court as rehabilitative or correctional options.
Responding to contemporary budget realities, courts have started to become more aggressive in seeking out revenue sources earmarked for court purposes,6 usually a very specific court purpose going beyond some of the more traditional uses of such funds.7 Proliferation of earmarked funds usually causes problems: (1) reduction of accountability under the budget process; 8 (2) possible stockpiling of funds in a time when there may be severe shortages in some other areas of public expenditures;9 and (3) problems of internal control. Earmarked funds lead to temptations which do not present themselves when general fund revenues are being used.10 Despite these problems, courts have found that earmarking funds provides some insulation against downturns in the budget.
Closely related to the use of special revenue funds is the increased use of user fees, based on the idea that users of court services ought to pay, if able, for some of the services being provided. Similarly, there is increasing emphasis on recouping the costs of services provided to indigents. The variety of alternatives to traditional funding options is now very extensive. Below are listed some of the more common alternatives to traditional methods of financing court and court-related functions.
for handling IV-D cases but generally stay out of the program; the Florida courts do receive some IV-D funding for child support hearing officers.
6 The term "earmarking" generally implies that a special revenue fund is created and that expenditures from that fund are made pursuant to special legislation or court rule. It is not uncommon, however, for courts to make agreements with a county that the "special revenues" go into the general fund, provided the court is credited with these funds for budgetary purposes. This normally happens when the amounts involved do not suffice to cover the activity or function for which the fund was created.
7 A common earmarked fund over the years has been a fund for law library support with proceeds of a fee being administered by some board overseeing the library.
8 Interviews with county officials in Lake County, Illinois, revealed considerable frustration that court agencies, particularly the elected clerk, had obtained earmarked funds thought legislative acts in Springfield and were, to some extent, bypassing the county and going in business for themselves.
9 In Lake County, Illinois, there were five court-related special funds with a total of over $2.5 million at the end of FY 1992. There were absolutely no expenditures from some of these funds.
10 Any auditor familiar with court operations will attest that special funds have frequently been misused. Very often they are set up by special legislation without very clear guidelines as to legitimate expenditures and accountability.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 23
a. Funding of Educational and Rehabilitative Programs for Substance Abusers and Errant Drivers.
There are many laws assessing fees or fine surcharges for the purpose of specially funding programs to reduce substance abuse and improve driver awareness of safety. Courts may or may not financially benefit from these laws, but, if the programs are under court auspices, the courts are likely to benefit from the additional funding. In many instances, the money goes to the state and is allocated to the local level.
In Utah, juvenile courts receive 50% of the revenue paid into the Substance Abuse Prevention Account, a fund fed by a $150 fee imposed on offenders in addition to any fines or fees imposed for violation of drug laws. Colorado courts receive some revenues from a Drug Offender Surcharge enacted in 1991. In Florida, substance abuse programs run under court auspices are funded by special court costs and allocated to programs by the state or from the County Drug Abuse Trust Fund. Florida collects a fee for those persons who elect to take driver education courses. In Lake County, Illinois, where a local college provides not only driver education but also training of court personnel, the persons going into driver education pay the cost directly to the contractor, relieving the county of a program expense and also a possible expense for employee education.
Increasingly, defendants in traffic and criminal cases are being asked to carry the cost of educational or rehabilitative programs to which they have been sentenced or diverted. Debate is widespread about whether defendants should carry the whole cost of a substance abuse program and about what mix of funding sources is more sensible. In some locations the debate has served to check the movement toward defendant-financed programs and to curb the amount of court-imposed fees and criminal surcharges. At a certain monetary level, these fees and surcharges become uncollectable and defeat the purpose of the program.
b. Fees for Probation Services.
Some courts are responsible for probation services. There is strong tendency to defray the cost of these services by imposing a service fee upon probationers. Pennsylvania has passed such a law. Half the fee stays at the local level and half goes to the state for allocation. The Philadelphia courts were, at the time of the staff site visit, having great difficulty in collecting these fees, but the amounts collected will provide some offset to local probation costs. Lake County, Illinois, also collects probation services fees which go into an earmarked fund. Numerous other states collect probation service fees,11 including states where probation is an executive branch function.
11 Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. In Texas, Florida, Arkansas, and Alabama the probation fees run from 30-50 % of operating costs. Maricopa County, Arizona, also defrays much of its probation costs by service fees. Elsewhere, they're not significant in amount. Florida actually uses contractors for misdemeanor probation. The contractors receive the fees.
24 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
c. Jury Demand Fee.
Maine charges $300 for a civil jury trial demand. Such fees are relatively common. California assesses civil litigants for civil jury trials, including panel costs, practically eliminating the taxpayer burden for the civil jury system.
d. Family Services and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are a variety of court programs to help families, such as mediation or conciliation services. Very often the mediator or conciliator is a court employee or a court contractor. As the volume of such services has risen, laws have been passed requiring that the parties pay for these services if they can. A common alternative is to have an earmarked court cost; for example, a service charge assessed by Florida courts on domestic relations petitions is paid into a family mediation account. It is also possible to have an hour or two of mediation provided at public expense but more than that provided at private expense.
Civil arbitration and mediation are often funded by the parties and may be provided by organizations outside the administrative control of the court. Connecticut uses an interesting court- sponsored variation of the rent-a-judge program by having retired judges operate through a non- profit organization which can provide speedy resolution at the option and expense of the parties with some adjustment based on economic condition of the parties. Florida collects earmarked fees to cover the costs of civil arbitration and mediation.
e. Automation Fees.
With the advent of court automation, some states permitted courts to collect a special fee to finance the expenses of court automation. Illinois has such a law. Significant proceeds have been realized under its terms,12 but it is not without its problems. The clerks control it, although a judicial sign-off is necessary.13 Moreover, the ground rules for use of the funds have not been very clear.
In Philadelphia, the court executive has set up an automation fund fed by savings on the court's purchasing account. This has been done by special arrangement with the city and is not subject to year-end lapse or city purchasing regulations.
12 In Lake County, Illinois, the revenues for 1992 were $627,516.
13 The Illinois clerks were more successful on later legislation obtaining passage of a law earmarking fees to improve record systems without requiring approval of the chief judge for expenditures. During FY 1992 in Lake County, Illinois, this fund accumulated $486,000 without any expenditures. Florida clerks have obtained passage of a similar law.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 25
f. Youth Homes.
One of the most expensive functions of a court may be the provision of juvenile detention. In Illinois, the state permits voters to create a youth home which is supported by a special allocation of the property tax with the millage figured separately. The home operates from a special revenue fund. Such homes are normally subsidized in part by taking in juveniles from nearby counties and charging the counties for the cost.
g. Facilities.
It is not uncommon for states to permit imposition of a court facility fee (e.g., North Carolina, Florida), but it is not common to specifically earmark these funds. The general idea seems to be that a facility fee helps counties provide facilities even though the amount produced from the facility fee is small in relation to the actual facility costs.14 In Maine, a small amount of court revenue ($3,000 per month) is paid into a District Court Building Fund. Even this small fund provides some flexibility in meeting small unanticipated facility costs.
h. Indigent Defense and Legal Aid.
Indigent defense, when it is included in the court budget, can be a budget-breaker. Most states collect some fees to cover the cost of indigent defense but generally do not earmark them.15 The percentage of defendants who receive representation at public expense is very high in most jurisdictions, but very little money has been spent to do front-end screening to determine eligibility or to at least fix a partial payment. Maine, in a controlled experiment, used screening units in selected locations and demonstrated very clearly that screening is very cost beneficial. Screening is not an unmixed blessing. There is empirical evidence that it may cause delay and that it doesn't work unless there are very clear definitions of indigence.
An increasing number of states are starting recoupment programs, usually based on a lien system. This is helping in Philadelphia and, although the percentage returns are seldom high anywhere (more than 5% would be good), the dollar returns are not insubstantial. North Dakota relies on competitive contracts to control costs There is some concern among North Dakota judges that the system does not always produce the best defense, but it has worked reasonably well and protected the courts against open-ended expenditures.
In Philadelphia, civil filing fees were raised very substantially with the idea that the court could use some of these funds to pay for the burgeoning costs of indigent defense. The courts had accepted a no-growth budget so that the budget base of the courts was expanded in the amount of the civil fees received by the court. The city agreed to this because the net cost of the court's budget was not changed and because most of the increased fees went to the city general fund.
The cost of appointed counsel are no longer almost totally criminal in nature. In Maine, for example, 50% of the indigent appointments in District Court are made in child protective and
14 A 1992 NCSC study in Pinellas County, Florida, estimated the cost of court facilities to be about $4.7 million per annum, roughly nine times the facility fees collected in the same period.
15 Louisiana has tried to run its indigent defense system from earmarked fees without notable success. The fees go up and down and may fall drastically below what is necessary.
26 • Managing Budget Cutbacks mental health cases. Yet, some of the fee systems do not even cover this type of case. Moreover, a court which goes to a contract bid system may find that these types of cases should be bid separately.
Florida permits collection of a fee to pay for Legal Aid, normally to provide required representation to indigents in civil cases. This is not the norm.
i. Court Education.
One of the first court expenditures to get cut in a recession is education. Florida has a special fee to fund court education from a $2.50 fee on civil cases. The fees go into a state-level trust fund under the aegis of the Florida Supreme Court. Kansas has a similar fund.
j. Law Libraries.
The funding of law libraries is often a court responsibility, but the funds usually come from court-collected fees against which the libraries budget. The fee-based method of funding law libraries has numerous imperfections, not the least of which is that the concept has been based on the traditional law library approach. New mechanisms for funding law libraries are required in the age of CD ROM and automated legal research. For one thing, the ability of lawyers, defenders, prosecutors, and judges to share a common legal data base has been enhanced to the point where separate libraries may not be necessary. Such sharing based on CD ROM technology is taking place in Lake County, Illinois. In North Dakota each administrative region has an automated research system which obviates the need for individual judges to have a library.
k. Court Improvement Trust Funds.
Until recent changes in court financing occurred, California had a state-level Trial Court Improvement Trust fund earmarked for specified court improvements. The Illinois courts were successful in getting passage of a special fee for court improvement, but it goes into the county general fund. In Lake County, the circuit court is credited with the amount of the collected court improvement fees which are estimated to raise $690,000 in FY 1993.
l. Security.
In general, courts rely on sheriffs or police agencies to provide prisoner transportation, courtroom security, and building and hall security. Sometimes these expenses are charged to the court budget by the sheriff or police agency. Certain bailiff functions do not necessarily require that the person be deputized and are sometimes performed by court employees. In any event, the costs of security are high and getting higher. Illinois permits the assessment of a court security fee. In Lake County these fees are estimated to be $780,000 in FY 1993, roughly 50-60% of the sheriff's expenditures on court security.
6. Revenue Enhancement
Closely related to the use of earmarked fees is the enhancement of revenue by improved collections and by increases in the dollar amount of fines and fees. The increased emphasis on revenues has exposed the weaknesses of court collection systems and caused some courts to change
Approaches to Cutback Management • 27
their whole attitude toward enforcement and to strengthen collection processes. Implicit in these changes is the assumption that the quid pro quo for more zealous enforcement might be the avoidance of severe budget cuts.16
Most courts do not have an accounts receivable system and have a very limited capacity to enforce the many deferred and installment payments being permitted by the courts due to the increases in fines and fees17 and constitutional prohibitions against imprisonment of defendants for inability to pay monetary sanctions. The traditional method of enforcement, mainly use of bench warrants, is cumbersome and uneconomical, often costing more than the amount of the monetary sanction being enforced. Moreover, warrant service is often delayed because of higher priorities in law enforcement agencies. In some courts, even traffic fines are not being promptly collected.18 Some courts are therefore using contractors, not only for collection of delinquent accounts but also for front-end processing.19 The Colorado court system has set up an in-house system of technical assistance under which coordinators in the various regions of the state provide help in increasing collections of trial courts.
A common pattern in the recent recession was for legislatures and local appropriating bodies to become very conscious of the revenue-producing potential of courts and to increase pressure for collections. This was sometimes accompanied by increases in fines, fees, and costs. The general experience gained from this period is that increases in fines, fees, and costs may not produce much, if any, additional revenue and will certainly increase the difficulty of collecting deferred payments.20 Moreover, the recession led to decreased commercial activity and some drop- off in civil filings, as well as some decline in traffic enforcement activity as police agencies conserved resources. In Maine, for example, a sharp increase in fines, fees, and costs produced a temporary upsurge in revenues, but the amounts collected quickly dropped back to the levels which existed before the increase, mainly because police activity was curtailed by budget cutbacks.
The problem is that most courts are not sympathetic to the high fines and fees being set by legislatures and the mandatory nature of such laws.21 Moreover, courts have limited incentive to collect revenues if this detracts from other court functions and if they get no credit for it. The
16 Sometimes, the agreement is fairly explicit. In one budget year the Maine court system staved off some budget cuts by developing a plan to raise revenues.
17 There are exceptions. Maine has a good accounts receivable system which can provide detailed information on aging and delinquency.
18 Collection of fines and fees in traffic cases should run over 90% if the usual administrative sanctions on car and driver licensing are in place. The worst collection problem is with criminal cases.
19 The Los Angeles Municipal Court and many other high-volume urban courts use contractors to process traffic tickets. Philadelphia was exploring use of contractors at the time of the site visit.
20 The amount of these unpaid fines and fees is very high. In Pinellas County, Florida (population 800,000), there were 24,000 persons on delayed payments and over $15,000,000 in outstanding uncollected fines and fees in 1991. The problem with these and all similar statistics is that they may include a lot of uncollectible accounts built up over years. There is a necessity for an accounting write-off procedure to keep statistics reliable.
21 This has led to interbranch tensions. The Legislative Auditor in Florida studied judicial assessments of fines, fees and costs and discovered that judges tended to compensate for the severity of the monetary sanctions, even when these sanctions were mandatory.
28 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
California Legislature in the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991 built in an incentive for courts to set up good collection programs, namely the right to fund the collection program from revenues if the program met specifications of a comprehensive program:
• Monthly bill statements to debtors;
• Telephone contact with delinquent debtors to apprise them of their failure to meet payment obligations;
• Issuance of warning letters to advise delinquent debtors of an outstanding obligation;
• Requests for credit reports to assist in locating delinquent debtors;
• Access to Employment Development Department employment and wage information;
• The generation of monthly delinquent reports;
• Participation in the Franchise Tax Board's tax intercept program;
• The use of Department of Motor Vehicle Information to locate delinquent debtors;
• The use of wage and bank account garnishments;
• The imposition of liens on real property and proceeds from the sale of real property held by a title company;
• The filing of objections to the inclusion of outstanding fines and forfeitures in bankruptcy proceedings;
• Coordination with the probation department to locate debtors who may be on formal or informal probation;
• The initiation of driver license suspension actions where appropriate; and
• The capability to accept credit card payments.
Revenue enhancement under the above model permits the program to be self-supporting. Mainly, however, the incentive for courts in revenue enhancement, in addition to the desire to see that court judgments are enforced,22 lies in getting some budgetary credit for the effort. Courts walk a narrow line between tying themselves into the revenue collection system at the risk of compromising their independence and impartiality and passively letting their financial position erode.23 Many courts are choosing to maximize revenues, marking a fundamental shift in attitude.
22 Judges differ on the extent to which courts have a responsibility to collect money judgments.
23 There are constitutional and ethical limits on the power of judges to finance their court through money judgments they impose. Clearly, they can not pay for their own salary out of money judgements they impose, but
Approaches to Cutback Management • 29
7. Facilities and Technology-Drivers of Fundamental Change
To a very large extent, the efficiency of a court or a court system is influenced by its facility configuration and its use of technology. At some point, fundamental change in court operations comes face to face with this reality.
a. Facilities.
The location of court facilities, the types of rooms in each building, and the nature of the building use affect the efficiency of court operations. Courts can end up adjusting their operations to their facilities rather than adapting their facilities to operational needs. This is particularly true in a trial court system with two or more tiers of court.
Among the problems of facility use and space management in a two-tier system are: (1) a proliferation of facilities with a consequent division of judicial and non-judicial personnel and court records into little, more or less isolated, pockets;24 (2) constraints on ability to have specialized court rooms;25 (3) difficulty in sharing rooms or making split use of rooms when one court is in need and the other has unoccupied rooms; (4) poor facility planning; and (5) maintaining buildings which should be phased out.
In general, courts seem to be headed for some form of facility consolidation after a period when there was great interest in branch courts. Such retrenchment may mean some inconvenience for court users, particularly attorneys and local law enforcement officials who may have to travel further. However, in times of budget scarcity appropriating bodies are less and less influenced by these considerations.
Rural states have many underpopulated counties with largely unused facilities. Nonetheless, judges have to come to each county for brief periods to hear cases in underutilized facilities staffed by employees who may not have a sufficient workload.26 North Dakota is seriously considering full-service courts in four regions of the state and making these regions venue districts. These courts would be in the cities which provide most of the court business; most other matters in other counties in the region would be brought into the central location. The idea is that it is more efficient to have litigants and records come to the judge than vice versa.27 This takes into
there is some doubt as to where the line is drawn on other court expenditures paid directly from court-generated funds.
24 In Yolo County, California, which adjoins Sacramento County, the courts agreed to close down two branches and consolidate at the county seat. This was accompanied by merger of the judges of the two courts, their staffs, and their record systems (a move permitted by a recent California law). The savings were about $600,000 in a total budget of about $4,400,000.
25 Sometimes a limited jurisdiction court has better holding facilities than a general jurisdiction court which nonetheless handles all the serious felonies.
26 In Maine the courts made a strong case for closing down some remote facilities in the northern part of the state. The political reaction was so strong that the court did not pursue this goal.
27 The rural counties of North Dakota are dwindling in population and losing their hold on the Legislature. There is some likelihood that the newer model may come into being.
30 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
account the improvements in transportation in the state, the advent of FAX, video and telephone conferencing, and electronic filing. This newer model may also affect location of detention facilities.
Urban courts have their own set of facility problems. In large sprawling urbanized counties, there are almost always some outlying court locations, usually for traffic and small claims matters but perhaps also for more serious matters. In Los Angeles County, outside of the downtown court complex, there are 11 superior court districts superimposed on 24 municipal court districts. At various points in the county, the two courts share a facility, but there a number of facilities housing one court. There are also branch courts in some districts. Large Florida counties have geographically diffuse court facilities; for example, Pinellas County has 10 separate court locations. In Lake County, Illinois, the circuit court had 5 branch courts, most of them in space rented from local governments. These 5 branches were closed and replaced by branches at two court-dedicated facilities.28 The savings in judge-time and staff-time were significant.
Rhode Island, which is virtually a city-state, recently created four trial court locations to serve the whole state (there is a separate family court building in Providence). This eliminated a number of facilities, some of them rented, which were located in numerous locations in the state. This has increased efficiency in use of judges and staff apparently without major public inconvenience.
Philadelphia has long suffered from lack of a central court house. Courts have been located in City Hall, a juvenile facility, and a great number of separate locations rented in commercial buildings with the city handling the rent negotiations. Judicial chambers and court rooms were scattered all over the city increasing the costs of jury supervision and bailiff services. Recently, the courts agreed to take over the leases directly at $1,000,000 less than the city was paying and were able to renegotiate the leases to levels more than $1 million less than pre-existing levels. They also got the city to put up some of the 5-year savings of $5 million to renovate court buildings. But most important, Philadelphia is consolidating its criminal court functions in one new complex. This is expected to result in significant rental savings and personnel efficiencies, not the least of which will come from having a single filing counter.
One aspect of efficiency in facility management is simply closing down unneeded facilities. The close-out of facilities should be based on some check-off list: (1) Is the facility suitable for the type of cases being heard there (e.g., jury cases, criminal cases, juvenile cases, arraignments)? (2) Is there sufficient caseload to justify the resources allocated to the facility? (3) Does the facility duplicate the services provided in an adjacent facility? (4) Does the facility lend itself to a specialized use which would justify its continued use? (5) What local needs does it serve and what would be the effect if it closed? (6) Does it fit into the long-range facility planning of the courts or has it been outdated by demographic, transportation, technological, and legal changes? and (7) Are some of the cases being heard at this facility best handled at a central point in the county?
28 An interesting aspect of the facilities negotiation was the desire of a large shopping mall to have the court location as a means of increasing the number of visitors to the mall. The proprietors were willing to subsidize the facility.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 31
Also in the offing is the multi-door court in which one intake point is the focus for determining which is the most appropriate dispute resolution alternative. Many court houses are not designed for this flexibility; in fact, many cases will be referred outside the courthouse where informal dispute resolution mechanisms are available. The main point, however, is the need of central intake.
The tendency to consolidate is general. Criminal court facilities tend to be clustered around the principal detention facility. Major civil cases and family cases also tend to be in a central location. If it is not overextended, this concentration improves use of judges and staff, permits more effective case management, reduces prisoner transportation, and enhances security. To the extent that branch courts exist they will probably handle small claims, evictions, and routine traffic cases. Facilities are slowly being adapted to contemporary reality.
b. Technology.
Courts have traditionally been labor-intensive. Even as new technology found its way into the courts staffing levels remained relatively untouched. There were a variety of reasons for this, among them the nature of the early computer development, politicized staffing, collective bargaining agreements, and traditional attachments, such as judicial and attorney preference for stenographic court reporting.
This pattern is changing, in part because the recent recession made it necessary to reduce the number of authorized positions or at best, to accept a no-growth policy. In some of the jurisdictions visited during the study there were significant cutbacks in court personnel, notably in Maine and Philadelphia. Sacramento also lost authorized positions. The best case scenario was to hold existing positions, even in the face of increased workload. This diminution in staff has sharpened interest in technology as a labor-saver. Technology is now poised to make a major change in the way courts budget and allocate resources. Technology expenditures are increasing as personnel costs decline or level off.
Even a partial listing of the technological steps taken in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, gives some ideas of the trends: use of computer-aided transcription which is available on screens to the judges and attorneys as the transcription is made; automation of the law library and introduction of CD-ROM;29 automation of the arbitration program; PC-based case management system; automation of juvenile intake; PC-based system for controlling probation service fees; automation of jury management; automation and networking of the administrative office. The last change saved four secretarial positions. Some of the other changes increased available professional time. The Circuit Court Clerk is working on imaging technology and estimates that it will permit a reduction of 7 FTEs in her staff (currently 98) because of reduced paper handling and easy record access which eliminates a lot of inquiries to the court staff.
Connecticut makes case management and scheduling services available through computer modems and charges users for access. There are some 100 private sector subscribers who pay in the aggregate about $100,000 annually. State agencies are encouraged to use on-line access to
29 Connecticut employs CD-ROM state-wide.
32 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
criminal justice information in the court's records. The reduction in staff time through electronic handling of inquiries is estimated at 10-20 FTEs.
In Maine, the courts created a central traffic bureau in Lewiston, Maine, pulling the traffic processing function out of its district court clerical offices and effecting efficiencies which enabled the courts to function with fewer personnel. Maine has also set up an electronic mail system to link its widely diffused court locations. Relatively urbanized counties like Ventura County, California, have also introduced such networks which save great amounts of time in phone and written communication and reduce the need for meetings. The Philadelphia court system, which has lost about 15% of it authorized positions, is placing a lot emphasis on technology and has set up a technology fund.
In Portland, Maine, the sheriff found it to his financial advantage to have video arraignments in jail rather than to transport prisoners and paid for the introduction of video arraignment technology in the Portland courts. Such technology is used in various California counties, notably San Diego and Contra Costa, where two or more courts make use of one video court located near a detention facility.
For more than a decade, the traditional methods of court reporting have been under technological pressure. Audio recording technology continues to improve; perhaps more importantly judges are becoming familiar with this technology and are starting to endorse it. In North Dakota and California where court unification is impending, judges of limited jurisdiction courts are bringing with them experience in audio recording and challenging the attachment to traditional methods of court reporting. This area promises substantial savings in years to come. Sacramento County, California, estimates savings of over $9 million over a 12-year period as the result of transition from traditional methods of court reporting.
Computer aided transcription (CAT) is now widely used. A recent NCSC survey of 546 reporters revealed that 74% of the reporters were using CAT.30 Only starting to come into use is video recording. Both of these technologies reduce the cost of court reporting and transcript preparation.
Recession has had the effect of encouraging technology rather than stifling it. it is generally perceived that courts have to make a fundamental shift from labor-intensive to highly automated systems.
8. Planning
One of the hazards of sudden budget downturns is a tendency to cut out budget items in the belief that the item can soon be restored when things return to normal. In Maine, for example, the courts practically eliminated education and training funds, only to find that the crisis was not to be short-term and that it would be very hard to regain funds for educational purposes. In retrospect, court officials feel that existence of a prioritized plan might have led to different decisions in this area. The Utah court system has created a contingency plan to help guide such hard decisions.
30 See generally, Hewitt and Levy, Computer Aided Transcription: Current Technology and Court Applications, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1994. (SJI-91-06F-B-089)
Approaches to Cutback Management • 33
North Dakota, until quite recently, produced an annual court plan, but the plan was not particularly geared to budgetary strategy. The California Judicial Council has recently adopted a strategic plan and will tie this to the report of its Futures Commission in the next budget cycle
Unfortunately, planning, in particular financial planning and capital budgeting, tend to be given short shrift in some court administrative offices. In a 1992 report on court facilities, the NCSC could only identify 5 states which had a regularly updated court facility plan.31 Planning is regarded as a frill in many court administrative offices. Yet, if there is one lesson to be learned from the recession it is that courts without a sense of their priorities and purposes make poor budget decisions and see only the short-term implications of their decisions.
C. Tactical Changes
In a tight budget situation, courts often resort to short-term steps to ease the pressure, among them: (1) reducing the level of court operations or the scope of court responsibilities; (2) temporarily deferring the impact of budget cuts; (3) increasing the workload and hours of the existing staff or increasing the use of unpaid personnel; (4) seeking greater flexibility in the use of budgeted funds; (5) attempting to increase grants or reimbursements; or (6) imposing stringent controls over expenditures.
1. Reducing the Level of Court Operations or the Scope of Court Responsibilities
a. Reducing Services.
One reaction to a reduction in resources is to reduce services, at least temporarily. This can take various forms: (1) declaring a moratorium on civil trials, particularly civil jury trials;32 (2) reducing the number of hours that court facilities are open to public;33 (3) closing facilities;.34 and (4) centralizing or consolidating some service.35
The service reduction tactic is not popular with legislators, who sometimes perceive it as "hard ball" to dramatize the budget complaints of the judicial branch. In general, the facility closure tactic is not advisable; there may be, however, some situations where the economies override political considerations or where there is simply no choice.
31 Hardenbergh, The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, 1992, p.114.(SJI-88-05X-B-072)
32 Vermont suspended jury trials for six months; New Mexico and Connecticut curtailed civil jury trials; New York eliminated some civil court parts.
33 Building hours were limited in Maine, Kansas, and Maricopa County, Arizona.
34 Utah and Alaska have contingency plans to close facilities in a budgetary emergency.
35 Rhode Island consolidated three District Court divisions in Providence. There is a marked trend in California to reduce branch courts and to centralize court operations, either functionally (e.g., all major civil cases in one location) or geographically (e.g., all cases pulled into county seat).
34 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
closure tactic is not advisable; there may be, however, some situations where the economies override political considerations or where there is simply no choice.
b. Eliminating Specific Programs or Reducing Scope of Court Operations.
One choice open to a court is to absorb a cut by eliminating a program, usually one that is not entrenched and therefore vulnerable. This avoids across-the board cuts or reductions in resources of core operations.36 Colorado, for example, eliminated misdemeanor probation in limited jurisdiction courts.37 Connecticut officials, however, think it helps courts to have probation included within the scope of court operations, because probation is a relatively defensible program in a period of prison overcrowding and provides a larger budget base to absorb any cuts mandated by the appropriating body.
Some courts have targeted information services popular with the legislature, usually those feeding into criminal justice information systems.38 This is a bit risky, but it gets legislative attention.
The various social programs associated with juvenile and family courts can sometimes be turned over to an executive branch agency which provides social services. Administration of indigent defense can sometimes be turned over to another agency, typically a public defender.39 The same can be said of psychiatric examinations which can be provided by a health agency rather than a court. Courts may also choose to give up whatever security responsibilities they have.40
c. Downsizing the Judiciary and Judicial Staff.
Insofar as court expenditures are tied to the number of judges, one way to reduce costs is to simply reduce the number of judges. North Dakota is in the process of reducing the number of trial judges from 51 to 42.41 Utah has also made a small cut in the number of judicial positions.42 Reduction in size is a possibility in states or counties where for some reason the workload of the court is declining or where there is a measurable surplus of judges.
36 The Oregon courts indicated a preference for program cuts rather than across-the-board cuts.
37 Florida has largely privatized misdemeanor probation by use of contractors compensated from probation fees collected from probationers.
38 Montana courts focused on the legislatively popular SJIS system.
39 Even if the courts cannot rid themselves of indigent defense administration, they can separate it from the rest of the court budget, as was done in Oregon. The presence of indigent defense in the court budget can force the court to absorb overruns for defense in its operating budget. This has been a problem in Maine and in the Philadelphia courts.
40 Maricopa County, Arizona, seriously considered eliminating contract security services.
41 This reduction is to made gradually, mainly by deciding whether any vacant judgeship should be filled or eliminated.
42 Utah has reduced its authorized judicial positions by 3, roughly a 3% reduction.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 35
Most courts have tried to avoid layoffs, preferring to reduce positions by attrition or to cut back non-personnel line items.43 In Philadelphia, where a number of court employees were laid off, there were many law suits filed. There have been layoffs elsewhere.44
d. Cutting Back in Marginal Areas and Retaining Core Services.
Most courts, faced with a hard choice on budget cutbacks, choose to retain essential services at existing levels and to cut any expenditure which is defined as "peripheral". There is no explicit definition of a marginal expenditure, but the most common targets have been judicial education,45 educational programs for court employees,46 and travel, particularly out-of-state travel.47 The identification of education as a stand-alone budget item makes it particularly vulnerable.48 A common regret among court officials is that they gave in too fast on education and had difficulty restoring budgetary support for this function.49
When forced to choose between key staff and supplementary personnel, courts usually choose to retain core staff. Courts have therefore cut back on use of retired judges,50 use of temporary employees,51 internships,52 and court-paid ADR.53 Supplementing the salaries of core staff by overtime has also been curbed.54
43 The North Carolina courts made a decision to take budget cuts in the non-personnel areas.
44 Connecticut, Maine, and New York.
45 Judicial education conferences were cut in Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Massachusetts and Tennessee suspended payment of per diem for attendance at judicial education conferences. North Carolina suspended payment of conference fees.
46 Training events were canceled or suspended in Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. North Carolina suspended its co-op education program and its educational refund program.
47 Pennsylvania eliminated travel to conferences and professional seminars. Other states sharply reduced or eliminated all travel: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. New York required pre-approval for travel. Minnesota and Tennessee reduced judicial travel within circuits. North Carolina stopped rotation of superior court judges, and Kansas reduced travel of appellate judges to regional sites.
48 Particularly noted by Massachusetts officials.
49 Particularly noted by Maine officials.
50 Minnesota and the District of Columbia curtailed use of retired judges. Florida, however, increased use of retired judges, presumably to make up for unfilled positions. Connecticut created a monetary incentive for retired judges to serve in private adjudication programs, reducing use of these judges in the courts.
51 Maine, Connecticut, and West Virginia curtailed use of temporary employees. New York stopped use of provisional employees. Yet, it is arguable that use of temporary employees reduces operating costs.
52 The District of Columbia suspended summer internships,
53 New York reduced the number of hearing officers and use of arbitration. These were later restored.
54 E.g., Maine. The District of Columbia eliminated overtime in non-criminal cases and adjusted work schedules to reduce premium pay.
36 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
2. Delay in Expenditures or Temporary Cuts
One of the most commonly used budget-cutting tactics is the temporary delay or temporary cut. Typical of this type of cost reduction are: (1) eliminating all but emergency acquisitions or emergency or safety maintenance on equipment and facilities;55 (2) imposing freezes on filling positions or hiring;56 (3) imposing purchasing moratoriums;57 (4) deferring payment for goods and services until subsequent fiscal years;58 (5) deferring pay raises or cost-of-living adjustments;59 (6) imposing furloughs, deferred compensation, and unpaid days:60 (7) delay in filling judicial positions;61 (8) freezing promotions, reclassifications, and reallocations;62 and (9) decrease work hours.63
52 The District of Columbia suspended summer internships,
53 New York reduced the number of hearing officers and use of arbitration. These were later restored.
54 E.g., Maine. The District of Columbia eliminated overtime in non-criminal cases and adjusted work schedules to reduce premium pay.
55 West Virginia deferred or canceled equipment purchases; Maryland delayed purchases; New York and the District of Columbia permitted only essential or emergency expenditures; Maricopa County, Arizona, froze furniture and equipment purchases and did not permit equipment repair except for safety; Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Washington generally reduced purchases. Connecticut permitted only emergency building repairs.
56 In Los Angeles County trial courts unified under the superior court executive have lost about 16% of their staff due to a hiring freeze. Among the state court systems which used freezes were: Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont.
57 E.g., Maricopa County, Arizona.
58 A frequent tactic, and not a very good one, is for invoice processing to be deferred until subsequent fiscal years. In some instances, Maine and Philadelphia for example, payment of assigned attorneys was deferred, causing some resentment among attorneys and exacerbating the budget situation in the subsequent budget year. In Maine the governor carried over some pay periods into the next fiscal year. The Washington courts have financed equipment purchases to spread out the payment period. In Rhode Island, there were payless days which could be banked or allowed as additional vacations.
59 In Maine, the freeze on increases included judges. Virginia and Georgia judges freely returned increases. Connecticut judges offered to take a pay cut but did not have to. Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Virginia froze salary increases for court employees.
60 Maine court employees were briefly furloughed under state policy, but courts decided not to abide by the furlough policy. Colorado and New Mexico courts instituted voluntary furlough polices. Maryland had an involuntary furlough policy.
61 Delay in filling positions has been used as a means to cope with budget shortages and to acquire vacancy savings. In Maine and some California counties, judicial positions have been left unfilled.
62 Maryland, Massachusetts and New York.
63 Maine decreased hours from 40 per week to 39 per week.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 37
Cuts of the above types are of an emergency nature and best avoided if there are any alternatives. They buy time but simply defer the day of reckoning.
3. Increasing Workload and Hours of Existing Staff or Use of Volunteers
One way of attempting to obtain more work at the same cost is to require the existing staff to work longer hours or to enlarge their workload. For a variety of reasons, among them collective bargaining agreements, civil service regulations, and political considerations, this is not an ideal tactic, but it has been used. Maryland, for example, expanded the work week for court employees without an increase in salary.
Where court staff can be supplemented by volunteer help, even unpaid pro tem judges,65 courts may choose to use this type of help. Ironically, however, budget cutbacks may lead to a reduction in expenditures for volunteer coordinators, as in Colorado.
4. Seeking More Flexible Use of Budgeted Funds to Maximize Their Use
In Section B.2., "Interbranch Relations", the freedom of courts to allocate budgeted funds was discussed in terms of fundamental change. There are situations in which courts are permitted a temporary authority to maximize the use of appropriated funds by more freedom in resource allocation. For example, the ability to carry over appropriated funds to the next fiscal year is now being permitted by some counties in California (e.g., Sacramento) to encourage tight management of funds. The North Carolina court system obtained permission to allocate lapsed funds freely. At some point such authority may be institutionalized.
5. Attempting to Increase Grants and Reimbursements
One method of enhancing the flow of money into the courts is to obtain grants or intergovernmental reimbursements, in particular those under the Social Security Act (IV B, IV D, IV E). Some states have funded programs through federal grants.66 The largest source of potential federal funding is the IV D program, which is used sparingly by the courts in many states.67 The Missouri courts, however, focused on maximizing IV D revenues and covered many clerical positions. Maine recently entered more fully into the IV D program and expects a major benefit from this source in the current fiscal year. Philadelphia increased the number of grant reimbursed positions from 239 in 1991 to 311 in 1994, despite an overall net loss of 308 positions.
65 California makes extensive use of pro tem judges who serve without pay, usually on small routine calendars such as small claims.
66 Alabama funded some judicial education programs through federal grants; Mississippi participated in federal grant programs which relied on court data, including a program for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
67 In some states, Florida and Illinois for example, court clerks have been successful in obtaining an administrative fee for processing child support payments and have found that this revenue offsets expenditures without involving courts in the bureaucratic aspects of the IV D reimbursement program.
38 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
6. Imposing Stringent Controls Over Expenditures
There are certain costs which are budget-breakers in most trial courts: juror fees, witness fees, interpreters, per diem court reporters, medical exams, costs of appointed counsel for indigent defendants, and costs of appointed counsel and guardians ad litem in family cases. Many courts routinely monitor such expenditures, but in a tight budget situation practically every court will place tight controls on these expenditures. There are legal restraints on the ability to control some of these costs which are court-ordered as a matter of right, but even this inhibition does not preclude some steps to hold costs in line.
Control of volatile costs can take many forms, among them:
Appointment of monitors: Unless some person is given special responsibility for monitoring specific volatile costs, they are generally hard to control. Numerous courts have indicated that they have enjoyed success in cost control simply by assigning someone to the task of oversight, for example the trial courts of California's Yolo and Sacramento counties. The most common example of monitoring is found among jury managers charged with controlling jury costs while also providing sufficient jurors. To ensure professional management of the jury system, some jurisdictions place jury management directly under a court manager.68
Creation of information systems to monitor volatile costs: Many financial management reporting systems do not specifically identify and categorize costs that are by their nature volatile costs, lumping them instead into larger categories. Monitoring requires an information system which focuses on specific volatile expenditures. The Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, for example, has an information system that tracks volatile costs and includes a special tailored system to track probation service fees.
Reduction in the fees being paid: In general, courts are not paying top dollar for the services they receive, but occasionally the payment levels are above what is realistically required and can be cut. This has been done most commonly with juror and witness fees.69 The advent of the one-day, one-trial jury system and the accumulated evidence from juror exit polls and studies has created a change in thinking about jury fees. Most jurors are less interested in the fee than in a quick decision on whether they will be used. Some jurors are compensated by their employer for their time on jury service and are indifferent to the amount of the fee. There has been a general trend to cut back on juror fees or to pay such fees only in the event a person is actually chosen on a jury and has to spend a prolonged period in court.
Imposing preliminary constraints on expenditures: One method of controlling expenditures is to see that they never occur. Maine has enjoyed success in screening for indigence and obtaining at least partial payment of counsel costs. Reduction in the number of jurors called is another aspect of the same approach.
68 In Lake County, Illinois, the court administrator took over jury management, building the jury commission right into his office and instituting a sophisticated information system to control costs.
69 Maine and the District of Columbia, for example, reduced juror fees; the Maricopa County courts eliminated payment for juror meals.
Approaches to Cutback Management • 39
Changes in the method of payment: There are debates on methods of payment which cut both ways, but in general, courts have found that they save money by: (1) contracting for attorney representation of indigents and interpreter services rather than using individual appointments;70 (2) paying a flat rate per case to assigned counsel71; and (3) paying occasional employees by the hour rather than by the day.72 Using contracts or paying a flat rate per case controls costs but raises problems about the quality of representation. Contracts put a cap on expenditures but may have to allow for additional funding if there is an unusual workload. But use of contracts does tend to raise the bargaining power of the courts, particularly if the contract bidding process is competitive.73
Procedural and case management changes to control volatile costs: One of the most effective ways to cut volatile costs is to improve caseflow or to review procedures to see if there are unnecessary requirements that inflate volatile costs. Earlier plea bargains and pleas normally cut costs of counsel, cost for reporters, witness fees, and interpreter costs. In Philadelphia, analysis of forensic exam costs revealed that judges were routinely ordering forensic exams as an aspect of sentencing, a practice which was revised at great saving.
D. Conclusion
There have been an untold number of steps taken by courts to deal with lessened resources, and it is therefore hard to categorize them. Moreover, it is possible to get lost in the details and forget the principal lesson. Probably, the dominant theme that has been picked up by the project staff is a much greater awareness among judges and managers of the need for efficient management in courts and a growing willingness to make fundamental changes. In this sense, the recession may have been a boon.
70 In North Dakota the use of contracts for different types of publicly provided legal services is the norm state- wide.
71 The Detroit Recorders Court went to a flat rate and kept statistics to indicate its economic effect. The underlying concern is that a flat rate encourages pleas.
72 Vermont started this procedure.
73 Maine reduced the costs of security services provided by sheriffs and employed their own personnel if sheriffs did not wish to bargain. Philadelphia used competitive contracting to make a 30% saving on the cost of forensic exams.
40 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
An assessment of fundamental change can be made by answering the following questions:
• Are there areas of court operations where consolidation of functions or organizational units would promote efficiency?
• Has the court established a level of credibility in financial management which would support a request for relative managerial autonomy?
• Is court financial management aggressive, imaginative, and entrepreneurial in seeking to maximize the effective use of court resources?
• Have court managers been innovative in seeking resources other than those provided from the general fund and have they attempted to maximize the collection of money due the court (without linking this to appropriations)?
• Has a varied dispute resolution process helped the court to provide speedier and less costly justice at a scale demanded by each particular cause?
• Has the court effected savings by effective space and facility management in relation to operational needs?
• Does the court have a cost-beneficial program of technological development?
• Does the court have an overall strategic plan and, if so, is this related to the budget process?
There are, of course, many specific areas of cost saving that could be cited, but in the final analysis, the fiscal posture of a trial court will turn on the answers to the above questions.
APPENDIX A National Center for State Courts Site Report First Judicial District of Pennsylvania
he First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) has the largest caseload in Pennsylvania and ranks as one of the busiest trial court systems in the country. Starting in 1990, the court has T undergone great changes in administrative structure and management practices as the result of the budgetary problems of the City of Philadelphia, the principal funding source for the First Judicial District. The project staff made a site visit to Philadelphia in the period June 1-3 and conducted interviews with a number of court officials. This paper documents the many practical and innovative steps taken by judges, court managers, and the city to cope with the problem of limited resources in Philadelphia.
I The Setting
A. The City
In the early 1990s the economy of Philadelphia went into a decline. This had a devastating effect on the financial status of the City of Philadelphia. The city started to run a large operating deficit and projected a five-year deficit of $1.4 billion by 1996. Its bond rating plummeted to the point where its ability to borrow funds in the financial markets was extremely limited. The State of Pennsylvania had to lend its credit to avoid financial calamity. For its part, the city agreed to a 5-year plan to control expenditures, streamline city operations and to generally reorganize the way the city did business. The plan called for enhancement of non-tax revenues, improved collections of tax revenues, major reductions in expenditures, continuation of a hiring freeze, and the setting of target expenditure goals which were often less than the budget levels. This plan was released in February 1992, approved by the City Council in April 1992, and approved by the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (PICA) in May 1992. In June 1992 PICA issued $474,555,000 in tax revenue bonds, averting a cash crisis and permitting the city time to implement its plan.
A new city administration entered the picture with a number of initiatives to make service delivery more efficient and to build up the city while generally reducing the level of city expenditures and the number of employees. One of the initiatives was the creation of a Productivity Bank, a $20,000,000 revolving fund to provide front-end money for testing cost-beneficial programs proposed by city agencies (courts are eligible for this money and have obtained some).
B. The Court
The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania contains three trial courts: (1) the Court of Common Pleas, a 90-judge general jurisdiction court with 14 senior judges and three divisions: Trial, Family, and Orphans; (2) the Municipal Court, a limited jurisdiction court with 22 judges (and 4 senior judges); and (3)
-41- 42 • Managing Budget Cutbacks the Traffic Court, a 6-judge court with one senior judge that handles primarily moving traffic violations. The number of court employees in the judicial district at the time of the visit was approximately 2436.
Until late 1990, these courts traditionally operated separately under their own president judges who were assisted by a non-judge administrator. Each of the divisions of the Court of Common Pleas had an administrative judge appointed by the Supreme Court. Except for the President Judge of the Traffic Court, a gubernatorial appointee, the president judges were and are elected by their peers. There was no overall court administration and no administrative unification of the three courts. The Traffic Court was markedly separate.
The posture of the courts in budget matters was different from that of executive branch agencies in that the courts stayed outside some of the normal budget negotiations and more or less demanded a certain level of funding. In FY 1991 (Philadelphia operates on a July 1-June 30 fiscal year) the courts' budgetary posture ran counter to the austerity climate in city government and finally led to a mandate from the courts to fund the court budget as submitted. The budget called for substantial increases and fomented a strong negative reaction from city executive branch officials and the City Council. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania felt it necessary to intervene and assume direct administrative control of the Philadelphia courts and to effect a reasonable accommodation with the city.
C. The Intervention
The main results of this intervention, described more fully below, were that the Supreme Court agreed to a three-year zero-growth budget and completely reorganized the administrative structure of the Philadelphia courts. The administrative changes of the Supreme Court were unsuccessfully challenged in the federal court system by the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. The three-year zero-growth agreement was later expanded to six years with an agreement that all savings would be retained by the Philadelphia judiciary in an account for training and technology investments.
The chronology of events in this unusual intervention are as follows:
1990 Budget The courts and the city got into confrontation over the budget, since the court wanted to Disagreement increase numbers of personnel by over 300 and to obtain an all-time high budget of $117,000,000 (general fund and grant revenue funds combined) in the face of a serious fiscal crisis in the city. Finally, the court used mandamus to obtain a general fund budget of $102,000,000. This action occurred at a time when several reports on court operations, most notably the Shepherd Report, strongly criticized court operations. Moreover, a scandal involving the receipt of gifts by judges had hurt the court's reputation. The Supreme Court, already concerned over the slow processing of cases in Philadelphia, took the position that the Philadelphia courts had to be more responsive to the fiscal situation in the city. There was a strong perception among some members of the Supreme Court that the Philadelphia courts were, if anything, overstaffed. Justices from Western Pennsylvania took the lead, sometimes using the Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) courts as a comparative model.
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 43
12-90 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed administrative control of the First Judicial District. Justice Ralph Cappy was given full authority over the administrative reformation of the First Judicial District; Justice Nicholas Papadakos was given authority over budgetary matters and bringing about fiscal responsibility. Part of the design for takeover was to create a unified administration for the three courts, placing an executive administrator over the three courts and making this official responsible for all ministerial functions transcending the three courts, in particular fiscal management, human resources, procurement, building and facilities, and technology. This person would be insulated from control of the trial judges and would answer to the Supreme Court.
Early-91 The Supreme Court agreed with the City to abide by a zero-growth budget for the period through FY 1995, in effect tying into the city's plan to put its financial house in order. As a practical matter, this meant that the courts would back away from the "Mandamus Budget" and make reductions in expenditures. This, of course, was a direct challenge to the authority of the existing judicial leadership in Philadelphia.
4-91 Justice Nicholas Papadakos issued an order to the President Judge Edward Blake of the Court of Common Pleas, directing termination of 59 of the 65 staff employees attached to his office (most were rehired under the direction of the Administrative Judge of the Trial Division). In this same period, numerous other steps were undertaken to cut personnel by means of layoffs. The net diminution in staff size as a result of these layoffs was approximately 200. Subsequent reorganization increased the size of the president judge's staff and created a staff of 200 in the Office of the Executive Administrator (See below pages 7,8).
4-91 Judge Edward Blake petitioned the Supreme Court to block the transfer of his staff and the administrative takeover, contending that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to diminish his administrative role.
4-91 The Supreme Court entered into an agreement with the city for the First Judicial District to handle its own purchasing, mainly for Class 300 and Class 400 expenditures but also some Class 200 expenditures. Basically, the city agreed to transmit quarterly amounts into a purchasing fund controlled by the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of Courts for the benefit of the First Judicial District. Interest on the account accrued to the city.
5-91 The Supreme Court denied the petition whereupon Judge Blake filed for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
6-91 A preliminary injunction was granted by the federal court.
7-91 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stayed the injunction and subsequently ruled in favor of Supreme Court, essentially affirming the overall administrative authority of the Supreme Court over trial courts.
12-91 Geoff Gallas assumed the new role of Executive Administrator for the First Judicial District.
6-92 Memo issued refining and clarifying the purchasing agreement of April 1991.
44 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
6-92 The Supreme Court appointed new administrative judges for each of the three divisions of the Court of Common Pleas. Administrative judges are appointed for three years but serve at the pleasure of the court. Based on a 1986 rule, administrative judges have significant authority and, in essence, are outside the normal political and administrative structure of the court. The Supreme Court justices who were acting for the Supreme Court in the First Judicial District started to take a less active role after the administrative judges were appointed.
9-92 The Family Division, Domestic Relations Branch, entered into an agreement with the city whereby purchases funded by the IV D Program would be handled by the court procurement unit with the city making monthly transmittals to the purchasing account controlled by the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts. This was part of the continuing centralization of financial functions under the Office of the Executive Administrator.
4-93 The Supreme Court formally withdrew from direct administration of the First Judicial District but reaffirmed a commitment to a zero-growth budget, directing the First Judicial District to observe such a budget through FY 1997. No departure from the no-growth budget was permitted without approval of the Supreme Court. The court made it clear that the executive administrator would continue to act under the protective aegis of the court and be subject to the supervision of the state court administrator rather than the judges of the Philadelphia trial courts. The administrative authority structure of the district, as created by the court, requires that the president and administrative judges obtain the agreement of the executive administrator for their personnel actions in administrative areas under their supervision. The withdrawal order set up dispute resolution procedures.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Sources of Court Financing
Traditionally in Pennsylvania, local governments have borne the primary responsibility for funding trial courts. In 1987, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that the court unification provision of the state constitution required state funding of trial courts but has not enforced this decision, leaving the responsibility where it has always been.
The courts in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania are funded largely by the City of Philadelphia (which is coterminous with Philadelphia County). This a situation which is somewhat unusual. Elsewhere in Pennsylvania and in the United States as a whole, local funding for trial courts (other than strictly municipal courts) comes from county governments.
The State of Pennsylvania does, in fact, fund some trial court operating expenses, among them salaries and fringe benefits of trial court judges and judicial education. The payment of judicial salaries is a large item, over $10,000,000 for Philadelphia alone. The state also makes some grants and subsidies, among them reimbursement of some juror costs, grants for adult probation officer salaries, and payment of a fluctuating per judge subsidy. The subsidy for general jurisdiction judges is substantially higher than that for limited jurisdiction judges, if, in fact, the legislature makes any subsidies at all. For example,
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 45
Philadelphia will receive in the current year about $6,300,000 for the 90 judges of the Court of Common Pleas ($70,000 x 90) A continuing problem with these subsidies is that they go into the general fund and are not credited to the courts. This issue has been raised with the city by the executive administrator, apparently with good effect. The courts now have direct use of a portion of the probation subsidy.
There are also some state grant programs based on federal money. The Philadelphia courts receive substantial funds from the IV D program, so that in addition to the General Fund budget (almost $100,000,000 at present) the courts receive an additional $15-16 million in grant revenue, most of it for child support enforcement activities. Therefore, the overall court budget for 1994, excluding fringe benefits, is about $116,000,000, of which $97.6 million is from the city general fund. Since the city provides the lion's share of the court budget, the courts are heavily dependent on the city.
B. Zero Growth Budget
Unfortunately for the courts, the City of Philadelphia has for a number of years been struggling to survive financially and has been operating in a very tight budget situation. At first, the courts did not choose to share the fiscal pain. In FY 1990 the courts overspent their budget by $16,000,000. In FY 1991 (July 1, 1990-June 30, 1991), the Philadelphia courts took a strong position against sharing the general reduction in city appropriations and issued an order requiring the city to fund the court at the level felt necessary by the judiciary, the so-called "Mandamus Budget" referred to in the preceding section (See also Table 3).
After the Supreme Court intervention in December 1990, the Supreme Court agreed with the city to adhere to a Zero Growth budget, starting in FY 1992 and running through FY 1994, and further agreed to a gradual reduction in positions by eliminating authorized positions as they became vacant, reserving the right to keep vital positions. The base-year budget (FY 1991) was $90.4 million, substantially less than the general fund mandamus budget of $102 million. The actual appropriation in FY 1992, the first year under the zero growth agreement, was $85.6 million, $4.8 million under zero growth (See Table 3).
The base year amount was augmented in FY 93 and FY 94 by switching some expenses from the City to the courts, adjustments that had no effect on the city bottom line and amounted to a transfer. The court has also been given some benefit of increased revenues from increased civil filing fees. Table 1 below reflects the history of the budget agreement and the fact that the courts have effected savings even with this budget cap.
46 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
TABLE 1
First Judicial District Budget Zero Growth Budget
FY 1991 Base Year: FY 1992: First Year FY 1993: Second FY 1994: Third year Actual Obligations Zero Growth Budget Year Zero Growth Budget Zero Growth Budget Adjustments, Transfers Adjustments, Transfers
$90.4 million $90.4 million $90.4 million $90.4 million $6.5 million * $6.5 million * $1.4 million ** $1.1 million ** $0.6 million *** $0.6 million *** $0.7 million **** $2.9 million *****
Zero Growth Budget $90.4 million $98.9 million $101.2 million Total
Budget Actual $85.6 million $95.8 million $97.6 million
* Lease transfers from City. Transferred at $1 million less than City was paying. ** Renovation of Vine Street facility paid for by City from savings on leases. *** Traffic Enforcement Unit to enhance revenue; deemed cost beneficial. **** Lease transfers from City and transfer of judicial parking expense. ***** 1/3 share of increased civil fee revenue (city receives 2/3)
C. Personnel Savings
The ability of the courts to function within the budget agreement has to a large extent been achieved by reductions in personnel and vacancy savings. Some of these reductions resulted from the initial round of layoffs in 1991. These reductions fell somewhat unevenly since each component of the First Judicial District approached the cutback situation differently. The layoff policy has led to a significant amount of litigation.
The Municipal Court chose to take its "hit" by abolishing most of its law clerk positions and some tipstaffs and managed its reductions without major problems or adverse effects on operations. The Court of Common Pleas lost a lot of positions in the Trial Division, many of them in the probation support staff, tipstaffs, and in the pre-trial unit, depriving this unit of any significant street presence and weakening the fragile control over people on conditional release. The idea that each judge was entitled to a reporter was also challenged as the result of the cutback. The Family Division later moved many positions to IV D funding, thus achieving general fund savings without cutbacks. The Traffic Court staffing fell from 240 in FY 1990 to 118 in FY 1994.
An interesting aspect of the downsizing was its effect on senior judges of the Court of Common Pleas, who were entitled to the same three-person staff as an active judge. This prerogative was lost as the result of the budget crisis, and the judges were required to share a smaller staff. Now when a judge retires, his or her personal employees are carried for 60 days and must relocate elsewhere in the system or be
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 47 terminated. In addition to the personnel changes, the Supreme Court placed a limit on the use of senior judges.
Table 2 provides some perspective on the layoff pattern. It compares personnel levels in FY 1991 and the proposed levels for FY 1994, revealing a net loss of 308 positions, despite creation of some 70-80 new positions during the period. It should further be noted that some lost positions in the trials courts are attributable to the transfer of administrative positions from these courts to the Office of Executive Administrator.
TABLE 2 Personnel Positions FY 1991, FY 1994
FY 1991 FY 1994 Court General Revenue Total General Revenue Total Difference Component Fund Funds Fund Funds
Common Pleas 2045 239 2284 1589 311 1900 -384
Municipal 265 0 265 218 0 218 -47
195 0 195 118 0 118 -77 Traffic
Executive 200 0 200 +200 Administrator
Total 2505 239 2744 2125 311 2436 -308
Some of the lost positions noted in the above table were the result of layoffs, mostly during 1991. In ensuing fiscal years the loss of positions was primarily accounted for by the Supreme Court hiring freeze which required that vacated positions be abolished unless a special determination was made to keep the position and approved through the administrative mechanism created by the Supreme Court. It was the freeze policy which made it possible for the First Judicial District to make some significant increases in personnel expenditures without sharply increasing Class 100 expenditures. Among the increases which were absorbed without greatly changing Class 100 expenditures were: (1) addition of 16 new judges each of whom was entitled to three supporting employees; (2) creation of the Office of the Executive Administrator, including a procurement unit; (3) an 8% salary increase for court employees in FY 1993; (4) the creation of Traffic Court Enforcement Unit with 16 positions; (5) and inclusion in the FY 94 budget of funds (subject to city approval) for a 6% salary increase for non-represented employees who have been owed an increase since March 1991. As indicated in Table 3, these increases were absorbed without major net increases in Class 100 expenditures.
48 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
TABLE 3
Authorized Positions in the First Judicial District FY 1991-1994
Fiscal Year General Revenue Total Class 100 GF Fund Funds Expenditures
1990 Final 2536 239 2775 $67.1 million
1991(mandamus) Requested 2859 298 3157 $81.3 million
1991 Final 2505 239 2774 $72.5 million
1992 Final 2200 359 2559 $69.3 million
1993 Final 2160 326 2486 $68.7 million
1994 Budget 2125 311 2436 $71.5 million
The above table indicates the steep decline in funded positions; there is roughly a 700-position difference between the level proposed in the FY 1991 mandamus budget and the 1994 budget. Personnel expenditures are actually down from actual expenditures in 1991.
The above changes in staffing must be considered in the light of the political patronage considerations which have traditionally played a large role in the court hiring process. The budget crisis placed heavy strain on this system which is not geared to downsizing or cost benefit analysis. More significantly, the responsibility for personnel management passed in large part to the executive administrator, who was given a virtual veto power over appointments inconsistent with budget and personnel policy. The First Judicial District is now in the process of doing a major personnel study, one aspect of which is to introduce more clarity and professionalism into the classification and pay system. Where this will lead is not yet clear, but it appears that there is a transition away from the patronage system.
D. The Executive Administrator and the Budget
The Office of the Executive Administrator was created as part of the Supreme Court takeover. This official has assumed responsibility for all ministerial functions transcending the three trial courts and thus provides a level of administrative unification formerly lacking in the court system. Although the exact authority of the executive administrator is not entirely clear, he clearly has broad control over six crucial functions: (1) facilities and buildings; (2) financial management; (3) procurement; (4) administrative services; (5) data processing and technology; and (6) human resources. Perhaps his most important power is his control over the budget and technology processes which are at present quite centralized but which he has promised to decentralize in upcoming budget cycles.
Budgetary codes have been used to sort out the relative powers of the executive administrator, the president judges of the three courts and the administrative judges of the divisions of the Court of Common
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 49
Pleas. The general norm for sorting out personnel is whether they have functions which transcend organizational lines. Thus, for example, a position set up to perform a function transcending two or more divisions of the Court of Common Pleas, but not affecting the two limited jurisdiction courts, would fall under the budget of the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. Positions set up to perform ministerial functions transcending all courts would be coded to reflect that they fall under the executive administrator's portion of the budget.
As stated above, the executive administrator basically answers to the Supreme Court through the state court administrator and is largely insulated from control by the local judiciary. Moreover, trial court administrators are also on the payroll of the executive administrator, indicating that administrators are not to serve at the pleasure of the trial court judiciary and are to be protected against changes in judicial leadership. The fact that the Supreme Court also appoints the three administrative judges of the Court of Common Pleas (Trial, Family and Orphans) makes these judges answerable to the Supreme Court rather than directly to their peers. In short, a new administrative model has been imposed on the Philadelphia courts.
It has fallen to the executive administrator to represent the First Judicial District in dealing with the city. In the past, there was no one representative of the "district" as each president judge spoke for his own court. Moreover, the role of judges in interbranch communications was more to convey the court's demands for funding than to engage in a managerial dialogue. There is now a professional management spokesperson for the courts, a situation which has greatly improved relations with the new city administration. Fortuitously, both the court and the city have been undergoing simultaneous changes in management style and have developed a certain empathy arising from shared problems.
The importance of the executive administrator's role is reflected in the court budget. There are four basic organizational categories, the three trial courts and the executive administrator, whose budget exceeds the combined budgets of the two limited jurisdiction courts.
TABLE 4
1994 General Fund Budget Request by Division and Object of Expenditure First Judicial District
Division Class 100 Class 200 Class 300 Class 400 Total Personnel Services Materials/ Equipment $ $ Supplies $ $ $ Common 52,357,569 12,402,477 982,000 357,000 66,099,046 Pleas Municipal 6,931,692 2,465,316 101,000 35,510 9,533,518
Traffic 3,400,457 1,554,000 63,150 22,000 5,039,607
Exec. Admin. 7,727,666 7,779,345 1,367,000 50,192 16,924,203
District Total 70,417,384 24,201,138 2,513,150 464,702 97,596,374
50 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
E. The Purchasing Changes
The bulk of the executive administrator's budget is for non-personnel expenditures inasmuch as leases, private maintenance contracts, and most data processing equipment show up in the executive administrator's budget, accounting for $9.5 million in Class 200 and 300 appropriations. This reflects an agreement between the city and the courts to have the courts do their own purchasing.
This transfer of authority started with an interesting deal. The courts occupy space in many buildings in downtown Philadelphia. The leases were negotiated by the city and included in the executive budget. The court agreed to take over space negotiations and the expense of the leases at $1,000,000 per annum less than the city was currently paying ($7,500,000). The savings to the city over the course of its 5-year plan figured without any escalation to be $5,000,000, and so the court prevailed upon the city to spend $2,500,000 on renovation of the Vine Street juvenile court facility. The court was able to renegotiate the leases, many of which were above market prices, and had no problem living within the $6,500,000 budgeted for space.
The court has set up a procurement unit in the Office of Executive Administrator and gradually expanded the scope of this unit, so that it now handles over $20,000,000 in purchases, including IV D purchases. The latter responsibility came about as the result of an agreement between the Family Division and the city.
The city now periodically transfers funds into a purchasing account which is controlled by the state court administrator acting as an agent of the First Judicial District. This takes the Philadelphia courts out from under the complex purchasing regulations of the city without making the local courts subject to state regulations, other than those employed by the state judicial branch. The city receives the interest on the account.
Five per cent of the fund goes into a technology fund from which the court is being automated, for example personal computers for all judges. The funds carry over from the previous fiscal year, providing a lot of flexibility. Savings below zero growth, which have been in excess of $2 million, are moved to procurement for technology and training investments. The cooperative relationship in purchasing between the state administrative office of courts and the First Judicial District provides a good model.
The new system has been a boon in many ways. The courts used to be last in line for purchases and often suffered from the inability of the city to process its vouchers near the end of a fiscal year. The court purchasing system is court-oriented and is tied into an AOC information system which it supplements in level of detail by downloading on PCs. The court purchasing unit can now be more responsive to user needs and have a very aggressive, competitive purchasing policy. One feature of the program is obtaining cash discounts by up front payment on leases; another is the use of time and materials maintenance services rather than flat rate maintenance contracts. There is great incentive to make economical purchases as the savings are poured back into technology or to cover other court needs, including even transfers to and from the Class 100 line (transfers to and from the 100 Class must go through the City Council).
The court administrative staff have reviewed a number of arrangements for services and made substantial changes:
(1) Custodial services for the courts in City Hall were provided by court personnel. After analysis of the cost of these services, the function was privatized and a contractor was hired at substantial
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 51
saving to the general fund. This contract will soon come up for renewal, permitting competition to effect improvements in the way these services are performed.
(2) A major problem for Philadelphia is an existing legal cap on the jail population. The city is responding to this by construction of a new jail, but meanwhile the limitations of jail space make it difficult to jail persons for crimes and contempt's, or to hold them in detention. A non-profit corporation was hired for jail population management to ensure that the best use was made of the available space. Review of this service resulted in a decision to bring the function in-house under a coordinator and to split the contractor fee between the agencies most directly involved (pre-trial, public defender and probation).
(3) A review of a long-standing contract with Temple University for forensic services in criminal cases revealed that the expenditure ($650,000 per year based roughly on a $100 per case average) did not seem to provide an appropriate level of services. The National Center for State Courts performed a study and recommended major reforms in the provision of forensic services and a renegotiation of the contract in the light of the recommendations. Temple rebid without much attention to the study. A partnership composed of mental health professionals who had been engaged in providing the services won the contract for $450,000 and committed themselves to follow through on major study recommendations, among them: (1) provision of training; (2) working more closely with judges to try and bring down the high number of more or less pro forma mental health exams requested, particularly in connection with pre-sentence investigations; (3) keeping the clinic open on a pretty regular basis; and (4) developing a procedures manual. The upshot of this process is that the courts have saved $200,000 per annum and upgraded the service, mainly by making the contract genuinely competitive and stating clearly what was desired.
F. Revenues
Several statutory changes created revenue sources to enhance court revenues and to ease the budget problem, in particular the difficulty of handling volatile open-ended expenses like indigent defense costs within the constraints of a zero-growth budget. The civil fees in Philadelphia courts had not been changed for years and were lower than those charged by comparable civil courts. An increase in such fees represented a way to cope with the indigent defense costs, but in order to obtain support for this increase the courts had to enlist the support of the organized bar, the city and ultimately the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. The city was attracted by the promise of more general fund revenue and negotiated with the courts over the split of the fee increases, finally agreeing to a 1/3 portion for the courts, such portion to be an increment to the zero growth budget. The Bar was generally receptive to the idea but concerned over jumping fees too drastically at once (e.g., under the original proposal commencement of a civil action would have gone from $30 to $160) and was also concerned about payment of attorneys assigned to represent indigents and about the support of the local law library, which is privately funded but subsidized by the bar. The Bar Chancellor formed a broad-based committee to consider the fee increase and achieved a high level of participation. Ultimately, the Bar, with remarkable unanimity, agreed to a phased 3-step increase in civil fees, the first-step increase to stay in effect for three years before escalating.
Once a local consensus was formed, the legislation was not difficult to obtain, since it was essentially a local bill. As it finally emerged, the legislation promised to generate about $8-9 million in additional revenues, including small earmarked fees for judicial education (new) and for Philadelphia court computerization (in addition to the existing fee for state-level automation efforts). The Supreme Court
52 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
ordered that the court share of the increase (roughly $2.9 million) be allocated for payment of indigent defense costs. The whole undertaking was a remarkably successful exercise in consensus building.
The courts also benefited from a fee initiative in the probation area. In 1991 the General Assembly passed legislation imposing a fee of $25 per month for persons under supervision but permitting judges to waive the fee for various economic reasons. The legislation requires that 50% of the collections go to the county where they are to earmarked for judicial use. The remaining 50 % goes into a state fund to be used to supplement federal or state funds appropriated for improvement of adult probation services, meaning in practice that much of this money comes back to the county level. Roughly $30,000-$40,000 per month is being collected in Philadelphia. Judges are waiving the fee in many cases; moreover, the collection rate is very low, about 10%. The low rate is attributable in part to lack of automation and the fact that the court can only accept money orders.
A major problem of the Philadelphia courts is inability to collect traffic fines in moving violations (some estimates are as low as 11%). There are a variety of reasons for this, some of them inherent in the local municipal culture and past practices. A contractor is now used to do front-end processing of tickets, but the problem is essentially a follow-up and enforcement problem. A lien system has been introduced. Moreover, a traffic court enforcement unit was set up in the midst of personnel cutbacks because it was considered to be cost-beneficial; consideration is also being giving to using a contractor to do automated telephone follow-up. The results are not great as yet, but the problem is being addressed. The traffic area is one of the most promising areas for revenue enhancement, despite substantial diminution in the number of tickets being issued (40% from 1991 to 1993).
G. Facility Costs and Strategic Planning
It is hard to overstate the economic significance of the court facility problem in Philadelphia or the close relationship of court facility problems to jail overcrowding. Philadelphia, as strange as it may seem, does not have a court house. The Vine Street facility, which houses the Family Division, Juvenile Branch, and some administrative offices, is the closest thing to a real court facility. The court has traditionally used space in City Hall, but as the court has grown, it has leased space, more or less willy-nilly, throughout downtown Philadelphia.1 This diffusion of court space has created situations where jurors may gather at one building, hear a trial at another and deliberate at a third. Chambers of judges may be located in buildings separate from the court rooms where they serve. Judges of the same court may be physically separate from the other members of their court and support staff. Further complicating the picture has been the power of the president judge to assign chambers which until recently were not related to courtroom assignments. The inefficiencies and security problems resulting from this system are enormous. Several court managers observed that reduction in the number of tipstaffs would be easy to bear when the new Criminal Justice Center (see below) is completed but constituted a problem while court facilities remained scattered.
1 As of June 1993, the courts had leased space in at least ten locations, often having space on different and separated floors in the same building: (1) 1601 Market Street (chambers and civil courtrooms); (2) 121 Broad Street (adult probation); (3) 219 North Broad Street (pre-trial services); (4) One Reading Center (data processing); (5) 34 S. 11th Street (municipal court); (6) 1321 Arch Street (court reporters); (7) 1500 Chestnut Street (arbitration); (8) 800 Spring Garden Street (traffic court); (9) 1300 Market Street (complex civil litigation); (10) One East Penn Square (chambers, civil courtrooms, and administrative offices).
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 53
Simply moving the court from rented space to city space promises great savings. In addition to the space for criminal courts in the Criminal Justice Center, the civil and administrative components of the system might use space in a new municipal building. In any event, it has been recognized that the long- term fiscal strategy of the courts depends to a considerable degree on facility planning.
In June 1990, the City of Philadelphia completed an in-depth analysis of the criminal justice system and identified the need for improved and expanded facilities for the prison and court system. The analysis resulted in a series of reports which, taken as a whole, form the Philadelphia Justice System Improvement Program. The program is an umbrella for coordinating six related criminal justice initiatives. Fiscal considerations were of paramount importance in the planning,2 which called for creation of a new prison and a new Criminal Justice Center reflecting the programmatic goals. The programmatic elements which were influential in the design were:
(1) Provision for 65 courtroom areas, (48) Common Pleas, (14) Municipal and (3) large courtrooms suitable for arraignments and private criminal complaints.
(2) Functional separation of judge chambers and courtrooms. The chambers will occupy the top three floors3 of the building, and judges will access the courtrooms by private elevator. Each courtroom has a robing/conference room for the judge.
(3) The courtrooms are designed in pairs with secure and private elevators associated with each group of 2-3 pairs. Inmate holding cells and jury rooms will be adjacent to each court room; attorney/client interview rooms area also available. As now designed, floors 5-11 are set aside for court rooms. There are 8 court rooms per floor, each of them adaptable to either jury or non-jury trials. Six jury impaneling rooms will be provided for eight court rooms.
(4) Three large court rooms will be provided on one floor (Floor Three).
(5) Public waiting space with an external view is provided on each floor.
(6) Egress and ingress will be through designated points. Thus, the whole building will be secure except in the main lobby in the entrance area.
Given the fact that courts will occupy most of the new center, there has been substantial court participation. The executive administrator oversees the building of the center, which is scheduled for occupancy in September 1995. Bids went out in mid-1993.
The building of the Center has been following a precise step-by step pattern, each step referred to as a track. The architects have completed a schematic design report and a separate product called Facility Program which includes the entire building program and substantiating information. An interesting aspect
2 Apparently, the funding for the facility is a bond issue of about $250 million which is supposed to cover the prison and justice center, the later facility slated to cost about $100 million. The funding includes furnishings and soft costs, such as architectural and consultant services. Additional funds will be needed. It is unclear how this fits into the City's capital planning and debt service projections.
3 The building will have 14 stories, not counting a penthouse area, a basement area, and subbasement area, the latter essentially a prisoner holding area under the control of the sheriff.
54 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
of the Facility Program is its application of space standards and its exact estimate of the number of employees. The design is impressive, not only for its content, but for the extensive participation which preceded it. For example, the clerical areas of the Center have been designed to facilitate integration of the Quarter Sessions Clerk staff and other support staff.4
It should be noted, however, that the Center is only for criminal matters. This will involve a split of judges within the Court of Common Pleas and, to a lesser degree, the Municipal Court. The latter court will house almost all its judges in the new Center. One of the issues facing the courts and the city is where to house the non-criminal elements of the court.
4 The Clerk of Quarter Sessions is a city-funded office with its own budget. It is not in the budget for the First Judicial District, one of the many anomalous fragmentations within the system. The filing of court papers in the new Center will be handled at a central filing desk, thus reducing the existing number of filing areas and the need for separate clerical units.
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 55
III Court Operations
On February 2, 1993, the executive administrator reported on the performance of the First Judicial District in the period 1989-1992. In general, he reported major improvements despite the budget problems and loss of positions. The Court of Common Pleas reduced its pending caseload by 36% during the period.
TABLE 5
Reduction of Pending Cases in Court of Common Pleas: 1989-1992
Court Component Reduction in % Reduction Pending Cases
Criminal 3,155 31%
Civil 17,476 28%
Juvenile 1,084 32%
Domestic Relations 22,951 49%
Total 44,666 36%
Within the general good news were some problems. The number of pending criminal cases did not decrease after 1991 and rose slightly, in part due to shift of judges to civil in a very successful crash effort to reduce the civil backlog. Philadelphia, with major help from the Civil Bar, has set up of hearings in front of volunteer attorneys to expedite settlement. Failure to settle leads to a trial before a volunteer attorney serving as judge pro tem. The hearing attorneys and judges pro tem work as part of a team with a civil judge who only gets those cases which are of major importance and hotly contested. The amount of pro bono time invested in this process by Philadelphia lawyers is impressive. This is in addition to the relatively low-paid time which many lawyers put in on arbitration panels, which are used extensively in Philadelphia. But there are still major problems in moving cases on the Major Civil Calendar.
Municipal Court, a productive court which tends to stay relatively current, held its own in civil matters, increased criminal dispositions and went up slightly in pending cases during a period of filing increases and significant reductions in staff. The Traffic Court, primarily a forum to handle moving traffic violations, has not been as successful. The court has a very poor rate of collection, despite some improvements to enhance collections, such as booting and use of civil liens. In addition, the number of traffic tickets being written has declined markedly. The administrator of the Municipal Court has been appointed administrator of the Traffic Court, signaling the possible future integration of the Traffic Court into the Municipal Court.
What emerges from the statistics is that budgetary cutbacks and personnel attrition have not worsened the performance of the court. In fact, there have been some remarkable improvements in the Court of Common Pleas. The consensus of people in the system is that the shakeup by the Supreme Court
56 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
and the reorganization of the administrative system unleashed some pent up energies for reform and placed authority in a different set of judges, who already had an agenda for reform. It is further clear that the Bar was, on the whole, pleased with the changes and willing to support improvements which many felt long overdue. Thus, in a strange way, the budget crisis provided a reality check which led to significant improvement in the system.
IV Summation of Steps Taken to Address the Fiscal Problems of the Courts
The First Judicial District has taken a number of initiatives and made some major changes to deal with the budget situation which has affected all entities funded by the City of Philadelphia. It is not difficult to identify the steps which have been taken and to make some reasonable assessment of their success. The problem is identifying those steps which are fundamental and long-term from those which are essentially tactical. Both the basic and the tactical have value in addressing the problems caused by lack of resources, but the fundamental changes are those which require a strategic vision and which are more likely to be institutionalized and endure.
A. Basic Changes
1. Administrative Unification
The unusual intervention of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cannot be regarded as normative, but the some of the steps which flowed from the intervention are of very basic importance in managing court resources. The first change was the administrative unification of the three trial courts under an executive administrator invested with significant budgetary authority. The creation of a court administrative office transcending the trial court judiciary and in a direct line of authority to the Supreme Court (via the state court administrator) is highly unusual, but clearly an important element in the establishment of budgetary discipline in the First Judicial District. Moreover, the executive administrator has taken on to his payroll other trial court administrators, indicating a lessening of control by the trial court judiciary over these positions. This is particularly important with reference to the Traffic Court which now has the same court administrator as the Municipal Court and is being integrated into the First Judicial District. The authority of the Supreme Court to appoint administrative judges of the Court of Common Pleas ties lines of authority to the Supreme Court. Whether these steps to administrative unification will endure remains to be seen, but at this point, they must be described as fundamental.
2. Totally Different Budgetary Posture; From Mandamus to Cooperation
The Supreme Court intervention led to a fundamental change in the budgetary posture of the judiciary. Formerly, the Philadelphia courts did not engage in budget dialogue and took a fairly strong separation of powers approach to support their budget requests. The Supreme Court started a new era by entering into a long-term, zero-growth budget with the City, signaling that the courts accepted fiscal accountability and would cooperate in the attempt of the City to solve its serious financial problems.
The chosen court agent for implementing this new relationship is the Executive Administrator of the First Judicial District, who, as a non-judge administrator, speaks on a peer basis with executive branch officials and maintains continuing communication with them. Moreover, he speaks with authority because of the way his role has been defined. As the openness and professionalism of court management have
Appendix A: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • 57
increased, so has the willingness of the City to give latitude to the courts in managing their own affairs, the best example being the transfer of purchasing authority and responsibility for leases. The whole nature of court administration has changed, permitting management initiatives in the financial and human resources areas that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. The traditional aloof assertion of judicial independence has been replaced with the attitude that if the judiciary demonstrates management credibility, it will, in fact, achieve a management latitude appropriate to its status as a third branch of government.
3. Different Administrative Role for Trial Judges
What has arisen in the Philadelphia courts is an interesting division of so-called "ministerial "functions and judicial functions, with the former in the domain of the executive administrator (certainly not untrammeled by judicial participation) and the latter under judicial control (aided by non-judge administrators). Interestingly, the increase in the authority of non-judge managers has occurred at a time of great judicial creativity in the managing the caseload of the First Judicial District, particularly in the Court of Common Pleas where judges have focused effectively on the disposition of civil, criminal, domestic relations, and juvenile cases. It's early to make a definitive statement, but it appears that a very different division of administrative authority has taken place and that it is, on the whole, beneficial.
4. Facility and Space Planning
It is hard to overstate the centrality of the facility issue to the administrative evolution of the Philadelphia courts (see II G above). Some of the early achievements of the executive administrator have been in the crucial area of space management and leasing. But more significant is the facility planning which is shaping the future of the Philadelphia courts. Not only do these facility plans have fiscal significance, but they will affect the use of personnel, including judges, and have a profound impact on making the court system a more coherent administrative entity. Much of the strategic long-term thinking about the courts is tied into the development of new facilities, providing a focus which would otherwise be hard to achieve.
B. Other Significant Changes
1. Competitive Purchasing and Privatization
The First Judicial District has been aggressive and imaginative in the areas of purchasing goods and services, with great fiscal benefit to the courts. One interesting aspect of the purchasing initiative is close working partnership with the Pennsylvania AOC to make the system work (see II F above). The success of this effort can be summarized pretty succinctly: (1) convince the other branches that you can save them money by letting the courts do their own purchasing; (2) ask them to return all the savings to the courts; (3) establish a professional purchasing department and institute tough competitive bidding; (4) review every existing contract and service to determine if the contracts can be renegotiated; (5) if services are being provided inefficiently or poorly by another government agency, go private, but conversely, if analysis proves that a service could be handled better in-house, take it away from the private sector; (6) try, if possible, to stay outside extremely politicized or complex purchasing regulations but make sure that basic standards are in place; and (7) provide an internal incentive for sound purchasing by putting savings back into court departments which achieve savings.
58 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The City of Philadelphia has encouraged the development of cost-beneficial ideas by proving front- end capital to test promising ideas. The courts have sought funds to test new methods of traffic fine collection, which promise considerable benefit in relation to money expended. This type of revolving fund should be used generally. Administered properly, it provides ongoing incentive for effecting efficiencies and more than pays for itself.
3. Revenue Enhancement
The First Judicial District has made significant efforts to ease budget problems by revenue enhancement (see II F. above), sometimes with great success (use of civil fees to increase the zero base budget and cover indigent costs) and sometimes with very marginal success (as in the case of Traffic Court and probation supervision fees). The First Judicial District is fighting a struggle to get the City to recognize and give credit to the courts for state grants and subsidies for courts. No court likes to get into the position of being an arm of the revenue collection system, but some creativity and forcefulness in this area becomes necessary in a tight budget situation. The way the civil fee increase was handled is a text book example of how to win support for a fee increase and to ensure that the courts obtain some budget credit for the increase instead of all the money disappearing into the general fund.
4. Technology
The Philadelphia courts have a variety of parallel technology initiatives, among them the automation of judicial chambers and key administrative areas via a WAN/LAN Criminal Justice Information System, the New England Child Support Enforcement System, and an embryonic initiative in the civil area. However, the initiative most directly tied to budgetary savings and their internal use is a program to automate all judicial chambers by the introduction of personal computers. It is one thing to save; it another to direct these savings to specific goals which promise further efficiencies to the court. The technology initiatives have been fed by grants, civil fees, and purchasing and personnel savings, showing a clear management focus.
5. Personnel Reductions
The First Judicial District has had recent experience with layoffs and attrition based upon a hiring freeze (see II C above). The former method was employed with dramatic effect but with some litigation backlash. The less dramatic method has proven to be more manageable, because it has been more gradual. Moreover, the judiciary has reserved the right to retain positions considered vital. In fact, this has rarely been done. The courts have been able to absorb a major loss of positions, probably because there were a surplus of positions. At some point, the downsizing will probably be halted, but the courts have continued to operate reasonably well in spite of staff reductions.
V Conclusion
The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania is a bit atypical. Nonetheless, it provides a number of lessons to the outside observer, the main one being that a budget crisis can be a great opportunity to make beneficial changes.
APPENDIX B
National Center for State Courts Site Report Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois, Lake County
he Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois includes Lake County and McHenry County. Lake County, the larger of the two counties, is within the ring of relatively affluent "collar" counties T which surround Cook County. Lake County has not experienced traumatic budget cuts but has fallen into a flat budget situation in which some of the costs of growth are absorbed. This budgetary situation has affected the largely county-funded Circuit Court and increased the necessity for efficiency and innovation. The Circuit Court has, in fact, proven quite innovative, and it is for this reason that it was chosen as a project site and visited by project staff on June 23 and 24, 1993.
I The Setting
A. Lake County: Demographics
Lake County is located on Lake Michigan north of Chicago and borders Wisconsin. The county has experienced a steady population growth for many years and reached an estimated population of 537,000 in 1992. Unemployment has been relatively low by Illinois and national standards; moreover, property values in most parts of the county have advanced fairly steadily in the preceding decade, making it possible to increase levels of service to an expanding population without severe tax increases. However, the county has several urban areas with serious economic and social problems, among them Waukegan, the major population center.
B. Lake County: Fiscal
Lake County is the principal funding source for the Circuit Court and its related agencies. The Lake County budget for FY 1993 will be about $198 million, almost the same as the $197 million budget for FY 1992. The property tax levy accounts for only about 27% of the budget revenue, with sales tax revenue adding an additional 8%. The county has been fairly successful in keeping the property tax rate down; it has actually been declining in recent years. Increasingly, the county has been relying on charges and fees which account for 24% of anticipated revenue in FY 1993. The court system is particularly reliant on the collection of fees and charges earmarked for court purposes.
The flat funding pattern is not only reflected in the leveling off in the budget but in personnel staffing. FY 1993 will mark the third year of a no-growth policy on full-time positions: 1991-2080; 1992- 2078; 1993-2083. Basically, the county has reached a point where it cannot rely on the growth of the county tax base to finance expanded services. The option is to raise taxes significantly or hold the line. The county is in a hold pattern and figures to be in that position for a while.
-59- 60 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
C. Lake County: the Court System
The Nineteenth Judicial Circuit has 39 judges, 13 of whom are circuit judges and 26 of whom are associate judges chosen for a term of years by the circuit judges. Judges can be assigned to either county by the chief judge and elsewhere in the state by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
In Lake County there are 9 circuit judges and 20 associate judges. The Circuit Court of Lake County is a single-tier trial court operating through 4 divisions, each headed by a presiding judge. The divisions are : Civil, Family, Felony, and Misdemeanor/Traffic/DUI. The circuit judges tend to have relatively stable assignments; the associate judges are used more flexibly. Since the number of courtrooms is less than the number of judges, four associate judges operate essentially as "flex judges."
The circuit has a unified administration in the sense that the chief judge administers both counties, but since the chief judge is located in Lake County, day-to-day administration in McHenry County is delegated to a presiding judge. Similarly, the circuit court administrator sits in Lake County, so that day- to-day administration in McHenry County is handled by an assistant administrator.
Clerical functions in Lake County are under the direction of an elected clerk who operates independently of the court. Bailiff functions are provided by an elected sheriff. Probation services, pre- trial release and juvenile detention are under the direct administration of the court.
The circuit court administrator is chosen by the circuit judges and answers to the chief judge. In Lake County, the court administrator has organized his office into three divisions; (1) Administrative Services, which deals essentially with budgeting, personnel, information services, and fee collections pertaining to probation; (2) Court Services, which deals largely with social services for adults and juveniles, volunteer programs, the 18-bed juvenile detention center, and psychological testing and related services; (3) Judicial Operations, which handles a number of support functions related to the adjudicative function, among them: caseflow management and calendaring; jury management; the law library; management of the arbitration program (which includes McHenry county), obtaining interpreters; and assignment of court reporters and other support personnel.
The number of county-funded court employees, as reflected in the FY 1992 budget, is 237, including 98 employees of the clerk. In addition, there are a number of state-funded positions: 39 state- funded judges; an assistant administrator and an administrative assistant funded by the state to handle arbitration; 19 state-funded court reporter positions; and a state-funded assistant administrator of court support services. There are roughly 300 persons in the judicial branch of Lake County if the clerk's office is included. It should be noted that many of the non-judicial employees are professionals, mainly in the social service area, making the per capita salary expense of the court fairly high.
The court activities are centered primarily in the county complex at Waukegan, but there are also five branch courts at various locations in the county, four of them in government buildings with other uses. The court has recently set up a new facility at Grayslake as step to consolidating branch courts in two locations.
The county government, for budgetary purposes, combines courts with the Public Defender, State's Attorney; Sheriff and the Coroner. The courts have close ties with all four but do not have management authority over these agencies any more than they do over the budget of the Clerk of the Circuit Courts. Of the four, the Public Defender is most closely tied to the courts since he requires help for his politically unpopular budget.
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 61
The Public Defender is appointed by the circuit judges and is evaluated by them, but the structure and service of the office is under the sole authority of the Chief Public Defender.
D. Interbranch Relations
There appears to be a good working relationship between the courts and county officials, although this was not always the case before there was an office of court administration. This relationship is based largely on regular day-to-day contacts and a certain mutual respect between the court administrator and county officials. The courts are not in an imperious posture and have attempted to put their relationship with the county on a professional basis and not get overly insistent on judicial prerogatives.
There are, however, some sticking points. The addition of judges is the result of actions at the state level based on formulas which are beyond county control, yet the creation of new judgeships creates expenses for the county and exacerbates facility problems. County officials question whether there has to be a courtroom for each judge and express criticism over the use of courtrooms. Moreover, there is some skepticism among county officials about whether the recent addition of two judges was really necessary. Finally, county officials resent all the little special revenue pots to which the courts have access and the county doesn't. Although conceding that such revenue sources alleviate the burden on the general fund, they question the practice of setting up a separate income stream which is largely beyond the control of the county. But interestingly, the county has been moving some expenses from the General Operating Expense category into special funds in order to reduce the tax levy.
Criticisms notwithstanding, the county has been cooperative in creating new space for the courts and generally supportive. On balance, the relationship is pretty amicable.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Sources of Court Financing
The Lake County court system is funded primarily by the county general fund but also receives substantial funding from the State of Illinois and from various special revenue funds.
1. State and Federal Funding
As noted above, the state pays the salaries of 39 judges;1 the state also pays the salaries of 19 court reporters, the executive secretary of the chief judge, two assistant administrators, and an administrative assistant. Direct salary payments alone probably exceed $4.5 million, most of it represented by judicial salaries.
In addition to funding two positions in arbitration, the state pays for other expenses of arbitration including the fees paid to attorneys who sit on arbitration panels. The state assumes a heavy funding
1 Illinois law requires that counties pay a salary supplement of $500 to circuit judges and associate judges. In multi-county circuits the state may pay this amount and be reimbursed annually. Lake County appropriates about $14,000 for this purpose.
62 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
burden in the area of court-provided social services, among them probation, pre-trial services, intake functions, probation supervision, oversight of community service and rehabilitation programs, and pre- sentence investigation. About ten years ago, the state started assuming more obligation for probation costs and committing state resources to reimburse counties which observed specified criteria. The reimbursement was supposed to be 100% for some positions, a partial subsidy for others. The state is also obligated to pay some expenses of probation officers. However, the state has been backing away from its commitment; the estimated state payment for FY 1993 is estimated at about $1.6 million dollars, which represents a 5% cut in the state payment. Some of this state reimbursement is for social service professionals paid from the Youth Home Fund and is credited to that special fund. The state also has some small health programs which benefit the Hulse Detention Center and makes some random reimbursements for dependent children who are declared wards of the state. Finally, the Circuit Clerk, a a form of salary reimbursement, receives $3,500 per year from the state, which sum is paid into the county general fund.
The Lake County courts do not receive any funding under the federal IV D program, but the clerk does collect an administrative fee for processing child support payments which apparently more than covers the cost of handling child support enforcement processes. The Lake County court system has received some grants, primarily federal criminal justice money, for example, a juvenile justice grant to set up intake units in the circuit and to improve relationships with justice agencies and a grant through the Illinois Criminal Justice Authority to deal with substance abuse clients.
2. County Funding
In order to piece together Lake County expenditures on courts it is necessary to identify a number of court-related special revenue funds which supplement the general fund appropriations for courts. Table 1 below shows actual FY 1992 county expenditures by funding source and authorized positions.
Table 1 FY 1992 Court System Expenditures by County Funding Source
FY 1992 Actual Expenditures Funding Source Positions FY 1992 Circuit Court General Fund. 15 $784,059 Court Services General Fund. 89 3,302,839 Clerk of Circuit Court General Fund. 98 2,333,661 Hulse Detention Center Special Revenue Fund. 30 1,233,048 Law Library Special Revenue Fund. 3 153,284 Probation Service Fee Special Revenue Fund. 0 240,246 Court Automation Special Revenue Fund. 2 1,053,247 Totals 237 $9,001,564
The Youth Home Fund supports the cost of an 18-bed juvenile detention facility (Hulse Detention Center) and is supported by the tax levy money ($772,000 in FY 1992) and is thus under the state cap on taxation. The fund also receives substantial intergovernmental funds from various small grant programs, payments from other counties housing juveniles in Lake County, and state reimbursement of juvenile probation officer salaries ($418,000 in FY 1992). The county has a home detention program and also
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 63
makes referrals from the Hulse Center to other facilities. Home detention grew to be a major expenditure item in 1992, requiring an emergency appropriation.
The Law Library Fund is supported largely by an $8 fee on civil cases. The library is under the administrative control of the resident circuit court judges and has two full-time employees. The library is well-funded and serves the court, the Bar, the Public Defender and the State's Attorney. Except for rent, utilities, and telephone costs paid by the county, all library expenditures are paid from used fees.
The Probation Service Fee Fund consists of monthly fees paid by probationers for probation services. It is earmarked for non-personnel costs of adult probation, in particular costs of facilities and half-way houses.
The Court Automation Fund is fed by fees which were recently raised from $3 to $5 per case. The fund was created in response to requests from Circuit Court clerks and is intended for automation of court records. It is administered jointly by the clerk and chief judge and has been a major source of funding for technology. The county provides computer services to the clerk and has been compensated from the fund for its services and capital needs. There are two positions funded through the fund, one of them for the clerk, the other to provide computer expertise to the court administrator.
The importance of special revenue funds to the funding of the Lake County courts is obvious from the amounts expended from these funds, but this tells only part of the picture. Many of the special revenue funds have significant balances (a source of irritation to the county), to the point where they can be budgeted on the basis of existing funds rather than on the "if come." Particularly illustrative of this point is the new Court Document Storage Fund which simply accumulated money in FY 1992 and had no expenditures. Table 2 shows the fund balances.
TABLE 2 FINANCIAL STATUS OF SPECIAL FUNDS FY 1992
Special Fund Revenues FY 1992 Balance 11/30 1992 Youth Home $1,229,683 $571,465
Law Library 202,168 154,024
Court Automation 627,516 1,028,789
Probation Service 346,635 419,907
Court Document Storage 486,874 486,874
64 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 1 shows that the combined county general fund expenditures of the Circuit Courts, Clerk of the Circuit Court, and Court Services courts were about $6.4 million in FY 1992. The county- recommended general fund budget in FY 1993 for the same three categories totals $6,719,472.2
It is estimated that the Clerk of the Circuit Court will collect revenues of $5.1 million in FY 1993. In addition, Court System fees are estimated to produce $690,000 in FY 1993.3 State reimbursements for probation officers in the Court Services budget are estimated to be $1,254,000 in FY 1993. In short, the anticipated FY 1993 revenues from these three sources (and there are other revenues), exceed the anticipated FY 1993 general fund expenditures. Even if one includes the indirect costs attributed to court agencies by the county (roughly $3.3 million), the net cost to the general fund in FY 1993 would only be about $3 million.
B. Budget Environment
The current budget environment does not require extremely hard choices, but it is definitely forcing a serious review of court expenditures and bringing about management initiatives to operate with higher efficiency. The courts are operating on the assumption that they will be flat-funded. Worsening this situation is the fact that the State of Illinois is in a far worse budget position than the county and is cutting expenditures for court programs, notably subsidies to cover probation salaries. When state resources fail, there is a bigger burden on the county.
The interplay between the state and the county complicates budgeting. The Lake County courts must deal with both systems, keeping separate records for state employees and special detail on county- funded employees for whom the county receives state reimbursements. Lake County obtains new judgeships on the basis of caseload formulas devised at the state level. Reporters and clerical support are determined on a per judge ratio (e.g., .64 reporters per judge, .2 clerical employees per judge). Basically, court budgeters must mesh the two resources, which may be advantageous in providing some flexibility and alternatives. It can also place the court system at a disadvantage if the county perceives it as a quasi-state agency which imposes its requirements from Springfield.
The courts, in dealing with the county, try to avoid emergency budget requests and transfers which have to go before the board (i.e., transfers between the four major objects of expenditure). The county administrator has considerable authority to transfer within object categories if the bottom line figure is observed. In the last month of the fiscal year there are usually a number of these changes which are more or less pro forma.
2 This total does not include the court functions of the sheriff, but these are partially offset by fees. The Clerk of the Circuit Court collects a Court Security fee, estimated to raise $780,000 in FY 1993. This general fund revenue is roughly 50-60% of the sheriff's expenditures for court security. It is also estimated that the sheriff will earn $420,000 in fees in FY 1993 for service of process for the Lake County courts.
3 After the success of clerks in obtaining legislation to earmark fees for support of clerical functions, the courts sought and were successful in obtaining legislation permitting collection of a fee to support "court improvement." This revenue, largely derived from fees collected in motor vehicle cases, goes into the general fund but is reflected as revenue in the section of the budget "Circuit Courts."
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 65
C. Overall Management Approach
Trial court administration in Illinois is not, on the whole, highly advanced. Lake County stands out as one of the few counties where court management is very professional. This professionalism has been made possible because the circuit judges, who exercise ultimate authority, have recognized the importance of delegating substantial authority to the court administrator and his staff, particularly in day-to-day dealings with the county government and the state administrative office of courts. In 1988 the court administrator totally reorganized the office eliminating seven management positions and tightening the lines of authority and controls. Much of what is said below stems from the fact that Lake County has established a very effective and respected system of court administration.
Management style is also important. The principal characteristics of the Lake County style are: (1) great awareness of the value of technology; (2) creation of good management information systems, permitting very close monitoring of expenditures and revenues and an ability to identify problems in their incipiency; (3) a competitive spirit, reflected in a desire to play a lead role in management innovation and a desire to have Lake County rank high in comparison to other counties, particularly in the key area of caseflow management;4 (4) involvement of staff in administrative decisions and extensive cross-training; (5) emphasis on public communication, in particular reports and explanations of court activities and keeping up lines of communication with county agencies; (6) tight purchasing controls and use of competitive bidding for goods and services; and (7) constant search for new revenues or enhancement of existing revenues.5
It should be noted that court administration in Lake County has grown up in an atmosphere of relative affluence not found in most counties in Illinois or elsewhere. Efficiencies have been effected less by necessity than by management choice. Objectively, one could observe that Lake County courts are not "hurting" and could, in more sharply adverse fiscal conditions, make additional expenditure cuts without seriously impeding court operations. The fact is that the court system has a management system which is striving for efficiency at the level currently required and could adapt to adversity easier than a more poorly managed court system.
D. Management Initiatives with Fiscal Implications
1. Expenditures for Professional Services
In Lake County, as elsewhere, there has been a remarkable surge in costs due to greatly expanded use of professional services, both those in-house and those externally provided. One reason why the State of Illinois started subsidizing probation services was the high cost of professional salaries to counties Other professional services are also in demand: medical and psychiatric services; legal services; and language interpretation. Lake County has struggled to contain these costs.
Legal representation of indigents at one time was essentially a pro bono undertaking. As volume mounted, a Public Defender Office was created. This office now has an annual budget of about $1.1
4 This spirit exists on the bench where judges are sensitive to their comparative performance.
5 The principal revenue collector is the clerk. There are some differences in outlook between the court and the clerk on the vigor with which revenue collection should be pursued as an objective.
66 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
million and a staff of 29 full-time employees. The office takes about 75% of criminal cases. There is some indigency screening by Pre-Trial Services and a small amount of public defender fees are recouped, about $89,000 annually.
The plea rate is 80% but mandatory sentencing is placing more demands on defense attorneys. Addition of court rooms in the new court facility will also strain the resources of the Defender.
The Public Defender cannot handle cases where a conflict of interest exists, primarily cases with multiple defendants. These are handled by conflict attorneys. Only a few years ago the payments to conflict attorneys were handled as a general operating expense of the county and did not appear in an agency budget. When the annual cost reached $350,000, the courts assumed budgetary responsibility. The item is now carried under "Circuit Courts." The annual cost has been cut to roughly $150,000 by using contracts. Interestingly, the Public Defender is using two contract attorneys to handle major felonies. At a cost of $42,000 he obtains expert counsel and does not tie up his limited staff on cases which can consume great amounts of attorney time.
Interpreter services in Lake County were, until recently, provided entirely by interpreters chosen from a list and paid on a hourly rate basis ($33 per hour). The greatest demand was for Spanish interpreters. The demand was such that the court found it cost-beneficial to contract for Spanish interpretation at $100 per day. Having an interpreter available on a regular basis increased scheduling efficiency. It is anticipated that if the need for Spanish grows even more, a salaried interpreter will be added to the court staff. The current expense of interpretation is about $32,000 per annum.
A major need experienced by the court has been psychological testing and the provision of rehabilitative programs. At one time, psychological services were directed by a part-time professional on a $40,000 contract. The service has been brought in-house by the hiring of a full-time staff psychologist, who does psychological testing, consulting, staff training, oversight of externally provided contract services, and evaluation of the various treatment and rehabilitation programs in the area. He is assisted by a family therapist and two probation officers who monitor and evaluate treatment in the juvenile and adult areas. At one point, program costs were cut by replacing a $48,000 family therapist with a well-qualified but junior professional at half the salary.
The pattern in the area of professional services has been to go from hourly rate payment, to contracts and ultimately to in-house hiring if the volume of services is such that in-house performance effects a saving.
2. Jury Management
Lake County has very good jury management and prides itself on having differentiated jury management, the ability to predict jury needs for various proceedings. Some years ago the traditional jury commission system of the county was replaced by bringing the commission into the office of the court administrator and having the administrator and two members of his staff serve as the commission, with one of the three also designated as Jury System Coordinator. A very detailed and sophisticated information system permits a very effective micromanagement of jury trial expenditures. The system produces statistics on the basic cost and performance indicators used in jury management; (1) yield - i.e., percentage of jurors called who actually serve; (2) cost per trial day; (3) cost per trial. There are numerous other pieces of management information available such as length of voir dire, average trial length, panel size,
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 67 challenges, and individual judge jury case activity. In short, an aberration in cost could be quickly traced to some cause.
Recently, juror fees were reduced from $12.50 per day to $5 per day (this is a national trend, as is the increase in jury demand fees). If the lower fee is applied backward in time to the jury statistics for previous years, it is possible to measure efficiency by looking at jury fee cost per trial day and jury fee cost per trial. Table 3 illustrates that the efficiency of the system has increased.
Table 3 Jury Fee Costs (Current Fee Applied Retroactively) 1987-1992
Year Juror Days Trial Days Fees Jury Cost per Trials Jury Fee Trial Day Cost per Trial 1987 21,254 793 $106,270 $134.01 N/A N/A 1988 21,045 724 $105,225 $145.34 293 $359.13 1989 18,775 651 $93,875 $144.20 232 $404.63 1990 14,713 522 $73,565 $140.93 199 $369.67 1991 16,663 636 $83,315 $131.00 241 $345.71 1992 15,747 702 $78,735 $112.16 277 $284.24
One indicator of efficiency which is not affected by the change in jury fees is "yield". From 1990 to 1992 Lake County has improved the percentage of jurors summoned who actually serve (see Table 4). This is brought about by careful examination of previous juror calls and close coordination with the case scheduling system.
Table 4 Percentage of Summoned Jurors Who Serve 1990-1992
Year Jurors Summoned Jurors Serving % of Jurors Who Served 1990 20,015 6,231 31 1991 19,720 6,134 31 1992 16,837 6,466 38
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution
Lake County served as a pilot county for the introduction of a state-funded, mandatory arbitration program in Illinois. The pilot program was successful and is in place in other locations, among them McHenry County. The program was limited to civil damage cases between $2500 and $15,000 (there is consideration of raising the amount in issue to $50,000). There is a court cost imposed for arbitration, which goes to the state. The lawyer-arbitrators sit in panels of three, and their decision is not binding. The
68 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
program has proven successful because many cases are being settled prior to reaching panels. The annual volume of cases set for arbitration has been running about 2500, of which about 10% are reaching panels. If there are appeals from an arbitration decision, they are placed on a fast track - 120 days or less, meaning that theses cases are pushed to conclusion without delay. Administrators estimate that the program has saved the equivalent of an additional judge.
The courts have a conciliation program for divorce cases. The conciliators are paid $55 per hour, and $15,000 is budgeted for this. The courts can compel full or partial payment by the parties. The underlying concept is that this program will be largely self-supporting, but it has a tendency to overrun the small budget allocation.
4. Facilities
Lake County has been for several years in the process of major changes in its court facilities, some of these in the principal court complex in Waukegan, some in the branch courts. In the main courthouse area, the courts took advantage of the closure of the old jail to add three court rooms; in addition, two court rooms were remodeled. A major modification of existing space will permit more courtrooms to be added. In his message in the 1992 Annual Report Chief Judge Goshgarian summed up these developments by stating that "Eight new permanent court rooms and two temporary courtrooms are planned." These plans also call for relocation of the law library and circuit clerk. The facility issue remains a source of tension with the county government and has led to some confrontations over the area to be occupied by the law library.
The changes in the main court house area will have great fiscal implications for court operations, but the effects are not clear.6 One major effect from a court perspective is a reduction in the gap between trial judges and courtrooms, eliminating the current practice of "flex" or "floater" judges and floating personnel who are sent to vacant courtrooms as openings occur. But additional rooms also place some strain on court-related agencies, such as the public defender and the clerk who may have trouble covering more rooms. At a time when civil caseload is declining and the possibility of higher arbitration limits is being considered, county officials question the need for so many courtrooms and the addition of judges (two were added recently). The changes will, in all probability, increase operating costs. The court's position is that the facility changes are based on a study of space needs through 2010. Moreover, the court expects short- term benefits for caseflow management and more efficient use of both judges and support personnel.
The changes occurring in the branch courts are much more clearly related to efficiency and cost benefit. The goal is simple, the consolidation of the branch courts at two locations, both of them located outside government space and entirely court-dedicated.7 The Grayslake facility, recently renovated for court use, is the prototype for the future when there will be one other similar branch court and no facilities in government buildings. This will definitely cut judge time (perhaps the equivalent of 1/2 or 3/4 of a judge) and also court support time.
6 Obviously, the capital expense alone has implications for the county, but the capital improvements have been funded from proceeds of a 1985 bond issue, dating back to a period when the county undertook a major capital improvement program.
7 The county rents space on a per diem basis from cities; judges are scheduled at these locations, mostly for traffic matters. The facilities are not ideal and the interplay with other governmental activities is distracting.
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 69
An interesting negotiation is occurring with mall operators near Waukegan. Anxious to attract people to the mall area, the mall operators are offering to provide space for a branch court at a very reasonable level.
5. Technology
The nineteenth judicial circuit has been in the forefront in use of technology. For a number of years there have been terminals in courtrooms with soundless keyboards and some computerized docketing. The catalogue of other achievements is long: automation of the law library and introduction of CD-ROM technology;8 automation of the arbitration program, which has been available to other Illinois circuits; PC- based case management system; automation of juvenile intake; PC-based system for controlling probation service fees and managing probation caseloads; automation of jury management; automation and networking of the administrative office; and automation of small claims. In addition, most court reporters use Computer Aided Transcription which is linked to terminals of judges and attorneys so that they can read the transcript. This process can be used to assist hearing-impaired participants.
By use of office automation the Lake County court system has been able to reduce the number of secretarial positions by 4, using the savings to increase hardware and software capability of professionals. Some savings were used to hire clerical employees to pick up some of the routine work of professionals. This is not a total listing of technological developments, but the message is clear. Lake County is very advanced in matters of technology.
The financial implications of this technology are hard to pin down, but there is no doubt that this technology has made it possible for the court system to increase productivity and absorb new tasks without any appreciable change in personnel in recent years. The general level of county-produced financial reports is good, but particularly impressive are the management information systems which have been developed by the courts to micromanage areas which are volatile and require close oversight, specifically: jury management, expenses for dependent children, and collections from probationers on a system called PROBER. Managers are regularly informed about overruns, so that corrective stops can be taken.
PROBER tracks some 4000 probationers and has excellent report generation software, which permits among other things calendaring of individuals, issuance of warning letters, arraying probationers geographically and by supervision level, and computing and controlling hours of community service which are figured at the minimum wage level for purposes of quantification.
Probation officers can receive checks or money orders and have data entry clerks update case records. Money is then transmitted to clerk in batch mode. It is interesting that the monitoring of probation service fees is done much more vigorously than the collection of fees payable directly to the clerk.
Automation has made it possible for the clerk to handle increased caseloads without much new staff. Imaging technology is now on the horizon with an experiment in small claims. Imaging will make
8 In addition to the normal electronic legal research services, the library has two CD-ROM services. The Westlaw service is dedicated to Illinois materials and used primarily by staff attorneys working for judges. The service is updated monthly by a new disk. It is unlikely over the short term that CD-ROM will end huge compilations of materials in the main library, but it may permit the phasing out of the many peripheral library collections throughout the court house.
70 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
case records more accessible and require less handling. As many as 7 positions may be saved by reduced handling and processing of inquiries.
One interesting development in the clerk's office is a partnership with a software firm which makes the court available as a test site and gives the court an interest in the software.
6. Social Services
The Lake County court system combines juvenile probation, adult probation, and psychological services in a Division of Court Services. This part of the court's county budget combined with the Hulse Detention Center budget amounts to over $4.5 million roughly half of the court budget. This social service area of court expenditure has been growing faster than expenditures for traditional parts of courts. Controlling the costs of such services is very difficult.
Juvenile: One of the growth areas in courts has been the juvenile area. Juvenile court services employs about 47 persons. Of these, 20 are engaged in detention, specifically the operation of the Hulse Detention Center. The intake/support unit employs 10 persons and juvenile probation 13; four persons are in administrative positions which span the three sections.
Most juveniles do not require court intervention and are referred out during intake. Those who are detained may overtax the facility, so that a system of home detention has been used. For children who are not considered delinquent there is a dependent care network, which is costly in its own right ($350,000 per annum). Moreover, the Psychological Services Unit retains a part-time psychologist at roughly $20,000 per annum who takes referrals largely from juvenile court judges and juvenile intake workers and probation officers.
Adult: Some 55 people are employed in adult court services, which performs such traditional functions as pre-sentence investigation and probationer supervision, as well as newer functions such as provision of pre-trial services, intensive probation, coordination of court-ordered community service and oversight of volunteers who do supervision of low-risk probationers.
Holding the line: Lake County, according to state caseload formulas, is understaffed in the area of court services. Yet authorized positions have been roughly the same for three years, although some new programs have been added. Below are listed some of the steps which have been taken to hold the line:
• use of volunteers for administrative tasks but mostly for supervision of bothjuveniles and adults,9 relieving probation officers of low-risk cases and saving the equivalent of two probation officers;10
• use of the coroner's office to save money on drug testing;
• eliminating costly contracts for outside services to juveniles;
9 The volunteers undergo training and are under the supervision of probation officers and a volunteer coordinator. One hundred volunteers handling a couple of cases each can take the place of one probation officer and provide a more intense contact.
10 There is a prestigious board which assists the juvenile volunteer program and seeks additional resources.
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 71
• relieving probation officers of clerical functions and transportation supervision functions, using lower paid employees in lieu of probation officers;
• dragging out life expectancy of cars assigned to probation officers;11
• slightly cutting time allocated to training, but still meeting minimum training requirement;
• using vacancy savings;
• use of electronic monitoring of persons on release; and
• hiring probation officers at entry-level salary to replace probation officers in top range.
7. Revenue Enhancement
The Lake County courts have been aggressive in obtaining new revenue sources but much less aggressive in collecting revenues owing the court. For example, the Lake County Courts played a major role in bringing about a court security fee which defrays a substantial part of the sheriff's cost in providing court security and also played a leading role in obtaining an increase in the law library fee. The courts generate three distinct revenue flows for the county (some revenues accrue to the state, such as arbitration fees): (1) fines and fees which go into the general fund but which are not attributed to courts in any way; (2) fees which go into the general fund but are attributed to the courts and actually established to defray the costs of court operations, such as court security fees, court improvement fees, and public defender fees; and (3) fees which are earmarked for court purposes and go into special revenue funds : law library fees, court automation fees, document storage fees,12 and probation service fees.
In management reports, the court administrator informs the chief judge of the pace of revenue collection, comparing the collections to budget estimates (revenues are down), but except for probation service fees, collection of which is directly monitored by Court Services, there is not much of an effort to collect money due the court from persons who have been permitted to defer payment due to their economic condition. The clerk uses the normal legal means, such as the control exercised by the Department of Motor Vehicles over license renewal. There is no accounts receivable system or tough collection system.
The courts do attempt to obtain some small contributions for court services from beneficiaries, as for example in the domestic relations conciliation program. Some court programs are simply turned over to other governmental agencies, for example, education services to children in the detention center. Basically, the courts accept what is paid in and then remit it. There is no collection effort.
11 The county also placed a freeze on mileage.
12 Illinois clerks have been quite successful in obtaining special fees to help their office. The document storage fee, unlike the court automation fee, is exclusively under control of the clerk without participation of the judges.
72 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
8. Personnel/ Training
In a labor-intensive setting such as a court system, budget control has to focus on personnel. Lake County has made some steps toward efficient use of personnel. One key step taken in the reorganization of the court administrator's office five years ago was to place support personnel, other than clerks and bailiffs under direction of the court administrator. In Illinois, as elsewhere, there was a traditional tendency to assume that each judge needed a personal entourage, usually composed of a clerk, bailiff, reporter, and perhaps also a secretary. This linkage has been breaking down for various reasons, among them the fact that the state, which pays judges and reporters, does not accept a one-to-one ratio for judges and reporters. In Lake County reporters are centrally managed, but in actual practice, circuit judges usually have a regular reporter whereas associate judges are served from a pool. Secretaries are located strategically on floors to serve more than one judge. Clerical assignments are controlled by the circuit clerk; bailiff assignments are controlled by the sheriff. What is happening is movement to a pool concept of personnel assignment, which means that personnel are fewer in number and have to be managed more efficiently.
The court administrator has emphasized cross-training, and his staff is extremely versatile. This permits assignments across functional or organizational lines on an as needed basis and reduces the need for backup employees, temporaries, and overtime. The clerk's office is more traditionally structured, making it hard to move clerks from one area of the court to another.
The court administrator has led the way to creation of judicial personnel system. A major problem existed in the probation area, traditionally a high-stress area with limited upward mobility. Morale was low. To counter this, the court administrator created a career path and had the positions reclassified. He also placed a great deal of emphasis on communication within the staff and within management teams. Although positions are frozen, there have been regular salary increases; the practice is to keep almost half of the money for merit increases. There is a program which honors outstanding employee performance by awards and public recognition. These personnel steps are related to efficiency and productivity in a manner that is hard to quantify.
The court does not have a big budget for training. Between the circuit court, court services and the Hulse Center, there is about $30,000 set aside specifically for education. Some of this is for travel and some for judges. Yet, the court attempts to meet standards for training, particularly in the social service area13 and actively solicits employee ideas on training needs. A secretaries' day with a consultant speaker and a general invitation to other agencies was one result of this awareness. The court has been quite imaginative in getting mileage of these dollars, as indicated below:
• some training money has been given to division managers to manage, giving them an incentive to get the best for their money;
• joint training courses with other agencies (the clerk and the police) have permitted pooling of training funds to obtain courses beyond the means of the court training budget;
• use of video training materials from American Judicature and the National Center for State Courts; and
13 The training goal is 20 hours per year, 40 for new employees. Among recent course offerings have been sessions on DNA training, cultural diversity, and hepatitis.
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 73
• arrangements with local colleges which develop courses for persons referred from the courts.
The moral of the story is that education need not be a hostage of budget problems if sufficient ingenuity is exercised.
9. Court Diversion Programs
Lake County has a Traffic Improvement Program which permits motorists who have been guilty of moving violations to take a course in lieu of more severe sanctions affecting their license. For some offenses, the right is automatic and the case need not be processed through the court. Judges may, in certain other offenses, refer persons to the course. The program is interesting for two major fiscal reasons. First, it reduces the flow of traffic cases into the court since roughly 13,000 cases involve offenses where the motorist reports directly to the course. Second, it makes payment a matter between the motorist and the institution offering the course. Perhaps more interesting is the method used for choosing the institution to offer the course.
The court asked for bids from educational institutions. The winner was a local college which promised to put on a 4-hour course for $20 per course, payable by the motorist. After one year, the college enlarged its offerings, providing an 8-hour course for $40 and providing courses on substance abuse, an experienced driver course, and an attitude course. This provided another range of sentencing options, rather than reliance on fines. This flexibility also benefits probation workload in that public service time has been reduced by judges using these new sentencing options. The college has a long-term contract and has been willing to provide a lot of training to court employees because the contract awarded by the court is valuable to the college.
III Court Operations
Lake County has been consistently had one of the most effective trial courts in Illinois. There is a connection between efficiency in use of personnel and financial resources and efficiency in managing cases. Lake County has a 2-person case coordination team which handles the dynamics of scheduling and assigning "flex" judges. A good deal of the function of the case coordinators is attorney contact with a view to making the calendar firm. The calendar always covers four months.
There is not a great deal of case differentiation, but on the civil side arbitration appeals are put on a 4-month track whereas the rest of the state has a 6-month track. Other civil cases are scheduled roughly 16 months out. The court uses an individual judge calendar until the day of trial at which time the case may go before a judge who is free. The coordinators bear a lot of responsibility for getting loose courtrooms freed for use by those judges who do not have permanent courtroom assignments.
In 1992 Lake County experienced a decline of 7.6% in civil cases and reduced its pending caseload by 5%. Despite a large increase in juvenile cases, family case filings decreased by 3.2 % but pending cases increased by 8%. Felony and misdemeanor filings increased by 19.9%, but traffic, conservation and ordinance cases declined by 4%. Pending felonies and misdemeanors increased by 15%. Overall, excluding traffic and minor cases, the court's pending caseload increased by 1%. In short, the court essentially held its own.
74 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
IV Summation of Steps Taken in the Fiscal Area
The experience of the Lake County courts is instructive in the following areas:
(1) Administrative Structure. The Chief Judge is the ultimate authority, but the circuit judges have delegated a lot of authority to the trial court administrator who in turn has created an administrative structure which puts him at the peak of a relatively simple organizational structure. Externally and internally, the court administrator speaks for the court in day to day matters with the court sticking pretty well to a policy-making role. This has enhanced the stature of the court administrator with county officials who prefer to deal with a management peer rather than a judge; with the support of the court the court administrator works hard at interbranch relations and has helped create what is a reasonably good atmosphere of cooperation. This stature also enhances his internal direction of the administrative affairs of the court. Without this structure, many of the improvements pioneered by the court administrator could not have occurred.
Closely related to administrative structure is the structure of the court itself. Illinois has a one-tier system which enables resources to be more freely allocated than they are in some states. The fact that the circuit clerk is an independent agent and that the judiciary still preserves some hierarchical distinctions imposes some limits on this flexibility.
(2) Technology. The list of technological innovations in the Lake County courts is impressive. This has aided efficiency in several ways: ability to accept more workload without increases in staff; ability to manage volatile cost areas because of the quality of management information; ability to collect fees payable through the court administrative office; and ability to schedule events. The openness to technology is starting to pay off in the flat budget period.
(3) Personnel. In the office of the court administrator there has been a very effective use of personnel. First, support personnel can, with a few limitations, be allocated by the court administrator as needed. Second, personnel are cross-trained and quite versatile, so that backup help and filling of temporary vacancies is facilitated and the need for overtime and temporary help obviated. Third, training is given a high priority, as is knowledge of technology, so that at one point, for example, there was a general training session on Word Perfect.14 Fourth, there is relatively limited management cadre and a lot of communication with employees. Finally, there is a lot of stress on recognition of employee achievement ( employee of the month awards, judicial newsletter recognition, and tenure recognition) and the need for career paths in areas like probation where morale problems are endemic. The type of personnel system constructed in the office of the court administrator is skilled and versatile enough that it responds very well to the challenges or changes that are caused by a flat budget.
(4) Management focus on areas of key fiscal concern. There are some aspects of every court budget which are "budget-breakers," for example, jury costs, costs of appointed counsel, witness fees, aid to dependent children, and various professional services provided by court order. It is noteworthy that the court administrator has developed information systems which permit micromanagement of these areas. Any aberrations can be quickly identified and reported to the judges who have most impact on these areas.
14 Often, new software is introduced with manuals as the only source of training.
Appendix B: Lake County, Illinois • 75
Closely related to these expenditure control measures are regular reports on revenues to identify trends which affect the revenue estimates made in connection with the budget. The PROBER system is very impressive in its revenue control functions.
There has also been a lot of attention to purchasing and contract review. The courts have a fair amount of independence in purchasing and take this responsibility seriously.
(5) Management vision. It is easier to adapt to changed fiscal conditions if there is some existing management vision of where the courts are headed. This advantage surfaced in the discussion over court facilities where the court could advance some vision of where it expected to be a decade or more out in time. There appears to be a guiding vision for technology and personnel development, and some coherent management concept of what is needed. Flat budgeting may slow down the pace of development, but if priorities exist, there is usually a way to make progress toward them, as, for example, the personnel training programs which were offered for little expense because managers were on the lookout for low-cost alternatives.
Conclusion
Lake County is not in dire financial straits. It is, however, fairly representative of the many governmental entities which have been forced to level off expenditures and to hold the line. The experience of the Lake county courts should be useful not only to courts in a similar budget situation, but even to more hard-hit courts, inasmuch as the Lake County court system has created a management environment which will be able to deal with adversity much better than most courts can.
APPENDIX C
National Center for State Courts Site Report Sacramento County Superior & Municipal Courts
he California trial courts are funded roughly equally by the state and the counties. The recent recession has hurt both levels of government. State retrenchment has included reversal of a T gradual process of increasing state funding of the judiciary. In Sacramento County, trial court expenses have risen in response to growing caseloads and legislative mandates. In the face of various state and federal requirements, the county struggles to fund the balance of court needs. The Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts were the first metropolitan superior and municipal courts in California to consolidate their judicial and administrative activities to the fullest extent allowed by the state constitution. The courts have reduced many expenses through consolidation and coordination and have worked actively with the county and other justice-related agencies to reduce others. These conditions supported selection of the Sacramento courts as a project site that was visited by project staff on June 24 and 25, 1993.
I The Setting
A. Sacramento County: Demographics
Sacramento County is located in California's central valley. The state capital is located within the county in the city of the same name. The county population grew rapidly during 1980s, rising 32.9 percent to 1,041,219 in 1990. The population of the Greater Sacramento area in 1993 was 1,676,000. From 1980 to 1993, the region's percentage gains in population, employment, income, and retail sales outpaced those of California as a whole. Nevertheless, the recession's sting has definitely been felt in the county. Median home resale prices have dropped, and county revenue growth has slowed to a trickle. Two military installations, Mather Air Force Base and the Sacramento Army Depot, have recently closed, and other regional defense-related expenditures have declined. In 1992, the unemployment rate reached 8.3 percent in the Greater Sacramento area although it has since dropped to 7.55 percent.
B. Sacramento County: Fiscal Conditions
The Sacramento County fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30. At the time of the site visit, the proposed budget for FY 1994 was $1,157.37 million, a reduction of 1.8% ($21.15 million) from the amount of the FY 1993 final budget requirement. Although this decrease would be the only total budget reduction during the period the National Center studied, it is consistent with marked decreases in budget growth from the 1990 through the 1993 fiscal years (see Table 1).
-76- Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 77
Table 1 Sacramento County Budget Requirements
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year Budget Total (in millions) Percentage Change
1990 $938.73 1991 $1,049.20 11.8 1992 $1,134.91 8.2 1993 $1,178.52 3.8 1994 (Proposed) $1,157.37 -1.8
The sources of county financing remained essentially consistent in their percentage contributions over the FY 1990-1993 period (see Table 2), with aid from state and federal agencies averaging 56.4% and property taxes averaging 14.7%. The most notable changes in the original budget proposed for 1994 were an increase in the state-federal combined contribution and a decrease in the property tax contribution that each deviate more than 2 percentage points from the average contributions of the prior years. The county has also had a practice of underspending the budget such that a cushion of unspent funds exists each year that can be carried over into the next fiscal year. These year-end balances have been decreasing and are projected to be no better in FY 1994 than in FY 1993.
Table 2 County Budget Financing Percentages
FY 1990-1994
Sources 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (estimated) State Agencies (56.7 (55.2 35.6 36.0 36.9 Federal Agencies combined) combined) 19.9 21.2 22.6 Year End Balance 7.4 7.2 6.1 5.4 5.4 Property Taxes 15.0 14.8 15.1 14.0 12.4 Other Taxes 9.6 10.1 11.1 10.6 10.3 Other Revenues 11.3 12.7 12.2 12.8 12.4
Budgetary concerns first became serious in the county during FY 1992 and have since become more grave. Even as the budget was being completed for FY 1992, projections indicated a possible General Fund shortfall of between $30 and 40 million. At the start of FY 1993, the county estimated the cost of its current programs to be in excess of available funding by $33.2 million--before the state had shifted property tax revenues. The county eventually had to handle a shortfall of about $50 million. In February 1993, the projected shortfall for FY 1994 was $64.4 million, but the county had reduced this figure to $32 million by June. Nevertheless, the success of the county's FY 1994 budget depends greatly on approval of a sales tax referendum in November 1993, without which the budget will be out $48 million or more.
78 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The recession's effects on county revenues are partly to blame for budget problems. Growth rates in assessed property values for secured and unsecured taxes have declined. Stagnant economic conditions in the state indicate that there will be no growth in base vehicle license fees from FY 1993 actual collections. There is little anticipated change in the local economy, so no significant change is expected from FY 1993 year-end estimates for sales tax, the supplemental property tax, the property transfer tax, and the relatively new utility tax. In addition, continued low interest rates and reduced spread between interest expenses and interest earnings will result in decreased net interest income. Making matters worse is the fact that while revenue growth has fallen off, public assistance program demands have increased.
Efforts by the state to address its own financial problems are creating considerable uncertainty in the counties. A number of actual and proposed changes in revenue distribution and funding processes make some aspects of county budgeting highly speculative. The magnitude of property tax shifts-- primarily for school funding--and changes in the amount and allocation methodology of trial court funding have been among the biggest budgetary concerns in Sacramento and other California counties in recent years. Further budgetary obstacles have been raised by state and federal laws and regulations dictating how a large portion of the counties' general purpose financing is to be allocated. In recent years, Sacramento County has had little or no discretion over more than 80% of its General Fund and Court Operations Fund spending. Of the spending over which the county has more discretion, more that two thirds is allocated to law and justice programs.
C. Sacramento County: The Court System
The courts of Sacramento County consist of the Sacramento Superior Court, the Sacramento Municipal Court District, and the South Sacramento Municipal Court District. The first two operate for the most part from the County Courthouse in the City of Sacramento and have undergone significant changes in recent years as the result of consoli-dation efforts. The last has only one judicial officer and averaged 10 positions over the period studied; it will not be the subject of much discussion in this report. Long-term plans call for extending consolidation and coordination to the South Sacramento Municipal Court.
In FY 1990, the Sacramento Superior Court had 209 permanent positions, including 32 judges, 3 referees, and 1 executive officer. In the same year, the Sacramento Municipal Court had 277 permanent positions, including 16 judges, 5.5 commissioners, and 1 administrator. By March 31, 1993, the consolidated courts had a total of 680 permanent positions, including 32 Superior Court judges, 16 Municipal Court judges, 4 juvenile referees, 5.5 municipal court commissioners, 1 traffic hearing officer, and 1 court executive officer (CEO). The largest increase in positions occurred in the FY 1990-1991 period, when the Clerk of Court functions merged with the Superior Court, resulting in a lump transfer of 128 staff positions in addition to general staff increases. The proposed budget for FY 1994 calls for a reduction to 663 permanent positions (see Table 3).
Table 3 Approved Permanent Positions For All * Courts
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (Recommended) Positions** 495.0 654.0 675.0 689.5 663.0
* Includes the South Sacramento Municipal Court ** As of June 30
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 79
Before the consolidation plan1 took effect in FY 1993, each of the three courts operated under the policy direction of its own presiding judge, and the Superior and Municipal Courts utilized a number of duplicative judicial committees to develop and implement policy. Each court also had its own executive officer/administrator who directed the non-judicial functions of the courts. In FY 1993, the Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts reorganized so as to create a single organizational structure. A single presiding judge was elected to direct both courts, and a single executive officer was appointed by the judges. In the first year of the planned 3-year implementation period, the courts have completed consolidation of accounting, personnel, MIS, budget/analytical support, and facility units. The feasibility of also consolidating the South Sacramento Municipal Court District will be studied further when merger of the two larger organizations has proceeded sufficiently.
D. Interbranch Relations
The working relationship between the courts and the county is good. The budgetary crunch may actually have led to improved relations because it forced court and county leaders to cooperate more and become better acquainted. Mutual understanding is greater than before. Over time, the courts have earned a reputation for playing straight--asking only for actual needs and engaging in few negotiating games. Before FY 1993, the courts' administrators worked directly with the county executive in top-level discussions. In FY 1993, because of changes in county leadership and court consolidation, the court executive officer and the presiding judge also made an effort to meet with county board members, two of which were new. The court executive believes these education efforts benefited the courts' position even though they already had the support of the county executive.
The only real friction between the county and the courts involves categorizing some of the courts' funding as "discretionary". Because more than 80 percent of the county budget is protected by state and federal mandates, much of any shortfall must be made up from what is left--73 percent of which is allocated to law and justice programs. The courts' leaders understand that much of the debate over what is "discretionary" is outside the county's control; nevertheless, they resist having to bear a disproportionate amount of the cuts necessary to resolve the county's shortfall. As an independent branch of government, the courts do not feel their funding is any more discretionary than that of a state or local agency.
The courts led the effort to establish a new "Criminal Justice Cabinet" in the county. This body is composed of representatives of the courts, the district attorney, the public defender, the police, and the sheriff's department and is chaired by the presiding judge. The group seeks better understanding and cooperation between the principal agencies involved in criminal justice. Group members recognize that past competition for resources and separate agendas have often been counterproductive. Eventually, through joint policy development and approaches to resource problems, the represented agencies hope to find more efficient and effective methods of handling mutual criminal justice problems. A subcommittee has recently been examining innovative budget strategies for cost reduction purposes.
Relations between the Sacramento courts and the state have not been ideal although they appear better than those between the county and the state. State representatives and officials are more political and more distant from actual court operations than are those of the county; consequently, the principal actors
1 In March 1992, the three courts submitted a report to the state in response to the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991. The report included a plan for consolidating judicial administration and support functions and materials related to the respective coordination elements and issues.
80 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
do not know each other as well, and there is less understanding. Lack of consistency in state policy regarding trial court funding has not been helpful, nor have state requirements that add to workloads and interfere with some cost-cutting measures. No new judgeships have been created since 1987 although subsequent increases in workloads probably justify more.2 Perhaps of some benefit is the fact that the chair of the judiciary committee of the state assembly is from the Sacramento area. Likewise, the proximity of the legislature and governor allows the Sacramento courts greater access to state government than that enjoyed by trial courts in other counties. The membership of the presiding judge on the newly-created statewide Trial Court Budgeting Commission and his prominence in the state organization for presiding judges may also help the Sacramento Courts in resolution of state-level concerns.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Traditional Sources of Court Financing
As is stated in the introduction, the Sacramento County courts receive their basic funding from the state and the county in roughly equal amounts (between 40 and 60 % from each). County contributions to the total Court Operations Fund are made through interfund reimbursements from the General Fund (see Table 4). The amount and manner of state contributions to the Court Operations Fund have been in a state of flux since the mid-1980s. The Trial Court Funding Act of 1985 provided for the first state funding of trial courts, but no funds were appropriated to implement the law. The Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act (1988) implemented and financed some state funding of trial courts, beginning in the middle of FY 1989. By FY 1991, however, state allocations had dropped from 44 percent to 38 percent because of growing fiscal problems; it was also clear that state funding had not resulted in equal funding of the trial courts although that was one of the original aims.
Table 4 Total Sacramento Court Operations Fund FY 1991-1994
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 Funding Sources (Adopted) (Adopted) (Adopted) (Adjusted Proposal) State Trial Court $11,224,800 $19,621,607 $21,442,838 $19,364,000 Funding Revenues & Other $7,003,465 $7,558,523 $6,224,840 $4,217,432 Funding* Interfund $31,420,171 $28,531,867 $29,306,961 $34,273,231 Reimbursement ** TOTAL $49,648,436 $55,711,997 $56,974,639$57,912,663 * Sum of funds provided directly to the three courts ** County General Fund
2 From 1988 to 1992, felony filings increased 55%, and juvenile delinquency filings increased 25%. The Courts estimate that 76 judicial officers are needed to process the existing caseload, 33% more than they presently have. Adding to the pressures on the courts have been new time standards that went into effect during the same period when Sacramento became one of nine pilot sites under California's Trial Court Delay Reduction Act of 1986. [Special presentation to new members of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, February 1993.]
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 81
Under the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991, the legislature expressed its intent to provide state funding for the courts at 50 percent and to increase that funding level by 5 percent each year until a 70 percent contribution is reached. To offset the increase in the state's appropriation for trial courts, the Act also raised penalties in criminal cases, swept to the state significant shares of the fine monies that were formerly distributed to the cities and counties, and required those local governments opting into the Trial Court Funding Program to waive reimbursement for state-mandated programs. The state's initial mechanism for the trial court funding process was a program of block grants to the counties in which allocations were based on the number of authorized judicial officers in the county courts. In FY 1993, this process was changed such that the counties received a mix of block grants, covering a portion of the year, and specific allocations based upon prior year "allowable" expenditures that were reported to the Judicial Council.
By the terms of Assembly Bill No. 1344, passed in September 1992, the state will eliminate block grants and commence funding selected functions of court operations beginning in FY 1994.3 The law provided the statutory authority for the California Judicial Council to establish and empower the Trial Court Budgeting Commission. The Commission will direct and oversee trial court budgeting and allocation processes for the state's share of costs. The measure also makes uniform and significantly increases filing fees and redistributes them from the county to the state.4 In August, the Chief Justice reported that the state budget for FY 1994 falls short of the 60 percent court funding goal under the 1991 Act; the actual amount is about 44 percent of what the trial courts presumably need.5
B. Non-Traditional Funding Sources
The Sacramento Courts have been actively pursuing alternative funding sources in recent years. During FY 1993, the courts succeeded in obtaining several grants:
• Judicial and Child Advocate Grant ($83,600 annually for 3 years)--provides advocates to represent the interests of minors
• Annie E. Casey Grant (FY 1993: a $75,000 planning grant--potential to obtain full grant of $750,000 annually for three years)--for developing and implementing juvenile detention alternatives
• Bureau of Family Support Case Processing Program (ongoing Federal Funding in excess of $375,000 annually)--provides 1 Commissioner and support staff for 1 courtroom to expedite the processing of family support cases.
• KIOSK System Grant ($62,500)--for developing and implementing an automated information center for public use
3 Implementation has since been postponed until FY 1995.
4 "State Funding For Trial Courts: A Brief History," Court News, February-March 1993, at 5, 5-6. [Court News is a publication of the Judicial Council of California and the Administrative Office of the California Courts.]
5 The Honorable Malcolm M. Lucas, "Message From The Chief Justice," Court News, August-September 1993, at 1.
82 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• Juvenile Court Interpreter Program ($25,000)--provides interpreters and equipment for the families of Southeast Asian delinquents
State cost reduction goals, as presently defined under Government Code Section 68112(a), discourage courts from taking on beneficial new programs, even those that may be fully funded by grant monies. The cost reduction goals are based upon prior year actual expenditures, and new grant expenditures can cause the courts to exceed their cost reduction targets.
C. Responsibility For Court Expenditure Items
Almost all court expenditure items in Sacramento are paid from the Court Operations Fund; consequently, the funding source is mixed state and local for almost everything. This situation may change somewhat with the onset of function-based state allocations in FY 1995.
A few court expenditure items are paid predominately by direct state funding rather than from the court's budget. While the courts' budget pays the entire amount of a Municipal Court judge's salary, the state has been paying all but $9,500 of each Superior Court judge's salary. Likewise, most benefits for Superior Court judges, with the exception of life insurance and dental expenses, are paid by the state, and all judicial retirement contributions are made by the state.
For the most part, defense of the indigent is not a court responsibility. The public defender is funded by the county. The majority of court-appointed indigent defense costs are also funded by the county. Juvenile dependency attorney costs, however, are reported to the state Judicial Council as "allowable" court operations expenditures. Other costs incurred by the courts for work performed in processing indigent defense claims are reimbursed by the county.
The following court-related expenses are not within the court budget:
Ordinary and Expert Witness Fees Court Bailiffs Building and Courtroom Security Prisoner Transportation Service of Process Adult Probation Juvenile Probation Child Support Enforcement Community Corrections
Most of these excluded items are funded through the budgets of the Probation and Sheriff's Departments; however, the courts are considering whether to request that all expenditures for bailiffs and court security be charged directly to the courts' budget in order to improve cost tracking visibility and ensure consistency in the reporting of charges for services provided by other county departments. The Mental Health Division reimburses the courts for work related to the mental health certification process. Pretrial Release Programming is paid from the courts' budget with county funding. The new court attendants, who are discussed below, are within the normal court operations budget.
The expenditure items for which the courts are responsible have increase steadily even as the court has worked to reduce costs. Many of these increases have been case-driven (see footnote 2). For example, from FY 1988 to FY 1992, jury costs rose 29%; interpreter fees rose 67%; and transcript costs rose 35%. In addition, allocated county costs, union agreements (COLAs, benefits, etc.), and legislative mandates have all contributed to rising operating expenses in the courts.
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 83
D. Budget Reduction Environment
With the state maintaining its level of funding--with some slippage--and doing so at the county's expense, it is at the county level that the Sacramento Courts have engaged in their most detailed budget negotiations and strategies to secure adequate funding. Some cuts have been inevitable given the pressure that the county has faced, but the cooperative efforts of the courts and the credibility the courts' leaders enjoy have allowed them to minimize harm to operations. The timing of the consolidation process helped by placing the courts in a position to assess, cut, and reallocate resources before the budget squeeze began in earnest. Furthermore, the courts have been able to help the county find ways to cut expenses outside of court operations without appreciable loss of services.
Although the Sacramento Courts have been working to reduce expenses throughout the period covered in this report, serious pressure to do so first arose in FY 1993, when the county required cuts to make up for its $50 million shortfall. It asked the courts to identify up to $7 million in reductions and revenue enhancements. The courts complied and eventually had to cut expenses by about $2.1 million. Facing a possibly greater shortfall in FY 1994, the county requested that the courts identify up to $8 million in direct court operations reductions and revenue enhancements for that year and another $1.4 million in security reductions. The courts submitted reductions totaling $4.2 million for FY 1994 and have identified more than 40 additional options that are currently under study.
The budget-cutting efforts of the courts and the county could be even more successful if it were not for state Trial Court Funding cost reduction goals. These goals, mentioned above, penalize courts which save more than the cost reduction goals by further reducing their expenditure targets in subsequent years. In Sacramento, the county recently introduced a new "Departmental Empowerment" program that would encourage expenditure reductions by allowing the courts and county departments to carry over any savings to the following fiscal year. The courts cannot take advantage of this program without being penalized under the state's cost reduction goals. Consequently, those courts in Sacramento and other counties that might otherwise be able to significantly reduce spending are motivated instead to spend up to their expenditure targets each year--no more, no less. The Sacramento courts have indicated they would support a change in the base upon which cost reductions are taken from prior year actual expenses to base year authorized budget allotments.
E. Steps Taken To Cope With Budget Problems
As mentioned above, the Sacramento courts were in the process of reducing costs and improving efficiency before budget conditions made such actions necessary. Consolidation and coordination efforts actually predated the report that the courts submitted in March 1992, and significant savings from those efforts were mentioned in that report. Most of the courts' actions have been permanent in nature and have gone beyond a mere consolidation of positions and lines of authority. The courts' leaders are also encouraging team approaches and greater risk-taking at lower staff levels. The results of some of these efforts may not be known for years. Examples of some of the steps that have been taken are presented below:
1. Consolidation and Coordination
In Sacramento, by far the most strategies for cost reduction and greater efficiency in the courts have stemmed from consolidation and coordination efforts. The strategies were not devised so as to ride out short term budget problems. Rather, they have been aimed at long-term improvement of operations.
84 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
a. Efforts Before FY 1993
Before the Sacramento courts began the process of formally consolidating their administrative functions, the courts benefited from a number of initiatives, both joint and involving third parties, that would have been very costly if the courts had had to undertake them individually. There were also several cost-saving programs that were established to provide greater efficiency and access to the courts. One-time savings to the courts and/or the county from these efforts were estimated to be $1,636,000, and ongoing annual savings to be $2,881,500. A brief summary of some of these early coordination and consolidation methods follows from the March 1992 Trial Court Coordination Plan:
Jail Inmate Management JIMS is an automated system that captures criminal data needed to manage System (JIMS) the movement of inmates in the custody of the Sheriff and through the county court system. The system links law enforcement agencies, custody facilities, Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, Municipal Court, and Superior Court. As of March 1992, the system's development costs had reached $3.5 million, 45% of which was for court programs. Coordination of the project was estimated to have saved $1.5 million in the development phase and $200,000 annually for maintenance and production.
Pretrial Services The Sacramento Municipal Court provided the pretrial services for both Sacramento courts. Staff would interview some 17,000 felony defendants annually and provide judges with information regarding whether a defendant qualified to be released on his own recognizance. Some 2500 defendants were released annually, and only 5% failed to appear. The major benefits accrued to the Sheriff's Department in relief of jail crowding and associated expenses. The courts benefited through greater efficiencies as 3-7 days were formerly needed to provide information now available in 1-6 hours. The Pretrial Release Program also identified defendants requiring medical care and hospitalization. Staff assistance in finding alternatives to incarceration saved the county $465,000 annually in medical expenses for jail inmates.
Superior Court Review This felony settlement program was instituted by the two courts in 1987. (SCR) Judges were cross assigned for early review of cases immediately following arraignment, to hear settlement negotiations, and then to sentence. About 99% of felony defendants voluntarily participated. Those cases not resolved were set for preliminary hearing in the Municipal Court. The program reduced preliminary hearing time in the courts by 15% and produced annual savings of $110,300 plus judicial time that could then be devoted to trials.
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 85
ADR The Superior Court Arbitration Unit processed civil cases of both courts through arbitration. The unit's activities included soliciting and maintaining a list of arbitrators; providing notice to arbitrators and parties; monitoring and following up on case events; maintaining case information; and processing payments to arbitrators. To have duplicated these services through a separate Municipal Court Unit would have cost an additional $14,700 annually. The Sacramento Mediation Center provided mediation services in Superior Court civil harassment cases and in Municipal Court small claims cases. Successful diversion of cases freed judicial time and produced annual savings of $6500.
Court Reporters The Superior Court provided reporting services to both courts. Reduction in supervision and clerical support through coordination saved approximately $60,300 annually.
Electronic Recording The Superior Court participated in a pilot project to test the use of audio recording devices for keeping the official record for Superior Court actions. Electronic recording (ER) devices were used in eight departments involved in civil law and motion, family law, and civil trials. In addition to the project, the Municipal Court also used ER in two other departments for civil proceedings, misdemeanor arraignments, and a few misdemeanor trials. In FY 1991, the project's first full year of operation, ER provided savings of more than $255,000 or $25,500 per department.
Interpreters The Municipal Court Interpreter's Office coordinated services for all languages as requested by Municipal Court, Superior Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, court appointed attorneys, Sheriff, juvenile court, Probation, and the Department of Social Services. Centralization of the service provided savings to all users, prevented costly court delays, reduced duplication of services, and gave the courts more control over the quality of services provided. Court savings from coordination were estimated to be $127,000 annually.
Jury Services The Superior Court provided jury services for 20 Superior Court trial departments and 10 Municipal Court trial departments. Services were facilitated by the Automated Jury System. Development of an independent automation system for both courts would have cost another $136,000. Coordination saved about $97,000 per year.
86 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Security Services In 1986, the Court Security Services Section of the Sheriff's Department was created from the merger of the security services provided by the Sheriff's Department to the Superior Court and the Marshall's Office to the Municipal Court. The new unit is responsible for providing courthouse security, bailiffs, prisoner escort, and prisoner transportation for all proceedings of both courts. The merger converted selected positions from sworn to non-sworn, eliminated duplicative administrative positions, and achieved other efficiencies that were subsequently used to provide improved security services to both courts. Adjusting for annual inflation, cumulative savings over the first six years was estimated at $6,150,000.
Court Appointed Counsel The Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts have used the services of Panels the Indigent Criminal Defense Panel (ICDP) to provide appointed counsel to represent criminal defendants who are indigent and cannot be represented by the Public Defender because of conflicts or work overload. Since 1985, qualifications for appointment have been based upon criteria and procedures developed by a joint committee of both courts and approved by both benches. Because the ICDP is administered by the County Bar Association, the only costs to the courts are the payments to attorneys for their services. Comparable services provided independently by each court would cost an additional $104,500 annually.
Use of Regional In the interest of expeditious trial completion, the Municipal and Superior Resources Courts sometimes pay court-ordered fines, fees, and charges for services. The parties in these cases still bear responsibility for eventual payment. In these cases, the County Department of Revenue Recovery (DRR) has provided collection services and evaluations of parties' abilities to pay. This centralized service is estimated to have saved the courts $270,000 annually. Both courts store records off-site at a regional record retention center operated by the County Treasurer's Office. The courts pay for storage and services that include pulling and refiling files, dispensing bulk supplies, and making approximately five deliveries per day to the county courthouse. Separate maintenance of records by each court might cost an additional $144,500 annually.
Use of Court Facilities The courts found it difficult to estimate savings resulting from coordinated use of courthouse facilities. By occupying the same facilities, the courts believe they save significant costs in the provision of jury facilities and deliberation rooms, space for security services, and conference rooms. In addition, savings are also realized through sharing of some courtrooms, storage space, and facility management support services.
Most of these efforts have continued since the submission of the coordination plan. In addition, a number of the operations affected by the early consolidation and coordination efforts have been subject to other cost saving initiatives which will be discussed later in this report.
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 87
b. FY 1993 and Beyond
As is mentioned above, implementation of the three-year consolidation and coordination plan began in FY 1993. First-year achievements included election of a single presiding judge and appointment of a single executive officer for both courts. Reorganization and consolidation were completed in several operational units. Immediate benefits have been realized, among which are the following:
Staff Reduction An obvious benefit was the ability to cut some positions that had become redundant. Eliminated positions included those of four management staff, three of which were in the top executive ranks. Identification and elimination of redundant positions at lower levels is presently underway and should allow elimination or reallocation of additional staff.
Judicial Functions The shift to a single presiding judge and a single body of judges for the policy-making functions of the courts has resulted in much more efficient operations. Time savings for the judges amount to between 5 and 10 percent, a significant statistic when no judgeships have been added since 1987.
Home Court Five departments have specialized in handling criminal matters--all preliminary in nature--without distinction between Municipal and Superior Court jurisdiction. To the extent allowed by the state constitution, similar activities (e.g. arraignments) can be heard on the same calendar by the same judicial resource. The home court concept has permitted the use of a single filing system and has reduced steps in the transfer of cases between courts.
Employee and The EMOST consists of sixteen court staff representing a variety of job Organizational classes and all major court locations. Its mission statement indicates Support Team commitments to promoting high employee morale and a healthy organization (EMOST) and to enhancing employee performance in a continually improving organization. The EMOST has four major subcommittees: Team Building, Communications, Office of New Ideas, and Job Satisfaction. As of April 1993, 75 employees representing all job classes and court locations had volunteered to serve on the subcommittees. So large a number of staff will allow the creation of a number of working groups within each subcommittee, helping keep time per employee in the four hour per month range. Early feedback is promising.
As the consolidation/coordination process continues, it should provide the courts with further operational benefits, particularly through elimination of redundant staff and procedures. Most of the efficiencies and cost reductions will be long-term in nature, but the most dramatic changes will be over in a few years. While the timing of consolidation was propitious in helping the courts handle the budgetary problems caused by this recession, major savings from like reductions may not be available when the next recession hits. Consequently, the establishment of EMOST may become the most significant development of the present consolidation effort. If successful, the ongoing job satisfaction and performance enhancement aims of EMOST will enable the courts to continue self-improvement efforts long after consolidation is complete and will create an organization that can better foresee and respond to future challenges.
88 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
2. Automation
The Sacramento Courts have been increasing the extent of their management information system (MIS) resources in recent years. In addition to allowing general improvements in efficiency and productivity, automated applications have played an integral role in the coordination process within the courts and between the courts and the county agencies. The Superior and Municipal Courts utilize the Sacramento County mainframe for several of the large multi-user applications and a personal computer local area network (PC LAN) for the remaining automated applications. In FY 1993, the consolidated courts had 580 workstations, about 60 percent of which were PCs; the remainder were mainframe terminals.
In addition to the Jail Inmate Management System (JIMS) described above, the courts' mainframe- based applications have included the following:
• Municipal Court Case System (MCCS)--a processing system for parking and traffic citations (except DUI) and non-traffic infractions such as boating and dog license violations.
• Automated Warrant System (Known Persons File) [AWS-KPF]--a system that processes and maintains data pertaining to warrant creation and service.
• Probation--a tracking and reporting system for those individuals sentenced with probation in Sacramento County.
• California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS)--a high-speed message switching system that allows criminal justice agencies to obtain criminal information from several different systems, including the National Crime Information Center, National Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems, California Justice Information System, and Oregon Law Enforcement Data System.
• Automated Jury Management System--a system that generates statistical and managerial reports regarding juror use and permits automatic payment of jurors. The courts' LAN-based initiatives, begun in FY 1991, have included:
• Superior Court Civil Case Processing--automation of civil case processing that was undertaken in part to help in meeting state civil case processing time standards, for which Sacramento Superior Court served as one of nine pilot sites. Future plans include automation of the Municipal Court civil processes.
• Family Law Automation--an ongoing project to automate the Family Law Departments and Family Court Services. Staff produce calendars, minute orders, out cards, notices, and statistical reports. The family court services mediation report and intake system will be automated to track client referrals and counselor caseloads.
• Probate Automation--an ongoing project to automate the management of probate cases.
• Judicial and Office Automation Applications--these include access to electronic mail, word processing, Excel spreadsheets, dial out capability for access to electronic bulletin boards, and other multi-user applications. The LAN also provides PC users with access to the county mainframe and its applications, including JIMS, MCCS, AWS, etc.
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 89
• Pretrial Application--an ongoing project that will automate the pretrial interview process and related reporting functions.
• LAN Expansion (Judicial LAN) Project--includes expansion of the courts' PC LAN to other court locations and provision of LAN-to-LAN connections for data and resource sharing.
Additional automation efforts have included development of software standards extending to operating systems, user interfaces, application software, and software utilities. The need for such standards increased because of consolidation, but standards would have been worthwhile regardless because they help insure resource compatibility, quality, and cost-effective purchasing. A project is currently in the requirements gathering phase to automate juvenile court functions. The grant-funded Automated Public Information Kiosk Project is developing a multi-media information kiosk to provide the public with information as to the locations and nature of various court services. The Kiosk initiative addresses concerns raised by reduced employee assistance to pro se litigants. The courts are also exploring the use of CD-ROM technology to improve legal research.
By serving as a pilot site for civil time standards, the Superior Court was able to get state funding for 25 PCs and the network in FY 1989, providing a foundation for much of the courts' current resources. With the reporting system that was created with these resources, the court was able to save FTEs in the generation of notices and other operations. The courts have saved 3 FTEs in the operation of their master civil calendar. Automation not only eliminated the need for 3 FTEs for the jury system payroll, but it also held down staffing needs that would otherwise have grown with caseloads. The increasing number of staff with workstations has reduced the need for secretarial assistance, saving 2 more FTEs. Over time, similar savings are likely to continue.
3. Alternative Provision of Services
The Sacramento courts have been assessing the costs of internal and external services to determine whether alternative methods of obtaining or providing those services might be cheaper. Automation has assisted in this evaluation process. One major area that has been examined is county-provided services. In some situations, the courts have used their evaluations to challenge how they are billed; sometimes, they have decided to handle work internally. For example, the courts formerly referred all time payments to the county for collection, regardless of the ease in collectibility. By handling many of the easier cases themselves starting in November 1992, the courts estimate they avoided $300,000 in costs over the last eight months of FY 1993 and will continue to achieve cost avoidances of $400,000 annually. The courts are working with the county to revise the current billing system to more accurately reflect the difficulty of collection in each case. In addition, the courts, county, and DRR are exploring various proposals that could reduce costs even further.
The courts have contracted with the county law library for maintenance of the courts' publication collection. The expertise of the law library has enabled the courts to achieve greater efficiencies in cataloging and better control over purchasing. The courts and the law library are working together to explore several potential cost saving initiatives, including the use of CD ROM and other technologies.
By using assigned counsel rather than public defenders and streamlining current processes, the courts are reducing costs in the provision of counsel to parents in juvenile dependency proceedings. Once this initiative is fully implemented, the courts anticipate saving the county $750,000 annually. The courts have submitted RFPs to obtain representation for parents and have secured counsel services at lower rates
90 • Managing Budget Cutbacks than that for which the Public Defender's Office must be reimbursed. The Public Defender's Office has also benefited as it may now concentrate its limited resources on adult felony cases.
4. Personnel Costs for Judges and Staff
As personnel-related costs make up a major portion of court budgets generally, it is not surprising that the Sacramento courts have used short and long-term strategies to lower such expenses. Some of these strategies have been tied directly to consolidation and are described above. Brief descriptions of other strategies follow:
Court Reporters and In FY 1993, the judges approved a long-term conversion plan to expand Electronic Recording the use of electronic recording over the next 12 years in 23 courtrooms. Implementation will occur through attrition. Cumulative savings over 12 years are estimated to be $9.3 million. At least 5 conversions were anticipated in FY 1993. Real Time court reporting services will also be increased and will see use in all capital cases. Court reporters have opposed the plan and sought state intervention to prevent its implementation.
Supplemental Judicial With no new judgeships since 1987, the courts have had to use Resources and ADR supplemental judicial resources and ADR to handle increasing caseloads and comply with stricter time standards. Unfortunately, assigned judges in-lieu (AJIL) are more costly to the courts than are permanent judges.6 "Rental" judges from other jurisdictions and pro tempore judges have helped in the management of workloads and costs. Greater use of file examiners, research attorneys, etc. has saved limited (and costly) judicial time. The courts hope to increase the use of ADR so as to replace some judicial adjuncts and further reduce costs. In FY 1993, the courts worked with the Bar and the Sacramento Mediation Center to initiate a multi-door courthouse and expanded other programs.
Temporary Employees The courts have increased their use of temporary employees in an effort to reduce costs. Most savings arise through the absence of any requirement to provided benefits to temporaries. In many cases, temporary workers are being used rather than filling vacancies. Temporaries have also been used for special projects rather than hiring permanent staff for such work or shifting existing staff.
Golden Handshake The court has not made extensive use of retirement incentives to reduce Retirement Incentives costs, but two divisional manager positions in the Superior Court were eliminated in FY 1993 by such methods. Estimated savings were $153,354.
6 Assigned judges in-lieu are senior or retired judges who may serve in the courts. At the Superior Court level, the court must pay 50 percent of each assigned judge's salary plus travel expenses. For a permanent judge, the court must only pay the first $9500 of each salary--less than 10 percent.
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 91
As early as FY 1990, the Municipal Court instituted new programs to reduce costly staff turnover. Efforts included comprehensive employee training and development, an improved orientation program, employee performance management/appraisals, revision of testing for entry level positions, and enhanced recruitment. The annual staff turnover rate dropped from 60 percent to 20 percent. The EMOST initiatives of the consolidated courts should help to continue these successes.
5. Psychological Evaluations
The courts noted that judges in family matters had an expensive tendency to order referrals to outside psychological specialists rather than to court staff counselors. Expenses were running in excess of $125,000 annually. By assigning judges to the family law departments for longer periods, the courts gave judges more time to become familiar and more confident with the quality of in-house staff resources. Outside referrals have dropped, reducing budgeted expenses to $25,000.
6. Facilities
The courts thought of several temporary methods of reducing facility-related costs. The primary method was to pay the debt service on one of the court buildings, the Carol Miller Justice Center, from Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) funds. Taking the debt service amount paid by the Municipal Court for FY 1992 ($598,967) and adding it to the debt service in the FY 1993 budget of all occupants, the courts estimated a short-term benefit of $2,394,967. The courts acknowledged that while this was an allowable expenditure of ACO funds, it would not be appropriate in the long term to tie up this level of ACO money for such purposes.
7. Revenues
Although a significant amount of revenues from fines and court costs are now transferred to the state, the courts and the county successfully worked to increase revenues and recoup costs in FY 1993. Increases were approved for the fee assessed for probate investigations and for the family court services billing rate for mediation services. Additional revenues from these two sources were projected at around $84,000. The state approved increases in civil filing fees and a Sacramento-initiated increase in civil court reporting fees to allow recovery of the actual cost of providing these services.7
The courts determined that cost recoveries from the District Attorney and Mental Health were undercollected in FY 1992 for services provided to those departments for certification hearings and the Title IVD program; the courts were able to obtain increased interfund cost recoveries in FY 1993. As is described above, the courts reduced their own collection-related costs through an in-house program. The courts also supported legislation that allows the county to recoup collection expenses before fine and fee revenues are transferred to the state.
7 Courts were previously required to charge a statewide fee starting on the second day services were provided.
92 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
8. Miscellaneous Court Savings
A number of minor initiatives have helped the courts manage under the recent budgetary constraints. As was mentioned above in connection with the Kiosk system, the courts reduced staff assistance to litigants in small claims cases to decrease what can be a time-consuming distraction from other staff duties. Contemplated automation of the phone system may also help make up for the decrease in direct service to the public while preserving the insulation from distractions.
The courts reduced some expenses by eliminating the copying of traffic calendars for accounting. Accounting will now use original calendars for their auditing functions rather than making an additional copy of each calendar. The courts have been able to eliminate zipsort costs (a postal service expenditure) for jury services notices by using mail insertion equipment purchased by the Municipal Court in FY 1992. Reductions in accounts for office equipment, furniture, supplies, and other operating expenses were made possible in FY 1993 by purchases made in FY 1992.
9. Court-Assisted County Savings
Recent efforts of the courts have produced welcome benefits for the county and its agencies. Support of the legislation allowing the county to recoup collection costs is one example. The Public Defender's ability to shift its resources to adult felony cases after the courts switched to assigned counsel in juvenile dependency cases is another. At the county's request, the courts have assisted the Probation Department in determining and acquiring its budgetary and staffing needs. The courts indirectly benefit through Probation's improved ability to provide necessary reports for court proceedings.
Many of the courts' interagency efforts have involved the Sheriff's Department. In FY 1993, the courts converted 12 existing bailiff positions to "court attendant" positions. The civil cases in which the attendants are used require less security and more clerical assistance, which the attendants provide. The attendants are funded through the court budget at approximately $30,000 per position while bailiffs are funded through the Sheriff's Department budget at approximately $55,000 per position. The county saves $25,000 per attendant, and the court gains additional courtroom staff who can assist the clerks and judges. The courts' shift to using DMV suspensions instead of traffic warrants has also reduced expenses of the Sheriff's Department. At the time of the site visit, the court was considering reducing after-hours security at the courthouse and several other initiatives to further assist the Sheriff in reducing expenses. The courts have enjoyed measurable benefits from some of these interagency ideas and initiatives, but the greatest long-term benefit to the courts may be in the goodwill generated by their cooperation.
III Summation of Budget Management Efforts
Listed below are points summarizing those elements of the Sacramento experience that appear to have relevance for cutback management in courts:
A. Value of Long-Term Approaches
As budget conditions have declined in Sacramento, the measures that have been of greatest benefit to the Superior and Municipal Courts have been those aimed at achieving permanent operational reform. While the courts have used hiring freezes, service reductions, and deferrals of facility and supply expenditures to save money, these tactics tend to have disadvantages that grow over time, limiting their
Appendix C: Sacramento County, California • 93 usefulness for anything other than creating "breathing space" over the short run. Perhaps as a consequence, the savings produced by short-term tactics have generally not been large in scale. The courts have received far greater benefit from initiatives related to consolidation and automation, even though those developments were not conceived of for cutback management purposes. Rather, consolidation and coordination, technological improvements, intergovernmental cooperation, and personnel management efforts were begun before the budget crisis because they were seen as means of permanently improving efficiency, decision making, and productivity.
B. Consolidation and Cooperation
The scope of consolidation and cooperation efforts in the Superior and Municipal Courts has been extensive and is still expanding. The courts have been able to reduce or avoid acquiring redundant personnel and equipment. Sharing and coordination of resources has increased efficiency and productivity. Administration and policy leadership are now centralized. Implementation of these efforts has produced significant one-time and long-term savings. Further steps in the three-year plan should produce additional benefits.
C. Technology
Technology has played an important role in reducing the expenses and improving the operations of the Sacramento courts. By acquiring new technologies and expanding upon old, the courts have increased productivity, reduced staffing needs, improved communication with governmental agencies, and gained new abilities to monitor and adjust caseflow. Technology has assisted consolidation and coordination efforts while minimizing the isolation and distance from constituents that can arise from centralization processes.
D. Intergovernmental Relations
Despite tight budget conditions, the Sacramento courts have secured adequate funding and improved their general operations through better intergovernmental relations, particularly with the county. The courts' leaders have been straightforward and helpful in the county budget process, lending credibility and respect to the courts when they have made suggestions or requests. The courts' interests in justice policies and caseflow management have been advanced through greater communication and coordination of resources with the other justice-related agencies. Both the county and the courts have saved money through their mutual efforts. The courts have not lost their institutional integrity nor have they been gutted financially, despite the county's limited ability to reduce spending. If relations with the state were as close, there is no telling what the courts might accomplish.
E. Personnel Management
The Sacramento courts understand the value of employee satisfaction in the reduction of costs. They have established programs that improve the selection, development, and evaluation of employees. These efforts have lowered staff turnover rates, ensuring greater stability and higher aggregate skill levels among staff over the long term. In addition, the courts have recognized the value that properly channeled staff input can have in improving operations. Establishment of the Employee and Organizational Support Team (EMOST) has begun a process committed to the ongoing improvement of the consolidated courts. Central to this process is the empowerment of employees throughout all levels of the organization. User groups, active solicitation of staff ideas, encouragement of initiative (with its risks), and recognition of
94 • Managing Budget Cutbacks achievement are built into this new personnel management approach. Although it is far too early to call this effort a success, its potential is great. Improvement in court administration tends to take place sporadically, if at all. A process that is continually improving the court's operations would be a significant asset in the flat economic conditions forecast for the 1990s and would provide the courts with a more flexible organization in responding to future cutbacks.
Conclusion
The Sacramento Courts may just be entering a tough financial period, but they are managing the situation well. Having started a process of administrative improvement before trouble began, they have been in a position to save money and avoid cuts in their services. A constructive relationship with the county and its justice agencies and a process for continuous improvement should give the Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts a good foundation for weathering economic conditions in the 1990s.
APPENDIX D National Center for State Courts Site Report Ventura County Superior and Municipal Courts
he California trial courts are funded roughly equally by the state and the counties. The recent recession has hurt both levels of government. State retrenchment has included reversal of a gradual T process of increasing state funding of the judiciary. In Ventura County, trial court expenses have risen in response to growing workloads and legislative mandates. In the face of various state and federal requirements, the county struggles to fund the balance of court needs. The Ventura County Superior and Municipal Courts were among the first in the state to consolidate administratively. The courts have received national recognition for achievements in court technology and collections. In their attempts to manage under budgetary constraints, they have benefited from efforts in staff development and extensive use of volunteers. These conditions supported selection of the Ventura courts as a project site that was visited by project staff on June 28 and 29, 1993.
I The Setting
A. Ventura County: Demographics
Ventura County is located on the California coast north of Los Angeles and is a part of the greater Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside metropolitan statistical area. In 1993, the county population exceeded 700,000, an increase of more than 15 percent since 1986. Prospects for future growth are strong; population projections for the years 2000 and 2010 are 776,418 and 870,568, respectively. More than 86 percent of the population live in the ten incorporated areas of the county, the largest of which are Oxnard (149,571), Thousand Oaks (109,214), Simi Valley (102,982), and San Buenaventura (96,112). Unemployment has increased during the recession, rising to an average of 9.5 percent in the incorporated areas in 1993. Communities have faired differently however, given that the unemployment rate in Santa Paula is as high as 14.7 percent while Ojai enjoys a low of 5 percent.
B. Ventura County: Fiscal Conditions
The Ventura County budget runs from July 1 to June 30. Revenue allocations tend to run a quarter behind. At the time of the site visit, the County Board was conducting hearings at which the Recommended Budget for FY 1994 was presented. The total recommended county appropriation was $806,769,500, but the budget the county adopted for itself is $864,572,200. Based upon recent tendencies of adopted budgets to far exceed eventual actual expenditures, the recommended figure is probably closer to what will eventually be spent (see Table 1). The adopted general fund appropriation, from which the county pays justice-related expenses, is $457,483,900; the recommended figure was $435,750,600 (see Table 2). The adopted General Fund budget tends to be closer to eventual expenditures than is the case with the total
-95- 96 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
county budget; however, the fact that actual expenses in FY 1993 were slightly above rather than slightly below the adopted budget amount may reflect greater difficulty in controlling expenses.
Table 1 Ventura County Total * Appropriations & Revenues
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Adopted Actual Actual % Projected Actual Actual % Year Appropriation Appropriation Change Revenues Revenues Change 1990 $622,807,400 $564,320,700 $554,464,600 $595,794,000 1991 $729,391,500 $636,980,400 12.9 $653,440,000 $661,073,300 10.6 1992 $782,143,900 $691,525,300 8.6 $696,119,700 $707,911,600 7.1 1993 $793,136,500 $716,406,100 3.6 $749,508,600 $737,702,100 4.2 1994 $864,572,200 N/A 20.7** $761,420,300 N/A 3.2** * Includes the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Special Districts, and Other Funds. ** 1994 Adopted or Projected figure divided by 1993 Actual Figure.
Table 2 Ventura County General Fund Appropriations & Revenues
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Adopted Actual Actual Projected Actual Actual Year Appropriation Appropriation % Revenues Revenues % Change Change 1990 $359,291,500 $348,365,800 $331,747,900 $353,917,000 1991 $402,226,700 $395,956,700 13.7 $384,226,000 $397,245,600 12.2 1992 $424,190,100 $422,009,700 6.6 $403,050,800 $427,699,200 7.7 1993 $428,678,200 $431,117,900 2.2 $439,012,900 $449,022,700 5.0 1994 $457,483,900 N/A 6.1* $418,921,800 N/A (6.7)* * 1994 Adopted or Projected figure divided by 1993 Actual Figure.
The fiscal picture for 1994 shows a continued deepening of the recession that has plagued the state for several years. Percentage growth in appropriations and revenues declined over the principal years of our study--FY 1991-1993 (see Tables 1 and 2). General Fund revenue projections for FY 1994 anticipate a decline from the prior year. Under these circumstances, the budget reductions that the courts endured in FY 1992 and FY 1993 and for which they have planned in FY 1994 are likely to continue.
Although financial conditions in the county have declined, causing predictable revenue problems, Ventura's most serious budgetary concerns have been associated with the state's budget deficits.1 State contributions comprise nearly 40 percent of Ventura County's general fund budget. Efforts by the state to
1 As of June 11, 1993, the state budget deficit in California was projected to be in the $8-10 billion range for FY 1994. Letter from Richard Wittenberg, Chief Administrative Officer, to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors supplying recommendations regarding the FY 1994 Budget (June 11, 1993), p. 3 [Appears at front of Recommended Budget].
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 97
address its own financial problems are creating considerable uncertainty in the counties. A number of actual and proposed changes in revenue distribution and funding processes make some aspects of county budgeting highly speculative. The magnitude of property tax shifts--primarily for school funding--and changes in the amount and allocation methodology of trial court funding have been among the biggest budgetary concerns in Ventura and other California counties in recent years. In its recommended FY 1994 general fund budget, Ventura County anticipated up to a $20 million loss of revenue from state property tax shifts, requiring plans for cuts of up to $13,793,600 in order to balance the budget.
Further budgetary obstacles have been raised by state and federal laws and regulations dictating how a large portion of counties' general purpose financing is to be allocated. In recent years, it has not been uncommon for counties to have little or no discretion over as much as 80% of their general fund spending. Of the spending over which the counties have more discretion, more that half is frequently allocated to law and justice programs. Such is the case in Ventura County, where the recommended reductions of $13,793,600 would come primarily from the county's limited "discretionary" funding. More than $7 million of these reductions are from the county's "Administration of Justice" budget category.2 The county anticipates that cuts will be necessary for the next three or four years.
C. Ventura County: The Court System
The courts of Ventura County consist of the Ventura Superior Court and the Ventura Municipal Court. The Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction, handling real property cases, all proceedings in equity, civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, felonies, probate and family law matters, juvenile dependency and delinquency cases, and mental health proceedings. The Municipal Court's jurisdiction includes all vehicular violations, certain parking violations, small claims, civil suits not exceeding $25,000, and misdemeanor offenses. The two courts were administratively consolidated on April 1, 1989, at which time they came under the supervision of a single courts' executive officer (CEO). On November 6 of the same year, the court clerks, who had previously been under the supervision of the elected county clerk, were also placed in the control of the CEO--an addition of 66 positions to the Superior Court.3 The courts presently operate under separate presiding judges. As required by legislation, a judicial coordination plan was submitted to and approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts in 1992 and is in the early stages of implementation.
The Ventura Superior Court has 15 judges, and the Municipal Court has 12. These numbers have remained the same since early 1989, at which time the state funded the twelfth Municipal Court judgeship. At the adoption of the county's FY 1993 budget, each court also had one commissioner; the two are shared between the courts. As of May 1993, the total number of approved positions serving the three primary units of the courts (Superior Court, Municipal Court, and Clerk of the Superior Court) was 321, including the 27 judgeships. Nineteen positions were vacant, including one municipal judgeship.
2 The Administration of Justice budget unit includes financing for the Corrections Services Agency, the Courts, the District Attorney, the Grand Jury, the Public Defender, and the Sheriff. Of the recommended reductions, almost $5 million were from the budget of the Sheriff's Department. The reduction from the courts was just over $250,000. Ventura County, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 1993-1994, p.11.
3 Prior to the courts' consolidation, a single individual already held the titles "executive officer" and "clerk" of the Municipal Court. This same individual is the present CEO of the consolidated courts.
98 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Activities of the courts are concentrated primarily in the county complex in Ventura, but there is also an East County Courthouse in Simi Valley. The Superior Court provided a courtroom in the latter facility for the original change of venue case involving the beating of Rodney King. This notorious case required significant facility modifications within the Simi Valley Courthouse. Although the Los Angeles Courts covered the costs of the materials and labor needed for these modifications, they did not cover all the costs related to the time demands on the Ventura staff. Consequently, the case presented some unexpected costs and unwanted distractions to the Ventura County Courts.
D. Interbranch Relations
The relationship between the courts and the county is good in Ventura. Court officials feel they can work well with the county officials, and county officials see the court officials as accountable and cooperative. The county's chief administrative officer, who has worked for the county for 15 years, said that court performance and cooperation have greatly improved, particularly since consolidation. Interbranch relations have been helped at the county level by greater communication between the courts and local justice agencies. Nevertheless, planning and resource distribution still need improvement. Toward the end of FY 1993, the District Attorney's Office received 101 additional staff to help meet support enforcement requirements. These additional staff could add another 18,000 cases to the courts' workload, yet the courts received no associated increases in resources.
Relations between the Ventura courts and the state have not been as good as those between the courts and the county. State representatives and officials are more political and more distant from actual court operations than are those of the county; consequently, the principal actors do not know each other as well, and there is less understanding. Lack of consistency in state policy regarding trial court funding has not been helpful, nor have state requirements that add to workloads and interfere with some cost-cutting measures. The only new judgeship funded by the state since 1986 was the Municipal Court position that was included in new trial court funding legislation in 1989; subsequent increases in workloads probably justify more.4 The membership of the Municipal Court's presiding judge and the advisory membership of the court executive officer on the newly-created statewide Trial Court Budgeting Commission may help the Ventura Courts in resolving some state-level concerns.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Traditional Sources of Court Financing
Funding for the Ventura County trial courts is provided by the state and the county. Although the amounts that the state has provided toward court expenditures have fluctuated, the funds have generally been sufficient to cover at least 50 percent of actual appropriations. Statewide, the average percentage has generally been lower. Because some state trial court funds were given directly to the counties to apply toward the courts' appropriations, the Ventura County courts received only those funds needed to make up the balance of court expenses--not necessarily all that the state allocated.
4 Adding further to the pressures on the courts have been new case processing time standards that went into effect in July 1992.
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 99
Comparing levels of funding from year to year is complicated by this dividing of state funds between the county and the courts and by general inconsistency in state funding of trial courts. The amount and manner of state trial court funding have been in a state of flux since the mid-1980s. The Trial Court Funding Act of 1985 provided for the first state funding of trial courts, but no funds were appropriated to implement the law. The Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act (1988) implemented and financed some state funding of trial courts, beginning in the middle of FY 1989. By FY 1991, however, state allocations had dropped from 44 percent to 38 percent because of growing fiscal problems; it was also clear that state funding had not resulted in equal funding of the trial courts although that was one of the original aims.
Under the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991, the legislature expressed its intent to provide state funding for the courts at 50 percent and to increase that funding level by 5 percent each year until a 70 percent contribution is reached. To offset the increase in the state's appropriation for trial courts, the Act also raised penalties in criminal cases and swept to the state significant shares of the fine monies that were formerly distributed to the cities and counties. The state's initial mechanism for the trial court funding process was a program of block grants to the counties in which allocations were based on the number of authorized judicial officers in the county courts. In FY 1993, this process was changed such that the counties received a mix of block grants, covering a portion of the year, and specific allocations based upon prior year "allowable" expenditures that were reported to the Judicial Council.
By the terms of Assembly Bill No. 1344, passed in September 1992, the state will eliminate block grants and commence funding selected functions of court operations beginning in FY 1994. The law provided the statutory authority for the Judicial Council to establish and empower the Trial Court Budgeting Commission. The Commission will direct and oversee trial court budgeting and allocation processes for the state's share of costs. The measure also makes uniform and significantly increases filing fees and redistributes them from the county to the state.5 In August, the Chief Justice reported that the state budget for FY 1994 falls short of the 60 percent court funding goal under the 1991 Act; the actual amount is about 44 percent of what the trial courts presumably need.6
B. Budgetary Units and Responsibility for Court Expenditure Items
The Ventura County courts may be administered as a single unit, but their budgeting is divided into three units: Clerk--Ventura County Superior Court, Municipal Court, and Superior Court (see Table 3). For simplicity, the courts would like to consolidate their budgetary units as well, but current county budgetary practices discourage such action.
5 "State Funding For Trial Courts: A Brief History," Court News, Feb.-Mar. 1993, at 5, 5-6. [Court News is a publication of the Judicial Council of California and the Administrative Office of the California Courts.]
6 The Hon. Malcolm M. Lucas, "Message From The Chief Justice," Court News, Aug.-Sept. 1993, at 1.
100 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 3 Ventura County Trial Court Appropriations
FY 1990-1994
Budget Units 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (Adopted) Clerk, Superior $2,463,300* $2,526,800 $2,784,300 $2,895,700 $3,038,500 Court Municipal Court $6,277,600 $6,921,000 $7,460,400 $9,822,100 $10,193,000
Superior Court $5,381,800 $5,944,800 $6,590,000 $8,344,600 $8,100,800
TOTAL $14,122,700* $15,392,600 $16,834,700 $21,062,400 $21,332,300 * Clerk of Superior Court Budget included in County Clerk's Budget in FY 1990
The unit of the Clerk--Ventura County Superior Court receives very little state funding. More than half its funding has generally been from fine, fee, and miscellaneous revenues; the county supplies the balance. The bulk of state funding has been expended by the Municipal and Superior Court units (see Table 4). Net costs to the county have been steadily increasing. The sweeping of first fine and now fee revenues to the state complicates the county's budgeting process with respect to the courts and reduces collection incentives.
Table 4a State & County Contributions to Court Funding
FY 1990-1993
Clerk--Ventura County Superior Court Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 Appropriation $2,463,300* $2,526,800 $2,784,300 $2,895,700 Court Revenue $2,247,200 $1,911,700 $1,907,800 $838,900 Net Cost to County $216,100 $615,100 $876,500 $2,056,800
State Funds to Court* $32,900 $26,200 $28,500 $0 State Funds to County $0 $0 $0 $0 Total State Funding $32,900 $26,200 $28,500 $0
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 101
Table 4b State & County Contributions To Court Funding
FY 1990-1993
Ventura County Municipal Court Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 Appropriation $6,277,600 $6,921,000 $7,460,400 $9,822,100 Court Revenue $8,412,400 $8,781,000 $4,630,900 $4,191,300 Net Cost to County ($2,134,800) ($1,860,000) $2,829,500 $5,630,800
State Funds to Court* $889,500 $907,500 $891,700 $908,300 State Funds to County $2,696,600 $2,494,400 $4,477,100 $4,196,200 Total State Funding $3,586,100 $3,401,900 $5,368,800 $5,104,500
Table 4c State & County Contributions to Court Funding
FY 1990-1993
Ventura County Superior Court Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 Appropriation $5,381,800 $5,944,800 $6,590,000 $8,344,600 Court Revenue $5,524,800 $5,380,100 $2,256,500 $1,737,800 Net Cost to County ($143,000) $564,700 $4,333,500 $6,606,800
State Funds to Court* $1,610,600 $1,504,200 $1,712,100 $1,410,900 State Funds to County $3,370,800 $3,118,000 $6,033,900 $5,396,000 Total State Funding $4,981,400 $4,622,200 $7,746,000 $6,806,900 * Included in Court Revenue
A few court expenditure items are paid predominately by direct state funding rather than from the general pot of available funds. This is particularly the case for judicial compensation. The state has been paying all but $9,500 of each judge's salary. Likewise, most benefits for Superior Court judges, with the exception of life insurance and dental expenses, are paid by the state, and all judicial retirement contributions are made by the state.
For the most part, defense of the indigent is not a court responsibility. The public defender is funded by the county as an independent budget unit. The majority of court-appointed indigent defense costs are also funded by the county. The Superior Court handles the contract(s) for the Indigent Legal Services unit which funds legal services to indigents in cases in which the Public Defender has a conflict of interest or is unable to act. Juvenile dependency attorney costs, however, are reported to the state Judicial Council as "allowable" court operations expenditures. Other costs incurred by the courts for work performed in processing indigent defense claims are reimbursed by the county.
102 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The following court-related expenses are not within the court budget:
Ordinary Witness Fees Court Bailiffs Law Libraries Prisoner Transportation Service of Process Adult Probation Juvenile Probation Child Support Enforcement Community Corrections Pretrial Release Programming
Most of these excluded items are funded through the budgets of the Probation and Sheriff's Departments. The Mental Health Division reimburses the courts for work related to the mental health certification process.
C. Budget Reduction Environment
With the state facing a large deficit and attempting to meet its obligations at the expense of the counties, it is at the county level that the Ventura County trial courts have experienced the greatest budget cutting pressures. Some cuts have been inevitable given the circumstances that the county has faced, but the cooperative efforts of the courts and the credibility the courts' leaders enjoy have allowed them to minimize harm to operations. Having completed consolidation years before cuts began in FY 1992, the Ventura courts could not rely on that process to the same extent as jurisdictions presently undergoing consolidation--Ventura had already taken advantage of many of the "easy" reductions in duplicate positions and operating expenses. This is not to say that the Ventura courts are not enjoying long-term savings from the consolidation process; rather, it means that some of the least painful methods of absorbing short-term cuts are no longer available. Court consolidation's most significant contribution to cutback management in Ventura may have been to enable the development of more capable and flexible staff resources.
County budget reductions have meant real cuts in the Ventura courts of approximately 5 percent and 9 1/2 percent in FY 1992 and FY 1993, respectively. These estimates include position reductions, extended vacancies, and other expenditure cuts. In preparation of the FY 1994 budget, the court anticipated total reductions of up to 10 percent. The greatest part of these cuts would be in salary expenses, followed by benefits and services and supplies.
If state budget problems are predominately responsible for the cuts that the Ventura courts must endure, then poorly conceived state cost reduction policies add to the injury. State trial court funding cost reduction goals penalize courts which save more than their cost reduction goals by further reducing their expenditure targets in subsequent years. The problem arises because the base upon which cost reductions are taken is from prior year actual expenses. Consequently, those courts that might otherwise be able to significantly reduce spending will instead spend up to their expenditure targets each year--no more, no less. Similarly, the cost reduction goals discourage courts from taking on beneficial new programs, even those that may be fully funded by grant monies. New grant expenditures can cause the courts to exceed their cost reduction targets; alternatively, the courts have to sacrifice existing expenditures in order to take on a new program without exceeding their goal.
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 103
D. Steps Taken To Cope With Budget Problems
1. Human Resource Management
The Ventura County Superior and Municipal Courts have used consolidation as a starting point for further improvements within the court, including management of human resources. Through cooperative rather than hostile processes, the courts have been able to analyze operations and identify areas for improvement. Although budget reductions have necessitated cuts within the personnel budget, the courts have been able to minimize harm to staff. Staff performance has improved, and morale is high. The human resource improvements within the consolidated courts have given them greater flexibility with which to handle budgetary cutbacks. Brief descriptions of personnel initiatives are provided below:
a. Internal Operational Audit
After consolidation, the Ventura courts conducted an internal audit, the findings from which have since helped to guide the courts' human resources decisions. The primary objectives of the audit were to determine:
• how the organization could work more efficiently without losing its effectiveness;
• how to make the work of the courts more interesting for the employees;
• how to insure that sufficient information is received in a timely manner by everyone needing access to it;
• how to plan and set short and long term goals; and
• how to realize these objectives using a team approach.
Top management designed the audit so as to generate the most cooperation and the greatest likelihood of reliable information. Initial meetings were with the staff of each unit and excluded supervisors and managers. Separate meetings were held with middle management. Assurances were given that while some reallocation of positions might occur as a result of the audit, such action would only be to assure more even distribution of the workload. Staff were asked to provide comments and suggestions about both their individual positions and their work units. After analyzing the information that was generated, top management conducted follow-up meetings with each unit to distribute and discuss excerpts. Management then made it a point to respond to easy issues immediately, showing staff that their input was valued, taken seriously, and would be acted upon.
One of the more important pieces of information that was learned through the audit was that automation had significantly changed the work of the staff handling traffic and criminal matters. The traffic staff indicated that they needed more work. The criminal staff, who had been selected on the basis of greater intelligence and potential, said that automation had turned them into data entry personnel--they were bored. Consequently, traffic and criminal staff have been mixed and cross trained. The positions now have greater horizontal flexibility and interest. Some positions have also been reallocated to meet civil caseload demands.
104 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The team approach that was established during the audit has been maintained. As other staff suggestions have been implemented, the level of trust between staff and management has been raised. Service to the public has also improved. When the courts were faced with the need to reduce expenses, information from the audit helped identify options for savings; furthermore, management received much more cooperation and assistance from the lower echelons than was likely to have occurred before the audit.
b. Training and Cross Training
The Ventura courts' leaders have recognized that training is essential to achieving better performance within the courts. The feedback from the audit reinforced this perception. Staff at lower levels wanted more training for several reasons--to improve performance of existing duties, to learn new skills to allow job rotation and relieve boredom, and to develop potential for advancement. Higher level staff needed to develop and improve leadership and managerial skills, the ability to set performance standards, conduct performance reviews and evaluations, etc.
Court training efforts have sought to address all these needs. As economic conditions deteriorated, however, funds for external training began to disappear, necessitating benefit maximization approaches. Staff who were able to attend educational programs such as those of the Institute for Court Management or the annual Trial Court Clerks Summer Training Institute at Stanford University were required to provide in-house instruction upon their return. Beginning on November 12, 1990, the courts also began to hold "Training Days" on some of the government holidays. On the first training day, staff from each court department presented educational programs about departmental functions and individual duties. These programs promoted mutual understanding among the staff of different units and broke down some of the internal barriers that had remained after consolidation. During subsequent training days, staff have received cross-training, attended a session of the Civil Case Management program, toured the Jail Central Inmate Records section, and received instruction in earthquake preparedness.
Training initiatives have proven their value as budget pressures increased. By cross training staff, the courts not only improved job satisfaction and "unit cohesion", but they were also able to use existing personnel to fill extended vacancies associated with cutbacks. As seasonal lulls have affected some units, cross-trained staff have been shifted to areas with vacancies or higher workloads. By giving some staff the opportunity to learn more complex positions, such as courtroom assignments, the courts have enjoyed additional benefits. Operations that would have been severely compromised without key clerical personnel have been able to continue smoothly with trained substitutes. The substitutes have enjoyed the challenge of these assignments and the opportunities they provide to demonstrate potential for advancement.
c. Volunteers
The Ventura County Superior and Municipal Courts have made extensive use of volunteers to augment their resources. In the courts' ADR programs alone, volunteer services have been valued at $850,000 annually. Attorneys have played a large role in alternative adjudicative processes and as judicial adjuncts. Such efforts have helped the courts in their conscious effort to limit the use of assigned judges
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 105
and the additional staff they may require.7 In FY 1993, the Ventura courts used only two thirds of the more than $316,000 budgeted for assigned judges.
Volunteers have also enabled the courts to continue offering a new waiting room for children, despite budgetary constraints. Established in early 1992, the Children's Waiting Room simplifies parents' arrangements to appear in court while keeping a possible source of distraction out of the courtroom.
d. Attrition, Vacancy Savings, and Salaries
County budget cuts have forced the courts to reduce personnel spending, but the courts have maintained their commitment to protect employees as much as possible. Reduction of permanent positions has occurred primarily through attrition. Additional savings have been achieved by extending the duration of vacancies. During FY 1993, the courts had as many as 20 vacancies, 14 of which lasted most of the year. Flexibility acquired through cross training eased the strain that such vacancies would otherwise have created. Technological acquisitions have enabled the court to save at least three positions that would otherwise have been required to handle workloads.
To date, there have been no salary reductions or deferrals although such measures have been discussed. Annual salary increases have been provided to rank and file positions. Management, however, has received only one minor salary increase in three years.
2. Technology
The Ventura County Superior and Municipal Courts have consistently been among the nation's leaders in acquiring advanced technology for court applications. Technology and automation projects have enabled increases in speed and efficiency and have improved communications among court employees and between the courts and law enforcement agencies of the county and state. Service to the public has improved while savings have accrued to the courts. Technology and automation projects have included the following:
• Multi-User System for Integrated Courts (MUSIC)--an on-line interactive database that includes all traffic citations and Municipal Court criminal offenses and will soon store Superior Court criminal matters. Terminals located in courtrooms allow on-line entry of docket information. The system is connected to other county criminal justice systems as well as the California Highway Patrol for the downloading of traffic citations.
• Civil Automation Tracking System (CATS)--a new civil case tracking system implemented in 1993 to replace the aging Case Management System (CMS) and enhance ongoing consolidation efforts. The new application stores and tracks all civil cases for both courts in one database. Special programs are being developed to monitor fast track cases.
7 Assigned judges in-lieu (AJIL) are senior or retired judges who may be assigned to serve in courts that need additional judicial resources to process their caseload. While the state picks up all but the first $9500 of a permanent judge's salary (80 to 90 percent), the state pays only 50 percent of the salary for assigned judges and provides no extra funding for their staff needs.
106 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• Superior/Municipal Court Collections Division (SMCCD)--a database connected to the Municipal Court Information System to allow the tracking and collection of "time to pay" cases. It assists in collecting over $3 million annually.
• Justice Local Area Network--a LAN linking all Superior and Municipal Court judges, court executive offices, legal research, judicial secretarial support, and systems staff. The system allows electronic communication and access to CATS, MUSIC, and all county justice systems. Benefits have included large savings in time for daily communication and administration of court activities, elimination of the need for most phone calls between LAN users (on 4 floors), and fewer interruptions for other employees. By enabling the sharing of hardware (such as high-quality printers), multi-licensed software packages, and common files, the LAN cuts costs associated with stand-alone machines.
• Jury+ --an automated jury management system handling all aspects of the juror cycle from source list to summons, service, payment, and statistical analysis. The system operates on a LAN and uses technology such as bar coding to provide efficiency for jurors and staff alike.
• Department of Motor Vehicles exchange project--A DMV work station has been set up in the Ventura courthouse offering all services except driving examinations, and a Municipal Court work station has likewise been set up at the Oxnard DMV office. The "interchange" has decreased the time required to accept and process payments for traffic citations, improved coordination with the DMV, and decreased the number of citations pending DMV corrections.
• California Highway Patrol handheld computers--In Ventura County, the CHP issues traffic citations on handheld computers. Citations are downloaded nightly to the Municipal Court database via a PC interface. Every day, the interface saves the courts and CHP from several hours of redundant data entry.
• Remote Access Project--In August 1992, law firms, insurance companies, and other organizations involved in the administration of justice gained the ability to access the Superior and Municipal Court databases from remote terminals located throughout Ventura County. Originally, participating firms paid a $200 sign up fee for this project and utilized a 900 telephone number-- generating additional revenue--to access the databases. Access charges have since been discontinued.
• Computer Integrated Courtroom/Computer Assisted Transcription system--In July 1992, one of the Superior Court courtrooms became a computer integrated courtroom (CIC) with computer assisted transcription (CAT). Terminals placed at the judge's bench, plaintiff's and defendant's tables, and the court reporter's work station provide instant "real time" English translation of transcribed court proceedings. Editing time is reduced by almost 50 percent, so certified transcripts are available sooner.
• Public Access Terminals--Terminals placed at public counters in the Ventura County Hall of Justice and the East County Courthouse allow members of the public to make on-line information requests about cases. The terminals reduce lines and allow the public to make simple inquiries without using staff time.
• TelSol voice connection device for collections--a voice connection device linked to the Collections database to make telephone calls during evening hours. Delinquent accounts are downloaded from
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 107
the Collections System daily, and calls are then made automatically, basically extending the courts' collection workday.
• Court Visions VideoTrial System--an integrated, voice-activated video/audio recording system implemented in one of the Municipal Court courtrooms in December 1992. The system is designed to automate the making of the court record without the need for a court shorthand reporter. Videotapes become the certified court record, and sales of these tapes in lieu of manuscripts generate revenue. By agreeing to serve as a pilot site, the Municipal Court acquired the system, valued at $72,000, at no cost. The system can be expanded to the judge's courtroom and to the bailiff courtroom security area.
• KIOSK applications--three "automated court clerks" installed in remote locations with the assistance of the California Traffic Safety Institute. The kiosks allow the public to pay traffic citations, deposit traffic school certifications, and learn how to file a small claims action.
A number of additional projects are pending:
• Superior Court criminal case management integration--Superior Court criminal cases will be moved to the system currently supporting the Municipal Court criminal offenses. When completed, all criminal cases will reside on one database. Transfer of cases between courts will be enhanced; access to data by outside agencies will be easier; and redundant case processing efforts will be eliminated.
• County, Local Agency, State Systems Inter-Connection (CLASSIC)--a system to automatically update convicted criminals' RAP sheets. It will link all county law enforcement agencies involved in processing the Department of Justice 8715 form.
• Interactive Voice Response--In the fall of 1993, the Ventura courts and U.S. Audiotex will implement a new interactive system allowing constituents to obtain tentative rulings using touch tone phone technology. Users will dial a 900 number, punch in their case number(s), and be taken to the appropriate ruling.
• Electronic Filings with the State Attorney General's Office--a system that will allow electronic filing of and inquiry regarding State civil cases relevant to Ventura County. Initial access will be provided to the Offices of the Attorney General in Los Angeles and Sacramento and will later be expanded to include offices in other parts of the state.
Technological advances in the Ventura Courts can be attributed in no small part to the courts' active efforts to seek out vendors and arrange to serve as a pilot site for new systems. Although this approach involves the risk that an untried system will not work well, Ventura has largely avoided any problems. Furthermore, a vendor's vested interest in the success of a pilot system can mean that maintenance and upgrades are obtainable at little or no cost.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
In 1993, the Ventura courts brought together several new and old ADR programs to create the Ventura County Multi-Door Court Dispute Resolution Programs. The multi-door concept provides litigants with a coordinated system of alternatives to traditional adjudication that can be matched to parties'
108 • Managing Budget Cutbacks particular needs. The system includes both private and court-operated options. By increasing the available ADR options and improving the process by which cases are screened and diverted to them, the courts have reduced both their own operating costs and the costs to litigants. The ADR processes also offer greater flexibility and less antagonism in resolving cases, meaning the results can be more agreeable to all sides than the likely outcome from a trial. Volunteer staff form the backbone of several of the options. Program options are divided into three categories--civil dispute resolution, small claims mediation, and family relations mediation:
Civil Dispute Resolution
Court Mediation Program--Started in April 1993, this program seeks to resolve cases early by bringing the parties together before they have made a major economic and emotional investment in litigation. It also strives to increase awareness of this inexpensive and effective method of ADR. Trained volunteer mediators conduct the sessions..
Settlement Officer Program--Implemented through joint efforts of the court and the county bar association, this program offers an early settlement conference. Parties have the opportunity to engage in a serious exchange of facts, theories, and evaluations at the earliest possible time. Once a case is referred to the program, participation is mandatory. Impartial attorney volunteers conduct the conferences. Attorneys are asked to serve no more than four days per year, one day per quarter, and are assigned three cases per day.
Arbitration--The arbitration program has been developed by the courts as an integral mechanism for complying with delay reduction rules required by the legislature. Arbitrators are empowered to render awards, thereby avoiding the formalities, delay, and expense of litigating causes in the courts. Arbitrators are selected from a panel of individuals representing a variety of legal specialties.
Small Claims Mediation
The court provides litigants with information about two available programs. Posters and brochures are available at the filing counter describing each. Volunteers from the Ventura Center for Dispute Settlement are sometimes present in the filing area for case intake, and court staff have been trained to make referrals. A cover letter from the presiding judge to all small claims litigants suggests the mediation alternative and tends to be the most effective referral method.
Ventura Center for Dispute Settlement--The Center is a nonprofit organization created in 1990. It offers a forum for face-to-face communications between small claims adversaries in the presence of a trained, neutral third party.
Ventura County District Attorney's Consumer Mediation Unit--This unit was founded in 1979 to help resolve disputes between consumers and businesses without litigation. It also provides information to consumers regarding their rights and obligations under the law.
Family Relations Mediation
Mediation is required in contested child custody and visitation cases in the context of dissolution, separation, paternity, or domestic violence when relief is sought from the court. It is also mandatory in some guardianship and juvenile dependency cases. The mediation is usually a one-session process. It helps
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 109
parents and other parties to resolve disputes in a nonadversarial manner and assists them in designing a parenting plan (custody and visitation order) in the best interests of their children.
4. Maintenance, Service, and Supplies
County-mandated cuts have affected operations other than personnel. Expenses for general maintenance and services in the court buildings have been reduced. Staff are now responsible for cleaning their work areas--including emptying trash cans. This tactic was seen as preferable to making additional cuts in personnel expenses and has consequently been accepted by staff.
A long-term strategy was adopted to deal with supply expenses. Basically, the courts established strict supply room controls. Supplies are now centralized and locked up for most of the day. The supply room is open for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. Staff must sign for materials. Recycling and reuse are encouraged. In FY 1993, for the first time in years, the courts were not over budget on supplies.
5. Jury Services
The Ventura County courts have taken several steps to improve jury services while reducing associated expenses, an area in which they had been overspending by $100,000 per year. The processing of jurors has become more efficient following the installation of a window between the jury assembly room and one of the Jury Services offices. The office has two stations and two computer terminals which allow more expeditious "check-in" of jurors. In 1992, the courts obtained the services of the National Change of Address system to cross-check addresses on the jury list for 1993. By finding a number of incorrect or changed addresses, the system is expected to save the courts $16,000 in postage in 1993. Jury Services also reduced the size of the standard jury panel for the Municipal Court, decreasing the number of jurors waiting to be called and the attendant jury costs. Since February 1993, the courts have asked jurors to voluntarily waive their fees for service. After only three months, 2100 jurors had waived their fees for a savings of $23,000.
6. Revenues
As has been described above, the Ventura County courts have made an effort to generate revenues by charging for access to court information and for copies of videotaped trial proceedings. The courts have also received national attention for their advanced collection systems. The Superior/Municipal Court Collections Division (SMCCD), which is also described above, is a virtually paperless, standardized system for handling "time to pay" accounts. The system tracks collection activity from the day the account is received, automatically sends notices at preset intervals, follows up partial payments with electronic mailers, automatically notifies collectors when they are to become involved in the process, handles victim restitution collections and payments to victims, and automatically produces declarations for warrant. Sales techniques that promote good will are used throughout the process to encourage payment. Efforts are being made to further improve collections by cross training individuals from different units in the collection process.
While the Ventura courts' collection methods are worth emulating and could help other jurisdictions that are trying to manage budget cutbacks, the Ventura courts themselves currently receive only moderate benefits despite their notable efforts. Under the best of circumstances in this country, trial
110 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
courts do not get to keep all the revenue they generate, but they can at least get some credit for their efforts when the money stays at the local level. In California, state shifting of fine and fee revenues away from the county virtually ensures that there is no one-to-one correspondence between what the courts collect and what they may eventually get back in funding. No matter how well Ventura courts collect their fines and fees, the state will only return what its formulas allow.
III Summation of Budget Management Initiatives
The experience of the Ventura County courts is instructive in the following areas:
(1) Planning for continuous improvement. If improvements are only sought during times of trouble, courts will always find themselves playing catch up. To stay ahead, in good and bad financial conditions, requires continuous improvement. This cannot be achieved without sound planning. The Ventura Superior and Municipal Courts have been undergoing a series of planned changes intended to improve the operations of the courts. First administrative consolidation, then development of human resources, and now the initial phases of judicial consolidation have contributed to progress throughout the courts. Each step has been built upon prior achievements and has helped to map out still other developments. The consolidated courts are more efficient, more aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and more responsive to economic pressures.
(2) Human Resources. The majority of court expenditures are related to staff costs. Therefore, for budgetary purposes, it is critical that the courts get the most for their staff dollars. Administrative adjustments can help by reducing redundant positions and procedures. Consolidation and automation have brought about significant improvements of this nature in the Ventura County trial courts. Eventually, however, performance comes down to the individual worker. The internal audit in the Ventura County courts helped identify problems and possible solutions related to job satisfaction, quality, efficiency, and productivity. The courts made training of managers and line staff a priority, even when training money was limited. Cross training was particularly encouraged. As workload increases or budget-related vacancies put pressure on the courts, they now have the flexibility to shift staff where resources are most needed with minimal reduction in services.
(3) Technology. The list of technological developments in the Ventura County courts is extensive. New technologies have improved operations in a number of ways: enabling the courts to accept more work without increases in staff--in some cases allowing decreases in staff within units; enhancing communication within the courts and with external agencies of the county and state; improving public access to court services; making the time payment collection process automatic and virtually paperless; and streamlining case processing to assist in compliance with time standards. Acquiring and continually pursuing pilot status for various technologies has reduced acquisition costs and kept the courts on the leading edge of technology. The increases in productivity, efficiency, and quality of service to the public have been invaluable as budget conditions have deteriorated.
(4) ADR. Expansion of dispute resolution alternatives and coordination of them in a multi-door format offer numerous benefits to the courts and the public. For the courts, diversion of cases to ADR helps to reduce court workloads so that cases that are most needful of the courts' resources receive attention more quickly. Effective diversion of cases with a high potential for settlement prevents such cases from driving up administrative costs, a particularly significant consideration when budgets are flat or decreasing.
Appendix D: Ventura County, California • 111
For the public, offering many ADR options helps to reduce costs, speed dispute resolution, and increase the potential for settlements that are satisfactory to all parties in a dispute.
(5) Focus on perennial sources of fiscal concern. Even in the better managed courts, certain operations may still be recurring sources of budgetary trouble. Effectively addressing such problems can be the difference between making or breaking the budget in a period of cutbacks. Supply and jury expenses have been problem areas in the Ventura County courts. Simple, definitive strategies have produced quick turnarounds.
(6) Volunteers. Volunteers can be a highly valuable resource to the courts. Whether they be active professionals, students, or retirees, the contributions that volunteers can make to court operations are only limited by one's imagination. For the cost of some training time, volunteers can provide services worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. In Ventura County, the courts benefit extensively from the use of volunteers in their multi-door courthouse program. Further assistance has helped to create and keep open the Children's Waiting Room. In the tight economic period forecast for the 1990s, volunteers can be a windfall to keep existing programs going and even offer the potential for expansion.
Conclusion
Ventura County is in no danger of financial collapse, but, so long as California struggles with state deficits, budgetary conditions in the county and its trial courts will be tight. The courts have worked to improve operations during periods of growth and have continued to benefit from those efforts when the economy declined. While many jurisdictions in this country do not have the long-term economic potential that Ventura has, the strategies that the Ventura County courts have employed are not dependent upon wealth. Most rely on basic administrative strategies, attention to human resources, ingenuity in acquiring technology, and a little foresight.
APPENDIX E National Center for State Courts Site Report Connecticut Judicial System
he State of Connecticut, with the other New England states, was among the first to experience the consequences of the nation's current economic recession.1 Four consecutive years with large T budget surpluses, the last being in FY 1987; the ability to incur deficits; and a government that has been accused of bureaucratic lethargy combined to delay budgetary responses to the state's economic realities. Nevertheless, the ability to incur deficits has meant that crippling spending reductions have not been required. Despite eventual cuts, the Connecticut courts, which are almost entirely state-funded, experienced a decrease in appropriations for core expenses only in FY 1992, the only year in the past decade in which state adjusted expenditures decreased. By voluntarily reducing some expenses, successfully justifying others, and demonstrating effective and accountable management, the Connecticut courts have been able to avoid serious harm during the state's fiscal crisis. For this reason, Connecticut was chosen as a project site and visited by project staff on June 17 and 18, 1993.
I The Setting
A. Connecticut Demographics
Connecticut had a 1991 population of about 3.29 million. It is one of the most densely populated states. The population is now urban-suburban, with several small to medium-sized cities and many townships in close proximity to one another. The population is spread over most of the state with the exception of the northeastern and northwestern corners which are still predominately rural.
B. Connecticut: Interbranch Relations
Through FY 1993, the State of Connecticut had an annual budget. One of the administrative changes pushed by Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., has been the institution of a biennial budget starting with the 1994 and 1995 fiscal years. Funding of the Connecticut Judicial Department comes largely from
1 In the mid-1980s Connecticut was the envy of the nation with an unemployment rate less than 3%, personal income per capita of $20,034 (making it the wealthiest in the nation), and economic growth in excess of 6% (measured in terms of growth in personal income). By late 1990, the situation was reversed; unemployment had reached 6.9%; manufacturing employment had lost 53,000 jobs; and growth in personal income was falling rapidly (from 9.37% as late as 1988 to 2.80% in 1991). Robert S. Kravchuk, "The `New Connecticut:' Lowell Weicker and the Process of Administrative Reform," 53 Public Administration Review 329, 330 (1993).
-112- Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 113
the state with a small amount provided by the Federal Government. Probate courts are organizationally separate from civil courts in both their status and funding, which comes from locally-generated fees.
The Connecticut Judicial Department prepares its budget centrally according to the same guidelines as the executive branch agencies. According to statute, the Judiciary submits its budget to the executive branch which may recommend changes that are not binding upon the legislature. The Judiciary is sensitive to its status as an independent branch of government; while its leaders are willing to prepare the department's budget in the same manner as the executive agencies, they do not tolerate interference in the administration of the courts.
While as late as the 1980s the Judiciary was more assertive of its independence and "right" to be adequately financed, it is now taking a more cooperative, helpful approach. When fiscal pressures first developed, the Judicial Branch considered and rejected the assertion of inherent powers because this tactic was believed to be counterproductive in the long run. Members of the other branches have recognized the change in approach and indicated that the Judiciary is now more credible and professional than many of the executive agencies. The Judiciary has demonstrated that it is a valuable player in the resolution of state problems and, in so doing, has strengthened its arguments for independent operation and adequate funding.
Improvements in interbranch cooperation have enabled a number of successful endeavors, several through the Judiciary's leadership, despite less than ideal budgetary conditions. Most notable of these has been the Alternative Sanctions project begun in FY 1990 to alleviate major problems relating to jail and prison crowding. Similar efforts have lead to program improvements in support enforcement, victim services, and the handling of state tax issues. On a related note, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has cooperated with the Federal Judiciary to create an ADR service that will serve both court systems.
C. The Connecticut Courts
Connecticut operates what is called a "unified" court system. It operates under centralized leadership; its structure offers flexibility in meeting changing demands and increases efficiency and responsiveness. The Judicial Department credited this unified nature with having made possible many of the achievements described in this report.
As of June 1993, the Connecticut Judicial Branch budget had 2,494 approved permanent, full-time positions of which 161 had been vacant in July 1992. Of these positions, 2449 were funded through the state general fund. Federal contributions covered 45 more. In addition, the various permanent part time, permanent intermittent, and other temporary positions in the FY 1993 budget amounted to another 413.60 full-time equivalent positions under the general fund.
The Judicial Branch consists of two appellate courts, a trial court of general jurisdiction, and a trial court of special jurisdiction. The court of last resort, called the Supreme Court, and the intermediate appellate court, called the Appellate Court, have 7 and 9 judges respectively. From FY 1991 through FY 1993, the general jurisdiction trial court, the Superior Court, had 150 judges. In addition to the 166 judicial positions above, one senior associate justice, one senior appellate judge, and eleven senior judges were active as of November 1, 1992.2 Although they are accountable to the Chief Court Administrator, the
2 Judges who have not reached the age of 70 but who are eligible to receive a pension payable immediately may elect to become senior judges, as such being permitted to perform any judicial duty of the court of which they continue as a member. In addition, judges who reach age 70 may serve as state trial referees, adjudicating certain types of cases
114 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
locally-funded Courts of Probate do not function within the day-to-day operations of the unified court system and are not reflected in the staff and budgeting information of this report.
Also within the Judicial Branch organization are the Office of the Chief Court Administrator, Adult Probation, Court Operations, Support Enforcement, the Bail Commission, and the Family Division. All six are separate functional entities within the Judicial Branch Budget. Within the Office of the Chief Court Administrator are Legal Services, Administrative Services, Continuing Education, External Affairs, and Alternative Sanctions.
The two appellate courts and the Office of the Chief Court Administrator operate primarily from Hartford. Although Hartford is the principal sitting location, the Supreme Court may hear oral arguments at other locations throughout the state. The Appellate Court is not subdivided into regional panels. The Superior Court operates in several divisions--Civil, Criminal, Family, Juvenile, and Housing. It has 12 judicial districts and 22 geographical areas for civil and criminal matters and 14 districts for juvenile matters. Six separate courts exist within various judicial districts solely for hearing housing matters. The Family Division must also oversee juvenile detention, juvenile probation, and other juvenile and family matters in addition to court operations. Judges are regularly shifted among the divisions according to workload demands.
The Chief Justice is the head of the court system. The administrative arm of the Courts is the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. The Chief Court Administrator is appointed by the Chief Justice and has the authority to issue orders, require reports, and appoint other judges to positions as is necessary to carry out his responsibilities. He may assign and reassign judicial and non-judicial personnel as the efficient administration of justice requires. The Superior Court has trial court administrators who answer to the Director of Court Operations, a member of the Office of the Chief Court Administrator.
D. Recent Overviews of the Court System
A Commission to Study the Management of State Government commenced its work on August 28, 1990, and completed with a final presentation on January 17, 1991. A study was conducted of the Judicial Department, the Division of Public Defender Services, the County Sheriffs, and the Division of Criminal Justice to review operations and finances and recommend methods of improving efficiency and reducing state expenditures. The specific recommendations for the Judicial Department addressed seven areas: facilities, jurors, court reporting, attorney grievances, legal publications, court management practices, and the Centralized Infractions Bureau. The Judicial Department initiatives discussed in this report parallel many of the recommendations of the Commission Report.
referred to them on an individual basis by the court. External Affairs Unit, Office of the Chief Court Administrator, Connecticut Judicial Department.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 115
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Sources of Court Financing
The primary source of financing for the Connecticut courts is the state General Fund. During the 1991 and 1992 fiscal years, the Judiciary also obtained $7,152,506 in grant money that made possible a number of effective programs targeting adult and juvenile offenders. The revenues from court costs and fines are not kept by the Judicial Branch but are transferred primarily to the General Fund and the Special Transportation Fund. As localities do not bear any direct responsibility for funding the courts, there is no large potential source of funds from which the courts can obtain additional funds when the state budget is under constraints.
B. The Budget Environment
Budgetary woes in Connecticut peaked in FY 1991 although projections for FY 1992 threatened to be even worse.3 In response, Connecticut overhauled its entire tax system, turning to a general tax on income as the solution to immediate fiscal problems. The system that was produced is much less volatile, much less regressive, and more supportive of business and economic development than its predecessor. With higher revenues and $1.1 billion in cuts in FY 1992, the state budget ran a $110 million surplus, its first since 1987. Cuts in FY 1993 also exceeded $1 billion, mostly in current services where there has been continuing long-term budgetary growth.4
In addition to the new tax system, Connecticut has implemented a new two-year budgeting process and will finish implementing a new Automated Budgeting System (ABS) by July 1, 1994. The former includes a rolling five-year strategic policy forecast that permits evaluation of new budget initiatives in terms of their affects on the state's revenue system. The latter is a mainframe-based budgeting and financial management tool that will allow unified statewide relation of financial, personnel, and performance information at the agency, division, and cost center levels.5 Despite these significant budgetary improvements, the continued weakness of the economy and the need to finance the accumulated deficit will allow little budgetary growth in the immediate future.
C. Funding Levels for the Judiciary
During the 1980s, the Judiciary shared in Connecticut's growth in spending although appropriations stayed at or below 2% of the budget. Even during the 1990, 1991, and 1992 fiscal years, when the judicial budget did experience cuts, the Judiciary's total budget appropriation decreased only in FY 1992 (see Table 1). One should note, however, that, the actual extent of the cuts is masked by steady
3 In FY 1991, despite attempts to reduce spending by some $45.6 million, the state experienced a deficit of $808.5 million on general budget expenditures of $7.7 billion. Adding the $157.2 million unfunded deficit carried forward from FY 1990, the state was running a total deficit of $965.7 million at the end of FY 1991. In February 1991, the projected budget gap for FY 1992 was $2.4 billion. Office of Fiscal Analysis, The State Budget For The 1991-92 Fiscal Year (Hartford: Connecticut General Assembly), p. xi.
4 Kravchuk, at 334.
5 Id., at 335.
116 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
increases in the funds dedicated to the Alternative Sanctions Program. When the $3 million FY 1992 increase in Alternative Sanctions funding is discounted, the true decreases in appropriations for the traditional core programs of the Judicial Branch--"personal services" (primarily salaries) and "other expenses" (commodities, supplies, and contracted services)--become apparent.
Table 1 General Fund Appropriations
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year Revised Appropriation Expenditure (Rounded) Alternative Sanctions (Rounded) Funding 1990 $113,600,000 $111,500,000 $1,200,000 1991 $125,700,000 $122,800,000 $4,300,000 1992 $121,000,000 $120,400,000 $7,300,000 1993 $125,500,000 $125,400,000 $9,700,000 1994 $154,750,000 $17,400,000
To better understand the true stress experienced by the Judicial Branch, one must be aware of the significant increase in workload that the Judiciary experienced during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Between FY 1987 and FY 1991, the number of civil cases increased by 54 percent; family cases increased by 33 percent; and non-delinquency juvenile matters increased by 65 percent. These increases in the Judiciary's traditional workload, in addition to the new nontraditional responsibilities that have already been alluded to in this report, justified significant increases in the appropriations for personal services and other expenses. In fact, the original appropriations for the Judiciary in FY 1990 through FY 1992 indicate that the Legislature recognized the Judiciary's need (see Table 2). The differences between original and revised appropriations, to say nothing of those between the requested appropriations and revised appropriations, reveal the extent to which the Judicial Branch had to manage with less than it had planned, much less hoped to have.
Table 2 Original And Revised Appropriations
FY 1990-1993
Fiscal Year Appropriation Original Appropriation Revised Appropriation Requested (Rounded) (Rounded) (Rounded) 1990 $117,400,000 $116,500,000 $113,600,000 1991 $131,500,000 $129,800,000 $125,700,000 1992 $143,800,000 $136,400,000 $121,000,000 1993 $150,500,000 $134,500,000 $125,500,000
D. Steps Taken to Cope with Budget Cuts
As the economy worsened in the late 1980s, the Judicial Branch recognized that operations would be dramatically affected in the early 1990s and began taking steps to curtail spending and maximize
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 117
productivity before the state actually asked for such measures. Some of these measures were short-term in nature, but most will be permanent. For certain tactics, most notably personnel cuts and deferred maintenance, short-term "savings" are easy to calculate, but in other areas, such as automation or administrative reorganization, the dollar value is not as easy to quantify. These less tangible savings often involve increasing productivity at existing staffing/expenditure levels. Some ideas are only now being implemented, so their ultimate results are speculative. Examples of some of the steps that have been taken are described below:
1. Facilities
During FY 1991 and FY 1992, the Office of the Chief Court Administrator implemented many of the facilities-related recommendations of the Commission to Study the Management of State Government. Actions included the closing of the juvenile matters location at Meriden and the merger of its staff and caseload with those of the juvenile location at New Haven. Similarly, the geographical area location at West Haven was closed, and its clerk's office was consolidated with that of New Haven. Both of these closures/consolidations have resulted in savings in operating expenses. The attendant increase in caseloads for the receiving facilities has produced only a slight increase in case processing times. Also closed were the adult probation offices in Derby, Enfield, Meriden, and Torrington.
Of a more short-term nature were sharp reductions in expenditures for maintenance of court facilities in FY 1991 and FY 1992. The limited funds available after cuts were used to finance emergency repairs. Because physical deterioration of facilities is considered unavoidable over extended periods, the Judiciary will not continue such cuts out of fear it might incur more costly repairs in the future. Savings were estimated to be $1 million annually.
2. Juries
At the time that the Judiciary began to be affected by budget cuts, it was already in the process of implementing a one day/one trial program for jurors. Initially, the program was to be implemented over the state in three years, but the significant reduction in the Judicial Branch's "other expense" account justified an acceleration of the transition. Annual expenses on jury fees have dropped from $2.8 million to under $1.2 million. The reduction in jury fees has allowed the Judiciary to minimize cuts in other line items of the "other expense" account. The new jury program is also popular in the private sector because the shorter time commitment imposed upon citizens reduces the inconvenience to the individual and the economic hardship that extended employee absences can cause employers.
One short-term tactic that the Judiciary employed in August 1991, at the beginning of the worst year of cuts, was a four-week suspension of civil jury trials. This tactic produced an estimated $79,000 in savings from reduced juror fees and another $68,000 in Temporary Assistant Clerk costs. On the surface, this tactic appears drastic as a method of saving money, but the Chief Court Administrator explained that it was a calculated decision without significant ill effect. Financially, this tactic did produce savings. Symbolically, suspension of jury trials signaled to the other branches how seriously cuts were threatening the integrity of the judicial system. In actuality, the short duration of the suspension and its occurrence in August, when fewer jury trials are generally scheduled, caused minimal inconvenience to the legal community.
118 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
3. Personnel
Averaging over 70 percent of the Judicial budget, personal services was inevitably subjected to a number of cost-saving measures, both short-term and long-term.. These steps have included cuts in authorized positions, vacancy savings, hiring freezes, layoffs, furloughs, wage freezes, adjustments to span of control, use of temporary employees, workforce analysis, adjustments to retirement contributions, and second shifts. Many measures were strictly those of the Judiciary. For other steps, the Judiciary was an active member of a state team that negotiated with a coalition of state employee unions. A brief summary of these cost-saving methods follows:
Cuts in authorized At the end of FY 1991, the Judiciary had 2,642 approved, general fund positions positions. Ninety-one of these positions were eliminated as FY 1992 started.
Vacancy savings In FY 1991 and FY 1992, the Judiciary maintained a general policy of not filling vacancies as they arose. Even in the aftermath of the position eliminations above, there were 170 vacancies as of October 1, 1991. The Judiciary has also counted on the fact that, on any given day, a certain number of employees would be absent, amounting to several unfilled FTEs in a given year.
Hiring freezes The Chief Court Administrator estimated that the Judiciary had been saving between $1 and $1.5 million annually through FY 1993 by freezing hiring for certain positions.
Layoffs Eighty-one employees were laid off on August 1, 1991 and began to return to work intermittently between November 15, 1991, and February 20, 1992. The amount saved during this period was $1.3 million The Executive Branch also experiences savings through Judicial Branch layoffs because fringe benefits, valued at 40% of salary, are an Executive Branch responsibility.
Furloughs In FY 1992, the Judiciary furloughed 500 employees for three days, producing savings of $300,000; another 500 furloughs in FY 1993 produced savings of $221,500.
Wage freezes From FY 1990 through FY 1993, wage freezes produced annual savings of approximately 4% in the personal services account. All classes of court employees were affected, but, because of employment contracts, the classes were affected during different years.
Span of control Through what is hoped to be an ongoing process, the Judiciary is assessing optimum management-to-staff ratios. In particular, an excessive number of middle management positions have been noted. By increasing the ratio of supervisory to field personnel from 1-to-6 to 1-to- 8, the Judiciary has been able to add the equivalent of 42 much-needed line positions.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 119
Temporary employees Where possible, the Judiciary expanded the use of temporary employees in lieu of more costly permanent staff.
Workforce analysis The Judiciary is developing strategies for moving from a two-tier (clerical and professional) to a three-tier (clerical, paraprofessional, and professional) staffing structure. This process will eventually reduce the number of the costly professional positions while still permitting advancement for clerical staff.
Retirement In 1991, state negotiations obtained a six-year extension (from 34 to 40 contributions years) of the remaining period over which the state pension system is to become fully-funded. Total savings to the state were approximately $30 million.
Second shifts The use of second shifts has permitted support facilities to remain in operation longer, thereby both increasing public access to Judicial Branch services and reducing the growth of facilities requirements.
Retirement Incentives In an effort to create vacancies that would not immediately be filled, retirement incentives were offered. Employees who met certain criteria (length of service, age, etc.) were allowed to retire earlier than anticipated and received extra years of credit to do so. Extra years of credit eventually equates to more retirement pay. During FY 1990, 116 employees availed themselves of this opportunity; another 70 did so in FY 1992. To handle increasing workloads, the Judiciary has replaced about 40% of those who retired. Savings could not be estimated.
120 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
4. Automation
The Connecticut Judicial Branch has actively pursued automation as a means of increasing productivity and reducing personnel needs. Benefits have been obtained from newly acquired systems and from expansions of existing systems. Several of the technological applications are closely related. A summary of automated applications follows:
Office Technology At the most basic level of automation, the Judicial Branch has been acquiring the latest in office automation (personal computers/word processors) for personnel remaining after cuts. The productivity of clerical and management staff has increased, reducing the need for additional staff that workload increases would otherwise have necessitated.
Private Access to Data The Judicial Branch has made case management and scheduling services Processing available through computer modems and charges attorneys and other firms for access. Some 100 firms are currently subscribing, and the number is growing. Revenues have reached $100,000 annually and are growing, helping to defray data processing expenses. Staff time devoted to providing services to the private sector has decreased (1/2 FTE in large locations--perhaps 10 FTEs statewide). There are plans to expand service offerings.
Criminal Justice Similar to the private sector offerings above, the Judiciary encourages Information System state agencies to directly access the case management and scheduling services it offers on-line. A "conservative" estimate of the staff time saved from having to provide such services is another 10 FTEs.
Judicial District Using a federal grant for caseflow enhancement, the Judiciary automated Automation the case processing of all Judicial District criminal courts. The new system eliminated the manual creation of daily dockets and record keeping. It can generate timely and accurate statistics which can be downloaded into a management analysis system--a valuable asset used in defending budget requests to both the Governor's budget office and the Legislature.
Automated Continuance Using the criminal/motor vehicle automated case processing system, the Mittimus Judiciary developed a method for automatically producing the required forms when a court location enters a continuance. The time once required to write or type these forms is saved.
Automated Fingerprint In conjunction with the Division of Public Safety, the Judiciary developed Identification System an automated fingerprint identification system that allows quick and accurate identification of arrested persons.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 121
Management Analysis Superior Court Operations now uses an automated management analysis System system to analyze personnel levels, expenditures, and caseload information by court location. The system is valuable in recommending where best to add or cut resources.
Attendance The Judiciary is in the process of automating the stations that post and track employee attendance, reducing the level of effort this task requires. In June 1993, 52 of 185 stations were on line, and the remainder were scheduled to be completed within 6 months.
Requisition/Purchase Automation has virtually eliminated the use of paper requisitions and the Order System accompanying multiple input of data.
CD-ROM The Judiciary has acquired CD-ROM technology for judges and law clerks. First implemented at the appellate level, the technology has since been made available to the trial courts. This technology enhances research capabilities, does not incur the time-based charges associated with LEXIS and WESTLAW, and reduces costs for purchasing books. A minor disadvantage is the slightly longer delay in the availability of the most recent cases and law.
5. Supplemental Judicial Resources
To reduce the workload upon individual judges, the Judicial Branch has increased the use of judicial adjuncts--lawyers serving as supplemental judicial resources. For example, special masters are attorneys who work pro bono as hearing officers in cases within their areas of legal expertise. In the Civil Division, special masters have been used to hear municipal tax appeals. In the Family Division, special masters have heard family dissolution cases.
The Judiciary implemented the family support magistrate program as a low cost alternative to the use of judges for the hearing of post-adjudicatory family matters. This program was expanded in response to the budget reductions. In disputes involving support issues, family support magistrates currently hear approximately 31,000 matters per year. This frees judges to handle the increasing civil and criminal caseloads. Judicial adjuncts are also being used as factfinders, trial referees, and ADR neutrals (see below).
6. Case Management
The strategies employed by the Connecticut Judiciary to improve the handling of cases and minimize the overall workload of the courts are numerous and sometimes difficult to categorize without such a broad heading. The strategies include centralization, case processing modifications, diversion from the courts, and special administrative overseers. Measures that fall into these general categories are described below:
122 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Centralization
The Connecticut Judicial Branch has recognized the efficiencies that can be achieved in certain operations by using central processing mechanisms. One such mechanism is the Centralized Infractions Bureau (CIB), created by the Judicial Department in October 1986, "to process, from one central office, all of the infraction complaints issued by law enforcement agencies within the state of Connecticut."6 Processing all infraction complaints in one location improved the Judiciary's ability to handle geographic fluctuations in the number of such complaints issued by law enforcement agencies. Centralization allowed the development of uniform procedures and mass production techniques. Administratively, centralization also simplified the monitoring of operations and the detection and resolution of problems. Other benefits included alleviating the criminal courts of the clerical and data processing burden of infractions; faster transfer of data between the Judiciary and state agencies; and, with processing assistance from a Hartford bank, improved accounting procedures, security, and control over large sums of money.
In its first full year of operation (FY 1988), the CIB processed almost 450,000 infraction complaints. The CIB's success has led to the transfer to the CIB of other motor vehicle and criminal violations that had previously required court appearances. Now individuals have the option of disposing of cases by mailing in the fine. In FY 1992, this transfer to the CIB reduced by 9% (20,672 violations) the number of motor vehicle cases that would otherwise have been added to the dockets of the geographical area courts.
Reductions of the Judiciary's operating budget created pressures to reduce the costs of operating court facilities, which is touched upon above. Given these pressures and the administrative advantages possible through greater centralization, the Judicial Branch decided to create a regional infractions docket in West Hartford. The handling of the contested infractions and violations complaints of the geographic area locations in Bristol and New Britain was consolidated with that of West Hartford. The efficiencies associated with handling all the cases at the West Hartford facility made processing possible with fewer staff.
Case Processing Modifications
In order to reduce the number of times that cases are scheduled before they reach disposition, the Judiciary decided to develop the Early Screening Program. This Program provides for an early review of criminal matters with the goal of disposing of a file at the arraignment stage. Pilot locations have been set up in Hartford (October 1989), New Haven (January 1990), and Bridgeport (April 1993). The percentage of cases that are disposed of at arraignment has risen from 4 to 28 in the three locations.
Similarly, prosecutors have been encouraged to pre-screen contested motor vehicle infractions. Pursuant to a practice book rule, the prosecutors use the pre-screening before a defendant's court appearance to determine if prosecution should proceed. In those cases where the choice is not to prosecute, the clerk may then notify the defendant by letter of the prosecutor's decision, eliminating the need to appear in court. This process saves time for both the defendants and the court system.
6 Joseph D. D'Alesio, Esq., "Creating a Centralized Infractions Bureau: One State's Experience," State Court Journal, Spring 1989, at 18. Infractions in Connecticut are breaches of state laws, regulations, or local ordinances for which court appearances are not required and payment of the penalty is allowed by mail or in person. Not all infractions involve motor vehicles, but the majority do. D'Alesio, at 22, footnote 1.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 123
In civil case processing, the Judiciary has institutionalized date certain scheduling in the judicial districts. This practice has reduced the costly delays associated with continuances. In the past three years, the Judiciary has also attempted to consolidate blocks of related civil cases. Generally, consolidations have involved cases dealing with the same subject matter (asbestos, silicone implants, etc.) or the same defendant or defendants. Where such related cases have been identified, the chief court administrator has consolidated the cases and assigned them to one or two judicial districts. A judge is assigned to oversee case processing. Consolidation has allowed more uniform treatment of hundreds of cases in addition to improving efficiency by avoiding the redundant case processing tasks that would otherwise have been required for individual cases.
Another strategy that has been used to expedite civil case processing has been the use of an early evaluation or "early intervention". Early intervention programs have been implemented in three judicial districts (Bridgeport, Ansonia-Milford, and New Haven). In early intervention, the judge assigned to the program brings parties together in an attempt to clarify or reduce the number of issues in dispute. By simplifying the cases, the Judiciary aims to increase the probability of early settlement and decrease the number of continuances. The process is a form of prehearing settlement conference that is related to alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Diversion from the Courts
Diverting cases from traditional case processing in the courts is now a common strategy for trying to reduce workloads and save money. Examples of Connecticut's efforts along this line have already been discussed above with respect to the development and expanded use of the Centralized Infractions Bureau and the early intervention program. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) efforts are also increasing as low-cost alternatives to judges and the traditional court system. The Judicial Branch has set up ADR programs in judicial districts to encourage the use of ADR in civil cases. Current ADR programs use attorneys as factfinders, arbitrators, and trial referees. Special masters in tax cases are sometimes using mediation. The Connecticut Judiciary is also involved in a unique, joint effort with the federal court to create a semi-private ADR corporation that will use senior judges of both the state and federal courts to resolve cases from both court systems. At the time of the site visit, plans were being drafted for another project that will actively promote awareness and utilization of both court-annexed and private ADR programs. These last efforts will focus initially on the civil, family, and housing matters divisions.
Administrative Oversight
The Connecticut Judicial Branch has created a number of administrative roles and positions to assist in overseeing and coordinating case processing efforts. With funds from a federal grant, the Judiciary hired caseflow coordinators at the four largest court locations to assist in the management of criminal caseloads. In this Caseflow Enhancement Program, the coordinators have successfully served to reduce scheduling conflicts, provide presiding judges with up-to-date statistics, and coordinated court activities by acting as a liaison with state agencies such as the Department of Corrections, the states attorneys, and the public defenders.
A similar position, that of the family caseflow coordinator, has been created to assist the presiding judge in family matters cases in Hartford and New Haven. These coordinators provide technical assistance to the judge to ensure the efficient processing of family cases.
124 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
A third example exists in the area of administrative appeals; here, the chief court administrator has assigned a judge to oversee case processing. Still another example might be the judges assigned to supervise the processing of consolidated cases (see above).
7. Public and Private Options
A new approach of the Judicial Branch has been to actively seek alternative providers of services that the Judicial Branch needs or must deliver. By looking to both public and private entities, the Judiciary has encouraged competition that has contributed to better quality service at lower expense. Private nonprofit organizations play a very large role in the operations of the Judiciary's Office of Alternative Sanctions. These organizations provide supervision and services to court-diverted offenders. The use of a "lockbox" maintained by a private financial institution is increasing the efficiency with which payments are made to custodial parents and the state treasury. As is the case in using the Bank that assists the Centralized Infractions Bureau, the employment of the private financial institution enhances the billing, collection, disbursement, and financial management of child support payments. A conscious effort is also being made to increase the use of the Executive Branch's courier service as a less expensive alternative to the U.S. Postal Service. In order to save staff time and other expenses, the Judiciary changed rules for service in small claims actions so that service could be made by first class mail, return receipt requested.
8. Intergovernmental Cooperation
The success of cooperative efforts between the Judiciary and the other branches of government has produced financial benefits for the whole state. As has been mentioned above, the Judiciary's operation of the Alternative Sanctions program has saved the state millions of dollars in capital and operating expenses that would otherwise be required to incarcerate offenders.7 Reducing crowding in correctional facilities also helps the state avoid federal fines. The state has been so happy with the program that it has increased dedicated appropriations steadily in recent years (see Table 1, above). The Judiciary has been so successful in realizing the targets established for the program that it has been permitted to transfer dedicated funds that the program did not require so as to assist the Judiciary's other activities.8
Support enforcement is another program that has benefited from cooperation despite the less than ideal budgetary climate. The Judiciary has actually been able to acquire additional personnel for this function. Additional costs were offset by increases in federal funding and higher collections. Another improvement has been the development of a telephone inquiry system that will relieve field personnel from routinely answering the enormous volume of questions relating to administrative processing--permitting them to concentrate on collecting the support payments. The "Inquiry and Problem Resolution" unit that will handle the calls consists of both Executive and Judicial Branch staff and will utilize a new voice activated response (VAR) system. A third success in the support enforcement arena has been the lockbox described above.
7 Placement in an alternative incarceration program costs an average of $4000 annually compared to the $23,000 average annual cost of incarceration. At the end of FY 1992, approximately 3000 offenders were being supervised daily by the program. Biennial Report of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, July 1, 1990-June 30, 1992, p. 12.
8 In FY 1993, $1 million was transferred from Alternative Sanctions to Personal Services. The Alternative Sanctions appropriation shown in Table 1 is the total after the transfer.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 125
The effectiveness with which the Judiciary has handled the programs above and other responsibilities has raised interbranch confidence in the Judiciary which has led in turn to new developments. After the Executive Branch experienced problems in managing the victim services and compensation program, the governor asked the Judicial Branch to absorb and administer the program. The Judiciary has agreed to begin administration in FY 1994. In order to deal more effectively with state tax issues, the Legislature created a tax appeal session of the Superior Court that will include two additional judgeships. It should be noted that this tax appeal session will not be handling any cases that are not already the responsibility of the Judiciary; consequently, the addition of two new judges should reduce the number of cases per judge.
9. Purchasing and Managing Resources
Among the Judiciary's long-term goals has been improvement of its purchasing practices and management of supplies. The Judiciary has accomplished these goals by standardizing the products it buys and entering into multi-year contracts with its suppliers. These practices have reduced the number of individual purchase orders and made purchasing less labor intensive. In the process, the Judiciary receives better prices and service. Reductions in both costs and the use of the inefficient individual order system have been further assisted by increasing the use of warehouses, which enables the Judiciary to purchase more supplies in bulk. The automated requisition/purchase order system (described above) has also contributed to these improvements.
Closer scrutiny of purchases and conscious effort to maximize benefits from what is purchased have helped the Judicial Branch save money. One area where expenses have been significantly reduced through this approach is the acquisition of research books for judges. Formerly, the Judiciary paid for multiple subscriptions to various publications so that each judge had a copy. By establishing reserve collections for the use of all judges in a court, the Judicial Branch sharply reduced the volume of subscriptions. Where these subscriptions involve multi-volume sets of case books and statutes, the establishment of reserve collections should eventually produce a savings in office space as well. The related acquisition of CD-ROM technology (discussed above), will further reduce the Judiciary's need for multiple subscriptions.
Other attempts to manage purchasing expenses have involved transferring equipment purchases and lease costs associated with lease/purchase agreements from the general fund to the bond account. This strategy was used to take advantage of conditions that existed under the state's bonding and spending limits. The transfer gave the Judiciary more funds for short-term use under the general fund, where conditions were tight, while not seriously compromising the bond account.
One of the Judiciary's short-term tactics was to defer purchases of "equipment" (items valued in excess of $600) in FY 1992 and 1993. It deferred $1.5 million in equipment purchases each year. As in the case of facility maintenance, this tactic was never intended to be used long-term, and funding for equipment purchases has since been restored to normal levels.
126 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
10. Revenues
There have been several approaches by which the Connecticut Judicial Branch has sought to increase revenues. Charging for private access to the Judiciary's on-line resources (discussed above) is one example. Another has been the use of Prison Industries as the Judiciary's marketing agent for publications produced by the Commission on Official Legal Publications (COLP).9 These sales are part of a larger effort to make the COLP self-sufficient. The Judiciary had noted that while it had been subsidizing publication expenditures, the Commission had been providing free copies to state agencies.
The state attempted to generate additional revenues by raising the amounts of court fees and surcharges. This tactic proved to be counterproductive. Following the increases, the number of people contesting traffic infractions and other minor violations increased, adding to Judicial Branch workloads and expenditures. The Chief Court Administrator explained that when the total assessments in fees, fines, and surcharges began exceeding the value of daily income, many people figured they had less to lose by taking the day off and contesting the charges against them. When this effect became clear, a number of the fee and surcharge amounts were lowered.
It should be noted that, despite the brief increases in individual court cost amounts, total receipts from all cost assessments and fines in Connecticut have been decreasing since FY 1990 (see Table 3). To some degree, this may reflect a lower rate of collection associated with people's ability or willingness to pay during the recession--although no such evidence was presented. At least as likely is that reductions in law enforcement overtime expenditures led to fewer charges for motor vehicle and criminal violations and greater difficulty in scheduling police witnesses at trial. The Judicial Branch also indicated that prosecutors may have shifted their priorities in drug prosecutions to the dealers, reducing the number of cases against users. Any or all of these factors may have contributed to lower revenues, but the Judiciary has had to keep such matters in mind when addressing Legislative and Executive expectations.
Table 3 Receipts from Fines and Court Costs
FY 1989-1993
FISCAL YEAR RECEIPTS (Rounded) 1989 $66,400,000 1990 $76,300,000 1991 $73,500,000 1992 $63,600,000 1993 $63,100,000
III Court Operations
Trial court operations did experience minor disruptions as a result of budget problems, and this was reflected by a decrease in trial dispositions during FY 1992, the worst year of the cuts (see Table 4). Several factors have helped prevent the situation from becoming serious. One of these factors was an overall decrease in filings in FY 1992 (see Table 5). Another was a significant increase in non-trial civil
9 The COLP is the printing section of the Judicial Branch. It is part of the Legal Services Unit.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 127
dispositions such that pending civil cases actually decreased for the year (see Table 4). The ability to transfer judges between the civil and criminal divisions has also helped address the worst caseload pressures.
Table 4 Superior Court Dispositions of General Civil & Major Criminal * Cases
FY 1991-1993
Fiscal Year Pending Added Disposed Disposed Total Pending At At Year's During By Trial By Other Number Year's End Start Year Means Disposed Civil 1991 66,580 67,640 1,914 58,078 59,992 74,228 Civil 1992 74,228 64,394 1,309 65,967 67,276 71,346 ** Civil 1993 76,014 ** 57,620 2,569 62,516 65,085 68,549 Criminal 1991 4,135 4,684 268 5,033 5,301 3,518 Criminal 1992 3,518 4,102 242 3,815 4,057 3,563 Criminal 1993 3,563 3,610 268 3,344 3,612 3,561
* Major criminal cases exclude misdemeanors and lower classes of felony offenses. Major criminal cases include matters handled by Judicial District court locations (Parts A, B, and C of the Criminal Division).
** The discontinuity in 1992 year-end and 1993 year-start figures is the result of a change in statistical counting methods adopted in order to more accurately reflect the total number of cases in the court system.
Table 5 Superior Court Cases Filed
FY 1991-1993
Type of Case 1991 1992 1993 Civil 67,640 64,394 57,620 Small Claims 74,054 70,879 67,639 Criminal 169,283 156,808 144,240 Family 26,853 29,460 29,587 Juvenile 17,638 17,296 16,811 Housing 20,170 20,436 20,879 Subtotal 375,638 359,273 336,776 Motor Vehicle * 520,145 423,452 392,224 Grand Total 895,783 782,725 729,000 * A significant number of motor vehicle cases are processed administratively in the CIB.
One can speculate that the increasing availability of ADR options may have helped speed the settlement of civil cases. Similarly, the existence of the alternative sanctions program may have encouraged some defendants to plea bargain if they believed they had a reasonable chance of not being incarcerated. Early screening and increases in the number of offenses that could be handled by the Centralized Infractions Bureau clearly helped decrease pressure on the criminal division.
128 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The ultimate assessment for the period is that the quality and level of Judicial Branch services have not been gravely compromised, despite financial difficulties. Many courts would do well to maintain the same caseflow in good fiscal periods.
IV Summation of the Connecticut Experience
Listed below are points which appear to sum up the recent fiscal experience of the Connecticut courts:
A. Need for a Long-Term Perspective
As Connecticut court officials dealt with the fiscal constraints brought about by the recent recession, they consciously sought solutions that went beyond the short-term fix. The Judiciary used short- term tactics such as layoffs, salary freezes, and maintenance reductions as necessary means of buying the time in which to implement better responses to financial realities. If Connecticut had not begun to recover in FY 1993 and the Judiciary had relied on short-term tactics alone, the courts eventually would have lacked sufficient personnel to maintain services. Even in this actual period of slow recovery, the courts would not be able to handle alternative sanctions, support enforcement, and victim services responsibilities in addition to general case processing if they had not taken permanent steps to improve operations. Having improved relations with the other branches, increased technological resources, consolidated and centralized functions, and adopted improved procedures for basic operations, the Connecticut Judiciary has actually been able to increase service offerings and is strongly positioned to handle the less optimistic budget conditions forecasted for the 1990s.
B. Interbranch Relations
The Connecticut courts have managed, in trying economic times, to maintain their independence while obtaining adequate, if not generous, funding. The Judicial Branch has pulled off this seemingly contradictory feat by proving itself to be a valuable and distinct team player in resolving state problems. Rather than trying to isolate itself and protect the status quo, the Judiciary has taken a "what can we do to help?" approach and has delivered! Success in management of alternative sanctions and support enforcement efforts and valued participation in state negotiations with employee unions have lent the Judiciary credibility and a professional reputation in the other branches. Combined with a no-nonsense approach, this political capital has helped the Judicial Branch in budget negotiations.
C. Technology
Technology has played a significant role in the Judiciary's successful management of budget cuts. By acquiring new technologies and expanding upon old, the Judiciary has increased productivity; added a new revenue source; improved communications between state agencies and the courts; and gained new abilities to monitor and assess operations. Operations that otherwise would have been crippled by personnel losses were able to continue functioning. Decisions about how, when, and where to allocate limited resources have been accelerated and simplified by automation.
Appendix E: Connecticut Judicial System • 129
D. Centralization and Consolidation
Establishing centralized locations from which to carry out certain functions and consolidating court facilities are continuations of the unification process that took place in the Connecticut Judicial Branch in the 1970s. The Centralized Infractions Bureau provides an excellent example of the administrative benefits of centralization. Similar benefits, if not of the same magnitude, may come from regional rather than local docketing centers. Consolidation of court facilities reduces costs associated with facility maintenance and minimizes staffing needs. There can be drawbacks to centralization, such as inconvenience to the public and loss of feedback from those who are served; however, Connecticut's small geographic size may minimize these negative aspects.
E. Managing to Maximize Caseflow
The Connecticut Judicial Branch has established several means by which to expedite caseflow and ensure that the state's limited number of judges spend their time on the cases that most need their attention. Hundreds of thousands of cases are now efficiently handled by the CIB. Screening takes many cases out of the system before the attention of the judges is required. ADR alternatives help divert cases and may assist the settlement process. For those cases that do require judicial attention, early intervention helps to simplify issues and may hasten settlement. Case consolidation allows many cases to be processed simultaneously, and case coordinators help shepherd cases through the system. By these means, Connecticut has managed to avoid significant case backlogs in the face of budget cuts. In the process, it has demonstrated, if there were still any legitimate doubt, that good caseflow management is not resource driven; rather, it conserves resources.
F. Continuous Improvement of Basic Operations
The Judicial Branch has begun an ongoing process of improving court operations. The effects of this process were particularly notable in areas of human resource management where workforce analysis and adjustments to span of control offered significant benefits. Similar evidence was seen in changes to purchasing practices, selection of service providers, and caseflow management. Although the driving forces behind this new approach are presently too concentrated in upper level management to be considered Total Quality Management, the openness to finding better methods of doing business clearly helped the Judiciary handle cutbacks and does not appear to be short-lived.
Conclusion
Both the State of Connecticut and its Judicial Branch faced a severe financial challenge and avoided disaster. Cooperation and a willingness to change old ways of doing business allowed services to be maintained and provided the State and its courts with a better foundation for operations in the 1990s.
APPENDIX F National Center for State Courts Site Report Maine Judicial System
he State of Maine has been in a major economic slump since 1990. After a decade of growth and relative prosperity, the state experienced a recession that exceeded in level of severity the economic T problems in most other sections of the United States. The recession sharply reduced state revenues, forcing the state into a budgetary crisis, which at first seemed a temporary phenomenon, but which now appears to be a situation which may last for most of the decade. The Maine courts, which are almost entirely state-funded, have been affected by the state's economic vicissitudes and have had to struggle to maintain basic operations. For this reason, Maine was chosen as a project site and visited by project staff in the period June 14-17.
I The Setting
A. Maine Demographics
Maine had a 1990 population of about 1.25 million spread quite unevenly over 16 counties. This population is concentrated in the southern coastal area of the state and along the corridor running northward from Portland to Augusta. Outside these populated areas, there are very few people, so that Maine is the least densely populated state east of the Mississippi.
B. Maine: Interbranch Relations
The State of Maine has a biennial budget, which includes the budget for the Maine court system. The courts are technically subject to the executive branch budget procedures, but until recent years, the challenges to the court budget from the Governor and the Legislature were not particularly severe, inasmuch as the budget for the court system represented only about 2% of the total state budget. The judicial branch was perceived as having a special constitutional status and accorded a little bit more leeway than executive branch agencies in use of budgeted funds.1 However, the Governor has the statutory authority to substitute his budget proposal for that of the court, so that the original court request may not reach the Legislature.2
1 The judiciary has fairly broad latitude to move money between budget accounts, but personnel funds can't be transferred to non-personnel accounts without a formal transfer request.
2 The Maine Futures Commission has recommended an end to this practice, asserting that the judicial branch should be able to submit its budget proposal directly to the Legislature. The Special Commission on Government Restructuring made a similar recommendation.
-130- Appendix F: Maine • 131
The budget crisis has caused both the Governor and the Legislature to more intensively challenge court budget requests. Court budgets are coming to the Legislature already severely cut by the Governor. Moreover, interbranch relations have been strained by Supreme Court stands on term limits for legislators and on the configuration of legislative districts. The courts have been plunged into the struggle for scarce resources and are taking major budget "hits", despite the fact that the net operating cost of the system (expenditures minus court-generated revenues) has been running, until recently, a surprisingly small $5-6 million per annum. The posture of the court has been one of cooperation, an acceptance of the fact that the judiciary has to bear part of the general cutback in government spending.
Another change in interbranch relations is being caused by the inability of the state executive branch to provide the administrative services it has supplied to the courts. The AOC has assumed the former executive branch responsibility for data entry into the accounting system, and it now appears that the purchasing responsibility will pass to the courts. The court will also have to arrange for audit of its financial operations.3 Finally, custodial services for state-owned court facilities has also fallen to the courts, requiring the negotiation of maintenance contracts. Almost by default, the Maine judicial branch is becoming more administratively independent. This may have a number of good effects since some of the executive branch systems are cumbersome. In the purchasing area, where the court has some established expertise, it may be blessing to avoid the drawn-out process of purchase order issuance and prior checking with executive branch officials.4 The problem is whether the judiciary will have the internal resources to assume these functions.
The inability of the state executive branch to provide basic services is but one indication of a broad problem. The severity of the state's fiscal problems is acute and characterized by massive cutbacks, furloughs, hiring freezes, putting off payments for goods and services, and even deferring payrolls until a later fiscal year. This condition has extended to local governments, one effect being that law enforcement activity and traffic ticket issuance are way off, resulting in major drops in court revenue. Every aspect of judicial operations has in some way been affected by the dire economic condition of the State of Maine.
C. The Maine Courts
As of mid-1993, the Maine court system consisted of the following components:
3 The State Auditor had a staff of four persons who were assigned to courts. Cuts in funding have made it impossible for him to provide this service. A time lag in replacing this service constitutes a threat to the integrity of the court.
4 The judicial branch has its own problems of decentralization and centralization. The AOC procedures are quite centralized. Apparently, there was a time when more authority was delegated to the regions, but there were problems of standardization in equipment and loss of savings for bulk purchases. The issue still exists.
132 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 1 Maine Court System (Mid-1993)
Court Jurisdiction Judicial Positions Personnel Supreme Judicial Court Appellate 7 21.5 Superior Court General Original 16 110 District Court Limited Original* 25 165.5 Administrative Court Special** 2 1 Administrative office of 25 the Courts Totals 50 323
* Includes juvenile, some equitable matters, concurrent divorce jurisdiction with Superior Court. ** Essentially cases involving agency licensing.
There are locally funded probate courts throughout Maine, but they are not integrated into the judicial branch and therefore not reflected in the above table. Probation, often a major component of court budgets, is not budgeted through the judicial branch in Maine and therefore not referenced in Table 1. Bailiff services are paid for through the court budget, but with a few exceptions, bailiffs are employed by a sheriff and do not appear in the above table as court employees. Finally, it should be noted that any retired judge can be appointed to active retired status by the Governor. During FY 1991-92, there were 15 such judges, 3 of them retired justices and 3 retired Superior Court judges. Retired judges have been used extensively in recent years on a per diem basis, particularly in Superior Court.
Pursuant to a statute enacted in 1990, Maine has been running a Family Court Project in Cumberland County. The project was set up to test the feasibility of involving judges of the Administrative Court in family cases and to lay the groundwork the possible establishment of a Family Court. This has not yet occurred.
The Supreme Judicial Court and the Administrative Court function primarily in Portland (Cumberland County), the state's major population center, rather than in Augusta, the state capitol. The Administrative Office of the Courts has its main office in Portland and a 7-person computer unit in Augusta. There are also trial court administrators who are in the field. At the time of the site visit, there were positions for a Superior Court Administrator and a District Court Administrator in a northern administrative district and a Superior Court Administrator and a District Court Administrator in a southern administrative district, but one of the four positions was then unfilled. There are 16 Superior Court locations, most of which are covered by judges who are scheduled into the less populated areas on a rotating basis. The Superior Court handles jury cases and must have facilities that accommodate such cases. There are 32 District Court locations (some of them in facilities also housing the Superior Court) and a District Court Violations Bureau in Lewiston. Sixteen District Court judges are resident judges assigned to one of 13 districts. The other judges are assigned at large by the Deputy Chief Judge.
Judges can be cross-assigned between courts, and District Court judges have occasionally been assigned to perform Superior Court work. In fact, a number of Superior Court judges started their judicial career on the District Court bench.
The Chief Justice is the head of the court system. The Supreme Judicial Court has administrative authority over the whole system. The administrative arm of the Supreme Court is the Administrative Office of the Courts, which is headed by a state court administrator who is appointed by and serves at the
Appendix F: Maine • 133
pleasure of the Chief Justice. The two major trial courts have traditionally had what might be termed "horizontal administration." The two trial courts have been administered separately, under the control of a Chief Judge assisted by one or more court administrators assigned to the court and answerable to the Chief Judge of the court.
The administrative structure of the courts has come under heavy criticism in various reports, the gist of the criticism being that there were no real lines of authority and no possibility for real leadership at either the state or regional level. The Administrative Office of the Courts was perceived as remote from operations and caught up in its own administrative processes. This is about to change to a more vertical system in which there are four administrative regions, each with a single administrator who answers to the State Court Administrator and helps administer both trial court levels within the region in conjunction with the Chief Judge of each court.
D. Recent Overviews of the Court System
The Maine courts have been studied and analyzed a lot in recent years. The major studies have been those performed by the Maine Futures Commission, the Volunteer Business Committee to Review the Administrative and Financial Operations of the Judicial Department, and the Special Commission on Governmental Restructuring. The recommendations of these groups covered a range of subjects, too many to summarize here. There were certain suggestions of significant fiscal interest. The idea of a central and highly automated traffic violations bureau was adopted and has introduced some efficiencies into the system. Suggestions for screening of indigent cases for ability to pay and using county contracts for provision of indigent defense services have been adopted in part. The suggestion that the judiciary apply Total Quality Management has been adopted by initiating a grant-funded project on the subject.
Among the recommendations with fiscal implications for the Maine courts were the following:
• creating a much stronger, more vertical system of court administration;
• creating a planning capability in the judiciary;
• elimination of the Administrative Court;
• continuation of the Family Court project;
• integration of probate courts into judicial branch;
• a virtual administrative merger of the two major trial courts, stopping just short of consolidation;
• elimination of many District Court facilities in favor of "full service" courts at fewer locations;
• creating a technology development plan, which should influence the facility planning since many functions can probably be centralized with modern technology;
• raising small claims jurisdiction;
• creating an appellate division of the Superior Court;
134 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• permitting nonadversarial proceedings in domestic relations cases;
• creating accounting procedures, primarily accounts payable and disbursement procedures, tailored to the needs of the judiciary rather than using unresponsive executive branch systems;
• simplifying the distribution of fine and fee distribution.
It is clear that the Maine courts are going through a period of intense scrutiny, including a high degree of self-examination. The fiscal condition of the state was partially responsible for some of this analysis and hovers over all considerations of change.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Sources of Court Financing
The primary source of financing for the Maine courts is the state general fund. The only major element of local financial responsibility is the legal requirement that counties provide facilities for the Superior Court. Expenditures for District Court facilities are paid for by the state.
The financial mechanisms to fund District Court facilities go beyond the general fund. The Maine Court Facility Authority (MCFA) was established to finance court facilities by issuance of revenue bonds repayable through a debt service item in the operating budget of the courts. The bonding authority was not great, and the intent appeared to be to help construct relatively small facilities, as opposed to the major capital expenditures required for a county court house. Thus, for example, a new District Court facility in Presque Isle and a new District Court facility in West Bath were financed by a 1990 bond issue for approximately $7.5 million. A more interesting example of creative financing is the package put together for the Cumberland County Courthouse Addition which involved the use of county bond proceeds for the Superior Court components of the building and the use of MCFA financing for the areas occupied by the Ninth District Court.
A corollary aspect of facility financing is the existence of a non-lapsing District Court Building Fund into which the State Treasurer is required to pay $3,000 per month out of the fines and fees transmitted from the District Court. This fund, which is not large (the balance of the fund was $128,958 at the end of FY 1992), does, subject to appropriation, increase the money available to build, remodel, and furnish District Court facilities.
The problem with MCFA financing is that debt service is only being funded in part by the Legislature (new debt service was added to the budget and final appropriations in FY 1993 and in previous year), forcing the judiciary to make cuts in other operating expenses. A further complicating factor is that the Maine executive branch has been unable to provide custodial and maintenance services in some of facilities financed through MCFA, forcing the court to pay for these costs out of shrinking budget funds.
The Maine courts receive very little in the way of state and federal grants, nor have they made much use of fees earmarked for court purposes. One exception to this pattern has been in District Court automation, where the courts have received substantial funding through the Maine Justice Assistance Council, a conduit for federal grants in the criminal justice area. The Maine courts have derived very little benefit from the federal IV D program, a major source of resources for many courts. The courts are in the
Appendix F: Maine • 135 process of working out a cooperative agreement with the Maine Department of Human Services, the primary grantee for federal IV D funds. This could provide $200,000-$400,000 in the coming years. Maine also has a small grant from the State Justice Institute to apply Total Quality Management to the courts. In the recent past, the Maine courts have benefited from a State Justice Institute grant of $120,000 to fund a futures study; in addition, a small grant was made by the Maine Bureau of Safety to fund the District Court Violations Bureau.
But in the final analysis, the Maine courts are almost totally dependent on the state general fund, a very precarious source in the present era.
B. The Budget Environment
The pressure on the state officials to present a balanced budget has led to some draconian measures and creative bookkeeping. One step taken by the governor was to impose mandatory furloughs of state employees, a decision with which the courts initially tried to comply but finally ignored since judges can't simply stay home and must have support staff to function. The state deferred payments for goods and services, leaving carryover obligations to be absorbed in subsequent budgets, most notably the costs of indigent defense which is chronically underfunded. The state even deferred two payrolls to a later fiscal year, requiring a later "catch-up" request for personnel services. In addition, the state has been making major arbitrary slashes in already underfunded budgets, relying on a supplemental budget process to take care of genuine emergencies. Thus, for example, the Legislature appropriated only $27.5 million for the court in FY 1992-93, later making a supplemental appropriation of $1.8 million. Even with this supplemental appropriation, the judiciary took a 6.8 % cut from FY 1991-92, although the courts were also underfunded in that year.
The practice of deferring obligations has led to a situation where budgets must not only try to cope with current expenditures but must make up for carryover obligations. In a flat or declining budget situation pressure simply accumulates, since the carryovers cut into the current needs and create an automatic shortfall situation at the beginning of each budget year. The situation is becoming increasingly serious.
The pattern described above is one of almost continuing crisis, requiring government agencies to exercise a great deal of ingenuity to maintain any degree of continuity and quality in public services. The financial data presented below must be considered in the light of the very dire financial situation of the state.
C. Funding Levels for the Judiciary
During the 1980's the court budget followed a generally upward trend, as did budgets for many other public components of state government. Around 1990 the court budget started to level off. It is now in a state of decline.
136 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 2 General Fund Appropriations
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year Rounded Appropriation Level 1990 31,000,000 (Actual) 1991 31,200,000 (Actual) 1992 31,600,000 (Actual) 1993 29,300,000 (App.) 1994 28,400,000 (App.)
The above figures conceal the fact that the courts were forced to absorb many unfunded expenses during the period of retrenchment. Basically, the Legislature failed to adequately fund indigent defense and made no provision for major debt service expenses, requiring the courts to "eat" these expenses by extracting the money from other parts of the court budget. In FY 1992-93 these two expenses (and they were not the only unfunded expenses) amounted to roughly $3.8 million dollars. The FY 1992-93 emergency appropriation request by the courts reflected the effect of this more or less intentional underfunding:
Table 3 Emergency Appropriation Request
FY 1992-93
Indigent Defense $800,000 (Actual need $1,200,000) Debt Service $792,000 All other needs $375,000 (Actual need $800,000) TOTAL APPROPRIATION $1,967,000
The problem promises to get far worse in FY 1993-94. The initial appropriation of $28.4 million is $5.2 million dollars less than the amount requested by the court ($33,670,626). The court made no additions to its 1992-93 budget except the following: $1,000,000 to cover two additional payrolls; $925,000 to cover shortfalls from inadequate emergency funding in FY 1992-93; $900,000 to cover reinstatement of judicial retirement contribution; $450,000 to cover judicial COLAs; $500,000 for filling four judicial vacancies deliberately left open to save money; and $180,000 to cover step increases for union employees and to restore one hour reduction for confidential employees. In short, the judiciary asked the other branches to fund existing expenses and to honor deferred obligations. In the end, the court system was funded at $1,000,000 less than its underfunded FY 1992-93 budget.
D. Steps Taken to Cope with Budget Cuts
The Maine court system has had to struggle for survival. Below are indicated some of the steps which have been taken:
Appendix F: Maine • 137
1. Facilities
In FY 1992-93, the courts had to assume a debt service obligation of $1,858,000 for construction of District Court facilities. In addition, the courts had to assume a custodial cost for these facilities when the state executive branch declined to provide such service. This led to an expense of $104,000, a major increase for that service. The judiciary was also responsible for rental of facilities for the District Courts, a $1,734,000 expense in 1991-92.
Placed in a position where facility costs would consume the non-personnel budget, the courts responded by a vigorous attempt to renegotiate rental costs, which reflected in some instances the higher square footage rentals of the 1980s. Taking a relatively "hard ball" approach the court sharply reduced its rental costs, obtaining some facilities for nothing (some of them are government-owned). In 1992-93 the rental dropped to $1,274,000. Some of this saving was temporary, since the agreement for reduction was in some cases short-term. In any event, the saving in rental costs provided an offset the debt service and custodial costs.
At one point, the judiciary suggested the closing of District Court facilities in sparsely settled areas of the state. From a strictly fiscal viewpoint the proposal was defensible as some locations have very little activity. As indicated in the report made by a volunteer business committee, the District Court is spread over two many facilities, most of them purporting to be full service facilities. But the closing of facilities was rejected by legislators, largely on grounds of public access and convenience. Chief Justice Wathen has indicated that the courts will no longer seek facility closings and will seek savings in other ways. It was clear that possible savings were outweighed by bad political repercussions.
2. Court Security and Dealings with Sheriffs
Sheriffs provide security service for the Superior Court and along with municipal police departments provide similar service in the District Court. The cost of these services is paid for by the state on a contractual basis. When the budget crunch intensified, there was a thorough review of these contracts, and sheriffs were told to cut their prices, mainly by lowering the hourly rate for their personnel. Most sheriffs accepted this, but three balked. In these three counties the courts made their own arrangements for bailiffs. In two counties the bailiffs were not hired directly but through Manpower Inc., a firm which provides temporary personnel in an expeditious manner. In one county the bailiffs were hired directly by the court.
The savings as a result of these changes were substantial. The costs in FY 1991-92 for court officers and bailiffs was $1,462,000. As of March 31, 1993, $672,00 had been spent, indicating a year- end saving of about $300,000.
3. Juries
Traverse jury costs have declined markedly during the period of retrenchment, dropping from $1,238,000 in FY 1991 to $590,000 in FY 1992. After three quarters of FY 1993, jury expenditures were only $325,000. The reasons for this drop-off are: (1) a reduction in the fees paid for jury service; (2) a charge of $300 for a jury demand in civil cases, causing a reduction in frivolous jury requests; and (3) a general decline in caseload.
138 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
4. Education
One of the first cuts made by the judicial branch was judicial education.5 In retrospect this is generally perceived as a mistake, since it is hard to reestablish this budget item once it is treated as expendable. In fairness to the decision-makers, it must be observed that many prognosticators saw the budget problem as temporary, leading budget officers to short-term strategies. The prevalent idea was that some programs could be temporarily suspended and reinstated when good times arrived.
This optimism proved unfounded. The result has been a serious hiatus in judicial education. Chief Justice Wathen, in his State of the Judiciary Address, observed that 40 % of Maine judges had not been to the National Judicial College. New judges are essentially receiving on-the-job training. In 1992, the judiciary put together an in-house training program built around ABA cassettes. Judicial education may have to depend on outside funding, perhaps foundation funding, but the hard truth is that these educational programs are essential and must be continued with whatever sources of funding can be obtained.
A companion problem has been an almost total cessation in training and educational opportunities for non-judicial staff. As in the case of judicial education, there is a realization that there has to be a training program, budget problems notwithstanding. More creativity is required to implement such programs when resources are limited; no one is waiting for a return of the "good old days."
Maine is considering joint educational programs with the states of New Hampshire and Vermont, with which it has a lot in common. Regional consortiums of lightly populated states are a growing phenomenon, for example the cooperation of the five states of the northern plains area-North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.
5. Court-Appointed Counsel
The major ongoing budget problem of the Maine courts is the funding of legal services for indigent persons involved in child protection, mental health and criminal cases. While the expenditure is generally perceived as aid for accused criminals, 50% of the indigent appointments in District Court and 25% of the appointments in Superior Court stem from mental health and child protective cases. Appointed attorneys handle all indigent cases since Maine does not have a public defender system and does not feel it would be financially advantageous to have one.
In FY 1990 the expenditure for court appointed attorneys was $3,649,000. In FY 1992 the court paid out $4,560,000 and carried over more than $1,000,000 to the next fiscal year. The carryover reflects a stubborn refusal of the other branches to fund the cost of indigent defense. Since 1989, the legislative pattern has been to make a deliberately low initial appropriation and then make a later emergency appropriation, even that usually inadequate to fully pay for the legal services.
The problem has been compounded by very slow payment to attorneys. This has been attributed to the multi-step processing system involving the Administrative Office of the Courts and executive branch agencies. It has also been attributed to cash flow problems of the state. In any event, considerable resentment has built up among attorneys over the pace of payment.
5 Out-of-state travel was another victim of the budget crunch, making it hard for any court employee to attend educational programs outside the state.
Appendix F: Maine • 139
Steps have been taken to expedite payment and control costs. The Maine courts are now focusing resources on screening of indigents and collection of some part of the appointed attorney fee. In FY 1991 only 2.98% of counsel fees were reimbursed; in the first eight months of FY 1993, 6.88% of counsel fees were being reimbursed
Maine does not have screeners at all locations,6 so that it is possible to measure their effectiveness. Courts with screeners have increased their reimbursement rate from 2.7% in FY 1991 (pre-screening) to 9.61% in FY 1993. Courts without screeners increased their reimbursement rate from 3.22% in FY 1991 to 4.53% in FY 1993. Screening appears to be paying off.
It has been projected that as much as $500,000 could be raised with a 10% reimbursement level. The purpose of the program is to have the amount of the reimbursement applied to the appropriation rather than disappearing into the general fund.
Maine, at the suggestion of volunteer consultants, has instituted a competitive contractual arrangement for indigent defense services in one county. It does not appear that this will save much money, if any, but the administrative costs of a contractual system are very much cheaper than the administrative costs of dealing separately with each appointed attorney.
6. Personnel Cuts
Maine has experienced just about every imaginable type of personnel cost reduction, among them furloughs, layoffs, pay cuts, deferred COLAs, freezes on filling positions, using vacancy savings to survive, and deferred step increases. The courts have been affected by all the personnel changes which are too complex to cover in any degree of detail. A brief summary follows:
Furloughs The executive branch instituted a general furlough policy which amounted to unpaid days off. The courts initially tried to comply with the policy but quickly abandoned it.
Layoffs of temporary and Courts tend to be labor-intensive, and so it is hard to cut contract employees court budgets without some personnel cuts. The Maine courts, when first faced with major budget cutbacks, decided to dispense with the services of temporary employees, particularly in District Court clerical offices. Thirty or more positions of this type were eliminated, effecting major savings. Maine now uses competitively chosen contractor (Manpower Inc.) to supply temporary personnel on as- needed basis. This has proven to be an efficient way to supplement existing staff cheaply and expeditiously.
6 In the past this function was sometimes provided by probation officers. It appears that the screening is now done by temporary employees provided through Manpower Inc..
140 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Layoffs of permanent In August 1992, the courts started to cut back on permanent employees, reduction in positions. The State Law Library lost a position, as did the positions AOC. The equivalent of 9-10 FTEs were lost in trial court clerical offices, mostly by leaving positions unfilled.
COLAs Judicial cost of living increases were not funded.
Pay freezes and cuts The court observed a self-imposed freeze on filling positions. Judicial salaries remained constant, as did those for non-managerial employees, most of them covered by union contracts based on a flat funding for the biennium and the deferral of in-step increases. Hours were reduced from 40 to 39 per week. Managerial employees, who were tied to executive branch management scales, took a 5% cut. (It appears that employees, other than judges, will experience increases in the upcoming biennium and recoup some of the losses sustained in the previous biennium.)
Vacancy savings Surprisingly, the court adopted a strategy of covering reduced appropriations by leaving five judicial vacancies unfilled, three of them on the Superior court which only has a complement of 16 authorized judgeships. In early 1993, steps were taken to start filling these vacancies.
Overtime Strict controls were placed on overtime, particularly premium overtime. During the furlough period overtime actually increased because the courts had to stay open.
Retirement State contributions to judicial retirement were cut by 50%.
The judges of Maine have been personally hit by the cutbacks, probably more so than judges elsewhere.
7. Administrative Flexibility, Transcending Organizational Lines
The various studies of the Maine courts have pointed out an obvious administrative flaw in the Maine court structure, the lack of administrative integration between the two trial courts which often share facilities and are intimately connected in many ways. The Maine Futures Commission did everything but recommend the creation of a one-tier court, but the logic of their recommendations points inevitably in that direction. Meanwhile, fiscal necessity is forcing some degree of integration.
During the period when the Superior Court was down in strength from 16 to 13 judges, some use was made of District Court judges, although most reliance was placed upon retired Superior Court judges, two of whom served a lot during the period of need. The arguments against more extensive use of District Court judges has been that they can't be assigned to cases that will be lengthy and must be used primarily
Appendix F: Maine • 141
for handling matters which can be handled quickly. Yet, there is considerable evidence to indicate that District court judges in some areas are not heavily occupied and that their cross-assignment for prolonged periods would help alleviate an imbalance in the allocation of judges between the two courts.
Similar problems have long existed at the clerical level and administrative level where there are two layers of employees. There are a variety of political barriers to integration of clerical offices and broad use of judicial cross-assignment, but financial need is driving this joinder of the two courts. They must pool their resources and have already starting to do so in a limited way.
8. Fiscal Aspects of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Use of Volunteers
Maine has had a system of mediation in domestic relations cases and small claims cases. The judiciary funds mediation at a cost of roughly $250,000 per annum. One result of the budget problem was the curtailing of the mediation program and the virtual halt of all other ADR programs despite very broad and strong recommendations by the Maine Futures Commission in favor of ADR, even in criminal cases. An irony of the cutback in ADR is that it usually offers a low-cost alternative to formal adjudication before a judge.
Maine makes fairly modest expenditures to support a volunteer program - Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). This program which provides volunteer guardians ad litem to children in protective custody cases was also curtailed. Again, this appears to be inconsistent with the goal of expanding court services at minimal cost.
9. Technology
During the 1980s the Maine courts had relatively sustained funding for automation. There is a general feeling that this money was not well used. Two recent reports on the Maine courts called for a technology plan and a major upgrading in existing use of computers and networking. The Superior Court, except for personal computers for judges, has an essentially manual information system. The District Court is partially automated.
At present, Maine has a small, 7-person computer staff in Augusta which employs much of its time in maintenance of existing systems in the District Court but was able to develop the system for the Violations Bureau, direct conversion to new hardware, and assist in a federally funded project to tie the District court to other criminal justice agencies, primarily for purposes of criminal histories. Federal money has been helpful in funding computer development. Moreover, some assistance is available through the Maine Court Facilities Authority since the authority can fund some capital equipment. Another source of funding for automation surfaced in Cumberland County where the sheriff found it advantageous to fund video court appearances from a new jail rather than to transport prisoners.
The District Court makes use of computers for processing criminal and traffic cases, but the report generation capacity of the system is quite limited. The District Court has enjoyed success with automation of the District Court Violations Bureau in Lewiston.7 The idea of a central violations bureau was not a
7 In his State of the Judiciary Address, Chief Justice Wauthen cited the Violations Bureau as an example of how technology can improve public service and pledged to explore all possible avenues to continue the implementation of technology in the courts.
142 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
new one in Maine, but the budget crunch and the recommendations of study groups combined to resurrect the idea and give it new life. The project, which started in January 1992, required that the bureau staff be pulled out of the existing District Court staff, but the efficiencies of centralization and a drop-off in traffic cases have made it possible to absorb the loss of these personnel and perhaps later to make some other changes in staffing and use of judges.
The Maine courts have set up an electronic mail system which is cutting communications cost within the widely diffused court locations. Electronic recording of court proceedings is widely used in District Court and on a limited basis in Superior Court. Fiscal scarcity may have the effect of forcing more technological innovation to reduce operational costs. This is already occurring.
10. Capital Expenditures
A major effect of the budget has been to drastically slash capital expenditures. In FY 1990 the expenditure for equipment was $441,000. In the first nine months of FY 1993 the equipment expenditures amounted to $27,000 since a freeze was in effect. However, some equipment money is available from the District Court Building Fund and the Maine Court Facilities Authority, as well as from federal grant money. Nonetheless, the cut in capital expenditures is extreme.
It should be noted that Maine recently declared that the minimum to qualify as capital purchase was $1,000 forcing the AOC to charge a number of expenditures to "Miscellaneous Minor Equipment", overrunning that account, but by a very small amount in relation to the cuts in capital spending.
11. Revenue Enhancement
In the early stages of the budget cutbacks the courts placed a lot of emphasis on increasing revenue rather than taking cuts. In Maine all court revenues go to the state, about 90% to the general fund and 10% to special revenue funds. The courts do not share in this revenue and have little incentive to expend a lot of resources to collect it, but they do. The amount of money remitted to the state general fund has amounted to around 80% or more of appropriations, a remarkably high percentage when viewed on a comparative national scale. The net operating costs of the Maine courts are very small.
Maine made general increases in fines and fees which started to reflect themselves in FY 1991 when there was an 18.6% increase in revenues. 8 Maine also instituted an accounts receivable program which tracked money due courts and could produce aging statistics. In addition, the courts instituted a more aggressive collection policy featuring tax offsets and use of collection letters. Ironically, revenues have declined dramatically, despite improved collection methods. The reason for this decline is clear. There has been a sharp decline in caseload of the District Court where about 90% of court revenue is collected. In the first nine months of 1993, total District Court filings were down 26.3% from the same nine-month period in the previous year, apparently due to lack of funds for traffic enforcement at both the state and local level.
8 The civil filing fee is $400; a jury trial requires $300, raising some problems of access to justice. This was alluded to by Chief Justice Wauthen in his State of the Judiciary Address.
Appendix F: Maine • 143
Table 4 summarizes the volatile pattern of revenue collection. It is interesting to note that revenues are sinking back to the FY 1990 level when fines and fees were lower.
Table 4 Court-Generated Revenues FY 1988-1992
Fiscal Year Total State Revenues % Change 1988 $19,411,000 ------1989 20,557,000 5.9 1990 22,055,000 7.2 1991 26,162,000 18.6 1992 25,953,000 -1.0 1993 *22,966,000 -11.5 * Estimated.
Due to the volatility in revenues, the net operating cost of the Maine courts has fluctuated. Table 5 reflects the net costs (here figured as the difference between expenditures and general fund revenues) in recent years. On the average, revenues run about 80% of expenditures.
Table 5 Net Operating Costs Of Maine Courts
FY 1988-1993
Fiscal Year GF Revenues GF Expenditures GF Revenue as % of GF Expenditure 1988 $19,411,000 $24,113,000 80.0 1989 20,557,000 27,598,000 74.0 1990 22,055,000 31,035,00 70.0 1991 26,162,000 31,203,000 83.0 1992 25,953,000 31,329,000 82.0 1993 *22,500,000 *29,100,000 77.0 * Estimated
12. Miscellaneous Volatile Expenses
Maine budgets for witness fees and medical services, both somewhat open-ended items that have tended to increase over the years. Medical services, primarily psychiatric services, amounted to $420,000 in FY 1992. The courts tried to cut this by altering fees and methods of payment and have succeeded to some extent. Expenditures through March 31, 1993, were $185,000 indicating a major drop-off in this expenditure.
Witness fees to law enforcement officers and private citizens amounted to $585,000 in FY 90. In FY 1993, at the end of the third quarter the expenditures were $212,000 for witness fees, indicating about a 50% drop.
144 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
III Court Operations
Trial court operations have been adversely affected by the budget problems of the court, in particular the delay in filling judicial vacancies. The principal effect of the budget cuts was felt in the Superior Court which functioned without three judges for a long period of time.9 The Superior Court coped with this shortage by using some retired judges and occasionally District Court judges. Fortunately, the Superior court experienced a decline in case filings,10 perhaps easing the effect of having a shortage of judges. Some judges indicated that they simply had to cut the amount of time devoted to some proceedings, a factor which may not reflect itself statistically. One obvious measure of judicial activity is the number of trials, which declined 28.7 % in FY 1993.
Table 6 Trial Activity in First Nine Months of FY 1992 and FY 1993
Type of Trial FY 1992 FY 1993 % Change Civil Jury 104 98 -5.7 Civil Non-Jury 202 136 -32.6 Criminal jury 378 265 -31.5 Criminal Non-jury 58 36 -37.9 Total 751 535 -28.7
Although it does not show up explicitly in the statistics, civil calendars at some Superior court locations were deferred, since, as a matter of priority, criminal cases had to be heard. Chief Justice Wathen, in his State of the Judiciary Address, observed that the length of time to disposition in civil cases was lengthening and that Maine was lagging behind the ABA Standards which call for disposition of 90 % of civil cases within a year of filing. At the end of FY 1992, 46% of the pending civil cases in Cumberland County were over one year in age, the average case being 479 days in age. In the same year the average age to disposition in Cumberland county was 412 days. Given the age of the pending caseload, the time from filing to disposition figures to increase in FY 1993.11
These figures are not bad by comparison to some heavily urban jurisdictions, but they indicate an erosion in the level of service being provided in the Maine courts.
9 It should be noted that trial court statistics in Maine are pretty simple. The District Court does not, for example, have pending case statistics. Superior Court statistics are fairly simple aggregate statistics.
10 Civil case filings in the first nine month of FY 1993 decreased by 10.2% from civil case filings in the same period of FY 1992. One obvious difference was a large decline in contract cases, another indicator of the slow economy. Criminal case filings in FY 1993 declined by 3.8 % from FY 1992.
11 The Superior Court of Cumberland County has been considering regular use of an individual judge calendar. Experiments of this type have been hard to implement while the court, state-wide, was operating three judges short.
Appendix F: Maine • 145
IV Summation of the Maine Experience
Below are listed 10 points which appear to sum up the recent fiscal experience of the Maine courts:
A. Need for a Long-Term Perspective
In retrospect, Maine court officials appear to agree that they did not anticipate such a long and severe fiscal drought. They are making a transition from a short-term strategy to a long-term strategy. The Futures Commission and the Volunteer Business Committee have both recommended that the courts create a planning capability and set some operational goals. Three areas where planning is seen as particularly urgent are technology, facilities, and caseflow management. Planning makes it easier to take reductions because the priorities of the court are clear. Moreover, planning in the aforementioned three areas has important implications for efficiency and living within a tight budget while still achieving court goals. Mere survival may seem all that is possible in the first stages of a budget cutback. But at some point, survival doesn't suffice. The court has to plan for the future, using more creative means to reach its goals
B. Need for Strong Management Authority
Outside observers of the court have been more or less unanimous in recommending that the lines of authority within the courts be clarified. There is sometimes an assumption in court circles that declaring the Chief Justice as administrative head of the system and the Supreme Court as an administrative policy board establishes clear authority. This is not necessarily so. The Chief Justice and the court can only spend a relatively small amount of time in matters of administration and must act through the State Court Administrator. Until recently this official had relatively limited authority, particularly in regard to trial court operations, since the regional administrators answered primarily to chief judges. The AOC was seen as an isolated office with a limited managerial role. This perception existed both inside and outside the courts. One result of the budget crisis was the recognition that fiscal discipline and financial management credibility require a stronger executive component in the courts and clear lines of vertical authority running from the Chief Justice through the State Court Administrator into the judicial system. One of the defenses against micro-management of the courts by other branches is to demonstrate strong and focused internal management.
C. Organization Structure as a Barrier to Efficiency
The Maine Futures Commission stated the obvious truth that the present two-tier system is a highly inefficient way of allocating judicial and clerical personnel. The recommended solution was to end the hierarchical distinction between the two sets of judges by ending all differences in pay and encouraging broad-scale cross-assignment. Although the Commission stopped short of recommending consolidation of the two courts, the issue is once more on the table and is likely to stay there as long as the courts are seeking efficiencies. The trend is definitely toward an organizational structure which permits more fluid use of judges and support personnel.
D. Management Style
The fiscal crisis has been instrumental in forcing the courts to use a much tougher and more aggressive management style - no more Mister Nice Guy. The courts have been tougher on contractors,
146 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
vendors, and indigent defendants. The court has been more entrepreneurial in obtaining funds and using them creatively.
Another aspect of court management is how the AOC deals internally with the judicial branch. It is not clear whether the relatively centralized administrative process will continue or whether regional administrators will be accorded more responsibility. The trend is toward more delegation and more accountability. It is hard for the court to seek a high degree of administrative responsibility from the other branches and yet to deny this internally.
E. Interbranch Relations
People outside the court and some people inside the court system feel that the court's budget came under more scrutiny of the other branches not just because of the budget crisis but because executive and legislative officials did not feel that the AOC was providing effective management. Whether the perception is true is another matter, but it apparently existed.
One result of this attitude was a reluctance to permit the judiciary a great deal of management latitude. A curious effect of the budget crisis has been an abdication of executive branch responsibility for many administrative services to courts, freeing the judicial branch to use its own administrative systems. The courts have less money but more administrative freedom. The trade-off may, in the long run, be beneficial, particularly if the courts demonstrate that their efficiency has increased.
The court's attitude toward the other branches in financial matters has been, on the whole, conciliatory, but the threat to close down some District Court branches was a mild attempt at "hard ball." The abortive attempt has been abandoned in favor of a more cooperative approach based on the recognition that the courts are not exempt from the financial crisis of the state and have probably been less affected than many executive branch agencies.
F. The Judicial Role
The Maine Futures Commission raised the issue of what the judicial role will be in years to come. Will judges be the primary adjudicators? Or will they preside over a diverse system of dispute resolution where judges personally adjudicate relatively few disputes? The budget crisis appears to have stunted the growth of alternative dispute resolution with the result that Maine is heavily reliant on formal adjudication models which are more costly. Underlying this issue is the perennial question of how many judges are really necessary. The Maine court system definitely suffered delay as the result of not filling judicial vacancies, but the surprising fact is how small the effect was. The one issue not being squarely faced is whether Maine really needs the adjudicative model it now employs or whether it would benefit from a more diverse and flexible system of dispute resolution.
G. Personnel Levels
The Maine courts once made wide use of part-time temporary employees to supplement regular staff. The budget crisis caused this to end and even led to some cutback in regular staff. Yet, the courts have functioned. Moreover, the prevailing view is that the courts will have to function with this level of staffing for the foreseeable future. It is clear that the courts have switched from a labor-intensive strategy to a strategy of seeking efficiencies, such as the central violations bureau.
Appendix F: Maine • 147
Morale has suffered a bit in the period of flat budgets, but there will be definite improvements in salary in the coming year and there is a sense that things could have been a lot worse. The Chief Justice has pledged to involve employees more in court management and to try and overcome the sense of isolation which can occur when employees are diffused over many locations and are remote from the AOC.
H. Technology
The budget crisis has placed technology on a high priority basis since it is the one hope of the court to serve the public well with a staff which is more or less frozen. The court is under pressure to devise a technology plan which will tie into its personnel planning, its facility planning and its caseflow management goals.
I. Facilities
The budget crisis is forcing the judiciary to do a long-range plan for facility development which in all probability will include some consolidation. To simply close down facilities to save some money has proven to be unwise. There has to be a consideration of how to maintain service without having as many facilities. If there is a rationale for consolidation and a plan to maintain service (certainly possible with modern telecommunications and transportation), the facility program may be salable. Some flexible mechanisms already exist to fund facility development, but the financing must be tied into a long-range capital budget program.
J. Control of Volatile Costs
The court budget has been whipsawed by open-ended, mandatory expenditures, primarily indigent defense costs. The court has introduced screening to require a higher level of defendant payment for attorney services. Ideally, this expense should be separated from the court budget under a commission or some other mechanism.
K. Revenue
Maine courts raise far more revenues in relation to expenditures than most court systems but receive little recognition for this. Earmarking of certain revenues for court use is not an ideal solution, but it may be the only way to deal with certain open-ended costs which drain the court budget.
Conclusion
Maine courts have gone through a difficult budgetary period, and their plight is likely to get worse before it gets better. It appears that the courts, having weathered the first shock, have started to adapt to scarcity and "make do." There has been a fundamental change in attitude.
APPENDIX G National Center for State Courts Site Report Seventeenth Judicial Circuit--Broward County
he Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida is geographically equivalent to Broward County. State budget cutbacks have been the primary source of financial problems in the circuit; flat economic T conditions locally have limited the county's ability to make up for the state reductions. The circuit has been given flexibility by the county in managing court appropriations and has, through a combination of cost-saving strategies and new revenues, been able to initiate new programs under these difficult economic conditions. For these reasons, the circuit was selected as a project site and visited by project staff on July 7 and 8, 1993.
I The Setting
A. Broward County: Demographics
Broward County, Florida, is located on Florida's Atlantic coast north of Dade County (Miami) and south of Palm Beach County. As of early 1993, the county had a population of 1.32 million within a geographical area of 1,211 square miles. The western half of the county is dominated by the Florida Everglades. The population is consequently concentrated along the coast. The largest cities are Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood, each with more than 100,000 residents. A significant portion of the population settled from out-of-state. Unemployment was approximately 7.6 percent in the spring of 1993.
B. Broward County: Fiscal Conditions
The county budget cycle runs from October to September while the state's runs from July to June. Over the last few years, the county's general fund budget, on which the circuit depends for its local funding, has continued to increase but at a basically diminishing rate (see Table 1). County millage rates have crept up as the county has attempted to stay ahead of expenses during the recession (see Table 2). The county has informed the circuit that there are no additional funds with which to finance new court services.
-148- Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 149
Table 1 Broward County General Fund *
FY 1989-1994
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Est.**) (Adopted) Revenue $326,360 $387,407 $420,968 $459,153 $489,038 $505,992 Appropriation $322,435 $374,380 $415,756 $433,944 $471,850 $505,992 * In thousands ** Estimated prior to final audited financial statements
Table 2 Aggregate* County Millage Rate
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (Adopted) Rate 5.4009 6.1523 6.5345 7.5396 7.5742 * Estimated Millage rate per state requirement to reflect all taxes except Debt Service
Matters in the state are worse because the state lacks a strong tax base. Without an income tax, Florida is heavily dependent upon sales tax collections that are subject to the volatility of the economy. While Connecticut was able to bring its house in order by instituting an income tax, the senior citizen/retiree lobby is considered too strong in Florida to ever allow passage of such a tax. The state's shifting of state court costs have placed such additional burdens on counties that serious questions have been raised over the state coercing counties into using real estate ad valorem tax revenues to fund the state courts--in possible violation of a constitutional provision prohibiting state ad valorem taxes on real estate.1 As the recession has tightened its grip upon the state, the state has reduced aid to counties, including reimbursements for justice system expenditures. As has been indicated above, the county has little extra funding with which to absorb the state cuts, and state spending requirements tend to reduce the flexibility of the county's response.
C. Broward County: The Court System
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit consists of a circuit court with general jurisdiction and a county court with limited jurisdiction. In FY 1993, the circuit had 64 judges, 44 serving the circuit court and 20 serving the county court. Six general masters provided quasi-judicial functions. Judges of both courts are elected and retained through nonpartisan elections. The judges of the two courts elect a chief judge from among the circuit court judges. Chief judges serve for two-year terms and may succeed themselves.
1 Article V Subcommittee of the Florida Judicial Council, A Report of the Judicial Council of Florida: A Review of "Article V" Costs and Revenues; Proposals for Financing the State Courts System (July 1991), at 1 [hereinafter cited as Article V Report on Court Financing].
150 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Responsibility for the functions of the courts is divided between the Office of the Clerk of Courts and the Administrative Office of the Circuit and County Courts (Court Administrator's Office). The clerk of court is an elected official. His office is funded entirely by the county and included 580 positions in its FY 1992 and FY 1993 budgets and 594 in its FY 1994 budget. In Broward County, the clerk of court does not exercise a financial management role for the county as a whole; this is contrary to the pattern in many Florida counties. Most of the budgetary initiatives noted by National Center staff did not originate in the clerk's office, so it will receive little attention in this report.
The Court Administrator's Office operates under the authority of the chief judge and the day-to-day oversight of the trial court administrator. The trial court administrator serves at the pleasure of the judges. The Administrator's Office is funded by both the county and the state through completely separate budgets. While county budget reductions forced a five-position cut in FY 1992, the number of positions approved for the Court Administrator's Office in the county budget have otherwise increased in all other years from 156 in FY 1990 to 172 in FY 1994. The state-funded portion of the circuit's budget is not as well documented, but Florida's Office of the State Court Administrator indicated that it has been funding between 165 and 169 positions (including all judgeships) over the period from FY 1990 to FY 1993. The number of state-funded positions in FY 1993 was 168.5.
The circuit's primary facility is the Central Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. All of the circuit court judges work at that location. This facility was being expanded at the time of the site visit. Additional facilities include three satellite courthouses and one branch probation office. Each of the satellite courthouses is served by two county judges.
D. Interbranch Relations
Interbranch relations in the 17th Circuit have high and low points. Currently, the county and the Court Administrator's Office are enjoying good relations. The county recognizes the professionalism and accountability of the Administrator's Office and has given that office considerable flexibility in managing its budget. The county also feels that the chief judge makes a significant difference in the quality of court- county interaction. The present chief is considered an improvement over his predecessor(s) whose hard- nosed assertions of court independence aggravated relations and whose manner of demanding action by the county, the Clerk's Office, and other agencies tended to be disruptive.
As relations have improved and trust has developed between the administrations of the court and county, cooperation to increase revenues and reduce expenses has become easier. Interagency cooperation has also helped to bring the jail population under control and to develop a drug court. A new sheriff with good management skills and a lower profile than his predecessor has contributed to positive developments in the last year. The situation is not ideal, however, as is exemplified by the state attorney's resistance to using diversion and treatment programs for drug offenders rather than incarceration.
Relations with the Clerk's Office are not as smooth. As an elected official, the clerk is accountable to the public rather than to the county administration and the bench, which are arguably better able to judge his performance. During the site visit, county officials questioned the clerk's professionalism and indicated that he is resistant to change. They did concede, however, that the professionalism of the clerk's staff has increased. Division of fiscal and operational responsibilities between the Clerk's Office and the Court Administrator's Office also contributes to inefficiencies in both offices which the county felt might best be addressed by having the clerk answer to the trial court administrator. Such a step is unlikely to occur in the near future as state action would be required and the powerful clerks' lobby would undoubtedly be opposed.
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 151
Because many of the budgetary problems afflicting Florida localities stem from state cuts, it is not surprising that current feelings toward the state are less than cordial. With its limited tax base, the state has had difficulty acquiring new general revenue dollars. Under these circumstances, the administrative offices of the county and the court feel the state should give localities greater leeway in generating additional revenues and cutting expenses. Caps on court costs were identified by the circuit and the county as an example of troublesome state restrictions.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. Sources of Court Financing
Funding for the 17th Judicial Circuit comes primarily from Broward County. As has been stated above, the Office of the Clerk of Courts is funded entirely by the county (see Table 3). The Circuit/County Court (court administration) budget unit receives approximately half of its direct financing from the county and the remainder from the state (see Table 4). Most state funding is provided directly to the individual court budgets. Certain funds, however, are allocated by the Office of the State Courts Administrator to an "Administered Funds--Judicial" category2 or by other state agencies directly to the county as reimbursement for various expenses, such as probation and child support enforcement. These administered funds and reimbursements have been among the most seriously compromised elements of court-related financing during the recent recession.
Table 3 Broward County Clerk of Court Appropriations
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993* 1994** Appropriation $17,585,292 $19,529,813 $19,702,400 $19,530,270 $20,674,640 * Adopted Budget ** Recommended Budget
2 Administered Funds--Judicial have included juror and witness payments (post-indictment), witness payments (pre- indictment), compensation for retired judges, meals and lodging for jurors, and overtime and expenses for court reporters.
152 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 4 Circuit/County Court--17th Circuit Appropriations
FY 1990-1994
Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 County $10,681,239 $12,070,905 $12,113,653 $12,774,790* $14,497,910** Funding Total State To $7,432,393 $7,975,291 $8,279,800 $8,502,471 N/A Circuit Court State To $2,452,201 $2,653,717 $2,862,260 $2,901,667 N/A County Court Administered $1,619,368 $1,961,794 $1,541,206 $944,219 N/A Funds--Judicial STATE $11,503,962 $12,590,802 $12,683,226 $12,348,357 N/A TOTAL * Adopted Budget ** Recommended Budget N/A Not Available
The recession has actually reversed state progress in funding of the court system. In 1972, Florida adopted amendments to Article V of the state constitution, creating a new State Courts System. In addition to dissolving the hodgepodge of municipal and local courts which had evolved over the years, the amendments had three major aims:
• to create a uniform system of courts following rules of procedure with statewide application;
• to eliminate "cash register" courts in which the fines and filing fees were set by judicial officers who were compelled by their "employers" to fund their courts and to generate revenue; and
• to create and maintain a state-funded, independent Judicial Branch of government encompassing all courts in the state.3
Over the years, the state did assume an increasing amount of the costs of the State Courts System, but, because justice-related expenditures rose considerably after 1972, local governments--primarily the counties--continued to fund a substantial portion of the costs of trial court operations and related government functions. Then, during the revenue shortages of the recent recession, the state actually passed back to the counties a significant share of expenses that the state had previously assumed.
Burdened once more with former financial responsibilities and facing the rapid rise of other expenses, notably those associated with special public defenders, Broward and other counties have encouraged the courts to maximize revenues from fees and service charges. The 17th Judicial Circuit presently relies on revenues from fees and service charges to offset additional appropriation requests and to fund special projects. The revenue enhancement efforts have helped to protect the courts from the worst effects of the recession, but the courts find themselves moving further away from the aims of the 1972 amendments.
3 Article V Report on Court Financing, p. 1.
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 153
B. Non-Traditional Funding Sources
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit obtained a federal grant in the fall of 1990 that was used to expand the county's closed circuit television (CCTV) resources. The $174,140 federal grant, matched by $105,444 in local funding, was seed money to implement a CCTV system between the Pompano Detention Facility of the Broward Sheriff's Office and the Central Courthouse for magistrate and attorney-client conferences and to develop the overall implementation strategy for a county-wide CCTV network. The CCTV efforts are part of a larger "Strategic Plan" by which the county plans to combat a backlog of drug cases.
C. Responsibility for Court Expenditure Items
State funding responsibilities, as mentioned above, are concentrated in the court administration budget; no funds are allocated to the operations of the Clerk's Office. By far the largest portion of state funding goes to expenses associated with judges: all judicial salaries, benefits, retirement contributions, and travel for state purposes. Judicial education is also funded by the state, but not through the court budget. The state pays all expenses for retired judges, law clerks and staff attorneys, judicial secretaries, and guardian ad litem staff. Funding responsibility for trial court administration, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and employee travel is shared with the county. Although juror payments and expenses of the Public Defender are paid by the state, funding is not made through the court budget.
Broward County funds the remaining items in the court administration budget plus all expenses of the Clerk's Office, including courtroom clerks and other judicial support. County responsibilities include all expenses for quasi-judicial officials--masters, hearing officers, and magistrates--plus those expenses for ADR neutrals (arbitrators and mediators) that are not covered by service charges. Travel by judges on local business is paid for by the county, as are court reporter and electronic recording services. County funding covers interpreters, jury administration, court-appointed and contract attorneys, family counseling, and court equipment and furnishings. Witness fees are paid by the county, but this budget item is being removed from the court budget. Adult probation for misdemeanor violations is paid by the county through the court budget. The county also funds data processing, although not all expenses are handled through the court budget.
Of the other justice-related budget items that are not funded through the court budget, responsibilities are divided in this manner:
State County Juvenile Intake/Counseling Sanity Exams4 Law Libraries Juvenile Probation Bailiffs Facilities Courtroom/Building Security Community Corrections Prisoner Transportation Child Support Enforcement Service of Process Pretrial Release Programming
4 The court budget does cover competency for criminal proceedings.
154 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
D. Budget Reduction Environment
As has been indicated above, the budgetary difficulties that currently plague the 17th Judicial Circuit stem from two primary sources: a reduction of state reimbursements to the county for court expenses and a rapid increase in expenses associated with special public defenders. Reimbursements for witness costs dropped from over $467,000 in FY 1990 to $97,000 in FY 1991 and subsequently to $0. Probation reimbursement likewise fell to $0 in FY 1992, having been $44,000 in FY 1990 and $36,000 in FY 1991. In FY 1993, the state ran out of money for court reporter overtime and expenses, eventually paying the circuit only $84,411, compared to $378,685 in FY 1991 and $224,859 in FY 1992.
Special public defenders (SPDs) are private attorneys appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants when a conflict of interest exists in the Public Defender's office. Expenditures include attorney fees, expenses, and/or costs for indigent defendants. While the Public Defender is funded by the state, SPDs are funded by the county. Increases in SPD caseloads and compensation rates over the last few years have required significant increases in the appropriations for assigned court costs within the court administration budget. In the county's 1991 Budget, variances for court administration included a $408,000 increase for SPDs. In the following year, there was a $701,000 increase for SPDs among the budget variances. County SPD expenses exceeded $3 million in 1992. SPD expenses in capital felony cases have risen particularly quickly. In 1985, they were less than $42,000, but, by 1992, they were almost $850,000. The largest increase was from $314,000 in 1990 to $692,000 in 1991.
Conditions in the state's 1993-1994 budget do little to alleviate the need for effective cutback management. In addition to general increases in the cost of operations, the state has required a 2.5 percent across-the-board reduction in base level expense appropriations for all entities of state government. Nevertheless, the state has approved new judgeships in 1994--20 trial and 4 appellate--for the first time since 1991.5 Effective October 1, 1993, all judicial branch employees were to receive a 3 percent salary increase, and non-elected employees were to receive a lump sum payment equal to 3 percent of salary earned for the first six months of 1992.6
E. Steps Taken To Cope With Budget Problems
The 17th Judicial Circuit has saved or raised money where it can. Some efforts have been spurred by the recent cutbacks. Others are related to long-term initiatives. Examples of the measures employed are presented below.
1. Automation
Improvements in automated technology and applications have increased efficiency and productivity within the circuit. These benefits have been achieved through an ongoing drive toward computer automation that began in 1985. This process was begun to meet a perceived need for an integrated criminal justice system--one that could provide consolidated access to a variety of criminal and civil databases maintained by several different county and court organizations. Judges need timely information regarding the cases before
5 The 17th Judicial Circuit will receive one new County Court judgeship effective January 1, 1994.
6 The appropriation for this lump sum payment was made in response to a Florida Supreme Court ruling on the state's repeal of 1992 salary increases. Ken Palmer, "Legislature funds priority issues," the Judicial Forum (Florida), Spring 1993, at 1.
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 155
them, including dockets, jurors and defendants, jail records, booking information, civil case records, probation records, etc. In addition, the Court Administrator's Office and the judges need an efficient method of day-to-day communication between various court facilities so as to carry out basic administrative functions.
To meet these perceived needs, the Judicial Information Systems (JIS) division has developed the Judicial Automation Systems Information Network (JASIN), supported by a Local Area Network of personal computer workstations that communicate with the county's mainframe system via a direct fiber optic link. JASIN allows the courts to take advantage of applications already developed on the mainframe, permitting users such as judges to access multiple mainframe applications simultaneously, such as arrest record files, traffic and misdemeanor files, and criminal case files. The system can extend information access to users throughout the county and to neighboring counties. Interagency cooperation has been enhanced through the improved information-sharing capabilities. The court administrator has reported that the system saves paperwork and reduces the delay and effort required for communications. For example, she can now send messages and updates to all 64 judges instantly without having to depend upon staff personnel from different departments.
The JIS division has successfully developed several automated systems to handle justice-related functions. Its jury management system has been so successful that it has been distributed to and implemented by at least five other Florida Circuit Court systems. The jury management system has been successfully reprogrammed to handle changes in state-legislated requirements. In 1993, the system was converted to accommodate one-day/one trial and a new method of paying jurors. Also in 1993, JIS converted the Jury Summoning and Excusal tracking system from an old (1983) NCR mini computer to the county's IBM mainframe. This conversion provides greater functionality for users, detailed juror history information, and the ability to gather more statistics on juror costs and utilization. Efficiencies achieved by the conversions have helped to reduce costs.
Other areas in which JIS has developed or participated in the implementation of automated systems include:
• Civil and Probate Case Management--both systems are for operations of the Clerk of Court, and the latter is to be used by Probate Judges and General Masters.
• Probation--systems handle archival of records, tracking of client histories, and accounting applications.
• Court Mediation--system tracks case information and statistics relating to cases referred to mediation in the circuit.
• Administration--systems handle human resources management, hardware and software inventory (keeps track of all equipment, software, and maintenance contracts in the circuit), and an on-line help desk.
JIS has been distributing portable laptop computers to judges for several years, allowing them to perform court-related operations when they are at home or traveling. Special applications have been programmed for two of the judges to track juvenile case information and fast track case dispositions. Immediate plans for the future include acquisition of CD-ROM technology for use by the judges, staff attorneys, and judicial assistants. In addition, JIS will continue to expand access to the network--Guardian Ad-Litem is scheduled to be tied in when that office moves into the circuit's new facilities during FY 1994.
156 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The value of automation to the 17th Judicial Circuit's cutback management efforts has been enhanced by the closeness with which automation developments have been dovetailed with the budget process. In fact, the JIS director reported that the annual budget process is the primary strategic planning tool for his division. It provides a formal platform for annually reviewing progress on current information systems projects and affords an opportunity for planning how to build on previous investments in successfully implemented technology. The director felt that determining the computer networks and tools needed to satisfy the circuit's information requirements can only be accomplished through evaluation, examination, and in-house testing of various automation solutions. In a tight fiscal environment, he thought it was important that JIS be able to install networks and computer tools that will continue to make the court's services more effective to the public. Maintaining dependable software and hardware standards that could be carried into the future was imperative.
2. Court Reporters and Electronic Recording
As has been described above, state funding of court reporter overtime and expenses was one of the major areas in which the 17th Judicial Circuit experienced cutbacks. In response, the justice community in the circuit has employed several strategies. One is the use of a pool concept for court reporters handling public defender felony depositions. This plan, begun in FY 1992, reduced appearance fees from $26 per hour to $10 per hour. As part of the plan, controls were placed on ordering transcripts. Expenses in FY 1992 were estimated to be under $571,000 as compared to $750,000 in FY 1991.
Another effort was a pilot project, since continued, to test the concept of using draft transcripts of depositions for trial preparation purposes in misdemeanor and juvenile cases. Results were generally positive. Operations in FY 1992 were kept within the $65,000 per year budget, and the Public Defender was pleased with the transcripts. The county decided not to expand the pilot to felony cases.
Electronic court recording (ECR) has also been given a big push since the state cut off funds. Prior to the cutoff, the county's criminal justice coordinator and the court administrator's office had prepared an extensive implementation plan. Implementation of that plan in the County Court was put on hold while the county was achieving $130,000 per year in "savings" by billing the state at the rate of $10 per hour. After the cutoff (effective March 31, 1992), the plan was presented to the Chief Judge, who then suggested alternatives which in the long run will save more money. The modified plan was implemented in October 1992. Under the plan, electronic recording is required or permitted in the County Court in all proceedings except criminal trials.
Trial court administration has also implemented several cost control strategies based upon studies of court reporter expenses. In early FY 1992, the court noted that official court reporters were being paid $2.75 per page for an original and one copy of each transcript plus $1.10 per page for a second copy. Realizing that photocopying costs did not justify the $1.10 per page expense, the court issued an administrative order that relieved attorneys of responsibility for filing a second copy. The court will now pay only those transcript costs associated with the original and one copy. Any additional copies are made by the Court Administrator's Office at a much lower cost per page. Savings are approximately $150,000 per year. Also in FY 1992, the court administrator's office began to strictly enforce margin and spacing requirements specified for transcripts by the Florida Rules of Court. This step has cut down on the conscious or unconscious inflation of the number of pages for which court reporters are compensated.
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 157
Lastly, the circuit and county agreed to the implementation of a new revenue--a reset fee--that enabled them to absorb the loss of the $10 per hour subsidy to official court reporters in the circuit court. From this fee, the county realized revenues of $115,563 in FY 1992 and $479,702 in FY 1993.
3. Jury Management
In 1990, a report from the Florida auditor general indicated that wasteful jury procedures cost state taxpayers $7.3 million between 1984 and 1989. This report sparked the creation, in October of that year, of a comprehensive jury management program within the state, coordinated by the Office of the State Courts Administrator. The Chief Justice mandated specific reductions in the number of juror days paid by county. The reductions were based on efficiency levels achieved by individual counties in 1989 compared to nationally-recognized and state-recommended standards. According to these analyses, juror expenditures in Broward County were 25 percent to 49 percent above the national standard. These developments provided the impetus for significant cutback efforts in the 17th Judicial Circuit.
Real commitment to lowering jury expenditures began when the chief judge appointed a "jury judge" to serve as acting chief judge with authority for all matters regarding jury management and enforcement of related orders. The same individual has served as jury judge since October 1991, providing consistent leadership in the cost reduction efforts. Specific instructions were given as to ordering juror panels, scheduling, juror report time, juror excusals, juror working hours, and trial starts. The automated jury management system (discussed above) has monitored and generated reports throughout the process.
As an incentive to get judges to lower the percentage of summoned jurors who are not sworn, those judges with the lowest percentage--based upon reported monthly calculations--are given priority for panel selection. To prevent juror "hoarding" by judges, panels ordered by a judge may be held for only one hour from the original requested time before they will be returned to the general pool. When statistics indicated that a very low percentage of trials requested for Thursdays and Fridays went to trial, the court indicated that, as of July 1, 1993, no jurors would be summoned for those days.7 Judges wanting to start on a Thursday must take their panels on Wednesday and have them report to the proper courtrooms the next day.
As an additional means of reducing costs, the court issued an order that the Sheriff pay sequestration costs for jurors in capital cases only. Consequently, jurors have been provided with food and beverages during mealtime only if they are engaged in deliberations in capital cases. At all other times, jurors are given at least 45 minutes for lunch and must pay their own expenses. The cumulative savings from all jury management efforts have been respectable. At the time of the site visit, the circuit reported that it had saved $349,880 in juror per diem expenses over the period from January 1990 through May 1993. Mileage expenses saved over the same period amounted to an additional $127,369.34. On July 1, 1993, a new law went into effect establishing a one day/one trial system for jurors and a new juror compensation scheme. At last report, these changes were producing further cost reductions.
7 At the time of this decision (May 19, 1993), summoning of jurors had already ceased for Fridays. When statistics for the prior year indicated that only five percent of jury trials requested for Thursdays actually went to trial, the decision was made to prohibit jury summons for Thursdays as well.
158 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
4. Witness Costs
Following the state's major cutoff of reimbursements for witness costs, the circuit and the county realized they would have to take steps to minimize these expenses. One of the major problems to be resolved was the fact that, although the courts handled the funds for witnesses, they were not the agencies generating the costs. On the contrary, the majority of witness orders have been generated by the State Attorney's Office with the remainder coming from the Public Defender's Office and Special Public Defenders. As accountability for witness costs did not rest with the agencies and SPDs, the courts and the county suspected the attorneys involved were not as careful as they could have been about the generation of witness-related costs.
After careful study, the courts and county decided that accounting and data processing advances had reduced the need for the courts to serve as cost centers for witness expenses. Beginning in FY 1994, appropriations to cover witness costs will be distributed among the cost-generating agencies in proportion to their share of expenses in FY 1993. The county hopes that appropriate distribution of accountability will help keep costs under control and perhaps even reduce them. In addition, the court has issued an administrative order establishing expert fee criteria that apply when fees are to be paid with county funds. These criteria set maximum rates of compensation and some limits on fee totals for experts conducting evaluations, performing investigations, or giving testimony. Attorneys must receive court approval regarding authorization of experts and fees prior to retaining an expert; otherwise, counsel may risk personal responsibility for the expert fee incurred.
5. Special Public Defender (SPD) controls
In addition to general efforts with respect to witness costs, the circuit has worked to bring SPD costs under control. By administrative order, in all criminal proceedings in which one would seek reimbursement from the county, an attorney must obtain--prior to incurring any expenses--an order from the trial judge declaring the defendant indigent for costs. The court specifies which expenses are reimbursable and which are not. The order generally requires that an attorney obtain process, interpreting, and court reporting services from the court or from county agencies unless the court approves otherwise and requires court approval for expenses in excess of $500.
The county generally contracts with attorneys who wish to receive SPD appointments. The County Attorney's Office handles the contract process, following cost and quality guidelines. Attorneys may be appointed as SPDs aside from those with whom the county has contracted. Further administrative orders set out the conditions for such appointments and the allowable limits on compensation in various types of case. The orders, most of which came in late FY 1992 and early FY 1993, appear to be having a positive effect. At the nine month mark of FY 1993, 40 percent of the SPD budget was as yet unspent.
6. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
The CCTV system being implemented in the 17th Judicial Circuit (see above) provides a number of benefits that ultimately save money within the justice system. Upon full implementation of the network,8
8 Conceptually, the implementation plan will network the following agencies and locations: the Broward County Courthouse, including the State Attorney and Public Defender (Ft. Lauderdale); the South Satellite Regional Courthouse (Hollywood); the West Regional Courthouse (Plantation); the North Regional Courthouse (Pompano/Deerfield); the
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 159
pretrial conferences, appearances, arraignments, and depositions may be conducted by CCTV. At the very least, CCTV saves transportation costs for witnesses and defendants who would otherwise have to travel to or be brought to a court facility. The Sheriff's Office estimates that savings for prisoner transportation alone will be $137,000 per year.
CCTV also allows police, expert witnesses, and others to avoid consuming valuable time in travel and in waiting to testify when they might instead be on the job. By reducing the number of times that defendants must be transported between detention facilities and the court, CCTV minimizes the security risks and tensions attendant upon such movements. By expediting the first appearance and magistrate processes, CCTV can accelerate pretrial release and lower the number of prisoners held in detention facilities. This last benefit saves the county money in two ways--the first by reducing the Sheriff's staffing needs at the detention facilities and the second by allowing the county to avoid or minimize federal fines.9 By reducing judge hours spent on first appearances, CCTV can allow the scheduling of additional trials, further reducing delay in the courts. There are numerous other potential uses and benefits for CCTV networks.10 Although the initial costs are high, the long-term benefits can be considerable.
7. Personnel
Although staff cuts have not been viewed as a long-term solution to budget cutbacks in the 17th Judicial Circuit, such cuts have been made in order to get through short-term difficulties. This was the case in FY 1992 when five staff positions in various areas of court administration were cut to make up for lost witness fee reimbursements. For the most part, however, the trial court administrator's office has stretched existing resources and employed volunteers to handle workload demands in circumstances where the budget could not provide additional assistance. Although total case filings have declined somewhat in recent years, offering some relief in terms of staffing needs, the establishment of family court divisions in Florida during FY 1993 forced the circuit to shuffle existing personnel in order to staff the new division.
The creation of an intake unit for the family court division in April 1993 demonstrated particular ingenuity in the use of existing resources. Court administration shifted an employee from the office of the public guardian to head the unit. This individual had shown the requisite training, supervisory, and social service skills during the prior assignment. A clerical secretary was obtained for the unit from the circuit mediation office when ADR offices were consolidated. A third position, that of a home study custody investigator, was vacant at the time of the site visit; however, the position had been filled by an employee from the court mediation office. This last individual had not been as needed in the mediation unit after the
Broward Sheriff's Office, including all detention facilities and regional stations; and Health and Rehabilitative Services (Juvenile Detention).
9 During the course of an on-going inmate lawsuit against the county, the Federal Court imposed facility bed counts with financial sanctions for non-compliance. Jamie Lillis, "County Jails Surveyed and Summarized," Corrections Compendium, August 1993, at 8, 10.
10 Networks provide a means for greater public access to the court system. They can be used for teleconferences, testimony of sensitive and child witnesses, centralized training, and the enhancement of links between members of criminal justice agencies. Through increased accessibility to the public and law enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys can more easily meet the deadline for filing--contributing to a decrease in the "nolle prosse" of cases because of lack of prosecution. See Broward County grant application to finance expansion of CCTV network (1990). See also NCSC Information Service staff memorandum "Closed Circuit TV--'Video' Arraignment" (IS 93.0002; January 27, 1993), by John H. Rockwell.
160 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
court switched to certified mediators in the prior year--a move that had reduced the need for staff to oversee ADR practitioners.
Additional efforts to maximize the use of staff, at least for the short-term, have included asking the court's paid mediator staff to help meet statutory requirements for home studies. These mediators have the requisite social service background for this task and use their down time to perform the studies as they are needed. Part-time permanent staff of the court psychology program have also been asked to increase their workloads. In addition, the circuit's 14 trial court law clerks have been assisting pro se litigants in obtaining temporary restraining orders. The law clerks serve on a rotational basis in addition to their regular duties. Rotations last one week, with four clerks working each rotation, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. The use of volunteers has been encouraged whenever possible.
8. Diversion and ADR
The 17th Judicial Circuit, along with the rest of the state, has been increasing its ADR offerings and other diversionary alternatives by which to reduce case processing delays and costs. ADR, with specialized family and drug courts, helps bring about better resolutions of cases in addition to making the courts more efficient. Particularly in family cases, Florida courts have stressed the use of ADR--usually mediation--to bring about peaceful, long-term settlements of emotion-laden disputes. In the 17th Judicial Circuit, it is the policy of the court to make maximum use of mediation in family matters such as dissolution proceedings, domestic proceedings between unmarried parents, dependency, and custody/visitation issues.11 Before filing any action, both parties may jointly request the services of the Family Mediation and Conciliation program. After the filing, referral to the program may be made upon the motion of a judge or hearing officer or upon the motion of either party. Parties may elect to use a private mediator, certified in family law, at their own expense. Referrals to the program have increased steadily, reaching an average of 105 new cases per month in FY 1992. A growing percentage of these referrals have involved financial issues.
To improve the resolution of family cases, the circuit also requires all divorcing parents of minor children to attend an educational course regarding dissolution, custody, visitation, and shared parental responsibility. The circuit has contracted with Broward Community College for the provision of these courses for which all parties except those who are indigent must pay a fee. The educational program, modeled upon an earlier program in St. Petersburg, Florida, does not cost the circuit anything but provides significant benefits. Since the establishment of the education class, the Family Mediation and Conciliation program has noted that parents coming to mediation are more cooperative and have a better understanding of the issues that most affect children.
In addition to family matters, ADR is also used to resolve small claims, misdemeanor, and juvenile offenses within the circuit. These cases are handled by the circuit's Court Mediation and Arbitration program. The program's stated goal is "to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative to the
11 The circuit mandates mediation in post-divorce issues regarding custody/visitation and in all contested divorces with pending custody/visitation issues. It is the opinion of trial court administration that this policy continues to substantially increase the program's service to the public and decrease the number of judicial hearings. Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Circuit and County Courts: County Funded Budget, Fiscal Year 1994 (1993).
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 161
overburdened court system...."12 The three components of the program are state attorney-referred mediation, county court mediation, and court arbitration.
In the first component, the State Attorney refers misdemeanors to the program. A program counselor meets with the victim and then schedules both the victim and defendant for a hearing before a mediator. Prior to the hearing, the counselor attempts to resolve the conflict through conciliation, if indicated. If there is no settlement at this stage, a trained volunteer mediates the case until an agreement is reached by all parties.
In county court mediation, certified mediators resolve cases at pre-scheduled hearings. In small claims mediation, another part of this component, on-site certified mediators resolve cases at pretrial conferences, negating the need for participants to return for trial. In FY 1992, small claims and county court mediation handled 1,511 cases, an eight percent increase over the prior year.
In the last component, misdemeanor offenses and certain felonies are referred by Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Juvenile Division of the State Attorney's Office and are then scheduled for hearings by program staff. Trained volunteer arbitrators conduct hearings and give appropriate sanctions to the juveniles in order to discourage further antisocial behavior. The juvenile's progress is tracked and reassessments are made until the case is closed. If the juvenile refuses to comply with the program's sanction, the State Attorney's Office then makes the determination whether to file the case for formal court proceedings. In FY 1992, 89 percent of the juveniles successfully completed the Arbitration program, a three percent increase over FY 1991.
9. Subscriptions
In FY 1992, the circuit noted that it was exceeding its appropriation for subscriptions. In July 1992, the chief judge sent a memorandum to all circuit and county court judges requesting that they review and eliminate any subscription that is not necessary to carry out judicial functions. In October 1992, the court auditor reported that reductions by the judges totaled approximately $36,000. Given that FY 1992 expenses had been $177,000 and a price increase of nine percent could be anticipated, the auditor projected FY 1993 expenses to be around $154,000--within the FY 1993 appropriation of $160,000. As the court increases its use of CD-ROM research technology, the circuit may be able to further reduce its subscription expenses.
10. Revenue Enhancement
The Office of the Trial Court Administrator believes that user fees are one of the circuit's primary options by which to accomplish new projects under the assumption of zero budget growth. Revenues from court costs have helped finance automation projects, ADR programs, and court facility improvements and have offset cuts in court reporter appearance fee subsidies (see above). Some revenues benefit the court directly, most notably those allocated to the Clerk's Data Processing Fund and the Circuit Court Service Fund.13 Others are used by the state and the county. Through mutual agreement with the county, the
12 Id.
13 The funds for both are provided from a portion of the filing fee charged on all circuit and county court actions. The Clerk's Data Processing Fund helped finance the four-year implementation of circuit and county court civil automation. The budget figure for the Fund in FY 1993 was over $1.9 million although the FY 1994 figure is 14 percent lower. The
162 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
circuit now charges the maximum sum allowed under Florida law for service charges and fees--$200. The object of this agreement was to maximize revenues for the Local Government Criminal Justice Trust Fund, created in FY 1989 as a revolving reimbursement to the county's general fund for court costs/expenses provided by Broward County to the Offices of the State Attorney and Public Defender.
The proliferation of court fees and service charges in the 17th Judicial Circuit and elsewhere in Florida has not gone unnoticed. In its 1991 report on court financing, the Florida Judicial Council's Article V subcommittee noted that the maze of costs and charges are difficult to administer, may restrict public access to the courts, and lead inevitably to lack of uniformity in application both among and within circuits.14 Indeed, lack of uniformity in imposition of statutorily mandated criminal costs was attributed to judicial perceptions that imposition for each count in every case is unfair both in relation to the seriousness of the offenses and to the costs incurred by the court system for processing15 The subcommittee acknowledged that the problem is part of the greater issue of how court financing responsibilities should be divided between the state and localities, but the bottom line is that the state is losing ground with respect to the major aims touted at the establishment of the State Courts System.
Of note in the Article V report are figures indicating that statewide collection rates in the late 1980s were under 20 percent. A 1991 audit conducted in Broward County reported that unpaid fees (not fines) in the county from as far back as 1979 totaled more than $103 million. While the Article V report argued that responsibility for collection should belong to the executive branch rather than to the judiciary, some effort by either or both branches to improve collection rates could obviously improve revenues while reducing the need to increase the amounts of individual court costs. No serious effort to improve collections was noted during the National Center's site visit.
III Summation of Budget Management Efforts
Listed below are summaries of the instructive elements of the Broward County/17th Judicial Circuit experience:
A. Automation/Technology
Continuing improvement of the circuit's automated technology and its applications has played an integral role in operational advancements throughout the courts and the larger justice system. Increases in the efficiency and productivity of jury management, case processing, court mediation, internal administration, and probation have all owed credit to the efforts of the Judicial Information Systems division. Word processing, research, and communications have all been enhanced by new technological acquisitions. The potential for interagency cooperation has also been expanded and strengthened by the growing automation network within the county, a development which owes much to the courts' leadership. In an effort to manage under cutback or zero growth conditions, automation is an asset which delivers.
Circuit Court Service Fund has paid for data processing software and equipment, building maintenance and related maintenance costs, and capital materials for the court system. In FY 1993, the Fund was budgeted at over $4.6 million; it is also expected to be 14 percent less in FY 1994.
14 "Recommendation Number Three," Article V Report on Court Funding, pp. 15-20.
15 Id., p. 18.
Appendix G: Broward County, Florida • 163
B. Focus On Areas Of Key Fiscal Concern
In every court budget there are areas that are potential budget-breakers--for example, jury costs, witness fees, costs of appointed counsel, etc. In Broward County, these areas have often also tended to be subject to state cuts. By developing systems for monitoring these key areas and by exerting control upon the people or conditions generating expenses in them, the circuit has succeeded in reducing or stabilizing these hot spots. Automation has helped make such micromanagement practical. Cooperation and credibility within the county has also helped, particularly in getting responsibility for witness fees removed from the courts once it was clear that the courts were no longer needed as cost centers. Even in that case, the courts continue to play a cost management role by issuing and enforcing administrative orders regarding appropriate witness standards and compensation rates.
C. Alternatives To Traditional Operations
Alternatives to traditional methods of operation can provide long-term savings and even offer qualitative improvements. In the 17th Judicial Circuit, this lesson has been demonstrated by ADR and CCTV. In addition to reducing costs for the courts, ADR and CCTV also reduce costs for litigants, attorneys, and related justice and social service agencies. Both can reduce case processing delays. ADR offers a non-adversarial method of resolving disputes so that settlements may be easier to live with and last longer. CCTV reduces security risks and offers a host of other potential uses. Careful planning is prudent when such alternative processes are being developed lest they compromise justice. Furthermore, as in the case of CCTV, the initial investment can be high. When properly implemented, however, the benefits from such alternatives are real.
D. Revenue Enhancement
Faced with cuts or freezes in standard appropriations, a court should act to maximize revenues, whether from old sources or from new ones, if it wishes to fund new programs. The 17th Judicial Circuit has done a good job of developing new sources of revenue. User fees and funds for specific purposes, such as automation or facility improvements, have helped the courts to continue and to initiate projects they would otherwise have been unable to afford. The county has viewed such initiatives favorably as a sign of practicality and accountability within the courts' administration. Whatever the policy questions concerning this practice, it is permissible and is perhaps a matter of lesser evils when the governing bodies that arguably should be funding court operations are unable or unwilling to do so. Nevertheless, new revenue sources are only part of the picture; improved collection efforts are also essential if the courts wish to get the most from their revenue sources--whether new or old. Collection efforts in Broward County could use some improvement.
E. Cooperative Administration of the Justice System
Cooperation between the courts and related agencies of the justice system can assist in the planning and development of programs that are more effective and cheaper than programs developed independently. In the 17th Judicial Circuit, such interagency cooperation has assisted and in turn been reinforced by automation developments within the county. Teamwork has contributed to successes in the implementation of CCTV, the Drug Court, and efforts to reduce the jail population. Establishment of the family court division and its intake unit would not have been as easy without such united efforts. The growth of a professional trial court administrative office within the circuit has been a key to enabling such
164 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
collaboration. Having won the trust and respect of county administration, court administration has enjoyed great flexibility in managing its budget and has received county support for its justice system initiatives.
Despite these successes achieved through cooperation, the 17th Judicial Circuit also offers examples of how failure to work together can lessen or prevent successful initiatives. Many of these problems may have political roots. Efforts to change the administration of drug cases has been hampered by reluctance within the State Attorney's Office, where "Get tough" political rhetoric creates its own agenda. Lack of unity between the administrative and clerical branches of the courts has perpetuated avoidable personnel and administrative inefficiencies, preventing some of the most basic management alternatives by which to reduce costs. With such disunity, the circuit cannot approach the county and its justice agencies with one voice with regard to finances and other issues. This fact, as much as anything else, may explain the poor history of collection efforts in Broward County (and elsewhere in the state). This division within the courts is unlikely to improve without significant political change within Florida as a whole.
Conclusion
Florida's 17th Judicial Circuit is not facing imminent financial collapse, but its budgetary path for the next few years will have a fair number of bumps. In such circumstances, the circuit is representative of many courts that have been forced to reduce expenditures and hold the line. The experience of the 17th Judicial Circuit should be of particular interest to courts which lack the advantages of administrative unification, as the circuit has found a number of sound methods of controlling and even reducing expenses despite its divided administrative and clerical offices. With the professional leadership of the circuit's trial court administrative staff, Florida's 17th Judicial Circuit has developed a cooperative atmosphere in which the greater county judicial system should be better able to weather the flat economic conditions of the 1990s.
APPENDIX H National Center for State Courts Site Report North Dakota Court System
he North Dakota court system is in the process of implementing 1991 legislation calling for absorption of county courts into the district court by January 1, 1995, and for a downsizing of the T trial court judiciary from 53 to 42 by 2001. This legislation, which was driven in large part by economic considerations, is unique, not only in the scope of the proposed reduction, but in the manner of implementation. The legislature has set some goals which are reviewable at various check points but has left it up to the North Dakota Supreme Court to administer the changes with very few limits on the authority of the courts to shape administrative and election districts, to assign judges, and to determine where judgeships are to be eliminated. The project staff thought it important to document this phenomenon and made a site visit to North Dakota in the period June 28-30.
I The Setting
A. The State and Its Traditions
North Dakota had a 1990 population of 639,000. Much of this population is concentrated along the eastern border of state which abuts Minnesota. The Bismarck-Mandan area in the Missouri River Valley is the second population center. The state lost population in the last decade and is experiencing a shift of population from rural to urban areas. Although the state's population has fluctuated for many years between 600,000 and 700,000, the shift from rural to areas has been dramatic. The state's four largest counties containing Grand Forks, Fargo, Bismarck, and Minot grew from 134,000 in 1930 to 291,000 in 1990 whereas in the same period the other 49 counties declined in population from 546,000 to 347,000. The average population of these 49 counties is 7,000, and some of them are unable to provide the full range of county government services. This population shift is, of course, reflected in the legislature which is increasingly dominated by urban legislators. This great sociological and political change is at the root of the changes and tensions in the court system. The rural areas are struggling to preserve the traditional county structure of government which has always included some form of court presence.
It is also important to note that North Dakota has a very strong populist, sometimes radically populist, tradition and that its people are not given to undue reverence for institutions.1 The state is still heavily dependent on agriculture and reflects the long-standing attitudes of farming communities about
1 For example, a litigant is given the right to reject the judge assigned to hear the case. The ramifications of this right are enormous. If there is only one judge in a sparsely settled area, a judge will have to be brought in from elsewhere. Similarly, pro se litigation is not seen as a grudgingly permitted right but as a natural emanation of the North Dakota ethos, even if the pro se litigant is appearing before the North Dakota Supreme Court.
-165- 166 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
neglect and exploitation by various forces outside their control. In short, North Dakota is a likely place for discontent with institutions to result in strong reform measures. People outside the state might see such reforms as a quaint rural throwback to the days of the Non-Partisan League, but it is more likely that North Dakota is signaling the future not the past.
B. The Court System
1. District Court
The North Dakota courts once reflected the diffusion and variations of its 53 counties. Up until 1983, North Dakota had five different types of trial courts, many of them with lay judges and part-time judges. In 1976 the voters approved a constitutional amendment establishing a unified court system consisting of "a supreme court, a district court and such other courts as may be provided by law." The effect of this provision was to make all trial courts, other than the district court, statutory courts, inviting the legislature to complete the work of unification. In 1981 the legislature, pursuant to its constitutional authority, passed legislation creating a single-level county court system, replacing the three existing types of county courts as of January 1, 1983. In 1991 the Legislature mandated the merger of county courts into the district court on January 1, 1995, thus completing a gradual process toward unification. Municipal courts are not encompassed by the legislation.
The district courts of North Dakota are courts of general jurisdiction, except as limited by law. Administratively they are organized into seven administrative districts which are also election districts. There is a presiding judge and court administrator or administrative assistant in each district.2 Due to a policy of downsizing, three vacant district court judgeships have not been filled since the 1991 legislation, so that the number of district court judges was 24 at the time of the site visit.
Each district court judge is entitled to a court reporter. The clerical support for district courts is provided by elected clerks in each organized county. These clerks may also serve the county court if that court does not have its own clerk's office (in counties with a population of at least 25,000 county courts may have their own clerk). The impending unification of county and district courts is leading to a unification of clerical offices in those counties with separate clerical offices. Such a merger has already occurred in Burleigh County.
The district courts serve as juvenile courts and sometimes employ juvenile referees. Juvenile probation officers and other juvenile court employees are carried on the court payroll and constitute a major element of the district court budget. There are 40 juvenile officers operating from 12 locations, another example of the diffusion which characterizes the state. They perform the traditional non-custodial supervision functions and are not charged with treatment responsibilities. Counties provide foster care services and deal with status offenders. There is a Juvenile Policy Board which oversees and plans for juvenile functions. It is staffed by the Administrative Office of Courts. Adult probation is an executive branch function.
2 The professional level of these administrators and assistants varies a lot. It is doubtful if the courts require this many people in administrative positions.
Appendix H: North Dakota • 167
Not much use is made of bailiffs in North Dakota. They are used primarily for jury cases and do not appear to have major in-court functions. There is, however, increasing concern about security following a shooting of a trial judge. Sheriffs are engaged in screening those who enter the court areas of county buildings.
The basic facts about district court organization and staffing are indicated in Table 1.
2. County Courts
County courts are limited jurisdiction courts of record created by counties pursuant to state law. County courts have been given exclusive original jurisdiction in probate and mental health commitments. They also handle preliminary hearings in felony cases. The judges of these courts, 26 in number at the time of the site visit, are full-time, law-trained judges who are elected by the residents of the county which created the judgeship.
Relatively few counties have enough case volume to occupy a county judge full-time, so that it is common for a county court judge to serve two or more counties. This is done by contract between the county where the judge is resident and the county requiring judicial services. Of the 26 judges, the majority serve two or more counties. Usually, these counties are within the same administrative district, but three judges serve counties which are not in the same administrative district. By means of inter-county contracts, county judges span the state.
Since county court judges cover a lot of sparsely settled counties and cannot be everywhere at once, they are permitted to appoint magistrates for preliminary matters and sometimes use clerks of court for this purpose. In urban counties, they may appoint small claims referees.
The county courts hear de novo appeals from municipal courts with which they share concurrent jurisdiction in traffic cases. They can also hear municipal ordinance cases
168 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Table 1 Summary Facts on District Courts
6/30/1993*
District Counties 1990 Chambers Judges Dist. Juv. Ct. Total PopulationLocation Ct. Pos. Pos. Pos. East Central 3 114,000 Fargo 4 10 12 26 Northeast 11 88,000 Bottineau 2 4 10 16 Devil's Lake Grafton Northeast 3 78,000 Grand Forks 4 7 10 21 Central Northwest 6 98,000 Minot 4 8 11 23 Williston South Central 13 137,000 Bismarck 4 10 9 23 Mandan Linton Southeast 9 82,000 Wahepton 3 5 8 16 Jamestown Valley City Southwest 8 41,000 Dickinson 3 5 2 10 Hettinger Totals 53 638,000 24 49 62 135 * Based on personnel statistics printout, not authorized positions.
if the municipality agrees. County courts have concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in trust and civil cases where the amount in issue does not exceed $10,000. County court judges can be designated by a presiding judge to hear any district court case in the administrative district.
Some county court judges are serving as referees for child support enforcement. The counties are reimbursed for this activity through an agreement between the North Dakota Supreme Court and the North Dakota Department of Human Services. The reimbursement is a little unusual because activity of judges is not normally reimbursed under the IV D program.
II The Fiscal Situation
A. The State
North Dakota has been spared some of the serious fiscal problems which afflicted other states in recent years. The state generates money from its mineral resources, and the agricultural component of the economy has been fairly good. But, as elsewhere, the state's resources are not staying abreast of its needs. The situation is not dire, but it will require flat budgeting, perhaps worse.
Appendix H: North Dakota • 169
B. The Courts
The state-level component of the North Dakota court system has traditionally been state-funded. This component consists of the supreme court and its supporting agencies, specifically the clerk of the supreme court and the state administrative office of courts. The state-level component also includes the Judicial Conduct Commission and Disciplinary Board. The 1993-95 approved budget for the supreme court is $6,058,648 and for the board $395,668. This appropriation for state-level agencies constitutes about 24 % of the total court budget for the biennium ($26,670,916).
The source of the state funding for courts is almost entirely the state general fund, but the legislature usually appropriates some special fund or grant money in addition to general fund money. Under North Dakota budgetary practice certain types of anticipated income - for example, IV D revenues - are subtracted from the approved budget, so that the appropriation represents a net figure. In recognition of the separation of powers the appropriation statute directs the state budget office to make such transfers of funds between line items as the supreme court requests.
In the 1993-95 biennium the North Dakota trial courts received $19,912,703, about 76% of the 1993-95 state appropriation for the court system. This appropriation is based on 1981 legislation which obligated the state to assume responsibility for most district court expenses, the principal exceptions being the expense of facilities and the costs of clerical offices.
The county courts were and are operated at county expense. The 1991 unification legislation increases the state's financial responsibilities since county courts are absorbed into the district court. The 1993-95 budget includes an increase of $2.2 million to cover the six-month period from January 1, 1995 (the effective date of unification) to June 30,1995. This appropriation covers the personnel and non- personnel costs (other than clerical offices) of those components of the county court for which the state is taking financial responsibility, primarily the salaries and fringe benefits of 26 new judges and such other items as additional jury costs, payments to guardians ad litem, and additional indigent defense costs. In the following biennium the increase attributable to county courts could be in excess of $ 8 million, but the savings from the process of attrition in judgeships, now on target, will probably mean a lesser expenditure in the 1995-97 biennium than is currently projected. There will be substantial net savings to taxpayers from the process of judicial unification.
The court budget has been so small in relation to the overall state budget (about .7%) that the courts have generally been well-funded. The courts have benefited from vacancy savings3 on authorized positions. The court reverted about 5% of its budget after the 1991-93 biennium, indicating a good budget position.
The unification proposal placed the court budget under much tighter scrutiny because the state was being asked to make a substantial increase in the appropriations for trial courts. Some long-standing doubts about the efficiency of court operations started to surface, among them doubt about the number of judges. One of the major arguments against unification became the money issue. The downsizing of the judiciary must be seen against this backdrop. Part of the price for unification was increased efficiency, not just a promise of efficiency, but a definite legal requirement to reduce the size of the judiciary.
3 The 1993-95 budget is based upon 25 district judges, although the elimination of a judgeship after the budget submission reduced the number to 24. This alone creates a major budget cushion over a two-year period.
170 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State funding for the trial courts has remained fairly constant in the three most recent bienniums. FTE staffing has also remained pretty constant and will decline slightly in the current biennium, at least until the unification occurs. Discounting the six-month appropriation for court unification costs, the original appropriation for the trial courts has increased very little over the course of three bienniums (See Table 2 below).
Despite the relatively flat pattern of funding, the courts have done fairly well. The best indication of this is that in the current biennium the North Dakota courts have avoided cuts in such vulnerable areas as travel, law libraries, equipment, education and indigent defense. For a small state, North Dakota has a very broad offering of educational opportunities for judges and has a budget of $100,000 for the current biennium. The travel budget for the district court, including juvenile court and the 6-month budget for unification, increased from $242,053 in 1991-93 to $ $247,788 in 1993-95. In the overall court budget including the 6-month unification budget, law libraries declined from $435,524 in 1991-93 to $428,720 in 1993-95; equipment went from $121, 224 in 1991-93 to $338,272 in 1993-95; and indigent defense went from $1,816,020 to $2,179,131 in the current biennium.
An interesting aspect of North Dakota's ability to hold indigent defense cost in line is the use of contracts.4 About 78% of the indigent defense expenditures are in the form of contracts. These contracts are negotiated at the district level and may include the provision that if the contractor cannot handle a case that he or she has to bear the cost of the assignment to outside counsel. In the same district there have been separate contracts for district and county courts and sometimes for specialty areas. The down side of contracts is that there may not be a great interest in the contract work and that the quality of the defense may not be as high as would be desired.
Table 2 State Funding of Trial Courts 1989-1995
1989-1991 1991-1993 1993-1995 Original Revised Original Revised Approved Approp. Approp. Approp. Approp. Budget District $8,791,672 $8,838,190 $9,333,642 $9,408,223 $10,708,974 Juvenile 4,773,891 4,437,665 4,493,371 4,609,368 5,279,965 Law Libraries 368,961 323,292 435,525 346,657 428,720 Jury Expense 704,995 508,600 658,382 591,672 642,211 Indigent Defense. 1,750,030 1,597,962 1,816,020 1,781,020 2,179,131 Judges' Retirement 788,991 760,338 877,182, 877,182 858,960 $17,173,540 $15,966,047 $17,614,122 $17,614,122 $20,097,961 Minus Unification Funds ($2,274,293) $17,823,668
4 For a description of the indigent counsel system in North Dakota, see "Contract Counsel: A Different Way to Defend the Poor," 6 Criminal Justice 24 (Spring 1991).
Appendix H: North Dakota • 171
III Unification and Downsizing
A. The Legislation
The 1991 legislation on court organization (House Bill No. 1517) had the following salient features:
• The county courts and the office of county court judge are abolished at the completion of the terms of all county court judges on January 1, 1995.
• The supreme court is empowered to eliminate county judgeships if they fall vacant prior to elimination of the county courts but must work with county boards.
• The number of district court judgeships is increased by a number equal to the lesser of the number of county court judges on January 1,1991, or the number of county court judges on January 1, 1994.
• The supreme court designates the administrative district to which each judgeship will be assigned, such district to also serve as an election district.
• Originally, the supreme court was given authority to determine the location of chambers but was required to locate 30% of the chambers in cities with a population of no more than 7,500. A 1993 amendment raised the population level to 10,000; a separate 1993 amendment stated that a judge chambered in such a small-town location need not be a resident of the county, only the district.5
• The supreme court is directed to establish staggered terms for the new judgeships.
• The supreme court is required to reduce the number of district court judges to 42 by January 2, 2001, and to immediately start the process of eliminating judgeships, both at the county court level and district court level.
• The supreme court is to use as a primary method of reduction a hearing on whether to fill any judicial vacancy which occurs. The original bill was amended to permit a position to be considered vacant when an incumbent announces that he or she will not seek reelection.
• The supreme court is empowered to actually abolish a judicial position if attrition does not appear to be an adequate means of achieving interim reduction goals (48 by July 1, 1995; 46 by July 1, 1997; 44 by July 1, 1999).
• The presiding judge of the district court can appoint magistrates, as county court judges now do; the presiding judge can appoint small claims referees as county court judges now do.
5 This aspect of the legislation graphically reveals the feeling of rural counties that they were being bypassed. The original bill was much more "rural' than the bill as amended.
172 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• District Court judges are permitted to use either a reporter or electronic court reporting systems (currently, district court judges use reporters; county court judges often rely on electronic recording monitored by an employee paid much less than a reporter).
B. The Background of the Legislation
The trend toward court unification started in 1976 with the passage by the voters of a new judicial article which established a "unified" judicial system but left it up to the legislature to determine the implementation. After several studies and one abortive legislative attempt to create a system of associate district judgeships in lieu of county courts, the legislature in 1981 passed legislation creating a unified county court system. The unified county court system went into effect in 1983.
After a brief pause, court reformers were soon advocating that the ultimate step toward unification be taken - the creation of a single-tier trial court. Then Chief Justice Erickstad favored unification but recognized that the judiciary was divided on the issue.6 There were proponents of unification in the legislature who became increasingly active in the late 1980s. In 1989 a legislative resolution directed the Legislative Council to study the adequacy of state elected officials' compensation This study was referred to the Interim Budget Committee on Governmental Administration which subsequently agreed to study the issue of establishing a one-tier trial court system.
Following the close of the 1989 legislative session, the Chair of the North Dakota Judicial Conference7 appointed an Ad Hoc Commission on Court Unification chaired by Judge Lawrence Leclerc of Fargo. The Ad Hoc Committee reported periodically to the Interim Committee, and the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee were recommended to the Legislative Council by the Interim Committee and later included in 1991 Senate Bill 2026. The bill, which called for a single-tier system and reduction of the number of trial judges to 42 (but differing in many details from the bill which ultimately passed) was opposed within the Interim Committee and within significant constituencies of the judicial system. The bill was subsequently defeated in the Senate in the 1991 session.
The opposition came from various sources. Rural legislators feared the further erosion of government services to sparsely settled counties. Some district court judges felt that the prestige of the district court would be diminished by doubling the number of judges in the court and by involving the district court in minor cases.8 Less openly stated was the concern that there might be greater difficulty in getting increased salary and fringe benefits for judges if the number of state-paid judges increased
6 In his farewell speech to the Fifty-Third Legislative Assembly, Chief Justice Erickstad reviewed the history of court unification in North Dakota. He was central figure in this history.
7 The Judicial Conference has over 70 members, which include ex officio all justices and judges of courts of record, including surrogate judges, the attorney general, the clerk of the supreme court, the dean of University of North Dakota Law School, and in addition, some municipal court judges and bar representatives. Given the size of the conference, it has an executive committee headed by the person elected as conference chair. The state court administrator serves as executive secretary. The conference meets at least twice annually and has a number of standing committees. The conference considers possible improvements in the operation of the North Dakota courts.
8 One of the interesting political aspects of the district court position was that Judge Leclerc became an opponent of unification, despite his leadership role on the Ad Hoc Committee.
Appendix H: North Dakota • 173
dramatically. There was additional concern over electoral implications of the legislation which might change election districts or promote more intense competition for the reduced number of judgeships. Some legislators were concerned over the increased cost to the state by taking over the expense of county courts, making it necessary for proponents to stress the savings from downsizing and consolidation. Some court reporters were actively opposed because their livelihood was closely tied to the district court and because electronic recording of proceedings was a factor in some of the legislation. The possible opposition of clerks was avoided by leaving them outside the scope of the legislation. Legislators feel that the clerks could have killed the legislation if they opposed it.
The forces favoring unification were the county judges, the Association of Counties (by far the most influential proponent), the North Dakota State Bar Association, and the North Dakota Trial Lawyers Association. Several influential lawyer-legislators played a very important role, particularly in calming fears of some of many non-lawyer legislators suspicious about "lawyer bills." The role of the supreme court was a bit muted since many trial judges were in open opposition and since it was not clear that all members of the supreme court were as supportive as then Chief Justice Erickstad, who ultimately played a strong, but relatively non-public role, in the passage of unification legislation, even though he felt that the reduction in judgeships was too severe.
The fact that legislation ultimately passed is credited by many observers to the North Dakota Consensus Council, a foundation-funded organization based on the premise that most issues of public policy can be resolved better by consensus-building than by partisan acrimony on what are often peripheral issues.9 The Council, which is a private corporation supervised by a board of directors consisting of major elected and private sector leaders of the state, entered the public policy area of court unification in the late summer of 1990 as it became clear that the draft legislation before the interim Committee was unacceptable to major constituencies. The Council attempted to put together a flexible legislative vehicle based on bipartisan consensus. The Council first prepared documents setting forth what appeared to be a fairly broad consensus of principles and criteria for testing any proposed legislation. These documents were sent for comment to all participants, including lawyers, judges, and government officials after first revising the documents to better reflect the agreement. The Council then prepared draft legislation based on this consensus and sent it and revised consensus documents out for comment. Finally, the Council prepared the legislation which ultimately became law.
The interesting aspects of the legislation are: (1) the long-term nature of the transition and the number of check points where everyone has a chance to reconsider what they have wrought; (2) the broad authority given to the supreme court to implement the changes, keeping the legislature out of the internal details of court administration as well some thorny political issues internal to the judicial branch; and (3) the deliberate attempt to reduce the pain involved, on the theory that the great social progress doesn't necessarily involve pain.10 This interesting approach had the great merit of charting a major restructuring while not freezing it in concrete. The legislation has all types of fine-tuning mechanisms, and everyone thinks that if some aspect of the plan proves impractical (e.g., getting down to 42 judges), it can probably be worked out. The consensus legislation was contained in 1991 House Bills 1516 and 1517. As introduced, HB 1516 set a goal of 46 judges.
9 The director of the council is Larry Spears, formerly Assistant State Court Administrator of North Dakota. He was therefore very knowledgeable about the issues involved in unification.
10 Some legislators and judges commented that the very gradual phase-out was predicated upon predicted retirements, the idea being that no one would really be forced out of office.
174 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
It appeared at first that the two unification bills would pass easily. Both houses passed the bills without much difficulty, but the Senate made some minor amendments to both bills, requiring additional House action. On the second go-around the House defeated H. B. 1516, containing the major substantive section of the legislation, apparently at the urging of district court judges with ties to the House leadership. The arguments against the bill were the increased cost to the state and the effect on court service in rural areas. The legislation was saved by linking it to the trailer bill (H. B. 1517) and rallying the forces favoring unification.
The most interesting aspect of the legislation was the choice of the number 42 as a target goal for the number of trial judges. There appears to be no empirical justification for the particular number, and yet it was used repeatedly and finally passed into law. The thinking in judicial circles seems to be that maybe the courts can cut down to 46 judges and then will have to urge an end to further reduction. The legislation, with its periodic checkpoints, lends itself to this type of thinking and is one reason why the legislation was salable.
C. Implementation of the Legislation
When a judgeship becomes vacant, H. B. 1517 requires that the supreme court make a determination whether the judgeship is necessary for effective judicial administration. The court has established a procedure for making this determination (Administrative Rule 7.2). The rule provides that the court may designate a hearing officer (e.g., a retired judge or staff attorney) or hearing panel to take testimony of affected parties in the location where the judgeship has fallen vacant. On-site hearings have in fact been held by hearing officers after public invitations to attend. The officer makes findings of fact but not recommendations. The court may accept written testimony or hold a hearing in lieu of or in addition to the hearing conducted by a hearing officer or panel. The court has thus far sought maximum participation and openness, following the most liberal interpretation of the rule and conducting its own hearing before making a decision.
Prior to the date of the site visit five judgeships had fallen vacant. Three of these judgeships were abolished and two were retained. Most of the vacancies are occurring in district courts, in part because the age level among district court judges is higher than that for county court judges.
Table 3 Determinations on Vacant Judgeships up to June 30,1993
District City/Town Court Decision South Central Linton District Court Abolished Northwest Williston District Court Abolished Southeast Jamestown District Court Retained Northwest Minot County Court Retained Northeast Bottineau District court Abolished
There are a number of impressive features to the process of downsizing in North Dakota. There is surprising openness among judges to the need for some reduction in the total number of judges. There is a strong consensus that the procedures established by the supreme court have been fair and open. Despite the
Appendix H: North Dakota • 175
loss of three district court judgeships, there have been few complaints.11 The loss of judgeships is causing presiding judges to make better use of county judges. In the Northwest District a county court judge handles district court cases arising in the counties which he serves. The presiding judge in that district has, when necessary, sat in for the county judge in Minot.
The impending unification raises a number of questions, all of which bear on efficiency in one way or another. Among the points being discussed are the following:
Number of districts and trial centers: During the site visit, several judges commented that seven administrative districts is far too many. The consensus number seems to be four. The efficiencies in having a larger pool of judges and employees are obvious, as are the savings to be derived from halving the cost of trial court administration, not to mention the effect on regional computer facilities.
In addition, most judges felt that cases should be handled in trial centers in urban areas where the great bulk of the caseload is concentrated. The demography of the state is such that this development seems imminent, particularly if the rural to urban shift continues during the rest of this decade. The fact is that the current deployment of trial court resources does not reflect the demographic realities, perhaps not even the political realities. It is also incredibly inefficient. Several judges noted that they could spend hours to go to one site for a single case. Legislators and judges observed that technology might permit teleconferences, perhaps video conferences. The use of FAX filings was also mentioned, the point being in all observations that it makes a lot more sense to bring people and papers to courts rather than having judges use up a lot of time to go to the litigants.
District-wide venue: North Dakota has too many counties. Some counties are so small that they cannot organize a normal county government. It is conceivable that the number of counties will be reduced, but it is more likely that use of regional administrative districts will be expanded. This is particularly true in the court area. County venue has been outdated by population shifts and improved transportation and communication. Several judges commented that they expect to see venue established on a district basis, facilitating the concentration of cases at high-volume locations.
Integration of county court judges: North Dakota judges are very aware of the problems which occurred in Minnesota when that state went to a one-tier court system. The main problem there, as it will be in North Dakota, is how to integrate county court judges into the district court. The promised efficiencies depend on how well this is done. Ideally, the process will start before the 1995 transition date. Some county judges are seeking assignments in counties where they are not now known in order to enhance their election on a district-wide basis.
Each district has a slightly different configuration, so that the integration will take different paths, but the early indications are that county judges in urban areas may, as newly elected district court judges, initially continue their former functions, pending some system of rotation that involves all the judges in the urban area. Outside the urban areas, county court judges, as newly elected judges of the district court, may very well handle all types of cases in a sparsely settled, multi-county region. There is a lot of concern among trial judges about how this integration will occur. They look to the supreme court which in turn appears to be saying that this is a local judgment best left to the presiding judge.
11 Administrative rules provide adjustments to accommodate the reasonable tenure and retirement planning of current judges.
176 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Use of parajudicial officers: District courts in five of the seven administrative districts use juvenile referees. A very high percentage of juvenile cases are disposed of without reaching a judge, other then for confirmation of the actions taken by referees. The use of magistrates and small claims referees would add types of officers who have been used only in county courts. The reduction of judgeships might lead to an increase in use of parajudicial officers, which already appears to have happened in Ward County. The appropriate use of such officers is an important consideration in whether or how fast the judiciary meets the downsizing goals specified in H. B. 1517.
Clerks: The relationship between elected district court clerks and the district court is one of the anomalies of unification. Elected clerks have been an important part of county government in North Dakota and have operated somewhat independently of the judiciary. Even though the district courts have been state-funded, the clerks have remained county-funded. State law allows for clerks to choose state funding, subject to supreme court approval, but there is no current funding for this. During the political debate over unification, the issue of the clerical role was not addressed because there were too many other hot issues. Yet, the efficiencies of unification are most likely to be realized through the clerks, the most labor-intensive component of the trial court. If the courts shift to district venue and counties become a less of a factor in court administration, it will change the way clerical offices operate and make them more directly responsive to the judiciary.
A related issue is the relationship between county court clerks and district court clerks. In Burleigh County, the two office have been merged and the integration of the record systems has been addressed. Elsewhere, the process of unification is just starting or not yet being addressed.
County Court Judge Glenn Dill of Minot has observed in a memorandum on unification that the location of clerical records has to be considered in conjunction with assignments to courtroom facilities. The judge hearing the less complex, high-volume cases should function from a courtroom adjacent to the clerks who maintain these records (in Ward County there is a five-person clerical staff supporting the county court judge).
Transcripts: The unification legislation allows for use of both types of reporters. Judge Dill further observed that unification should make the courts confront the issue of how court reporters are used. He pointed out that he uses electronic reporters, as do other county court judges, and that he considers them as useful as stenographic or short hand reporters, even thought the latter are paid a much higher salary. One result of downsizing may be to reduce the number of stenographic or short hand court reporters and perhaps to break the inefficient tradition that each judge is entitled to such a reporter. As things now stand, it is hard to figure out how to deal with a reporter assigned to a judge whose position is abolished or who is currently inactive. It occurs on occasion that courts have to employ a contract reporter when the personal court reporter of some judge is unoccupied. A procedural system for any transition to different types of technology and personnel use is a remaining task.
IV Court Operations
A. District Court
The District Court of North Dakota is essentially a family court. In 1992, 70% of the filings in district courts were represented by domestic relations cases (59%) and juvenile cases (11%), and the juvenile cases only represent the small percentage of cases which are handled formally. District court
Appendix H: North Dakota • 177
caseload has increased at steady pace for about a decade, the increase from 1991 to 1992 being 4.5%. However, the state-wide increase disguises the regional disparities. The increase is largely in the eastern part of the state.
There was an increase of 10.7% in pending district court cases from 1991-92, but the total number of pending cases at the end of 1992 (10,984) is about 45% of the 1992 filings (24,169), indicating no serious problem. Cases move to disposition without undue delay.
The problem of the district courts is that judges are not located where the cases are, leaving some judges with light caseloads. This phenomenon has been a major cause of the downsizing effort. Studies in 1991 revealed that judge-caseload ratios varied from 1250 in the East Central District to 573 in the Southwest District. If judges were moved freely between districts, this would not be a major problem. As it is, surplus judgeships are eliminated if a judgeship happens to fall vacant in a district which has a surplus of judges.
B. County Court
There are two kinds of county courts, urban courts which process a high volume of cases, primarily misdemeanor and non-criminal traffic cases, and rural courts which handle relatively few cases of any kind due to the demography of the region. Non-criminal traffic cases constitute over 60% of the annual filings (roughly 100,000 per year) but do not require commensurate amounts of judicial time. A 1991 study of county court judge-caseload ratios, excluding non-criminal traffic cases, revealed that 10 of the county court judges had an annual caseload of less than 900 per year and that five judges had caseloads in excess of 2000 cases per year. This striking disparity reveals the problems of judicial allocation in North Dakota. Even allowing for the inefficiencies of serving large and sparsely settled areas, this discrepancy in caseload suggests that judges are not being very well used.
V Summation of Steps Taken in the Fiscal Area
The experience of North Dakota is notable for the fundamental restructuring of the judiciary, rather than for specific financial and budgeting measures. Rarely has a state chosen such a thoughtful, long-term process to increase court efficiency by mandating a smaller and more compact system. North Dakota is a bit atypical in its demography and geography, but its process of combining unification and downsizing has many implications for other states, particularly those states which have a few pockets of population in a large expanse of land. What North Dakota has offered other states is a way of achieving efficiencies through fundamental change effected over time.
The issues raised in North Dakota are not new. The manner of addressing these issues is not altogether new either. However, the packaging of these changes is quite unique. North Dakota has created a flexible vehicle of reorganization and resource allocation which can be periodically reviewed in the light of fixed goals. It would be hard to find any comparable model.
The most common approach to efficiency is to identify waste and to reduce or eliminate it by an analytical microcosmic approach. North Dakota has pretty well inverted this process by focusing on the top of the pyramid, the judges themselves, and dealing with the overall structure of the court system rather than its internal workings. The legislature, and to a lesser extent the judiciary itself, has identified the central problem as the number of judges and their deployment in two separate trial courts. The answer has
178 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
not been a meat-ax chop in judgeships, but court unification coupled with a requirement that the supreme court thoughtfully review the judicial requirements of the trial courts and gradually downsize the judiciary, hopefully through attrition. The supreme court has been given wide latitude to administer the judicial branch and to make changes in districts, budget allocations, and trial locations. Separation of powers need not take the form of judicial insistence on its budgetary prerogatives. It can take the form of seeking independence to better serve the goal of efficient operation.
Conclusion
It would be tempting to write off the North Dakota experience as an aberration, applicable only in a state small state with a declining population. To succumb to this temptation would be to miss the point. The key to what North Dakota has done is development of a consensus process for making major changes and forming a relationship between the judiciary and the legislature which permits implementation of the changes. The legislature can set the long-term government structure and policy goals in a multi-year time frame, leaving the detailed implementation to the judicial system. The deal, if it can be thus described, is that the courts achieve considerable autonomy in return for which they meet certain long-term legislative goals pertaining to the efficient operation of the court system. This can apply anywhere.
APPENDIX I National Budget Survey Conference of State Court Administrators
Results of Financial/Resource Management Survey
(46 responses out of 54 surveys mailed - 85%)
1) What steps has your court system taken (or does it plan to take) to address the problem of reduced budgets (i.e., layoffs, mandatory leave without pay, occasional days of closed courthouses, limitations on civil jury trials, reduced out-state/in-state travel, targeted services reductions, etc.)?
Alabama: In FY 1991-92, ending September 30, the UJS budget was reduced 5.5 percent due to proration. The following steps were taken: 1) elimination of state funding for judicial education conferences; 2) personnel, travel and other operating expenses were reduced; 3) juror costs were reduced and 4) association dues for judges, clerks, AOC staff and court reporters were curtailed.
Alaska: No budget reductions yet. If there are, we will lay off employees, reduce in-state and out- of-state travel and reduce targeted services. In addition, we will begin voluntary leave without pay and close courthouses.
Arizona: Appellate Courts (includes Administrative office and statewide programs administered by Administrative Office, e.g., Foster Care Review Boards, Intensive Probation, Juvenile Treatment):
• forced delays in filling vacant positions;
• computer consolidation to reduce maintenance and software costs;
• considering the consolidation of law libraries;
• considering restricting usage of automated legal research;
• time and materials as opposed to maintenance contracts on personal computers and computer terminals;
• time and materials as opposed to maintenance contracts on facility systems (e.g., security system, HVAC, etc.);
• increased usage of grants;
-179- 180 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• reduced operating and travel expenses;
• cancellation of some training/education events;
• delayed upgrades of automated systems;
• reduced services in some programs (e.g., counseling for families/juveniles, drug testing, etc.).
Trial Courts (as reported by Maricopa Superior Court, the largest trial court in Arizona):
• forced delays in filling vacant positions (at least 30 calendar days from date of vacancy;
• administrative positions reduced as vacancies occur, with corresponding duties reassigned;
• elimination of paid judge pro tempore coverage (with reliance on pro bono service by attorneys);
• operating, travel and training expenses reduced;
• toner cartridges for data processing recycled for replacements;
• court staff newsletter printed fewer times per year;
• furniture and equipment purchases frozen;
• cancellation of some training/education events;
• building/furniture repairs limited to items necessary as a safety precaution;
• delayed purchase of Shepard's Arizona Citations and reviewing list of books provided to each judge for possible reduction;
• building hours limited to 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ("extended hours" service eliminated);
• contracted security services eliminated;
• restricted usage of automated legal research to law library, with computer maintenance coverage reduced from 24-hour coverage to 12-hour coverage;
• increased utilization of jurors from Monday through Thursday--no jurors available on Fridays;
• discontinued paying meals for jurors.
Mandatory leave without pay was identified as an absolute "last resort" alternative if further budget reductions were needed. Fortunately, they did not become necessary.
Arkansas: We have not had any reductions in our budget. We have had and continue to experience a moderate increase in our annual appropriation.
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 181
Colorado: Voluntary furloughs; reduced travel, both in-state and out-state; elimination of planned and funded programs, for example, the institution of volunteer coordinators; banking minor probation supervision cases; eliminating probation services to limited jurisdiction courts; no anniversary increases.
Connecticut: Temporary layoffs - 81 people for 6 months; permanent layoffs - 15 people. Union and non-union employees wages frozen for one year. Curtailed use of temporary employees. Retirement incentive for vested employees. Hiring freeze on permanent employees. Limitations on civil jury trials. Reduced out-of-state travel. Curtailed non-emergency building repairs.
Delaware: The Delaware Courts lost a total of 27 authorized positions in fiscal year 1991 due to an early retirement offer made by the state. The Courts have also been subject to reductions in funding for operating lines, particularly travel. More computer generated forms are being used, reducing the need for outside printing.
District of Columbia: The D.C. Courts, confronted by pending deficits, produced by several years of funding constraints implemented a strict expenditure control program which included:
• Reduction of "temporary" employees;
• Hiring "freeze";
• Elimination of summer internship program;
• Restricted use of Senior Judges;
• Early termination and late re-hire of judicial law clerks;
• Elimination of non-criminal case overtime;
• Adjusted work schedules to reduce premium pay; and
• Allowing only essential expenditures for travel, training, supplies, equipment, contractual services, construction and renovation.
In addition, the D.C. Courts were forced to suspend all jury trials for the month of August, 1992 except in bail reform act cases which are required to be tried within 120 days of arraignment.
Florida: A. Implement an administrative order curtailing expenditures and placing restrictions on the hiring of persons for selected vacancies. (A copy of the Administrative Order is attached). Major cuts were made in: 1) General expenses appropriations at all levels of the court system; 2) Funds appropriated for temporary assignments for retired judges; 3) Funds appropriated to pay a salary differential for county judges on temporary assignment to a higher court; 4) The elimination of a number of administrative/support positions; and 5) Anticipated savings from a statewide jury management initiative.
B. In light of the Governor and Legislature emphasizing the need for state government to downsize, we put a great deal of emphasis on steps we have taken to economize: 1) A major example is our jury management initiative which saved in excess of $1.2 million last fiscal year, which was applied to our budget reduction goal (a summary of our jury management program accomplishments is attached); 2)
182 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Savings in negotiated contracts for Westlaw services (a summary of savings is attached); and 3) Other economies gained through more competitive bidding for computer equipment and maintenance contracts.
C. Strong legislative and lobbying effort to convince the legislature that the State Courts System, because of the makeup of its budgets, cannot sustain across the board reductions similar to those sought for executive branch entities. The goals in this regard were to avoid having to make cuts in excess of $8 million as originally requested (we eventually sustained reductions totaling only $2.6 million) and positioning ourselves so that future revenue shortfalls do not require us to make equivalent across the board reductions. Attached is briefing material provided to the legislature and a copy of the resulting amendments in the state budget laws which hold major sections of our budget harmless in the event of future revenue shortfalls.
Guam: We've not been confronted with budget cuts that would require such drastic measures. Continued growth within the next 5 years is forecasted although at a more conservative rate than the preceding 5 years for the Territory.
Idaho: We have not had any of these occur to date.
Indiana: This office does not have state-wide funding responsibilities for all aspects of the trial court. To date, we have not yet been forced to take any measures on our portions of the budgets.
Iowa: Freeze vacancies, limit out-of-state travel, may look to establish some litigation centers to reduce travel of judges and court reporters, eliminate some education conferences, and may have to have furlough days when court offices are closed and employees take days off without pay.
Kansas: When a reduction of the budget occurs the following events have been implemented in order of the reduction severity:
1) Hiring freeze restrictions in vacant prioritized positions;
2) Reduction or elimination of subsidized out-of-state travel;
3) Reduction or elimination of subsidized in-state travel including conferences, management meetings, regional training, seminars, and district court site visits;
4) Elimination of Court of Appeals travel to regional courts for appealed cases; and
5) Work-force reduction accomplished through vacancy attrition.
Kentucky: In light of shrinking state revenues, we are constantly seeking ways to reduce cost and to enhance the operational efficiency of the court system. In recent years, in order to achieve these goals, technology initiatives, such as video court reporting and computerization of record keeping, case management, and accounting systems have been implemented in the court system. During the past fiscal year, the court's budget was reduced to help meet a projected shortfall in the state general fund receipts. We were able to meet the required budget reduction through the more traditional approach of delaying the filling of vacant positions, reduce furniture and equipment purchases, curtail out-of-state travel, reduce in- state travel, eliminate education programs, etc.
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 183
Louisiana: So far, the Louisiana Legislature has not reduced the budget for the judicial branch of government. As a result, we have not had to resort to the drastic and destructive measures which have been forced upon some court systems.
Maine: Layoffs (approximately 10% of staff); two year "freeze" on union, professional and judicial salaries; reduced work hours for professional staff; reduced juror fees and witness fees; reduced operating hours for small courts; no funding for out-of-state travel; no funding for judicial or clerical training; leases and security officer contracts negotiated downward; no overtime, no "temporaries"; sharply reduced state contribution to judicial retirement fund.
Maryland: Employee furloughs (up to five days), reducing judicial leave, hiring freeze, freeze on promotions and reclassifications, reduction in both in-state and out-of-state travel, hold judgeship vacancies open, delay purchases, delay projects.
Massachusetts: Freeze on hiring, promotions and reclassifications; 1991 furlough or deferred compensation (statutory) plan; reduction of in-state travel; virtual elimination of out-of-state travel; and with the consent of the House Committee on Ways and Means, transfer of funds among Trial Court appropriation accounts.
Michigan: For the last few years, the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has had across the board budget cuts for all units within the Judiciary at the state level. These offices include: Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office, Court of Appeals, Commissioners Office, Judicial Training Institute and the Detroit courts which are fully state funded. The remaining 239 trial courts receive funding from their local county funding units and have also had to absorb cuts.
Minnesota: The courts have required entry at the bottom of salary ranges, held vacancies open for a period of time, eliminated almost all out-of-state travel and significantly reduced in-state travel by reorganizing assignment systems, eliminated some conferences, and reduced the amount of retired judge assistance available.
Mississippi: Our court has delayed pay raises, has strongly encouraged those employees with enough service time to retire so that a lower paid employee could be hired as a replacement, has reduced out-of-state travel, has implemented additional control procedures over expenditure of funds, and has cut out certain services (e.g., using only one computer research service rather than two, thus eliminating one contract).
Missouri: The Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) has undergone some cuts to its budget and has prioritized and eliminated some of its activities. No cuts have been made to our Circuit Court budget (statewide personal services) for the past several years. What we have had to forego is much needed clerical staff required for child support duties and for many other additional duties that have been legislated without funding. Both the OSCA and the Circuit Court budgets have cooperatively lapsed funds when possible through vacancy savings.
Since the local counties are responsible for the local operational costs of our courts in the State of Missouri and can ill afford software for the courts, the OSCA data processing section has developed many programs for microcomputers and LANs, to assist the clerical needs through technology. Where locally a court can afford the hardware, we have installed software programs to meet their needs and support their systems with on-site training and technical assistance.
184 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
The Judicial Conference sought last year and will seek again in this coming year, legislation to establish a statewide automation system for the courts. Such a system envisions a statewide central repository through electronic transfer of all monies collected by the court offices locally. We believe that local venues can receive slightly more interest than they would receive by local deposits, and that the state judiciary will realize two or three percent over and above what is disbursed as interest to the local courts on a daily balance of approximately 48 to 50 million dollars.
The OSCA has a cooperative agreement with the Division of Child Support Enforcement that results in approximately two million dollars a year being deposited into the general revenue fund of the state by the federal government for the services performed by the clerks of the courts for IV-D child support duties. We believe we may be able to successfully have these monies deposited in a court federal account rather than to general revenue with an open ended FTE number appropriated to the county. These funds could then be used to employ more clerks where necessary. This is a tactic that we will pursue in the next legislative session. We successfully had 15 FTE added to our circuit courts during the last session using this strategy.
The drug monies that are being provided to every state contain a mandate this year, that sets aside 5% of these dollars to be used exclusively for the improvement of criminal history disposition reporting. We have applied for and will receive about half of these dollars in the State of Missouri for the courts. We intend to provide hardware to courts locally, install our criminal records system, and train court staff in those courts that have otherwise been unable to afford hardware. This will give the courts many additional labor saving capabilities as well as the technology to report criminal dispositions electronically as a spin off of their daily work. Presently many courts fill out forms and report these dispositions manually.
We have no plans at the present time, to lay off staff, or place limitations on the public services of the courts.
Nebraska: Reduction in travel and education expenditures; staff reductions; seeking statutory changes to eliminate specific duties.
New Hampshire: At this time we are not planning any programs of this nature.
New Mexico: Reassessed expenditure patterns in operating expenditure categories; instituted hiring freeze; limited salary increases; curtailed all travel considered non-essential; offered LWOP to employees wishing to volunteer; curtailed civil jury trials; approved time extension on certain criminal jury trials.
New York: (all questions addressed under this one section) In the 1991-92 fiscal year the NYS Judiciary's appropriation was approximately $34.3 million below the level needed to maintain operations. To address that significant shortfall drastic steps were taken including sharp cutbacks in such areas as legal reference materials, where all new purchases and replacement volumes were eliminated. Equipment purchases were not authorized except for extreme emergencies. Education and Training programs were suspended and expenditures for travel, supplies, Arbitration and Small Claims Assessment Review hearing officers were severely curtailed. Utilization of Judicial Hearing Officers to support case processing was also reduced.
Because over 90% of the court system's budget relates to personnel costs, the fiscal crisis required a significant reduction in non-judicial staff, which had to be met through a hiring freeze, displacement of provisional employees and layoffs. Additionally, a freeze on promotions, reclassifications and reallocations
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 185
was imposed. Personnel cutbacks led to the closing of civil court parts and severe service cutbacks in the State's Surrogate's Courts, court-related agencies and administrative offices.
Due to the severity of the underfunding, the Judiciary sought relief in the form of a lawsuit to compel the Legislature and Governor to provide the Judicial Branch with funding reasonable and necessary to meet constitutional and statutory obligations. Subsequently, an agreement was reached with Legislative leaders and the Governor and the lawsuit was withdrawn. That agreement provided for funding through appropriations and cost savings initiatives to allow for returning court services to normal operations through the rehiring of laid off employees and the phased-in filling of staff vacancies during the 1992-93 fiscal year.
The 1992-93 budget as enacted included several cost saving and revenue generating features including:
• Measures authorizing the use of Judicial Hearing Officers to process Compulsory Arbitration and Small Claims Assessment Review Cases.
• Authorization to permit electronic or mechanical recording of testimony in lieu of stenographic minutes in the Surrogate Courts and Court of Claims.
• Creation of a Special Revenue Offset Fund for deposit of the proceeds of an incremental increase in fees generated by furnishing criminal history search information.
• Creation of a Special Revenue Offset fund to capture certain fee increases in the County Clerk's Offices. The monies in this fund will be used to meet the operating budget of NYC County Clerk operations.
• Elimination of a requirement that noncomplying jurors be notified by certified mail.
In addition to the cost savings measures embodied in the 1992-93 approved budget, the NYS Unified Court System has devised innovative methods to streamline and expedite case processing including the Individual Assignment System (IAS), specialized civil and criminal parts, and judicial transfers. A juror management program is also used to control costs and minimize inconvenience to those who service as jurors. This program includes the use of a telephone stand-by system and careful utilization measurement to ensure that the minimum number of jurors needed are actually summoned and called-in for each term of service.
The court system has also improved administrative management through extensive use of automation, an internal controls program and a long-term planning program. Improved service is also supported through the records and information management programs and human resource initiatives. Additionally, the NYS Trial Courts use a Budget Management Planning and reporting system to monitor and control expenditures and have established pre-approval procedures for temporary service, overtime, travel and equipment expenses.
North Carolina: Hiring freeze instituted, which has now been reduced to a 120-day slow down in filling vacant positions; ban on out-of-state travel had been in effect for 2 years, but is now being relaxed; Superior Court rotation (circuit riding) was suspended resulting in all judges being assigned to their home districts, thereby eliminating travel; suspension of reimbursement for conference registration fees and reduction in the frequency of conferences; elimination of 61 new positions which had been authorized, but
186 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
were abolished prior to being allocated; courts were instructed to have jurors report for service on Tuesdays, rather than Mondays; and suspension of Co-op Education Program and education refund program.
North Dakota: As of this date, the North Dakota judiciary has not had to face a major budget crisis. The problems of the past have resulted in a few layoffs and reduced travel. Next year may be our first real test.
Ohio: During the administration of Chief Justice Moyer, fiscal responsibility has been an important theme. Except for a total of ten staff members attributable entirely to new programs, the effective staffing of the programs that existed in 1987 are being handled with fewer staff.
Chief Justice Moyer reduced the FY 1992/1993 biennial budgets of judicial agencies by as much as 11.8 per cent prior to submission to the General Assembly in 1991. However, in response to requests from the Executive and Legislative branches, we have further reduced the budget. In FY 1992, the Court lapsed $1,465,854. Chief Justice Moyer has also agreed to reduce the FY 1993 budget by 1.1 million.
Oklahoma: Consideration of actions to be taken is underway. In-state and out-of-state travel have been reduced.
Oregon: The funding crunch will not hit state government in Oregon until our next two-year budget cycle beginning on 7-1-93. In planning for potential reductions, we intend to favor distinct program reductions over across-the-board cuts. We may end up using several of the reduction examples noted above.
Pennsylvania: Every effort is being made to avoid layoffs at the state court system level in the current fiscal year (in which most appropriation line items have experienced an average funding reduction of five percent). To do so, the following have been frozen: all salary increases, both cost of living and merit (a freeze on any merit increases for highly compensated - over $50,000 - staff was previously imposed and has been in effect for several years); travel to seminars and professional conferences; and filling of vacancies, unless approved on an emergency basis.
Counties, which bear the brunt of trial and minor court operating funding, have been hit with elimination of state grants to help defray those costs. Although some grant money may be restored as the state budget is reopened this fall, counties are still in the throes of determining how those cuts will affect court operations. Some county commissioners have already refused to pay overtime expenses and to pay certain additional costs. Many are doubtless not filling vacancies, but it is still too soon to know whether other more draconian effects will take place on day-to-day court operations. Given mandated time frames for action in criminal cases, civil trial delay can logically be expected to result from significant reductions in trial court operating funds.
Over the past two years, exceptional efforts led by the state Supreme Court have been made to achieve significant savings and efficiencies in the operation of Pennsylvania's First (and, by far, the largest) Judicial District, Philadelphia City/County. This has entailed staff layoffs, identification and allocation of funds to provide badly needed automation upgrades, the assumption of virtually all purchasing functions for the courts (Common Pleas, Municipal and Traffic) from the City, the increased professionalization of court management, the elimination of certain unnecessary tasks previously performed by court employees, and general oversight of court functions and procedures with an eye toward further elimination of those
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 187 which are redundant or unnecessary. The result has been improved service delivery at demonstrated financial savings.
Puerto Rico: To address the budget reduction for the court system we have:
• Established a strict order of priorities from a budgetary point of view. At present, the priorities considered concern security and automation requests.
• Adjustments have been established on the following detail accounts: equipment, materials, professional services, personnel training, etc.
Rhode Island: The state court system, and in fact all state employees, had a 12 month period during which they were not paid for one day in each 10 day pay period. Those days were either deferred for later payment or allowed as additional vacation. That 12 month period ended in April 1992, and at present salaries have been restored to their normal level.
We have also reduced a number of operation accounts, notably new and replacement equipment, out-of-state travel, publications, etc. We have attempted to reduce the number of jurors which we call and have instituted a more aggressive program of dismissing jurors on days that they are not needed.
South Carolina: Reduced court time scheduled; reduced travel.
South Dakota: The State of South Dakota has been somewhat insulated to the effects of the national recession that is being experienced by many of the other states. We have not had to take budget reductions such as those that are mentioned.
Tennessee: We reduced (nearly eliminated completely) all out-of-state travel to educational programs. We also did not reimburse trial and appellate judges for travel to their June annual conference meeting. Several positions in the court reporter division were eliminated. We reduced in-state travel for judges by requesting presiding judges assign substitute judges within the same or contiguous judicial districts. Reimbursement of court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants was delayed for approximately four months. Appointments of private counsel were discouraged with use of public defender system encouraged.
Texas: The Texas Court System has not had to face the problem of reduced budgets. State appropriations increased by 16% for 1992 and will increase another .4% for 1993.
Utah: The Court System in Utah has been fortunate in that we have not had to deal with the problem of reduced budgets. In addition, we do not foresee that this will be a problem in the future. As a result, the Utah Judicial Council currently has no contingency plans for this eventuality.
However, about four years ago, the Administrative Office of the Courts put together a scenario that contemplated a ten to twenty percent reduction in appropriated funds. Several options were used including Riffs, mandatory leave without pay, closing court locations, and elimination of some non-judicial related programs. Those plans could possibly be used as a starting point should the economic situation in Utah change, but the current economic forecasts do not indicate that this will occur.
Funding for the Utah Court System is not revenue dependent. Therefore, we do not put any emphasis on revenue collections other than to treat the collections as a normal function of the court.
188 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
However, the Utah Legislature passed a Debt Collection Coordination bill during the 1992 Session which authorizes any state agency (including courts) to retain the cost of collecting past due funds and depositing the remainder of the amount collected to the fund to which the revenue would ordinarily go. We are beginning to implement pilot programs in accordance with the legislation, but we do not yet have any results to report from our efforts.
Vermont: 6 month suspension of civil jury trials; ban out-of-state travel; limit in-state travel; freeze all vacancies; replace people with technology (. voice mail); replace court reporters with audio and video recording; cut back mediation program; delay filling judgeships (for up to 18 months); reduce law library purchases; pay jurors and per diem staff hourly.
Virginia: Salary increases withheld; judges voluntarily gave up salary increase; all new positions held vacant; any vacancy must be held open ten weeks; no out-of-state training; in-state training programs cut in half; computer budget sharply reduced.
Washington: The Office of the Administrator for the Courts (OAC) implemented cost containment measures several months in advance of budget cuts. As a result, the OAC was able to sustain the cuts without laying off personnel. The cost containment measures implemented by the OAC were: 1) in- state/out-of-state travel curtailed; 2) staff training curtailed; 3) scaled back on non-critical equipment purchases; 4) "freeze" on vacant positions; 5) teleconference meetings rather than face-to-face; 6) financed equipment purchases. Continued revenue shortfall is forecast for the 1993/1995 biennium. Legislators are already warning that additional cuts will be sustained by all branches of government.
West Virginia: The Judiciary in West Virginia has been fortunate in that we have not been required to reduce our budget. We have had to impose spending freezes to assist the state with cash flow problems. The result of the spending freezes have been: 1) no out-of-state travel; 2) deter or cancel all equipment purchases; 3) reduce or eliminate part-time employees; 4) do not fill vacancies; 5) cancel educational conferences; 6) cut back on law libraries.
Wisconsin: So far we've been lucky and haven't had to resort to any of the above. We are very careful that we attach a proper fiscal note to any legislation that would create new programs or expand existing ones. We continue to stress that there is a cost associated with providing the forum that we manage.
Wyoming: Out-of-state/in-state travel has been reduced moderately.
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 189
2) If you have been forced to reduce your staff or to not fill vacancies, how have you dealt with having fewer people to manage court business?
Alabama: It is difficult, at this time, for the AOC to assess what delays or backlog in caseload may have taken place, especially since these reductions were temporary.
Alaska: N/A
Arizona: Create incentives to get buy-in from staff to work within constraints imposed. Examples include flextime work hours and salary increases within available hours.
Colorado: Left some work undone; discontinued use of court personnel for inappropriate work (work which should have been done by executive department).
Connecticut: Temporary transfer of employees from one location to another to maintain a balance of staff to workload. Use data processing to supplement workload. Allow caseload to backlog.
Delaware: Courts are using more overtime, and they are using casual and seasonal money to hire temporary help. Automation of routine functions has become more pressing, and a substantial amount of programming is being done to streamline the work of the courts.
District of Columbia: The D.C. Courts have been forced to re-allocated, reorganize and "detail" staff to adjust to staffing needs created by the hiring freeze.
Florida: Because we were generally successful with our legislative initiatives and were able to reduce the budget reduction target for the State Courts System, the loss of staff was limited to a handful of administrative positions throughout the state. Their work has simply been absorbed by other administrative support staff.
Guam: Staff reduction will not affect existing positions. However, any vacancies may result in a percentage reduction in the dollar amount to fund the position. By virtue of our limited manpower, assignments are consolidated and cross-training is a requirement to insure that services are rendered. We've also begun the initial software services for a fully integrated automated system that encompasses our total operations.
Idaho: N/A
Indiana: N/A
Iowa: Have eliminated some non-essential functions.
Kansas: 1) Some district courts have reduced their hours of public accessibility; 2) Prioritize programs targeting services offered by the courts for reduction and delaying implementation of other programs; 3) Reassignment and realignment of job duties and responsibilities resulting in increased workloads; and 4) Pursuit of technology or other means to enhance efficiency.
Kentucky: The delay in filling a vacant position was based on the size of the complement of an office. The smaller offices were exempt from any delay in filling a vacant position. The larger offices were required to keep a position vacant for 15 or 30 days depending on the size of the complement of the
190 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
office. This approach enabled the court system to generate the desired personnel savings through vacancy credit and limit the personnel burden on any one office for only a few weeks.
Maine: Reorganization of district court to have all traffic fines paid at one location; variety of "TQM" projects - doing more with less; caseload has declined as a result of recession; using computers and networks to do clerical work centrally for several courts.
Maryland: We have dealt with reduced staff by extending the court work hours from 35-1/2 hours to 40 hours per week at no increase in salary.
Massachusetts: Court staffs have been reduced through attrition and a hiring freeze, a policy with an erratic impact. For the most part, the resulting slack has been taken up by the redoubled efforts of the remaining employees to meet essential needs. In the process, at some locations, a backlog has built up with respect to some functions, primarily clerical in nature.
Michigan: The SCAO staff have been required to take on additional duties for the positions that remain vacant due to a hiring freeze. We have tried to continue services to the trial courts at the same level by establishing priorities with some projects being delayed. We also have begun using trial court staff for their expertise and assistance when conducting court studies.
Minnesota: We have requested remaining staff to pick up additional projects and work longer hours.
Mississippi: The workload has been redistributed where vacancies have arisen. The staff involved in certain areas have been given a very small pay raise which has kept morale up since they have been asked to do extra work. Their pay raises were much less than the prior salaries paid the full-time employees no longer with the court.
We also have concentrated on being sure employees are cross-trained so that they can help out in the areas that are shorthanded due to vacancies and/or delayed job fillings.
Nebraska: Prioritize sites and functions.
New Hampshire: N/A.
New Mexico: Some positions becoming vacant have been left vacant for some periods of time. Other employees have had to work overtime and have accumulated compensatory time.
North Carolina: 150-day hiring slow down was waived or reduced when vacancy would reduce staffing in a given office by more than 15%; reporting requirements to AOC were revisited and eliminated or reduced where possible; system development efforts were directed to those areas which would have the highest payoff for personnel productivity in the shortest period of time, such as civil and judgment indexing. Efforts at the trial court level varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally speaking the courts moved more business with fewer authorized positions. However, cases in the system have increased in age and are disproportionately more complex than before the budget reductions. ADR programs selectively introduced which helped relieve pressure in certain jurisdictions.
North Dakota: Cut back on services, education and travel.
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 191
Ohio: We have had a selected hiring freeze and we are still managing well.
Oklahoma: None
Oregon: N/A.
Pennsylvania: As yet, we have not reduced staff, and our goal of avoiding that action remains. However, staff positions have long gone unfilled in some areas of the state court system and this trend only is exacerbated by the current fiscal year's reductions.
To some degree, the ability to increase automation of state court offices has improved productivity. In some areas, insufficient staffing has led to uncommonly long hours. Otherwise, staff has gone about its tasks by prioritizing output and ensuring that necessary, routine tasks are performed.
While morale has been largely excellent over the past year or so (even in the face of six weeks of delayed pay checks during the beginning of the just past fiscal year), in some areas of the state system morale is beginning to suffer.
Puerto Rico: Personnel or staff reduction has not been necessary.
Rhode Island: In the past 18 months we have closed three divisions of our District Court and consolidated them in our Providence office. This has enabled us to leave some positions vacant and transfer the others to the consolidated office. We have also made scheduling changes in the hours worked in our District Court. We have suspended public service for the last hour of each working day to catch up on filing and other administrative functions and close for one hour at lunchtime so that all staff take their lunch break at the same time. It is our feeling that these steps make more effective use of existing staff.
South Carolina: Not applicable (yet).
South Dakota: Although we have not had to reduce staff, the legislature has not granted expansion for staff. The Unified Judicial System has not received any new staff that was requested for the past two years. On the circuit level, the Supreme Court has reduced staff in some areas and reallocated to others.
Tennessee: Work harder pleas!
Texas: Not applicable.
Vermont: Shift staff from civil cases to criminal, juvenile & family; install technology (e.g. voice mail, audio recording); close during lunch hour/limit hours of operation; purchase more technology by borrowing from state's revolving fund.
Virginia: Some courts have closed clerk's offices to the public early in the afternoon to concentrate on dockets, etc.
Washington: The OAC reprioritized its activities so that critical services to customers were not interrupted. The OAC is examining its business functions and processes to determine if they can be discontinued or done more efficiently.
192 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
West Virginia: 1) Redistribute work; 2) deter or cancel programs or projects; 3) use automation; 4) don't do projects that are not essential.
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 193
3) What programs, if any, have you instituted to help increase revenues?
Alabama: (1) With the passage of Act 92-227, which increased docket fees across the board, the UJS received a supplemental appropriation of $2.7 million.
(2) Some judicial education conferences were funded through federal grants.
Alaska: Increase court fees and attachments.
Arizona: Provided copy of Annual Report, Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund,
FY 1991, for a summary of projects designed to increase the Arizona courts' ability to collect financial penalties imposed by the courts. Contact Bill McDonald or Shelley Rockwell for a copy.
Colorado: Collection investigator program in trial courts and now in probation departments; reduction of stays of execution issued.
Connecticut: There is a moratorium on revenue increases, especially in the motor vehicle area. We have seen our not guilty pleas increase in proportion to our fine/fees increases. This has tremendously increased our workload in court.
Delaware: Fees have been raised for some civil actions in the Justice of the Peace Courts. Legislation has been proposed to increase costs in criminal actions in the Superior Court.
District of Columbia: The D.C. Courts have approved rules changes which have increased fees in civil litigation.
Florida: We have taken no steps to increase revenues. The leadership of the judicial branch has traditionally looked unfavorably on initiatives to increase filing fees and other user charges to support court operations.
Guam: Public law authorizes the Judicial Council to charge reasonable fees for providing certain services or programs that the court determines are necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Idaho: We have hired Vice President Quayle to publicize Idaho potato products.
Indiana: None.
Iowa: Attempting to get federal reimbursement from child support collection efforts of clerks. Apply for State Justice Institute and Substance Abuse grants.
Kansas: By raising docket fees, certain functions (e.g., education and technological improvements) have been funded through dedicated fees.
Kentucky: Since all of the revenues collected by the court system are deposited into the state treasury, it is our objective that the introduction of computerized case management and accounting systems into the court system will reduce any delays and increase the accountability of receipts to be deposited into the state general fund.
194 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Maine: $300 fee to request a jury in superior court; surcharges of fines for "victims" and DUI prevention program; better collection efforts; 15% increase in traffic fine schedules; charging a fee for some court publications.
Maryland: The court has tightened the collection of court costs and fees and has instituted certain revenue generating initiatives such as a surcharge on land recordation.
Massachusetts: Some fees and surcharges have been increased by statute. Participation in the previously voluntary IOLTA program has been made compulsory by court rule. The Probate and Family Court has entered into a contractual arrangement with the Department of Revenue to increase child support payments. This program provides funds to hire temporary probation officers and clerical employees engaged in child support collections.
Michigan: SCAO, through the National Center for State Courts, has recently provided a training seminar to the local trial courts on improvement of fine and fee collections. We are currently studying the possibility of tax intercepts as another option for collections.
Minnesota: We have instituted pilot projects to explore increasing the fine collection rate. We have encouraged the Legislature to increase fees in certain instances, e.g. administrative fees, small claims court filing fees.
Mississippi: We have not instituted any new programs to increase revenues. We have sought additional grant funds, which may require in some cases that we gather certain data from lower courts to meet the requirements of the grants; but this data gathering has been accomplished with existing staff so that the grant funds are used to offset existing expenditures and not new expenditures (e.g., gathering data for the Immigration & Naturalization System on immigrants processed through the court systems).
Nebraska: None yet.
New Hampshire: Credit investigator program; joint program with State Police to collect defaults; centralization of pleas by mail; pilot credit card program (forget it!).
New Mexico: More aggressive fine collection efforts; have been looking into contracting with collection agencies; have instituted a partial payment program.
North Carolina: Increased utilization and follow up to insure maximum recovery of indigent attorney fees through the use of income tax set off.
North Dakota: None.
Ohio: At the Supreme Court level, there have been nominal increases in filing fees. At the trial court level, the fees are the responsibility of the General Assembly. However, fees and court costs do not always derive to the courts.
Oklahoma: None.
Oregon: We have under development for possible submission to our 1993 legislature the following revenue enhancement programs: 1) a variety of accounts receivable or collections programs using our new automated financial system; 2) increases in filing fees indexed to cost-of-living increases; 3) new fees for
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 195 certain functions (i.e., dissolution decree modifications); 4) increased trial and hearing fees that more accurately reflect the actual expense of a party's decision to pursue formal avenues of dispute resolution; 5) partial monetary contribution by indigent criminal defendants; 6) the sale of court automated system access and reporting to public and private entities (i.e., law firms, title companies); 7) access to inmate trust accounts for payment of outstanding court-imposed financial obligations.
Pennsylvania: Some discussion of increasing filing fees has taken place, but these are largely small ticket revenue items. A significant portion (in excess of $10 million per year) of the Administrative Office's statewide computerization budget is already funded through non-tax dollar revenues (a combination of fees imposed on convictions and filings and increased fine revenues collected in excess of those collected in an established base year). While those revenue sources are insufficient as well, little sentiment exists to increase those sources nor to supplement that funding with tax revenue.
Puerto Rico: A) A recycling sales program of record destroyed materials; B) Negotiation with banks on interest rates upon the deposits made by the courts. The income earned from the interest rate would be used in a reasonable proportion to cover part of the court's expenses.
Rhode Island: We have increased a number of filing fees in all of our courts. Our
emphasis has been on those fees which bear the least on pro se litigants, small claims filed by individuals, domestic cases, etc. As all courts in Rhode Island are funded by general state appropriation, this money does not come directly to the courts. However, it does increase income to the state general fund.
We have also developed a more aggressive campaign to collect fines and costs due us from individuals who have not paid. This campaign includes well publicized arrests by our Fugitive Task Force.
South Carolina: Legislature has increased certain court fees but the benefits to the courts have been small.
South Dakota: We have instituted a Court Automation Surcharge fee of $5.00/criminal and civil filing. This fee will generate approximately $750,000 in FY 1993. This fee replaced general fund dollars that would have been appropriated. We have also used various federal programs such as Social Security, Title 19 and Title IV-E for out-of-home placements for adjudicated juveniles.
Tennessee: Tennessee State Legislature passed professional tax on licensed occupations in order to fund indigent defense and other judicial entities (staffing for public defenders, etc.).
Texas: None.
Vermont: Co-payment for Public Defender services; surcharges to fines; increased filing fees.
Virginia: Court fees were increased by the legislature which allowed us to obtain new employees during the last session of the General Assembly.
Washington: Some court fee increases were implemented in FY 1992; however, most of our energy is focused on containing or reducing operating costs. No fee increases are expected in the 1993/1995 biennium to increase available revenues.
West Virginia: None. All revenue generated by the Judiciary goes to state or local government.
196 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
4) Do you have any other ideas to share with COSCA members on how to manage in tough economic times?
Alabama: The Unified Judicial System is currently facing a 7 percent prorated budget for FY 1992-93. Throughout these times of restricted resources, the UJS has maintained that the judicial branch of government was a separate branch which constitutionally must receive adequate funding to carry out its duties. On July 31, 1992, Circuit Judge Charles Price ruled that Section 41-4-90, Code of Alabama 1975, was unconstitutional. This statute gave the Governor the authority to prorate state budgets when revenues were projected below appropriations made by the legislature.
Alaska: No.
Arizona: Continue to review your operations for cost saving opportunities.
District of Columbia: Given that most court system costs are labor-related, quick reductions in annual expenditures are difficult. Long term reductions are dependent on internal consensus on "essential" and non-duplicative services, the most cost efficient delivery of those services, and flexibility in reorganizing the bureaucracy to deliver those services.
Florida: None that can be summarized in a paragraph or two. I look forward to the meeting in December on this subject.
Guam: Divisionary programs, operations consolidation, reassessment of existing positions for broader responsibilities and/or reclassification.
Idaho: Don't return phone calls from creditors.
Indiana: Good luck to all!
Kansas: 1) Public educational awareness; 2) Legislative educational awareness; 3) Rallying judicial and nonjudicial personnel for supporting judicial branch budget during legislative sessions; and 4) Fiscal note and impact statements.
Maine: Make "long term" productivity enhancements rather than one year deferrals and short term cuts.
Maryland: Reorganization to downsize operations.
Massachusetts: The Supreme Judicial Court has, for the second year in a row, filed legislation which, if enacted, would establish clearer lines of authority and greater accountability within the judicial department and provide for greater flexibility in the expenditure of appropriated funds and the transfer of personnel.
Michigan: Our office has established a coordinated effort with the legislature and the governor's staff to review the area of court fees. The review includes eliminating outdated fees, increasing the amount charged and establishing new fees. Our office is also focusing on more grant funding for additional staff in order to continue to provide the necessary services to the trial courts.
Appendix I: COSCA Survey • 197
Minnesota: We are beginning a process of prioritizing services and case types in anticipation of possible additional cuts next session.
Mississippi: Keep a good working relationship with the funding authorities to ensure no further budget cuts/reductions. Try to avoid the use of "inherent powers" but do use it when necessary.
Nebraska: Be optimistic - deal with this as a challenge and an opportunity.
New Hampshire: Plan for reductions and new initiatives rather than react.
New Mexico: Look at all possible means of becoming more efficient in the way courts operate.
North Carolina: By seeking special authority from the General Assembly to use lapse salaries without restrictions, Judicial Branch was able to generate funds and redirect them to areas of most critical need. Burden of identifying and prioritizing cut was aided by an advisory committee made up of a cross section of court officials.
North Dakota: Cut back on services and ask more of employees.
Ohio: As part of planning, we always examine what programs are necessary and establish priorities. Therefore, if reductions are necessary, we are able to make them on a priority basis. However, our continuing effort is to: 1) operate efficiently; 2) reduce programs and other costs; and 3) reduce employees only as a very last resort.
Oklahoma: I have no particularly unique ideas to share.
Pennsylvania: Non-tax revenue funding, as described in question three, to fund Pennsylvania's statewide computer project has provided revenue which might otherwise not be available for this long- overdue effort. Candidly, this source has proven to be difficult to predict in terms of available resources from year-to-year and has also not provided wholly adequate funding levels. Thus, while these sources provided much-needed revenue, their availability as a funding source leaves much to be desired.
Notwithstanding the clear benefits of increased computerization, courts remain a labor-intensive segment of government. Since court systems traditionally have also been largely stable environments in which to work, it's important to recognize that organizational instability--layoffs, delayed paydays, etc.-- creates new-found levels of anxiety for staff. Clear, straight-forward communication with staff as to where the organization is headed during tough times is essential in fairness to staff and if diminished morale and decreased effectiveness is to be avoided.
Puerto Rico: At present, we are in search of other possible ideas.
Rhode Island: Prayer!
South Dakota: No, not at this time.
Tennessee: Manage effectively and efficiently is the best answer.
Texas: None at this time.
198 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Vermont: Establish clear strategic goals for system reform and use budget cutting exercise as an opportunity for consolidation and appropriate shift of resources toward priority functions related to the goals.
Washington: Focus resources on meeting customer expectations. Refine business processes to ensure they are efficient and contribute to meeting customer needs. Anticipate continued revenue shortfalls through conservative fiscal management.
West Virginia: 1) Make sure the legislature understands the role of the court. Since the courts are payroll intensive our ability to cut is limited. 2) Unfortunately, it means deterring new or innovative programs.
Wyoming: Use 2-way video conferencing for training sessions and court conferences, to avoid some travel and per diem expenses.
APPENDIX J Total Quality Management/Reinventing Government: Relevance to Court Administration
his paper is written at the request of the advisory committee for the SJI-funded project Managing Budget Cutbacks which addresses the impact of budgetary cuts on courts. The advisory T committee urged the project staff to avoid becoming totally enmeshed in tactical budget strategies and confrontational tactics based on judicial independence. It was suggested that the staff consider possibilities of fundamental change in the way courts conduct their business and in the way they organize themselves for this purpose. The staff was asked to look at current thinking on delivery of government services, specifically, the concepts and procedures associated with "Total Quality Management" (TQM) and "Reinventing Government" which have become popular in public administration circles in recent years.
When new concepts of government operation are popularized, there is always the danger that the new approaches will degenerate into superficial fads or that they will be shrugged off as repackaging of old ideas. The fact is that the ideas being advocated are not really "new", but they are timely and important because fiscal austerity has awakened awareness of the need to reexamine basic premises of operation and to consider fundamental changes in the way governments operate.
Court systems are not immune to this development and may, in fact, benefit greatly from it.1 Below is a summary description of the two basic works which have revolutionized public administration: Reinventing Government by Osborne and Gaebler; Excellence in Government by Carr and Lippman, a Coopers and Lybrand publication. The summaries are supplemented in places by reference to court management.
I Total Quality Management
At page 3 of Excellence in Government, Total Quality Management (TQM) is defined as:
Involving everyone in an organization in controlling and continuously improving how work is done, in order to meet customer expectations of quality.
TQM is a rather sophisticated methodology, far too complex to be captured in capsule form in a few pages. It does, however, have certain salient characteristics which are worth noting: (1) a customer focus; (2) limited toleration for errors and waste; (3) a pro-active, preventive approach as opposed to relying on inspection and hindsight; (4) use of hard data for decisions; (5) long-term planning directed toward an overriding vision; (6) use of cross-functional teams for designing the service cycle; (7) teamwork
1 Some courts are considering TQM, for example, the Maine courts.
-199- 200 • Managing Budget Cutbacks across functional, organizational, and hierarchical lines; (8) continuous improvement; (9) flat, horizontal, decentralized structure; and (9) vendor partnerships. An overriding concern is commitment to quality, as this is perceived by customers. Of almost equal stature is emphasis on employee participation in improvement of processes.2
Definition of internal and external customers: The customer focus of TQM may at first seem inappropriate for a government entity, because the term "customer" is so closely connected with commercial undertakings. However, at page 28 of Excellence in Government the word is defined in broad terms as "any one who receives or uses what a governmental entity provides or produces or whose success or satisfaction depends on an action of a governmental entity."3
It is recognized that some customers are internal, as, for example, the customers of a central supply unit which services other governmental bodies. Very often, a governmental body has both internal customers and external customers.4 It is also possible that two organizations have both a customer and provider relationship, for example, a purchasing department which services line agencies but also depends on line agencies to specify needs for buyers.5
Normally, customers are defined by conducting a general survey of employees. This is an interesting exercise since it often produces a number of surprises. Each person in an organization must indicate internal and external persons or organizations with which they deal, what they provide them, and how they rate the quality of what they provide. Not uncommonly, the identification of customers reveals that the organization has not been fully aware of exactly who its customers are or the relative priority among customers.
The quality of service must be seen from a customer perspective. Thus, TQM requires means to obtain customer views, such as surveys, focus groups, call-in phone lines, customer advisory groups, etc.
Planning: TQM is based on a continuous planning process with three components:
Vision: (1) Vision of what organization should be;6 (2) Measurement of the existing system against the vision, employing a customer perspective (do we meet customer expectations?); (3) Plotting of functions and activities, probably at a major cross-
2 Employee participation has not been a prominent feature of court management. Some courts are, however, experimenting with a team approach to caseflow management with a judge working closely with a group of court employees in a team effort. But even these types of teams are not usually like the high-level management teams referred to in TQM.
3 Under this definition a court might regard a criminal defendant as a customer. It should be noted that customers in a court setting might have flatly contradictory perceptions of how the court should act. Criminal defendants may not favor speedy case processing if this delay is to their advantage, yet other persons whose "success or satisfaction" depends on speedy disposition might be pushing in the opposite direction.
4 For example, a court clerical office generally provides documents for internal customers like judges and also services attorneys and members of the public.
5 For example, clerks service judges by providing case records but must rely on judges to provide decisions by which case records are updated.
6 Quite possibly, a court might have multiple visions, each representing some major aspect of court operation. A vision for juvenile or family cases might differ substantially from a vision for civil courts hearing tort cases.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 201
functional level; (4) Consideration of future changes which might affect courts (e.g., demographics, cultural changes, economic changes, etc.); (5) Redesign of the vision.
Plan7 (6) Define key issues; (7) Define processes related to issues; (8) Define measurable goals achievable within 3-5 years; (9) Define measurable objectives achievable within 1-2 years and assign responsibility for achievement.
Structure: (10) Assign vital issue champions (i.e., persons with authority and ability to play a leadership and advocacy role in implementation); (11) Create teams which transcend the management structure (i.e., executive steering committees that provide vision and impetus and also issue management teams that transcend organizational units); (12) Do vital issue plans (in a big organization there will be departmental plans as well).
Process Improvement: TQM deals with processes. A process is the way work gets done; it may be simple (writing a check), functional (accounts payable) or cross-functional (financial accounting). Each simple process consists of an input, transformation and an output. There are a series of linked processes in any line function, usually resulting in a product or service for an external customer. Each linked process adds something (or should add something). There is a feedback (or should be) at each step in the process. TQM looks at each step in the overall process to see if value is being added and if some link in the process could be eliminated. Normally, these processes are not defined in depth unless they are identified as relevant to an issue raised in the planning process.8
Groups outside a process determine, in part, how the work is done, for example elected officials, oversight agencies, unions, general public, special interest groups. Processes are also affected by administrative or support groups. TQM considers these influences during analysis of processes.9
There are basic points of process improvement:
1. Inputs: E.g., improvements in information, reports to be processed.
2. Transformation components;
• people: Includes types of persons doing jobs, cross-training.
7 In the days of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration courts were involved in a criminal justice planning process which focused on fundable needs and effected some change. This planning process was, on the whole, not very management-oriented and was driven by federal planning requirements. Nonetheless, courts did acquire some knowledge of planning and did hire many professionals who were focused on planning. A significant number of these individuals now hold high offices in court management.
8 Courts do, on occasion, develop caseflow management diagrams which detail processes by which a case proceeds from initiation to disposition. Generally, these charts do not have performance indicators for each step in the process and do not lend themselves to value-added analysis. Occasionally, there are time factors built into court diagrams; this is a performance indicator of sorts.
9 Courts operate in a highly interdependent mode with other agencies and presumably would have to interact with these agencies in implementing a TQM effort. This raises the perennial question of exactly what is included within the scope of a court system. The answer varies from place to place. Many courts have been involved in criminal justice coordinating mechanisms and bench-bar committees, but rarely, if ever, do these supra-organizational teams have the authority or prestige to effect fundamental changes within a court system.
202 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
• equipment: Includes LAN, printing presses, radios other equipment used to receive and process input and produce outputs.
• methods of doing work: Includes manuals, rules,10 software, formulas, algorithms.
• materials: Includes supplies or tools which add value to input, e.g. ledgers.
• environment: Includes air conditioning, physical conditions and space, closeness to customers, noise levels.11
3. Outputs: Refers to altering the form or distribution of an output, such as the use bulletin boards, E-mail.12
4. Internal support or administrative functions, such as improving hiring processes or simplifying reporting requirements.
5. Other external groups: For example, effecting changes in rules or requirements of an oversight agency such as the state comptroller.
6. Feedback: There are various forms of feedback: from internal and external customers; from suppliers and vendors; performance measurement at the managerial level which may be broad indicators of output and efficiency but also more detailed measurements at lower levels in the process. Considerable flow-charting is necessary to identify steps and come up with measurements.
The objectives of process improvement are: (1) rightness of output for customer as based on customer feedback and rightness for the deliverer of services based on organizational mission; (2) consistency of output; (3) timeliness;13 (4) appropriate cost or use of resources for output, which may include unnecessary inspections, reports, fragmentation and redundancy, storage costs, inter-agency Ping- Pong, etc.; (5) safety and well-being of those involved in the process; (6) effect of process on society and the environment; and (7) customer perceptions of how work is done which is to say that an output may be fine but have no credibility, for example, a statistical report.14 The whole scheme of improvement is based on customer expectation.
10 Court systems are, to a large extent, driven by administrative and procedural rules, so that rules would assume a major importance in changing the way courts do business.
11 Court facilities play a large role in determining how courts handle their business, and how effectively support staffs, security personnel, and jurors operate. The design of new facilities often prompts reconsideration of how a court functions, what is trying to achieve, and how it should organize itself.
12 Electronic mail has changed the way some appellate courts work as it permits the quick and easy circulation of opinions and reduces the need for in-person contact.
13 Courts place a heavy stress on timeliness and tend to evaluate themselves in terms of delay reduction.
14 Not infrequently, judges and court employees become skeptical about the statistical reports that they receive from state- level agencies and even about reports from their own clerical staff or administrative office. This skepticism may be justified, but it sometimes exists even after the statistics have achieved a high degree of utility and accuracy.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 203
The tools of TQM are not unique, simply the basics of statistical analysis, including: flow charts; cause and effect diagrams; and check sheets to collect data on the frequency of an event or problem. This data can be used to build pareto charts, scatter charts, and histograms. Run charts plot results over time; control charts measure process variation.15 Usually, the data is arrayed on spread sheet programs which can produce a variety of statistical displays. This information is often used in conjunction with more interpersonal techniques such as focus groups.
There are some buzz words for TQM procedures: Statistical Process Control (SPC) which is simply the statistical outputs showing the variations in the process; Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) which is simply the application of scientific method to improving processes. It is a cyclical method based on constant experimentation and implementation.
Plan: Select process or issue; create a purpose statement; empower a team; define the process; gather data; control variation; plan for improvement.
Do: Approve plan; implement pilot plan.
Check: Verify improved performance; validate cost/benefit.
Act: Establish new procedures and policies; standardize improvement; manage change; leverage improvement.
Business Process Redesign (BPR) is a term referring to an improvement effort which goes beyond normal process improvement and involves fundamental changes requiring redesign.16 In general, this is done in two ways: (1) use of basic engineering techniques to raise performance to specified levels under certain assumptions and design criteria; (2) streamlining a process by removing all steps which do not add value and by adding value-producing steps, as needed. Redesign is based on five principles: (1) having a redesign strategy which is based on cost-benefit analysis and a realistic appraisal of corporate culture and barriers; (2) involving right people; (3) using information technology wisely, usually to eliminate steps, reduce needed resources, or to construct models;17 (4) managing change; and (5) ensuring continuous improvement.
15 Industrial engineering techniques, specifically use of control charts, were introduced into jury management by William Pabst about 20 years ago. This area of court management is characterized by good quantitative indicators of efficiency and unit costs. The Concept of "yield" provides a basic management tool to measure the efficiency of a jury system in providing jurors to courts. Interestingly, William Pabst was a friend and war-time associate of W. Edward Deming, who is generally credited with being the progenitor of TQM.
16 Courts have undergone great structural change in recent decades, primarily the elimination of multiple tiers of trial courts and the creation of structurally unified courts. These fundamental changes were enacted with assurances that efficiencies would be effected, but it is not clear that this has been the case. In any event, court reorganization has not been accompanied by the type of industrial engineering analysis associated with TQM. Rather, court administration has been driven by such considerations as judicial reform and professionalization and also by the desire for improved funding (reorganization was often accompanied by a switch to state financing).
17 Information technology in courts is not, on the whole, highly advanced and probably is just at the stage where significant efficiencies of a labor-saving nature can be achieved. Imaging, LAN, effective telecommunication and highly interactive systems are found in only a few courts. Courts have tried a lot of creative financing to improve information technology during tough budgetary periods.
204 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Coopers and Lybrand has a process called Breakpoint BPR. A breakpoint is a level of performance which, when reached, brings an extraordinarily high level of satisfaction to customers. Once a breakpoint has been defined, issues and processes are identified and the redesign effort starts.
II Reinventing Government
The book Reinventing Government has been a popular work in recent years since it applies an innovative, entrepreneurial spirit to government and sets forth a variety of alternatives to traditional ways of delivering government services. The book parallels Excellence in Government in many respects, primarily emphasis on customer satisfaction, quality as a goal, flat organizational structure, and use of teams to achieve quality. However, Reinventing Government is largely anecdotal and does not present a methodology.
In Section A below, the chapters of the book are summarized. In Section B are listed the traditional and innovative ways of delivering government services. Where applicable, references are made to courts.
A. Summary of Chapters
Chapter 1 Catalytic Government: Steering Rather Than Rowing
In this chapter the authors challenge the traditional view of government as a one-dimensional "tax and provide service" mechanism. They argue that it is the job of government to define problems, to mobilize the resources to solve the problems, and to generally serve as a catalyst to get things done.18 They use the analogy of steering, not rowing, to indicate that governance does not require that government be a service provider (rowing); it need only see that services are provided (steering). The authors argue that this more limited role actually strengthens government and increases the morale and sense of self-worth of government employees, challenging the traditional bureaucratic view that the strength and power of a government organization is directly proportional to its size. They suggest that governments consider use of private profit and non-profit corporations for the performance of many functions; the authors also touch on privatization, commenting that it may be an answer to some problems but that it is certainly not "the answer." They point out the necessity for steering organizations which are not unlike the executive steering committees associated with TQM but which may have more members drawn from outside the organization. The authors cite examples from community development, specifically the rebuilding of downtown St. Paul. Community development requires a complex mix of financial, legal, and engineering initiatives which are largely beyond the scope of most governments.
18 More by chance than by design, the current role of judges is to see that disputes are settled, not necessarily to adjudicate all disputes themselves. Thus, judges provide administrative direction and error correction for a diverse body of parajudicial officials, arbitrators, and neighborhood centers. In these "pyramid' systems judges handle a relatively small percentage of disputes. Even some criminal and juvenile cases are being handled outside the normal process; traffic is being decriminalized. The judiciary seems to headed toward a "steering role."
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 205
Chapter 2 Community-Owned Government: Empowering Rather Than Serving
Chapter 2 addresses "clienthood" and how to overcome it. The premise of the authors is that government should involve communities in the solution of their own problems rather than having government officials make all the decisions and reduce citizens to dependents.19 They argue for community control by claiming that: (1) government officials deliver services whereas communities seek solutions; (2) communities are better able to provide "care" as opposed to governments which provide impersonal services; (3) communities focus on their capacities whereas client-oriented bureaucracies focus on weaknesses and needs of people whom bureaucrats view as victimized or incapable of helping themselves; (4) communities can act more cheaply and more flexibly than government agencies; and (5) communities can more effectively enforce standards of behavior (e.g., in a homeless shelter).
The authors cite community policing, tenant control of public housing, community-based corrections, and citizen revolts against elitist urban renewal plans. Obviously, there have to be some forms of local participatory democracy, such as local councils. The authors concede that leadership may be lacking in a community and that government doesn't end its responsibility by empowering a community group. The government is responsible for seeing that the community is ready to take over, assisting the community in obtaining resources, and monitoring the program.20
Chapter 3 Competitive Government: Injecting Competition into Service Delivery
The authors argue that any monopoly, even a monopoly on government service, is ultimately bad for the public.21 Any organization freed from competition becomes inefficient, resistant to change and innovation, and unresponsive to needs. Moreover, employees become listless and lose a pride in what they do. The authors cite the Postal Service and refer to all the competitive alternatives which have grown up around this somewhat unresponsive bureaucracy. They cite internal government services (e.g., a central maintenance unit) as appropriate candidates for competition.
They mention three types of competition: (1) public-private.22 The authors cite examples in which city sanitation departments have been forced to bid against outside bidders. The authors state that a
19 Neighborhood dispute resolution and community corrections programs are steps in the direction of involving communities. However, geographic decentralization of court operations normally occurs for reasons of convenience to users, rather than community empowerment. Many large counties have geographically dispersed facilities, usually for purposes of filing, payment of fines, and non-jury actions of a simple nature.
20 In a court context, monitoring can take the form of appeals, perhaps de novo, from a community dispute resolution program. It may also, of course, take the form of administrative oversight, e.g., observation of the program, requirement for reports, or client evaluation.
21 It is generally assumed that courts have a monopoly on adjudication of cases, but a great deal of commercial and labor arbitration occurs outside the framework of courts. More significantly, the private rent-a-judge systems have provided a direct, if somewhat minor, competition for courts. Any breakdown in court operations could generate more rival systems, even though such systems are largely dependent on the consent of the parties.
22 Courts may choose to make price and service comparisons between a government agency and private organizations for provision of service. Examples of privately provided court services exist in the areas of security, service of process, probation, indigent defense, operation of juvenile detention facilities, and alternative dispute resolution (in some jurisdictions non-profit corporations can provide dispute resolution at the option of the parties to a case filled in civil Court). While it rarely happens, it is conceivable that clerical support could be contracted out, particularly in an environment which relies on direct electronic filing. Within the court environment, court reporters have represented the
206 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
winning private bidder might have to hire some public workers and that those not hired might be reassigned to another areas of government; (2) private-private.23 The most common form of competition is between private contractors seeking government business; (3) public-public.24 It is possible to require competition among government agencies, for example, among schools.
The authors express concern about "equity" when a private contractor does not serve the general community and can "skim" the top from a group. They argue that equity can be built into contractor agreements.
Chapter 4 Mission-Driven Government: Transforming Rule-Driven Organizations
The authors in this chapter make a case for keeping a focus on an overriding purpose or mission as opposed to getting lost in a sea of rules and regulations which assume a life of their own,25 frustrate the achievement of goals, demoralize both employees and recipients of services, and lead to bloated payrolls with no compensating productivity.
They use illustrations of accumulated rules and regulations which strangle operations and urge use of sunset laws, review commissions, and Zero Base Budgeting, adding with reference to ZBB that is sometimes used as a gimmick and not seriously applied. They cite a number of cases in government housing programs where frustration led to creation of small and lean non-profit organizations which were able to make major strides toward construction of housing by serving as a catalyst rather than as a bureaucratic overseer. They argue that government employees should be given latitude to explore and use cheap and effective alternatives for delivery of services. This chapter is similar in tone to those parts of Excellence in Government which stress the necessity of working toward some vision.
This chapter emphasizes mission-based budgeting and uses the example of an Expenditure Control Budget for Fairfield, California. Basically, the city appropriates a lump sum to each agency and includes no line items. The agencies use line items for internal management purposes, but the line items are not used to box in agency managers. The agencies are free to keep any savings. Annual appropriations increase for
entrepreneurial element, often devising means of payment and service that freed them from the government salary scale or which permitted them to supplement their salary, but this monetary success has increased demand for alternative means of recording trials, notably audio and video recording. Not all comparisons favor the private sector. For example, a court may determine that privately provided forensic examinations could be provided more efficiently by a salaried physician.
23 When a court makes an "up front" decision to contract out any of the services mentioned in footnote 17, the competition is between private organizations rather than between a public organization and private organizations. Some courts have solicited competitive bids from law firms for provision of legal services to indigents and impecunious mental health patients.
24 A major issue in courts is the relative role of courts and executive branch agencies in child support enforcement. At stake are million of dollars in federal reimbursements. There is species of competition occurring in this area. moreover, courts may be able to show that they save money by having their own purchasing department or data processing department rather than be using executive branch agencies for these services.
25 Mandatory sentencing is a legislative imperative that denies judicial discretion in sentencing in order to effect harsher penal sanctions. These laws were not conceived within the broader concept of a mission and ended up flooding jails, making it impossible to enforce bench warrants, and forcing various types of sub rosa plea bargaining. Very often courts end up wasting resources to work around rules which are unrealistic in the light of the court's justice goals. The same can be said of the effect of some cases, the Gault decision, for example.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 207
inflation and city population, but any new programs receive a separate appropriation and are added. This type of budget process gives managers an incentive to save and invest since it offers no incentive for spending every dime which is appropriated - quite the contrary.
Moreover, this type of budgeting simplifies the process for budget formulation, budget presentation and budget review. The appropriating authority doesn't micro-manage, leaving managers the responsibility for expenditure control and holding them accountable at a macro level.26
Chapter 5 Results-Oriented Government: Funding Outcomes, Not Inputs
The authors argue for a change in management incentives to emphasize rewards based on performance, rather than inputs. They make specific reference to TQM which embraces this concept. They cite examples of hospitals and job training programs where organizations were financed based on number of persons processed or patient-days, rather than success in job placement or patient satisfaction. Using the example of Sunnyvale, California, the authors give an example of a Public Works appropriation which states the level at which each type of road is to be maintained rather than appropriating money for various types of road maintenance activity. The advantages of relating budgets and promotions to measurable goals are: (1) greater employee responsiveness; (2) ability to tell success from failure; (3) ability to reward success and avoid the rewarding of failure; (4) ability to learn from failure and make corrections; and (5) winning public support by showing results. The authors, referring to the TQM premise that most failures stem from organizational or systemic defects, feel that performance measures are essential to detection and redesign of defective systems.
The authors stress budgeting in this chapter and mention three types of results-oriented budgets: (1) output budgeting which focuses on the outputs produced, usually the volume of some government service related to a mission and perhaps directly tying appropriations to providing a certain number of outputs; (2) outcome budgeting which links quality and effectiveness of services produced to a mission and perhaps directly tying appropriations to achieving the desired outcomes; (3) customer-driven budgeting (see comments on Chapter 6 below).
The authors specifically cite NCSC trial court performance standards as possible measurement for courts. These standards are a form of mission statement and could provide the framework for a results- oriented court budget.27
Chapter 6 Customer-Driven Government: Meeting the Needs of the Customer, Not the Bureaucracy
This chapter fits nicely with Chapter 3 of Excellence in Government: "Developing Quality Relationships with Customers". The authors start the chapter by observing that while government agencies
26 The Philadelphia courts are using such a budget by agreement with the new city administration. The increase in flexibility and control tends to compensate for a static or diminishing budget. Moreover, this type of budgeting accords with the concept of judicial independence. The problem for courts in this type of arrangement is the unpredictability of certain mandated expenditures, notably indigent defense, witness fees, and jury costs.
27 On occasion, court facility standards have been used to support requests for upgrading and renovation. Similarly, speedy trial standards and jury standards have provided goals which have been used as the basis for a budget request. In general, however, courts have not been successful in relating their needs to defined objectives or standards.
208 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
theoretically serve the public, they are remarkably ignorant of and indifferent to the reactions of the people they are supposed to be serving.28 Businesses have to serve customers or die because they obtain their funding from customers, but government agencies don't obtain their funding directly from the people they serve and can become quite detached from these people, even to the point of denying that they have any "customers" or wrongly identifying their true customers.29 The authors give two examples of how skewed government priorities can become when government agencies do not correctly identify their customers: (1) the Department of Transportation is described as being more attuned to the needs of highway builders and public transit systems than it is to the needs of drivers and mass transit riders; (2) the Department of Housing and Urban Development is described as servicing developers and industry groups better than it does low-and-moderate-income people who are seeking affordable housing.
The authors give a number of examples of state and local agencies which reached out to their customers and transformed their way of doing business (e.g., school boards, park and recreation departments, motor vehicle departments, public libraries, job training programs, and local community colleges). They cite a number of ways to elicit customer feedback:30 (1) surveys; (2) customer follow-up; (3) community surveys; (4) direct managerial contact with customers; (5) feedback from customers directly to the government employee who served them; (6) customer councils; (7) focus groups; (8) customer use of electronic mail to contact government agencies; (9) customer service training for government employees; (10) test marketing new services; (12) quality guarantees by government agencies; (13) inspectors who observe the service afforded to customers; (14) ombudsmen; (15) complaint tracking systems; (16) 800 numbers permitting citizens to voice complaints; and (17) suggestion boxes or forms.
The authors favor putting a lot of control in the hands of customers,31 for example, the use of vouchers. They argue that the GI Bill after World War II worked well by permitting veterans to choose educational institutions, whereas the centrally administered VA Hospitals became a bureaucratic burden.
Chapter 7 Enterprising Government: Earning Rather Than Spending
The authors start this chapter by observing that government employees are trained to spend and do not think in terms of revenues. In fact, they may resent that they have to be concerned with revenues at
28 Jurors have in recent years been clearly identified as "customers" and treated accordingly. Courts have perceived the importance of juror satisfaction, and this has led to a number of innovations; juror call-in systems, One Day-One Trial systems, juror orientation films, and much improved jury assembly rooms. Some of these innovations have reduced the number of jurors called and saved governments a great deal of money. No better example exists in a court setting of the value of a customer orientation.
29 Some courts operate as if their primary customers were attorneys. There is considerable ambivalence within the judiciary about which groups are customers and how to rank these groups in importance.
30 Courts frequently seek feedback from jurors on their experience. Moreover, some clerical offices are very customer- oriented. In some jurisdictions, judges are rated by attorneys and even court personnel, but this is controversial and rarely sanctioned by the court. In general, courts do not rely much on customer feedback, other than that which they receive from attorneys informally or through institutionalized bench-bar meetings, through criminal justice coordinating councils, and through surveys conducted in the creation of new programs (e.g., a domestic violence program).
31 In a court setting, "customer choice" has traditionally been referred to as "judge shopping", a somewhat pejorative term. Increasingly, courts are offering litigation alternatives, not necessarily between judges but between alternative means of dispute resolution. This should be based on considerations of convenience, cost, and speed, rather than on desire to avoid a particular judge.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 209 all.32 But the modern fiscal climate requires that governments be alert to opportunities to earn non-tax dollars. Many government agencies are carefully monitoring their returns on investments and bank accounts, searching for free money which can earn income, tightening up collection of penalties, service fees and charges, but even more importantly, running or franchising enterprises which generate money for the government. The authors cite a number of entrepreneurial undertakings, starting with the impressive job done at the Los Angeles Olympics, the first privately financed Olympics and certainly the most profitable ($225,000,000). They refer to sale of sewage sludge into fertilizer; sale of methane gas generated from water treatment plants; selling the privilege of towing abandoned cars; selling proprietary software developed by a government agency; franchising food services on public ferry systems; and building extra prison beds to accommodate prisoners from nearby areas which would pay for the accommodation.
They list a variety of techniques and principles of entrepreneurial operation:
(1) Using the profit motive for public purposes. They refer to real estate investments which can generate income for the city as well as increase the capital assets of the city by appreciating in value.
(2) User fees. The authors feel that user fees are appropriate for services where the service is clearly limited to a certain group of people, other citizens can be legitimately excluded, and the charges can be efficiently collected.33 User fees generate money and lower demand for public service.
(3) Spending money to save money - investment. They give an example of a city which would not finance additional auditors who would more than pay for themselves.34 The most prominent examples concern the wisdom of making seemingly expensive capital improvements in the present to avoid much higher costs in the future.
(4) Turning managers into entrepreneurs. The authors propose that employees should be permitted to benefit financially from savings they affect or good ideas which they come up with. They further recommend: setting up revolving funds for innovation;35 using enterprise funds for
32 Courts, probably more than most government organizations, have resented the linkage of appropriations and court- collected revenue, since much of the revenue derives from sanctions imposed by the judiciary. The linkage seems an inappropriate distortion of the judicial role and may create misperceptions about the justice system. However, in the current financial climate many courts have started to emphasize revenue enhancement to avoid cuts in appropriations or to seek earmarked fees expendable at court discretion.
33 Courts may provide administrative services such as processing support checks, investing funds held by the court in trust, or reviewing guardianship reports. Very often courts charge a fee for these services, although the amount of the fee may not be based on cost analysis. Courts alsdo charge credit companies for information, charge for probate information, and sell forms. A more modern technological manifestation of this trend is the sale of computer terminal access to court records.
34 Courts have been showing increased interest in increasing the collection rate for court-imposed judgments, as this enhances the fiscal credibility of courts at budget time, as well as increasing the level of respect for court judgments. This aroused concern has taken the form of introducing accounts receivable systems which are justified by cost benefit analysis. Courts have also shown much greater attention to obtaining higher return on funds held in court accounts. This has led in some states to pool all trust accounts to maximize the return and to obtain better investment advice.
35 The use of revolving funds for front-end expenses on facilities has been used by some courts. This permits off-budget expenditures for timely engineering and architectural estimates or for financial advice. These expenditures may later be capitalized, permitting replenishment of the fund.
210 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
government endeavors which can be self-supporting, and perhaps profitable and even salable; permitting the use of public authorities which can finance capital projects without commitment of tax revenues36 and identifying the true cost of services so that charges are realistic and sound managerial decisions can be made.
Chapter 8 Anticipatory Government: Prevention Rather Than Cure
The authors strongly condemn the instant gratification, future-blind nature of American politics citing a variety of instances where politics prefers the reactive mode to the preventive mode. Their examples are drawn from health care, environmental protection and fire prevention where, they argue, the expenditure of money on prevention would greatly reduce the existing level of expenditures on dealing with high disease levels, with fighting fires and with environmental pollution. This part of the book seemed to be the most utopian.
To generate an anticipatory mind set (they do not feel sanguine that this can be done in the current political climate), they propose: (1) futures commissions;37 (2) strategic planning;38 (3) long-term budgeting; (4) cross-departmental budgeting to avoid the situation where one department cuts costs only to drive up the costs of another department; (5) changes in government accounting which does not, at present, accurately reflect long-term commitments; and (6) regional government.
Chapter 9 Decentralized Government: From Hierarchy to Participation and Teamwork
The authors make the case that modern communications technology, the masses of information available and higher employee skill levels make it desirable to decentralize the decision-making process, leaving much discretion in the hands of front-line employees who have the most direct contact with customers and their needs.39 They see the Bob McNamara "whiz kid" paradigm of centralization and standardization as outdated and advance a number of reasons in favor of decentralization: (1) greater ability to respond quickly and flexibly to customer needs; 40 (2) greater effectiveness because employees
36 A frequent method for financing court facility construction is the use of public authorities. Generally, these public building authorities are not set up to be court-specific, but a few are set up specifically for court construction. More innovative is the success of some courts in obtaining cheap space from developers, usually in outlying facilities which draw citizens who are seeking a convenient court location.
37 There has been great interest in speculating on the future of courts. The State Justice Institute has funded a number of "futures" projects (e.g., Arizona, Virginia, Maine, California, Illinois, Colorado, and Massachusetts).
38 Some major strategic planning has occurred in the context of court reorganization. Some very serious planning has also accompanied the construction of court facilities since such projects are by their nature complex and long-term, requiring consideration of workload, financing, court structure, community social conditions and economics, relationships with court-related agencies and the public, in short the major elements of any plan. Generally, however, courts do not do strategic planning unless some unusual situation is thrust upon them. It is the exception rather than the norm.
39 Courts tend to be hierarchical in some respects, quite diffused in others. Court organizational structure is quite unique due to the collegiality among judges in multi-judge courts. Yet, some courts permit a lot of authority to the chief judge and to court managers. An interesting manifestation of organizational theory is the ongoing debate over master calendars and individual-judge calendars. It would appear that the latter comes closest to the model being advocated by the authors.
40 Court structure and jurisdiction are sometimes major obstacles to flexibly meeting customer needs. Court structural impediments are being addressed by having a common administration of courts in the same geographic area or by cross- assignment of judges and personnel. Subject matter and geographical jurisdiction provide an arbitrary allocation of
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 211
feel a greater personal responsibility;41 (3) more innovation, more good ideas bubbling up from the front lines; and (4) higher employee morale and greater productivity. The authors cite the excessive centralization of decision-making in the Viet Nam era as one of the major reasons for lack of imaginative military operations, contrasting this with Desert Storm where the President simply set the goals, leaving the military freedom to choose the appropriate tactics. The major example used by the authors is the decentralization of maintenance functions for the Tactical Air Command, a step which dramatically upgraded the combat readiness of TAC.
The authors feel that there are too many middle managers and identify this group as the major enemy of change, stifling new ideas on the way up and down. They argue that more responsibility ought to be delegated to the lowest levels and advocate a flat organizational structure with a high degree of participatory management. They recognize that labor-management cooperation is crucial and state that "no lay-off" policies facilitate such cooperation. The key word is "teamwork" (also a TQM favorite). The authors list a number of techniques of participatory management: (1) quality circles (in TQM these circles focus on improving a work process and Plan, Do, Check, Act. (2) Labor-management committees. (3) Employee development programs. (4) Attitude surveys of employees. (5) Employee evaluation of managers. (6) Invention policies which encourage employees to patent and develop new products or processes. (7) Innovation champions who encourage teams of employees to recommend improvements in service delivery, cost reduction methods, and ways to increase revenues. (8) Reward programs used to honor high achievers (e.g., Minnesota Strive Toward Excellence Program).
Chapter 10 Market-Oriented Government: Leveraging Change Through the Market
The authors use this chapter to make a further elaboration of their position that governments should learn to steer rather than row. They argue that governments tend to address too many problems by creating programs (rowing) rather than using government leverage to reshape the marketplace so that it will address the specific public need (steering). They believe that programs tend to be driven by politics rather than policy, that they create a "turf" mentality which means that they tend to be resistant to change and to be perpetual. Programs also create fragmentation of delivery and rely on commands rather than incentives. The market approach is, by contrast, keyed to incentives. They add that the public sector does indeed have "markets", though we normally call them "systems" (e.g., the educational system).42
The authors recognize that market mechanisms are not always appropriate and advance certain criteria for determining whether a market approach is the right choice: (1) there should be enough suppliers to ensure competition; (2) customers must have purchasing power to buy the product or service and the
workload which sometimes is highly inefficient and inconvenient. The concept of jurisdiction will come under critical scrutiny.
41 Experience shows that employees grouped in case management teams have a higher stake and thus more personal interest in case disposition than those employees who perform some discrete assembly-line function in the case disposition process.
42 Courts have increasingly considered monetary incentives to bring about early resolution of disputes or early pleas. Moreover, court rules contain some major financial disincentives to frivolous litigation. In the area of purchasing, some courts (e.g., Philadelphia courts) have had success in obtaining lump sum appropriations for non-personnel expenditures with the understanding that savings would remain with the court rather than reverting to the city, thus creating a high incentive for implementing tight purchasing procedures. The United States Administrative Office of the Courts has been experimenting with this type of purchasing system for federal courts.
212 • Managing Budget Cutbacks desire to exercise that power; (3) sellers must have access to buyers; (4) consumers must have adequate information on the price, quality and risks of a product or service; (5) rules set by the governing authority; and (6) existence of a policing or monitoring mechanism.
Examples of market leverage are the government pressures on lending institutions to make incomes to low-income home purchasers; voucher systems have stimulated child care programs; (3) the G I Bill greatly expanded higher education opportunities; (4) government support for creation of Health maintenance Organizations; (5) state investment in venture capital; (6) risk-sharing in order to encourage private initiatives; (7) tax incentives; and (8) acting as a broker between sellers and buyers (job training programs and employers).
Chapter 11 Putting It All Together
The authors, in this concluding chapter, make a case for fundamental changes in major government areas,43 citing specifically health, education and crime. Their paradigm for a criminal justice system is somewhat futuristic, but challenging. Basically, they would empower local councils composed of representatives of criminal justice agencies, provide funding on a competitive basis, and leave these local councils free to pursue a mission flexibly and innovatively. The authors state:
Local councils could in turn use many different mechanisms to achieve their goals - contracts, vouchers, seed capital, partnerships. They might invest in community organizations, push public housing authorities to adopt resident management, and contract with organizations that work with troubled families. They might seek to change the marketplace by offering partial insurance to banks that invest in high-crime areas. They might even encourage their cities to ask different police departments to compete for the contract to offer their police protection, as some of the `contract cities' in Southern California do.
The authors feel that most of the following must be present for fundamental change to occur in a government organization: (1) a crisis; (2) leadership; (3) continuity of leadership; (4) a healthy civic infrastructure; (5) shared vision and goals; (6) trust; (7) outside resources; and (8) models to follow.
B. Alternative Service Delivery Options
The authors list 36 service delivery options and give examples of each. The list provides a helpful check list for managers who wish to determine if they have considered the major approaches available in the public sector. The options are listed below in tabular form with one column reserved for comments on courts where these appear applicable. The options are listed more or less in relation to how innovative they are. The more traditional options appear first.
Service Delivery Generic Description Court Examples Options
43 Analysis of customer needs in courts will inevitably lead to reexamination of the adversary system. Already the adversary system is being modified substantially in the family court area. Other areas of law may follow.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 213
1. Creating Legal Rules A service can be permitted, Courts, by reason of case law or and Sanctions mandated or prohibited by law. statute, are often mandated to The authors refer to Roe v Wade. provide services, e. g.,. indigent defense, guardians ad litem. Courts, by procedural or administrative rules, may compel or permit services, e.g., child custody investigations, mediation, foster care.
2. Regulation or Great changes can be effected in In a sense, courts have a Deregulation service delivery by changes in monopoly on adjudication of regulations or deregulation. The disputes. Courts can by their authors refer to the deregulation of decisions and administrative postal express services leading to actions encourage or discourage Federal Express, UPI, etc. alternatives to traditional adjudication, even those outside the court frame-work, e.g. commercial arbitration, rent-a judge services.
3. Monitoring and By an investment in monitoring or Courts may affect the delivery of Investigation investigation, government can legal services by the way they affect the monitored service, for monitor vouchers of court- example, the monitoring of waste appointed counsel or requests for disposal methods or workplace orders for payment of counsel safety actions. fees. Similarly, court monitoring can affect many services in which judges have an administrative role- the operation of juvenile detention, presentence investigations, guard-ianships.
4. Licensing Government can affect the amount Some supreme courts have a large of available services by expanding role in attorney licensing and or limiting licenses, for example in testing. The number of lawyers the provision of day care. can be affected by the degree of difficulty in obtaining admission to the Bar.
5. Tax policy Government can tax activities Tax policy is beyond the authority which they want to eliminate and of the judiciary. provide tax breaks for activities they favor, for example locating a business in the community.
214 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
6. Grants State and federal grants provide a Most federal grants are one-time means of program creation and grants which don't sustain maintenance and fund many services, but courts are able to services provided at the local obtain con-tinuing funding for level. child support enforcement. Some states have various grants for juvenile services or intensive probation.
7. Subsidies Government makes some subsidies Some states (e.g., Pennsylvania) directly to individuals (e.g., give what amounts to a small welfare), other to institutions so as subsidy (a set amount per judge) to lower the cost of services to local governments to defray the (developers of low-income cost of court services. California housing). has used a very expensive, complex block system to compensate counties in part for court expenditures. Other states subsidize probation services provided by counties (e.g., Illinois) or jury costs (e.g., Pennsylvania). Generally, these subsidies occur in states where local gov-ernments provide trial court financing.
8. Loans Governments make loans to In a sense, courts extend credit to individuals and businesses, some defendants who are permitted to at market rates, some subsidized defer payments of fines and costs, (e.g., student loans). Some loans sometimes per-mitting are forgiven for service provided. performance of community service in lieu of money payments.
9. Loan Guarantees Government absorbs some or all Research indicates that effective of the risk of a loan to encourage collection of fines and fees banks and other lenders to extend depends on getting the first for certain purposes, such as home payment or the full payment up purchases or farm loans. front. In-volving lending institutions at the point of collection has been considered a means of enhancing collections and sharing the burden.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 215
10. Contracting Governments use contractors to a Courts use contracting to a high high degree and not always for degree: traffic ticket processing; predictable services such as road- delinquency collections, security building. Tax collection has been services, court reporting, custodial farmed out, and some towns or services, legal services, cities contract for basic services educational and rehabilitation from other governments. efforts in substance abuse, and even probation services.
11. Franchising Certain government services lend This category does not lend itself themselves to franchises, usually a to court operations very natural monopoly, such as a frequently. In some court houses restaurant in a government there are food dispensing services building. Users of the service pay which are court controlled and the franchisee rather than the subject to franchising. government.
12. Public-Private Local government have co- Examples of such partnerships are Partnerships ventured real estate deals with fairly rare in courts, sometimes private developers. Some local joint ventures with developers governments have partnerships to where court facilities are part of a run schools, libraries or parks, broader dev-elopment effort, generally enhancing the available occasionally joint efforts with bar public resources and associations to operate law circumventing bureaucratic libraries, or with volunteer or obstacles. non-profit organization to provide some social service.
13. Public-Public Many governments share services Not uncommonly, local Partnerships or jointly operate agencies, usually governments share the cost of with governments at the same some court-related service, level but sometimes in state-local typically a juvenile detention partnership. facility. There are occasionally state-local partnerships (e.g., in the construction of a major court annex in Portland, Maine).
14. Quasi-Public or Entrepreneurial governments Connecticut has created a non- Private Corporations sometimes create quasi-public or profit corporation for the private, non-profit corporation s provision of alternative dispute to perform some economic task. resolution in civil cases. Baltimore used such corporations to develop its inner harbor.
216 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
15. Public Enterprise Governments can and do create Some states have judicial building their own businesses to achieve authorities (e.g., Maine, Rhode some economic purpose, for Island) or permit courts to come example municipal utilities, port under the umbrella of some authorities, and tunnel authorities. executive branch building authority (e.g., New York). It is sometimes possible to fund capital equipment through such authorities.
16. Procurement Governments can use purchasing By and large, courts do not have to encourage activities which they much independence in purchasing favor, for example purchasing and if they do, they would not be from firms that make investments likely to use it for some social in low-income neighborhoods. purpose other than those favored by the other branches.
17. Insurance Government can provide some Courts maintain many registry degree of economic security by accounts and trust accounts, insuring against catastrophic which, sur-prisingly, are not occurrences, for example always insured. This is one area protecting bank deposits or where courts owe security to those providing catastrophic health for whom the court serves as insurance for employees. custodial agent.
18. Rewards, Awards, Governments use monetary There appears to be nothing Bounties rewards to encourage behavior uniquely judicial in connection they favor, for example rewards with this category. for information leading to an arrest or rewards for employee or citizen ideas which save money or improve service delivery.
19. Changing Public Investment of public funds, for Courts which have responsibility Investment Policy example retirement funds, can be for trust funds sometimes have used to effect social objectives, for investment committees to help example, encouraging investment them discharge their responsibility in inner city areas. to those for whom they serve as trustee. But it would be rare if the courts invested to achieve some uniquely judicial social objective.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 217
20. Technical Assistance Governments often provide Technical assistance to courts technical assistance to businesses, may come from or through the community organizations, and National Center for State Courts other governments. This or grant programs. Some state assistance can take many forms administrative offices of court but is most useful when delivered provide such assistance to courts. to recipients lacking resources to acquire expertise in complex areas.
21. Information Governments sometimes have Court statistical reports and court tremendous impact by pro-viding studies have been used to good information (e.g., the health effect in bringing about court hazards of smoking). Information reforms and occasionally to place can provide a regulatory function pressure on delinquent payors, by (e.g., required disclosure of releasing information to credit financial information). agencies or gov-ernment agencies which provide tax refunds or other benefits subject to interception. On the whole, however, courts have not had strong informational capabilities and have not been particularly effective in communicating with other arms of government, the public, or even, sometimes, with attorneys.
22. Referral To help citizens identify service As the number of court related providers, many governments programs for diversion, pre-trial operate referral services which release, probation, and treatment may run the gamut from day care have proliferated, courts have providers to complex technology been serving to some extent as a and exporting information for referral agency, although this businesses. rarely takes the form of a full- scale service within the judicial branch. Juvenile cases are often handled by a court social worker and are also referred to social service agencies.
218 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
23. Volunteers The use of volunteers in Courts have made great use of government agencies has volunteers, particularly in family mushroomed in recent years courts and in various court-related adding millions of person hours to programs of a social nature. government programs. This Some courts have paid positions phenomenon has created a need to coordinate volunteer activities, for volunteer coordinators and and some courts have researched caused consideration of the the liability issues related to use of insurance implications of having volunteers. It should further be volunteers. noted that pro bono work by attorneys is volunteer effort and sometimes exists on such a scale that it must be formally organized.
24. Vouchers Governments empower certain This does not apply to courts very groups to acquire goods and often, but there are jurisdictions services by vouchers or food which have experimented with stamps. For example, vouch-ers "judicare", where indigent are used to help pay for day care defendants are able to choose or for attendance at non-public lawyers and compensate them by schools. some means akin to a voucher.
25. Impact Fees An impact fee is a form of tax Courts do not exercise tax designed to offset the social cost authority, but in a limited sense generated by some activity. The may have the authority to set tax is imposed on those who charges and fees, or at least to benefit from the activity and may influence the ordinances or have the effect of discouraging the statutes which determine the activity. For example, impact amounts to be collected. Courts taxes may be imposed on driving, often set charges at a level real estate devel-opment, reflecting the actual cost to courts generation of electricity, etc.. (this is not really a "social cost"). Courts can, to a limited extent, control access to courts by the filing fees which they set.
26. Catalyzing Governments are often able to Courts have often catalyzed public Nongovernment mobilize nongovernment organizations, bar associations, Efforts organizations for the purposes of and businesses in the process of serving some public need, care of court improvement. Major efforts the homeless for example. at unification have often been characterized by the building of coalitions.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 219
27. Convening To focus attention on major Court leaders have often employed Nongovernment social problems, government the conference device as a Leaders leaders sometimes convene sounding board for enlisting conferences of key people to support for court objectives. fashion a response to some pressing problem.
28. Jawboning Sometimes it is not necessary for a Chief justices and chief judges of government leader to convene a trial courts have often used the conference. He or she may elect "jawboning" technique not only to to cajole or pressure various call attention to problems but to community organizations to motivate responsive actions. perform some role or to desist from some detrimental action.
29. Seed Money Governments may make effective Courts have, by and large, not use of "seed money" to encourage been adventurous in fiscal matters, social endeavors which further particularly those which might government policy. The amounts constitute encouragement of are small but the return may be "social endeavors". There are, large, a small amount to start a however, jurisdictions where youth athletic league. courts have been able to take advantage of revolving funds set up to pay front end expenses for facility construction (e.g., architectural surveys).
30. Equity Investments Governments are becoming more Courts do control some aggressive (subject to state law) in investments, primarily the making equity investments, often investment of funds for which the to catalyze the formation of court serves as a custodial agent. private sector businesses or These funds are invested industrial development conservatively within the corporations. Some states framework of controlling encourage public pension funds to legislation and not really used for invest in venture capital. ulterior purposes. However, the nature of court investments may become more adventurous if governmental fiscal policy moves in that direction.
31. Voluntary Sometimes voluntary assoc-iations Courts, to the extent they Associations provide important public services. decentralize court services and Governments may contract with encourage community-based them, give them tax rebates, or dispute resolution, may find even permit them to tax members themselves increasingly tied to to finance improvements. volunteer organizations.
220 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
32. Coproduction or Self- Some government programs help The rise of the pro se litigant is a Help citizens produce services modern phenomenon. In small themselves, for example, urban claims courts and more recently in homesteading, permitting tenants domestic relations courts, litigants to manage public housing, or even are representing them-selves. making city school grounds and Courts have had to revise parks available for recreational procedures and extend help to activities.organized by the these litigants. community.
33. Quid Pro Quo Increasingly, governments are Courts have frequently demanded demanding some return for the a quid pro quo from local granting of licenses or permits to governments for setting up branch perform certain activities, courts as a convenience. Local requiring, for example, that governments have often provided developers build roads or sewage facilities at no cost. Similarly, treatment plants. lessors have sometimes renovated court facilities in return for a long- term lease.
34. Demand Management Some governments attempt to Courts have relatively little reduce demand for gov-ernment control over their work-load, services. Demand for water has lacking for example the discretion been controlled in arid areas by of a pros-ecutor. Moreover, the requiring certain type of toilets. concept of "access to justice" Frivolous calls for various militates against a broad policy of emergency services are curtailed case re-duction. Nonetheless, by imposition of steep charges. courts can and do take fin-ancially punitive steps to discourage frivolous litigation.
35. Sale, Exchange, or Exchange or use of public land to In general, courts do not own or Use of Property achieve some government purpose hold title to the property which is not infrequent. This occurs they occupy, sharply limiting their most frequently in connection with ability to use the option of the construction of government property exchange. facilities.
36. Restructuring the Governments can shape markets There is a legal market to which Market in many ways, zoning, building the court reacts. Could courts codes, rent control, tariffs, just to shape this market? Should they? mention a few. Markets can In fact, courts do shape this sometimes be shaped to meet market when, for example, they citizen needs. permit pro se divorces or require professional services in areas where these were not formally required.
Appendix J: TQM in Court Administration • 221
Conclusion
Public administration theory is in the process of modifying traditional models in favor of more entrepreneurial, imaginative ways of public sector management. Courts are caught up in this change. The age of the entrepreneurial court manager has arrived. Exactly what this means for court administration is yet to be determined.
APPENDIX K Bibliography
Books
Anthony, William P. Practical Strategic Planning. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books, 1985.
Benest, Frank. Rightsizing for Local Governments. Tampa, Fla.: The Innovation Groups, 1992.
Carr, David K., and Ian D. Littman. Excellence in Government: Total Quality Management in the 1990's. Arlington, Va.: Coopers & Lybrand, 2d ed. 1993.
Deming, W. Edwards. Out of Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
Dougherty, David C. Strategic Organization Planning: Downsizing for Survival. New York: Quorum Books, 1989.
Gore, Al. Creating A Government That Works Better & Costs Less. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
Kemp, Roger L. Cutback Management: Coping with Revenue-Reducing Mandates. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, 1980.
Lauer, Charles A., and Hillary S. DeNigro. Dedicated Funding for State and Local Anti-Drug Programs. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993.
LeBlond, Andre. The Role of the Manager in the Management of Change: An Exercise in Downsizing: Player's Manual. Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 1988.
Mercer, James L. Public Management In Lean Years: Operating in a Cutback Management Environment. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books, 1992.
Miron, H. Jerome, ed. Cutback Management in Criminal Justice: A Manual of Readings. Chevy Chase, Md.: University Research Corp., 1982.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. Reinventing Government. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1992.
Sawyer, Carolyn Anita. Cutback Management: Organizational Response To The Problems Of Fiscal Stress. Charlottesville, Va.: Masters Thesis, University of Virginia, August 1981.
-222- Appendix K: Bibliography • 223
Snell, Ronald, editor. Financing State Government In The 1990s. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures and National Governors' Association, 1993.
Tregoe, Benjamin, John W. Zimmerman, Ronald A. Smith, and Peter M. Tobia. Vision in Action: Putting a Winning Strategy to Work. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
Articles
Behn, Robert D. "Leadership in an Era of Retrenchment," 40 Public Administration Review 603 (1980).
Biller, Robert P. "Leadership Tactics for Retrenchment," 40 Public Administration Review 604 (1980).
Brough, Regina Kay. "Total Quality Management in State Government: The Eight Rules for Producing Results," The Journal of State Government, Jan.-Mar. 1992, at 4.
Bulow, Kay. "Running Government Like a Business," The Bureaucrat, Winter 1988-89, at 12.
Gleckman, Howard. "The Technology Payoff: A Sweeping Reorganization of Work Itself Is Boosting Productivity," Business Week, June 14, 1993, at 57.
Gold, Steven D. "Cadillac or Yugo," State Legislatures, June 1993, at 32.
Greengard, Samuel. "Don't Rush Downsizing: Plan, Plan, Plan," Personnel Journal, November 1993, at 64.
Harrison, Stephen J., and Ronald J. Stupak. "Total Quality Management: The Organizational Equivalent of Truth in Public Administration Theory and Practice," 16 Public Administration Quarterly 416 (1992).
"Implementing Quality Management: Point/Counterpoint," Public Administration Times, January 1, 1993.
Kirlin, John J. "Designing Policies, Structures, and Processes for Success," Sacramento Public Affairs Center, 1987.
Lawson, Harry O., and Barbara J. Gletne. "Cutback Management in the Judicial Branch: Controlling Costs without Courting Disaster," 7 The Justice System Journal 44 (1982).
Levine, Charles H. "Organizational Decline and Cutback Management," 38 Public Administration Review 316 (1978).
Levine, Charles H. "More on Cutback Management: Hard Questions for Hard Times," 39 Public Administration Review 179 (1979).
Lewis, Carol W., and Anthony T. Logalbo. "Cutback Principles and a Checklist for Managers," 40 Public Administration Review 184 (1980).
London, Rosanne. "Cutback Management: Effective Strategies for Implementing Budget Cuts," Institute Perspective (No. 6), Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University, 1987.
224 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Loveland, Genevra Kay. "Report Regarding Dedicated Funding Measures Survey" (Unpublished report for American University, 1993).
McNeely, Dave. "The BIG Audit," State Legislatures, June 1993, at 14.
Martin, John. "Reengineering Government," Governing, March 1993, at 26.
Olsen, David, and Maureen Hickey. "The Widening Gap Between Demands and Resources," The Compiler, Fall 1992, at 9.
Pawluk, Edward J., Ph.D., Coordinator. "Cutback Management: The Handling of Program Retrenchment and Budget Reductions," Field Studies in Research and Practice (No. 6), School of Social Work, Western Michigan University, 1981.
Perez, Arturo, and Judy A. Zelio. "State Cutback Management: Proposals For Fiscal Year 1991 And Fiscal Year 1992," 16 State Legislative Report (1991).
Plant, Jeremy F., and Louise G. White. "The Politics of Cutback Budgeting: An Alliance Building Perspective," Public Budgeting & Finance, Spring 1982, at 65.
Reeves, Andrée E. "Enhancing Local Self-Government and State Capabilities: The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Program," 52 Public Administration Review 401 (1992).
Rich, Jude T., and George Bailey. "Downsizing Cost, Not People, Through Needs-Matching," Public Utilities Fortnightly, May 15, 1993, at 30.
Schwartz, Evan I. "The Power of Software: New Approaches Are Starting to Get Big Results," Business Week, June 14, 1993, at 76.
Sternberg, Carl W. "Beyond the Days of Wine and Roses: Intergovernmental Management in a Cutback Environment," 41 Public Administration Review 1020 (1981).
Stupak, Ronald J. "Perversions of Cutback Management," The Bureaucrat, Winter 1989-90, at 9.
Walters, Jonathan. "The Downsizing Myth," Governing, May 1993, at 30.
Weintraub, Daniel M. "Budgeting for Results," State Legislatures, June 1993, at 19.
Miscellaneous
Ehrenberg, Rudolph H., Jr., and Ronald J. Stupak. Administrative Theories Applicable To The Implementation Of Total Quality Management In Public Sector And Service Organizations. (Presented as a paper at the Brookings Institution seminar on "TQM & Leadership," December 19, 1991).
APPENDIX L Expenditure Cutbacks
Category 1: Judicial/Quasi-Judicial
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Association dues for judges, clerks, AOC Staff, & Court Reporters Curtailed
• Elimination of State funding for Judicial Education Conferences
• Federal grants for Judicial Education Conferences
Arizona • Elimination of judges pro tempore
Connecticut • Encourages retirement by permitting retired judges to participate in private adjudication programs where they get more money than they do on recall.
• Judges offered to take pay cut, but the Governor prevented it (apparently a constitutional impediment)
District of Columbia • Restricted use of senior/retired judges
Florida • Cut in appropriation for temporary assignments for retired judges
• Cut in funds appropriated to raise pay of county judges used in circuit courts
Georgia • Had a lawsuit on election districts and could not fill many judgeships, thus accumulating a large pot of money
• Judges voluntarily gave up increase
Iowa • Eliminate some judicial education conferences
• Reduce judicial travel within circuit (contingent)
-225- 226 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State Cutback Step Taken
Kansas • Reduce travel of appellate judges to regional sites
• Was able to get out of legal requirements to have a judge in each county and obtained leeway in allocating judges to districts.
Massachusetts • Suspended payment of per diem for attending educational sessions (not in survey)
Maryland • Did not fill vacant judgeships
• Reduced judicial leave
Maine • Judicial salaries frozen.
• Reduced contribution to judicial retirement.
• Reduced/suspended judicial and clerical education conferences.
Minnesota • Reduced judicial travel within circuit
• Restricted use of senior/retired judges; delayed filling judgeships
North Carolina • Superior Court rotation suspended
• Suspended reimbursement for conference fees
New York • Curtailed arbitration and small claims hearing officers (restored by later deal)
• Curtailed judicial hearing officers
South Carolina • Reduced scheduled court time
Tennessee • Reduce judicial travel within circuit
• Suspended reimbursement for attending educational sessions and conferences.
Virginia • Judges voluntarily gave up increase
Vermont • Delay filling judgeships
• Use voice mail, cut staff.
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 227
Category 2: Automation/Technology
State Cutback Step Taken
Arizona • Computer consolidation to reduce maintenance of software.
• Delayed upgrades of automated systems
• Time and materials as opposed to maintenance contracts on personal computers and computer terminals
Connecticut • Selling on-line access to civil and family records; basic monthly fee and usage cost; quite popular with lawyers; newspapers like it.
• Use data processing to supplement workload.
Delaware • Automation of functions is increasing -- more programming to streamline the work of the courts.
• More computer forms to reduce printing costs
Florida • Improved purchasing to increase competition (automation)
Illinois • Technology improvements funded through dedicated fees (not in survey)
Kansas • Technology improvements funded through dedicated fees
Kentucky • Computerization of case management, accounting, and records.
• Video reporting
Missouri • Installing software in local court which can afford hardware.
• Using federal drug money to automate trial courts ties to initiative to improve reporting of criminal dispositions)
New York • Use electronic and mechanical recording of testimony in lieu of court reporter minutes in Surrogate Court and Court of Claims.
Oregon • Sale of automated system access to court records
228 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State Cutback Step Taken
Pennsylvania • Automation upgrade
• Technology improvements funded through dedicated fees
South Dakota • Technology improvements funded through dedicated fees
Virginia • Cut computer budget.
Vermont • Audio and video recording of testimony to replace court reporters
• Cut computer budget (not in survey)
• Purchase technology by borrowing from state's revolving fund
• Use voice-mail, cut staff
Washington • Teleconferencing in lieu of face-to-face meetings.
West Virginia • Use automation to pick up for reduced personnel
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 229
Category 3: Personnel
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Voluntary leave without pay (contingent)
Alabama • Personnel expenses reduced.
Arizona • Administrative positions reduced as vacancies occur, duties reassigned
• Delays in filling positions
• Flex time
• Mandatory leave without pay (contingent).
Colorado • No anniversary increases
• Voluntary furloughs
Connecticut • Curtailed the use of temporary employees
• Hiring freeze
• Permanent layoffs
• Retirement incentive for vested employees
• Temporary layoff
• Temporary transfer of employees
• Wage freeze
230 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State Cutback Step Taken
District of Columbia • Adjust work schedules to reduce premium pay.
• Curtailed the use of temporary employees
• Early termination and late rehire of judicial law clerks
• Eliminated summer internship program
• Elimination of non-criminal case overtime
• Hiring freeze
• Reallocate staff
Delaware • Lost 27 positions due to early retirement offer by state
• Using casual and seasonal money to hire temporaries
• Using more overtime
Florida • Administrative positions reduced
Iowa • Freeze vacancies
• Involuntary furloughs (contingent)
Kansas • Hiring freeze
• Vacancy attrition
Kentucky • Delays in filling positions
• Used selective freeze based on office size since small courts can't afford to have cuts
Massachusetts • 1991 furlough or deferred compensation (statutory) plan
• Froze promotions, reclassifications, reallocations
• Hiring freeze
• Vacancy attrition
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 231
State Cutback Step Taken
Maryland • Froze promotions, reclassifications, reallocations
• Hiring freeze
• Increased work week without salary increase
• Involuntary furloughs
Maine • Centralized clerical work
• No overtime
• No temporary employees
• Permanent layoffs
• Reduced work hours for project staff
• Wage Freeze
Michigan • Acquiring grant funds for staff
Minnesota • Delays in filling positions
• Hire only at bottom of salary range
• Staff work longer hours
Missouri • Red-lined overstaffed courts for possible reallocation of positions
Mississippi • Delayed pay raises
• Encouraged early retirement of senior employees to be replaced with less costly employees
North Carolina • Elimination of 61 new positions which had been authorized
• Hiring freeze
• Made policy decision not to lay off and took most hits on nonpersonnel lines
232 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State Cutback Step Taken
North Dakota • A few layoffs
New Jersey • Eliminated court reporter positions
New Mexico • Employees work overtime and accumulate compensatory time
• Hiring freeze
• Limited salary increases
• Voluntary leave without pay
New York • Civil court parts were eliminated
• Displacement of provisional employees
• Froze promotions, reclassifications, reallocations
• Hiring freeze
• Permanent layoffs
• Preapproval of overtime, temporaries
Ohio • Selected hiring freeze
Oklahoma • Permitted to give 2.5% pay increase provided appropriation remained the same (i.e., power to reallocate)
Pennsylvania • Froze salary increases (COL, merit)
• Hiring freeze
• Permanent layoffs
Puerto Rico • Reduced personnel training
Rhode Island • No pay for one day in every ten day period (banked or allowed as additional vacation)
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 233
State Cutback Step Taken
South Carolina • Reduced scheduled court time
Tennessee • Eliminated court reporter positions
Virginia • Delayed filling new positions
• Froze salary increases (COL, merit)
Vermont • Hiring freeze
• Pay per diem staff hourly
Washington • Hiring Freeze
West Virginia • Hiring Freeze
• Reduced or eliminated part-time employees
234 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Category 4: Equipment/Supplies
State Cutback Step Taken
Arizona • Furniture and equipment purchases frozen
• No building/equipment repair except for safety reasons
District of Columbia • Essential expenditures only
Kentucky • Reduced acquisitions
Maryland • Delayed purchases
New York • Emergency expenditure
• Equipment purchases not approved except in emergencies
• Severely curtailed supplies
Pennsylvania • Assumed purchasing function from executive branch
Puerto Rico • Reduced equipment/materials
Rhode Island • Acquisition of publications reduced
• Reduced new/replacement equipment purchase
Washington • Financed equipment purchases
• Reduced acquisitions
West Virginia • Deferred or canceled equipment purchases
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 235
Category 5: Facilities
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Close court houses (contingent)
Arizona • Building hours limited
• Contract security eliminated
• No building/equipment repair except for safety reasons
• Time and materials as opposed to maintenance contracts on facility systems (e.g., security systems, HVAC)
Connecticut • Repairs only for safety, emergency
District of Columbia • Essential expenditures only
Kansas • Building hours limited
Maine • Leases negotiated downward • Operating hours reduced for small courts
Nebraska • Determined that court cannot close a court because it is legally mandated (not in survey)
Rhode Island • Public service stopped one hour early to permit staff time to catch up
Utah • Plan to close court houses in a budget crunch (contingent)
236 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Category 6: Juries
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Juror costs reduced
Arizona • Cut out juror meals
• Increased juror utilization Monday-Thursday, eliminated Fridays
Connecticut • Limitations on civil jury trials
District of Columbia • No jury trial in August except Bail Reform Act cases
Florida • Improved jury management
Maine • $300 fee to request jury in Superior Court
• Reduced witness/juror fees
North Carolina • Jurors report on Tuesdays rather than Mondays
New Mexico • Approved time extensions in certain criminal jury trials
• Curtailed civil jury trials
New York • Began monitoring jury summonses
• Institutes use of telephone standbys for jury service
Rhode Island • General improvements in jury management
Vermont • 6-month suspension of jury trials
• Jurors paid by the hour
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 237
Category 7: Travel
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Reduce/eliminate travel (contingent)
Alabama • Reduce travel costs
Arizona • Reduce operating and travel expenses
• Reduce travel expenses
Colorado • Reduced travel
Connecticut • Reduce out-of-state travel
District of Columbia • Essential travel expenditures only
Delaware • Reductions in operating expenses, particularly travel
Iowa • Reduce judicial travel within circuit (contingent)
• Reduce out-of-state travel
Kansas • Reduce/eliminate travel
• Reduced travel of appellate judges to regional sites
Kentucky • Reduce/eliminate travel
Massachusetts • Reduce/eliminate travel
Maryland • Reduce/eliminate travel
Maine • Reduce/eliminate travel
Minnesota • Reduce judicial travel within circuit
• Reduce/eliminate travel
238 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State Cutback Step Taken
Mississippi • Reduce out-of-state travel
North Carolina • Reduce/eliminate travel
North Dakota • Reduced travel
Nebraska • Reduce travel
New Mexico • Reduced travel
New York • Preapproval of travel
• Severely curtail travel
Oklahoma • Reduce travel
Pennsylvania • Reduced travel to conferences, professional seminars
Rhode Island • Reduce out-of-state travel
South Carolina • Reduce/eliminate travel
Tennessee • Nearly eliminated out-of-state travel
• Reduce judicial travel within circuit
Vermont • Reduce/eliminate travel
Washington • Reduce/eliminate travel
West Virginia • Reduce/eliminate travel
Wyoming • Travel reduced moderately
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 239
Category 8: Education/Conferences
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Association dues for judges, clerks, AOC staff, and court reporters curtailed
• Elimination of state funding for judicial education conferences
• Federal grants for judicial education conferences
Arizona • Cancellation of some training/education events
• Training expenditures reduced
District of Columbia • Essential expenditures only
Iowa • Eliminate some judicial education conferences
• Federal grants for training and other programs
Kansas • Education programs funded through dedicated fees
Kentucky • Cancellation/suspension for some training/education events
Massachusetts • Suspended payment of per diem for attending educational sessions (not in survey)
Maine • Reduced/suspended judicial and clerical education conferences
Minnesota • Eliminated some conference
Missouri • Federal grants for training and other programs
North Carolina • Reduced conferences
• Suspended education refund program
• Suspended reimbursement of conference fees
240 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
State Cutback Step Taken
North Dakota • Reduced education
Nebraska • Reduced education expenditures
New York • Suspension of training/education programs
Pennsylvania • Reduced travel to conferences, professional seminars
Puerto Rico • Reduced personnel training
Tennessee • Suspended reimbursement for attending educational sessions and conferences
Virginia • Training expenditures reduced
Washington • Training expenditures reduced
West Virginia • Cancellation/suspension of some training/education events
Appendix L: Expenditure Cutbacks • 241
Category 9: Legal Research/Law Libraries
State Cutback Step Taken
Arizona • Consolidation of libraries (contingent)
• Delayed purchases of legal periodicals, may reduce judge's libraries
• Reduce automated legal research (contingent)
• Restrict automated legal research
Florida • Improved negotiations with WESTLAW
Mississippi • Reduced computer research services from two to one
New York • Stopped acquisitions of law books and replacement
Oregon • Access to inmate trust accounts to pay for court imposed sanctions
• Sale of automated system access to court records
Vermont • Reduced law library purchases
West Virginia • Cut back on law libraries
Category 10: Printing/Publications
State Cutback Step Taken
Arizona • Newsletter produced fewer times per year
Delaware • More computer forms to reduce printing costs
Maine • Charging fees for court publications
Montana • Eliminate free receipt of publications
Nebraska • Eliminate free receipt of publications (not in survey)
242 • Managing Budget Cutbacks
Category 11: Indigent Defense
State Cutback Step Taken
New York • Created a special revenue offset fund for deposit of an incremental increase in fees generated by furnishing criminal history search information
Oregon • Keeps indigent defense budget separate from other budget areas
Tennessee • Dedicated funds for indigent defense
• Delay in paying attorneys
• Encouraged use of public defenders
Category 12: General/Operating Expenses
State Cutback Step Taken
Alaska • Operating expenses reduced
Arizona • Reduce operating and travel expenses
• Reduced operating expenses
Delaware • Reductions in operating expenses, particularly travel
Florida • Cut general expenses at all levels
Michigan • Cut general expenses at all levels
Rhode Island • General reduction of accounts