Court Funding Task ForceCourt Funding Task Force

October 7, 2002October 7, 2002

Court Funding – Recommendations Court Funding – Recommendations from the Pastfrom the Past

1972 – Citizen’s Conference on Courts1972 – Citizen’s Conference on Courts

“…“…courts should be part of one state system courts should be part of one state system and the costs borne by the state”and the costs borne by the state”

1985 – Judicial Administration Comm.1985 – Judicial Administration Comm.

“…“…all salaries of superior and district court all salaries of superior and district court judges should be paid by state” judges should be paid by state”

Recommendations from the Past Recommendations from the Past (cont’d)(cont’d)

1985 – Judicial Administration Comm1985 – Judicial Administration Comm..

“…“…salaries of superior court commissioners salaries of superior court commissioners and court administrators should be paid by and court administrators should be paid by the state”the state”

“…“…all pro tem costs should be paid by the all pro tem costs should be paid by the state”state”

“…“…the state should pay part of indigent the state should pay part of indigent criminal defense”criminal defense”

Recommendations from the Past Recommendations from the Past (cont’d)(cont’d)

1985 – Judicial Administration Comm1985 – Judicial Administration Comm..

“…“…Legislature should increase civil filing Legislature should increase civil filing fees at all court levels”fees at all court levels”

“…“…adopt a process for estimating fiscal adopt a process for estimating fiscal impact on local courts/governments” impact on local courts/governments”

Recommendations from the Past Recommendations from the Past (cont’d)(cont’d)

1988 – Judicial Council Task Force on 1988 – Judicial Council Task Force on Courts of Limited JurisdictionCourts of Limited Jurisdiction

“…“…Increase PSEA assessment to 100% of Increase PSEA assessment to 100% of all fines and penalties”all fines and penalties”

“…“…Adjust revenue distribution to 60% local, Adjust revenue distribution to 60% local, 40% state40% state

“…“…State should pay ½ salaries of district State should pay ½ salaries of district court judgescourt judges

Recommendations from the Past Recommendations from the Past (cont’d)(cont’d)

1999 – Commission on Justice, 1999 – Commission on Justice, Efficiency, and AccountabilityEfficiency, and Accountability

“…“…the Board for Judicial Administration the Board for Judicial Administration should develop a funding strategy for the should develop a funding strategy for the judicial branch and evaluate state funding judicial branch and evaluate state funding for mandated judicial services”for mandated judicial services”

Recommendations from the PastRecommendations from the Past(cont’d)(cont’d)

1999 Court Improvement Act1999 Court Improvement Act

……initiated by BJAinitiated by BJA

……at local option - state to pay costs of trial at local option - state to pay costs of trial judges’ salaries, expert witness fees, jury, judges’ salaries, expert witness fees, jury, interpreter and indigent defense costsinterpreter and indigent defense costs

……state to pay for costs of capital casesstate to pay for costs of capital cases

Recommendations from the Past Recommendations from the Past (cont’d)(cont’d)

1999 Court Improvement Act1999 Court Improvement Act

……state to pay for civil legal servicesstate to pay for civil legal services

……established court improvement account established court improvement account for counties that “opted in”for counties that “opted in”

……increased filing fees, PSEA assessment, increased filing fees, PSEA assessment, and infraction penalties – redistributed and infraction penalties – redistributed revenue between local and state govt’s.revenue between local and state govt’s.

Recommendation from the Past Recommendation from the Past (cont’d)(cont’d)

2001 – Project 20012001 – Project 2001

“…“…a long term solution for adequate funding a long term solution for adequate funding of the judicial system as an independent of the judicial system as an independent branch of government is critical to the branch of government is critical to the success of court reform efforts. Finding success of court reform efforts. Finding the proper balance of shared financial the proper balance of shared financial responsibility between local and state responsibility between local and state government is imperative…”government is imperative…”

Other StatesOther States CALIFORNIACALIFORNIA

Impetus: Impetus: Unequal justiceUnequal justiceCounty fiscal crisisCounty fiscal crisis

Authority:Authority: Constitutional amendmentConstitutional amendmentLocal optionLocal option

Budget:Budget: base plusbase plusmonthly “draw”monthly “draw”maximum state control maximum state control

Other StatesOther States

OREGONOREGON

Impetus: Impetus: County fiscal crisisCounty fiscal crisis

Authority:Authority: StatutoryStatutory

Budget:Budget: base -formula drivenbase -formula driven

plus new programsplus new programs

““lump sum” lump sum”

maximum local controlmaximum local control

Other StatesOther States

FLORIDAFLORIDA

Impetus:Impetus: Routine Constitutional Routine Constitutional ReviewReview

Authority:Authority: Constitutional Constitutional amendmentamendment

Budget:Budget: “hold harmless”“hold harmless”

performance and performance and accountability standardsaccountability standards

Other StatesOther States

PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA

Impetus:Impetus: LawsuitLawsuit

Authority:Authority: Court orderCourt order

Budget:Budget: Implementation in fluxImplementation in fluxphase 1- 175 phase 1- 175 employeesemployees

Other States’ RecommendationsOther States’ Recommendations

Continue partial local responsibilityContinue partial local responsibility Maintain legislative involvementMaintain legislative involvement Facilities should remain local responsibilityFacilities should remain local responsibility Decide responsibility for collections activityDecide responsibility for collections activity Decide responsibility for personnelDecide responsibility for personnel

(union contracts, retirement systems…)(union contracts, retirement systems…) State-wide automation is criticalState-wide automation is critical

Other States’ Recommendations Other States’ Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

Clarify how court revenue will be Clarify how court revenue will be distributeddistributed

Functional approach to state funding Functional approach to state funding works bestworks best

Litigation is a treacherous solution to Litigation is a treacherous solution to the court funding problemthe court funding problem

Washington State 01-03 BudgetWashington State 01-03 Budget(Dollars in Thousands)(Dollars in Thousands)

LegislativeLegislative JudicialJudicial Gov’t OperationsGov’t Operations Human ServicesHuman Services Natural ResourcesNatural Resources TransportationTransportation Public SchoolsPublic Schools Higher EducationHigher Education Other EducationOther Education Special AppropriationsSpecial Appropriations

= $136,110$136,110= $140,864$140,864= $2,649,413$2,649,413= $18,976,685$18,976,685= $1,102,464$1,102,464= $105,690$105,690= $11,503,685$11,503,685= $6,439,607$6,439,607= $110,984$110,984= $1,904,368$1,904,368

Washington State 01-03 Budget

Public Schools26.7%

Special Approps4.4%

Other Education0.3%

Higher Education15.0%

Natural Resources

2.6%

Transportation0.2%

Human Services44.1%

Legislative0.3%

Judicial0.3%

Govt Operations6.2%

Judicial Branch 01-03 BudgetJudicial Branch 01-03 Budget(Dollars in Thousands)(Dollars in Thousands)

AOC AOC ($30 M = superior court ($30 M = superior court judges’ salaries)judges’ salaries)

Court of AppealsCourt of Appeals Office of Public DefenseOffice of Public Defense

Supreme CourtSupreme Court State Law LibraryState Law Library Judicial Conduct Judicial Conduct

Comm.Comm. TOTAL (annual)TOTAL (annual)

= $85,514$85,514

= $25,618$25,618= $12,944$12,944= $10,987$10,987= $3,906$3,906= $1,895$1,895

= $70,432$70,432

Judicial Branch 01-03 Budget

Admin for the Courts60.7%

Court of Appeals18.2%

Office of Public Defense

9.2%

Supreme Court7.8%

State Law Library2.8%

Judicial Conduct1.3%

Local Government Annual Local Government Annual ExpendituresExpenditures

Superior CourtSuperior Court $160.6 million$160.6 million Juvenile OperationsJuvenile Operations $105.6 million$105.6 million District CourtDistrict Court $80.1 million$80.1 million Municipal CourtMunicipal Court $55.0 million$55.0 million

TOTALTOTAL $401.3 million$401.3 million

State/Local Support of Courts

State15%

Local85%

Annual State RevenueAnnual State RevenuePSEAPSEA

Superior CourtSuperior Court $8.5 million$8.5 million District CourtDistrict Court $33.3 million$33.3 million Municipal CourtMunicipal Court $24.0 million$24.0 million

TOTALTOTAL $65.8 million$65.8 million

Local Government Annual RevenueLocal Government Annual Revenue

Superior CourtSuperior Court $20 million$20 million District Court (county)District Court (county) $39 million$39 million District Court (city)District Court (city) $10 million$10 million Municipal CourtMunicipal Court $41 million$41 million

TOTALTOTAL $111 million$111 million

Summary Summary

Annual State & Local Expenditures for Annual State & Local Expenditures for Trial CourtsTrial Courts $416 million$416 million

• ($15 million state + $401 million local)($15 million state + $401 million local)

Annual State & Local Revenues from Trial Annual State & Local Revenues from Trial CourtsCourts $177 million$177 million

• ($66 million state + $111 million local)($66 million state + $111 million local)