1 / 24

Court Funding Task Force

This document explores past recommendations for court funding, highlighting the need for shared financial responsibility between state and local governments. It also examines the funding strategies implemented in other states and provides an overview of the current budget allocation for the judicial branch in Washington State.

kclark
Download Presentation

Court Funding Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Court Funding Task Force October 7, 2002

  2. Court Funding – Recommendations from the Past • 1972 – Citizen’s Conference on Courts “…courts should be part of one state system and the costs borne by the state” • 1985 – Judicial Administration Comm. “…all salaries of superior and district court judges should be paid by state”

  3. Recommendations from the Past (cont’d) • 1985 – Judicial Administration Comm. “…salaries of superior court commissioners and court administrators should be paid by the state” “…all pro tem costs should be paid by the state” “…the state should pay part of indigent criminal defense”

  4. Recommendations from the Past (cont’d) • 1985 – Judicial Administration Comm. “…Legislature should increase civil filing fees at all court levels” “…adopt a process for estimating fiscal impact on local courts/governments”

  5. Recommendations from the Past (cont’d) • 1988 – Judicial Council Task Force on Courts of Limited Jurisdiction “…Increase PSEA assessment to 100% of all fines and penalties” “…Adjust revenue distribution to 60% local, 40% state “…State should pay ½ salaries of district court judges

  6. Recommendations from the Past (cont’d) • 1999 – Commission on Justice, Efficiency, and Accountability “…the Board for Judicial Administration should develop a funding strategy for the judicial branch and evaluate state funding for mandated judicial services”

  7. Recommendations from the Past(cont’d) • 1999 Court Improvement Act …initiated by BJA …at local option - state to pay costs of trial judges’ salaries, expert witness fees, jury, interpreter and indigent defense costs …state to pay for costs of capital cases

  8. Recommendations from the Past (cont’d) • 1999 Court Improvement Act …state to pay for civil legal services …established court improvement account for counties that “opted in” …increased filing fees, PSEA assessment, and infraction penalties – redistributed revenue between local and state govt’s.

  9. Recommendation from the Past (cont’d) • 2001 – Project 2001 “…a long term solution for adequate funding of the judicial system as an independent branch of government is critical to the success of court reform efforts. Finding the proper balance of shared financial responsibility between local and state government is imperative…”

  10. Other States • CALIFORNIA Impetus: Unequal justice County fiscal crisis Authority: Constitutional amendment Local option Budget: base plus monthly “draw” maximum state control

  11. Other States • OREGON Impetus: County fiscal crisis Authority: Statutory Budget: base -formula driven plus new programs “lump sum” maximum local control

  12. Other States • FLORIDA Impetus: Routine Constitutional Review Authority: Constitutional amendment Budget: “hold harmless” performance and accountability standards

  13. Other States • PENNSYLVANIA Impetus: Lawsuit Authority: Court order Budget: Implementation in flux phase 1- 175 employees

  14. Other States’ Recommendations • Continue partial local responsibility • Maintain legislative involvement • Facilities should remain local responsibility • Decide responsibility for collections activity • Decide responsibility for personnel (union contracts, retirement systems…) • State-wide automation is critical

  15. Other States’ Recommendations (cont’d) • Clarify how court revenue will be distributed • Functional approach to state funding works best • Litigation is a treacherous solution to the court funding problem

  16. Legislative Judicial Gov’t Operations Human Services Natural Resources Transportation Public Schools Higher Education Other Education Special Appropriations $136,110 $140,864 $2,649,413 $18,976,685 $1,102,464 $105,690 $11,503,685 $6,439,607 $110,984 $1,904,368 Washington State 01-03 Budget(Dollars in Thousands)

  17. AOC ($30 M = superior court judges’ salaries) Court of Appeals Office of Public Defense Supreme Court State Law Library Judicial Conduct Comm. TOTAL (annual) $85,514 $25,618 $12,944 $10,987 $3,906 $1,895 $70,432 Judicial Branch 01-03 Budget(Dollars in Thousands)

  18. Local Government Annual Expenditures • Superior Court $160.6 million • Juvenile Operations $105.6 million • District Court $80.1 million • Municipal Court $55.0 million • TOTAL $401.3 million

  19. Annual State RevenuePSEA • Superior Court $8.5 million • District Court $33.3 million • Municipal Court $24.0 million • TOTAL $65.8 million

  20. Local Government Annual Revenue • Superior Court $20 million • District Court (county) $39 million • District Court (city) $10 million • Municipal Court $41 million • TOTAL $111 million

  21. Summary • Annual State & Local Expenditures for Trial Courts • $416 million • ($15 million state + $401 million local) • Annual State & Local Revenues from Trial Courts • $177 million • ($66 million state + $111 million local)

More Related