Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Collection Program Activities A Status Report April 2012

1. Clerks of Court Operations Corporation Collection Program Activities A Status Report April 2012

2. Historic expenditures and Revenues * Legislature redirected filing fees from Clerk Trust Fund to State. Note: All data are actuals with the exception of the estimates for SFY 2011-12 & SFY 2012-13 revenues. There is a three month overlap between CFY 2008-09 and SFY 2009-10. The budget data for CFY 2004-05 through CFY 2008-09 is based on the Certified Article V Budget compiled by the CCOC and included in the annual Legislative Report. The budget data for SFY 2009-10 through SFY 2011-12 is based on Legislative appropriations and includes all applicable “true-ups” as of September 14, 2011. The budget data for SFY 2010-11 includes foreclosure dollars. The revenue data for all fiscal years is pulled from the CCOC database and is as of September 14, 2011. The data in the CCOC database is based on the Revenue/Expenditure report or the Expenditure/Collection report for the last month of each fiscal year. The estimates for SFY 2011-12 revenues are based on the December 6, 2011 estimates from the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC).

3. Most Revenue Categories declining * Legislature redirected filing fees from Clerk Trust Fund to State.

4. Contributing Factors to Trust Fund Revenue decline • 2008/09 – 2010/11 • Redirected filing fees and fines • Increase in use of community service instead of payment of court fines and fees • Increase of civil filing fees waived because of indigence • Court discharged/waived mandatory assessments • New Case filings down • Civil 36% • Traffic 5% • Collection performance mixed • Criminal down • Civil up • Traffic down

5. ccoc responsibilities • S. 28.35 (2)(D), F.S. requires the Clerks of Court Operations Corporation (CCOC) to: • Develop a uniform system of collection performance measures and applicable standards for the Clerk’s court-related functions. • Identify deficiencies in meeting the collection standard and develop corrective action plans.

6. SFY 2010-11 Collection Performance = Performance Standard

7. OPPaga and OAG recommendations • In March 2007 the State Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) recommended that the Corporation: • Identify collection methods that would best help fund the state court system. Given the large amount of potential funds that can be collected to fund the state court system, the corporation should initially focus on helping clerks identify options for improving civil traffic collections. • Develop technical assistance programs to ensure successful implementation. • In November 2010 the Auditor General (OAG) recommended that the Corporation: • Formalize a follow-up process that documents reasons for significant fluctuations in collection performance data.

8. ccoc Collection efforts • In response to OPPAGA recommendations the CCOC has accomplished the following collections-related activities. • Developed a collection Best Practices program. • Developed Technical Assistance Program that includes: on- site collection evaluations; regional workshops; speaker platform; and website information sharing center. • Developed a system that identified significant fluctuations in collections performance data.

9. Best Practice Collections methods Research • The CCOC has been involved in numerous activities to identify best collection methods including conducting: • Collection best practice surveys; • Collection research projects to identify best collection methods; and • On-site reviews

10. Collection Surveys • The CCOC conducted 2 state-wide surveys (2008 and 2011). • 2008 survey compiled collection data related to four elements of • the Clerks’ collection programs: • Payment options • Collection processes • Payment applications/contracts • Delinquency enforcement • 2011 in response to a request by the Chairman of the • House Justice Appropriation Committee, CCOC compiled a detailed • description of each of the 67 Clerks’ collection activities.

11. Examples of CCOC research projects • (1) 2008 civil traffic, and • 14 counties (small, median, large) • Over 2,000 traffic citations sampled • (2) 2011 criminal court divisions • 11 urban counties • Surveys • (3) 2012 criminal court divisions • 6 small counties (site visits) Collections Research

12. Highlights • Counties meeting 90% performance typically: • They receive the traffic citation faster from law enforcement, is filed and entered into the Clerk’s case mgt. system faster, they notice non-payment faster, there are less continuances, they send notices to DHSMV faster, they have less TCAT errors, and are faster sending delinquent accounts to collection agencies. • All this takes investment in staff and automation. • Other factors: • Less cases that have DL suspensions • Less toll violators • Less number of out-of-state citations Civil Traffic collections Project (2010)

13. There are basically two collection models that counties can be grouped for criminal defendants. • (1) Judicial model when non-payment brought back before the court for action. • (2) Non-judicial model when clerk sets up payment plan and suspend DL for non-payment, and employ collection agencies for hard-to collect cases. • Both models need support of all court partners to work effectively. Criminal Collection models

14. Collection Circle

15. Highlights • Counties meeting performance standards (circuit 9% std. and county 40%std.) typically: • Collection processes: • Court assessment expected to pay day of sentencing. • If not paid day of sentencing, defendants required to see Clerk and establish payment plan. • Defendants (ROR) required to see Clerk 5 days or less. • Defendants on probation (state and county ) paid the Clerk directly • Payment plan information is detailed • Limited the number of payment extensions • Defendants on probation not easily released from financial obligations • Trained staff and automation • Timely and used of driver’s license suspension for non-payment and cash bonds • Collection Courts: • More costly than non-collection court processes (judicial, clerk, bailiff , law enf., jail) • Can be effective, however, collection performance data shows no better than non-collection court • Other factors • Less homeless/indigence (out of system early) • Less prison cases vs. probation • Connected with DOC before prison and after prison • If probation collects for Clerk, funds received timely Criminal court collection projects

16. Court collection programs should be designed with several goals in mind: • To hold defendants accountable for their actions; • To improve the enforcement of court judgments; • To reduce judicial and clerical efforts required to collect court-ordered financial obligations; • To ensure prompt disbursement of court collections to receiving agencies and individuals • To achieve timely case processing • Identified three fundamental issues that must be addressed when seeking to improve collections of court imposed fines and fees. • The successful collection programs have: • (1) adopted a philosophy that active, if not aggressive collections is the right approach to take; • (2) decided to improve community perceptions; and • (3) dedicated some staff and other resources to the collection effort National Center for State Courts

17. education & technical assistance • At the direction of the Executive Council, CCOC has developed an outreach technical assistance program in order to assist Clerk offices with their collection activities. The technical assistance program consists of four approaches. • On-site reviews • Regional workshops • Speaker platforms/webinars • Website library

18. Education and T&A On-site collection reviews: To date 19 Clerk offices were reviewed Regional workshops: Ten regional workshops have been conducted to date. One of these workshops was a “Tri-County” (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach) which Clerk and court staff both attended. To date regional workshops were held in 11 judicial circuits including approximately 40 Clerk offices. Speaker platform/webinars: May 2011 was the kick-off of the first collections webinar series and speaker platforms. Website library:

19. Data quality Review Process • In response to the OAG recommendation the CCOC Executive Council approved a data quality review process. The goal is to improve the reliability of the performance data. • The process compares assessments made in one quarter and compares them to assessment made in the following quarter. • The quarterly comparison is done for each of the 9 court divisions. • If the assessment varies 20% (+ or -) from the previous quarter the Clerk office is contacted and an explanation is provided and performance reports are amended. • Over the last year about 1/3 of the clerk offices were contacted requesting explanation for assessment variance for one or more court divisions.

20. CCOC will continue: • Monitoring Performance • Conducting Research and Identifying best practices • Conducting Education and Technical Assistance • Improving data quality • Making recommendations to the Legislature • CCOC will conduct collection study required by HB 5001 and report back to Legislature December 1, 2012. CCOC continuing efforts

21. Questions and Answers