1 / 39

Court Funding: From Crisis to Stability

Court Funding: From Crisis to Stability. National Foundation for Judicial Excellence Fifth Annual Judicial Symposium. Robert N. Baldwin Executive Vice President And General Counsel National Center for State Courts. Basic Message.

cana
Download Presentation

Court Funding: From Crisis to Stability

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: From Crisis to Stability National Foundation for Judicial Excellence Fifth Annual Judicial Symposium Robert N. Baldwin Executive Vice President And General Counsel National Center for State Courts

  2. Basic Message State and Local Revenue will be Severely Constrained at Least through 2010 and most likely 2011

  3. Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

  4. Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

  5. What is the status of state court budgets?

  6. Source: COSCA Budget Survey June 12, 2009

  7. Special Programs that are likely to be eliminated or reduced because of budget cuts—Percentage of States

  8. How will the federal stimulus package affect court budgets? Source: COSCA Budget Survey June 12, 2009

  9. Statement of the Problem Particularly difficult for states to recover from current fiscal situation Housing markets slow to recover Depressed consumption and sales taxes Property tax revenues affected Unemployment deteriorates income tax revenues and creates further downward pressure on sales tax revenues

  10. Statement of the Problem Primary actions state can take during fiscal crisis: Draw down reserves (rainy day funds) Cut expenditures (can slow economy) Raise taxes (can slow economy)

  11. Statement of the Problem States have implemented or are considering cuts that will affect: Low income children/families health insurance or access to health care Programs for elderly and disabled K-12 and early education Public colleges and universities State workforce

  12. Statement of the Problem Can Courts Avoid Cuts?

  13. The Current Fiscal Crisis – How is it different? Appears that it will get worse for next several years Structural deficits in state budgets Demographic shifts (fewer workers, more retirees) Rising health , education and transportation costs Both state and local governments are being hurt severely Merely relying on cutbacks may not be adequate Tax increases and fee increases used last recession. May not be available Accounting tricks already used

  14. The Good News • Courts are being significantly shielded from the worst of the budget impacts in most states.  • Federal stimulus will lessen reduction in court budgets—for now

  15. State Strategies from Last Recession

  16. How are Court’s responding this recession? 50% will not be filling judicial vacancies Will not be recalling retired judge to sit Reducing hours of operations Limiting weekly hours worked Implementing hiring freezes Implementing voluntaryfurloughs

  17. How are Court’s responding this recession? (cont.) G. Restricting travel H. Deferring pay raises I. Reducing employer contributions to health benefits J. Creating mandatory furloughs Cutting funding to special servicesand programs e.g. ADR, Problem Solving Courts

  18. How are Court’s responding this recession? (cont.) New or additional technology M. New emphasis on collection of fines and costs Private collection agencies N. Increase in fees - May not work because this has already been done

  19. Impact of cuts Increased backlogs in civil, criminal and family/juvenile cases Reduction in service to public Diminished record keeping Limited access to the courts Reduction in hours of operations Increased filing fees Diversion of resources from civil to meet constitutional and statutory mandates in criminal, juvenile and family matters Possible reduction in jury trials Jurors seeking recusal for financial hardships Voluntary Judicial pay cuts

  20. Elements of Budgeting Strategies Focus on overall mission of the courts – “constitutional necessity” “core function of government” Budget Justification Relate needs to mission and goals Develop a cost accounting mentality Evaluate alternatives Present budget requirements as part of the justice system Include particular costs of statutory and constitutional requirements Cite all applicable legal provisions

  21. Elements of Budgeting Strategies B. Accountability Measures Develop analytical data to indicate performance and shortfalls (CourTools) Define areas where lack of funds will affect the programs Inherent Powers – can this be used?

  22. Strategies Administrators May Consider for Responding to the Fiscal Crisis Judicial independence is enhanced by increased managerial credibility and entrepreneurial court management Fiscal crisis requires prioritization of court services, strategic panning and agile management Court should accept fair share of budget cutbacks, but could seek freedom in return e.g. lump sum budgets

  23. Strategies Administrators May Consider for Responding to the Fiscal Crisis Leverage technologies based upon return on investment and cost avoidance strategies Establish partnership and ongoing dialogue with funding bodies Create a Performance Measurement System Exempt mandated expenditures from basic budget reductions e.g. salaries of judges

  24. Strategies Administrators May Consider for Responding to the Fiscal Crisis Shift non-court costs out of the court budget, e.g. indigent defense costs Outsource specialized functions and staff intensive operations e.g. collections Enhance judicial collections Outsource to private sector collectors Tax intercept programs Leverage opportunities for Process Re-engineering and Restructuring

  25. Service Redesign What does a court do when all other remedies for budget cuts fail to solve the problem? Best Practices for Redesigning the way courts deliver services

  26. Some Baseline Concepts • Think in terms of services for stakeholders instead of functions that courts perform. Example: Payment of traffic fines online instead of traffic citation case processing. • Think in terms of external stakeholders instead of internal staff. • Think in terms of redesigning business process to deliver more with less instead of maintaining current business processes while delivering less with less.

  27. Typical Current Strategies • Reduce court hours • Reduce court locations • Reduce therapeutic courts • Reduce non-constitutional services • Reduce staff • Reduce pay Reduce external services to stakeholders!

  28. Low-hanging Fruit for Redesign • Automation of processes • Centralization of processes • Changes in court organization • Standardization of processes • Outsourcing processes Reduce the cost of existing services

  29. Automated Services • Electronic filing & docketing of documents and motions • Electronic payments • Electronic Document Management System • Litigant self-help • Notifications • Creation of the official court record • Integrated Case Management System • Provision of the record on appeal

  30. Centralized Processes • Filing • Payments • Collections • Document access • Data queries • Jury services (partial) • Interpreters (partial)

  31. Changes in Court Organization • Consolidation of courts • Changes in venue requirements or jurisdictional lines • Greater flexibility in assigning judges and court personnel across jurisdictional lines

  32. Standardized Services • Every administrative process statewide? • Every technology statewide? • External interfaces only • Services only • Applications, Systems, Infrastructure

  33. Outsourced Services • Technology infrastructure • Network • Servers • Email • Security • Collections • E-filing • Data entry

  34. The Pot of Gold • Happier customers, because they get improved services • Happier staff, because they get improved jobs and pay • Happier society, because it gets a court system with renewed institutional viability and improved efficiencies.

  35. Separate Branches, Shared Responsibility • Public wants all three branches of government to play a big role in addressing significant justice problem • 90% think it is important for heads of the three branches to meet regularly on justice system issues • Public thinks courts should be provided enough money to function properly

  36. Separate Branches, Shared Responsibility (cont.) • Over 80% oppose raising filing fees • 85% oppose cessation of jury trials • 71% say state Supreme Court should have the final say in deciding controversial issues • 74% of well informed categories express confidence in the courts compared to 65% confidence in the legislatures and 66% in the governor

  37. What is NCSC Doing? • Periodically survey court administrators to track budgets, shortfalls and strategies 2. Budget Resource Center Interactive maps where you can see state specific activity and learn from other states

  38. What is NCSC Doing? • SJI Grant to track shortfalls and identify the principles by which courts should be funded - Funding Guidelines or Principles - Collecting best practices - Providing technical assistance – SWAT team with court connection network • Developing Redesign Methodologies - High Performance Courts

More Related