Vermont Judicial Branch **** FY 2016 Budget Summary - Key Budget and Programmatic Issues ****

Transcription

1 Vermnt Judicial Branch **** FY 2016 Budget Summary - Key Budget and Prgrammatic Issues **** The Judiciary s FY 2016 budget presentatin materials include fur dcuments: This summary f key FY 2016 budget and prgrammatic issues within the Branch; Vermnt Judiciary Annual Statistical Reprt fr FY 2014 Vermnt Judicial Branch Overview, 2015 Legislative Sessin: Curts, Judiciary Prgrams, and Perfrmance Measures Budget detail dcument includes budget ups and dwns and all Vantage reprts Tpics cvered in this summary dcument include: Curts, Judiciary Prgrams, and Perfrmance Measures Upward Pressures n Curt Resurces Structural Challenges in Curt System Funding FY 2016 Budget: Gvernr s Recmmendatin Additinal Ptential General Fund Budget Reductins fr FY 2016 and Beynd Operatinal Efficiencies and Budget Imprvements Reflected in FY 2016 Request Strategic Issues with Ptential r Likely Budget Implicatins Curts, Judiciary Prgrams, and Perfrmance Measures Basic indicatrs f curt perfrmance are a necessary ingredient f accuntability in the administratin f justice and effective gvernance f the third branch. Mrever, perfrmance measures prvide a structured means fr curts t cmmunicate this message. The Vermnt Judiciary assesses perfrmance thrugh measures develped by the Natinal Center fr State Curts. CurTls is an instrument designed t fster cnsensus n what curts shuld strive t achieve and their success in meeting bjectives in a wrld f limited resurces. The Vermnt Judiciary als uses the Results Based Accuntability mdel t measure perfrmance f curt prgrams. These prgrams include treatment curt dckets, the Vermnt Superir Curt family mediatin prgram, the parent crdinatin prgram, the Guardian ad Litem prgram, the Curt Interpreter prgram, and judicial and staff educatin prgrams. The Vermnt Judiciary Branch Overview fr the 2015 Legislative Sessin, which accmpanies the Judiciary s budget materials, sets frth in greater detail the Missin, Visin, and Principles fr Administratin f the Vermnt Judiciary adpted by the Supreme Curt, as well as perfrmance Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

2 measures established by the Judiciary, where applicable, and measurements f perfrmance utcmes, t the extent available. Upward Pressures n Curt Resurces Increase in Abuse/Neglect (CHINS) Filings CHINS Filings by Sub Case Type FY10-FY14 Abuse/Neglect Beynd Cntrl Truant Linear (Abuse/Neglect) FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 CHINS Of the 1,019 CHINS cases filed in FY14, 804 were abuse/neglect cases, the remainder were beynd parental cntrl r truant. The increase in CHINS filings ver the past few years has been fueled primarily by a dramatic grwth in abuse/neglect cases. The number f abuse neglect filings increased by 62% between FY10 and FY15. This represents the largest increase in any case type in any divisin f the superir curt. Given the dramatic upsurge f abuse/neglect cases in FY14, the clearance rate fr CHINS cases was ne f the lwest f any grup f cases in any divisin f the superir curt. CHINS cases are labr intensive fr judges and curt staff. They require numerus hearings and the stakes fr the litigants are high. Nt nly are many f the children invlved in these cases remved frm the custdy f their parents, there is always the threat f terminatin f parental rights if parents are unable t regain custdy within a reasnable amunt f time. Five years f clearance rates belw 100% is a surce f significant cncern. It means the develpment f a backlg f cases that will be difficult t vercme withut a dramatic decline in the number f filings r an increase in resurces. Clearance Clearance Rate Rate CHINS CHINS: 100.0% 80.0% 78.0% 89.4% 92.9% 89.4% 74.6% 60.0% Vermnt 40.0% Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

3 Increase in Terminatin f Parental Rights (TPR) Filings TPR petitins have increased by 21% since 2010 with the majr increase ccurring during the past three years. This is a trend that is likely t cntinue given recent increases in the number f CHINS filings. TPR Petitins in Juvenile Cases ADDED DISPOSED FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 The clearance rate fr terminatin f parental rights petitins als fell belw 100% in FY14 - yet anther indicatin f the degree f stress that increased filings has placed n the juvenile caselad. Clearance Rate: TPRs in Juvenile Cases 110 % 107 % 100 % 90 % 91 % 87 % 99 % 92 % 80 % FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Increase in Applicatins fr Invluntary Medicatin 100 Applicatins fr Invluntary Medicatin ADDED DISPOSED Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

4 The fastest grwing case type in the mental health dcket is invluntary medicatin. While the numbers f cases still remain small in cmparisn t applicatins fr invluntary treatment r cntinued treatment, they almst dubled in FY14 as cmpared t FY13. Frm a wrklad perspective medicatin cases require a significant amunt f judge time since they are almst always cntested. They als place a significant burden n the family divisin units where a designated hspital is lcated. Structural Challenges in Curt System Funding Over 87% f the Judiciary s budget is funded with General Funds; while less than 6% is derived frm varius fee and surcharge surces, as illustrated belw. Fund: FY 2016 Gvernr's Recmmendatin Fund Surces as Percent f Ttal General Fund 38,207, % Fee-based revenue surces: Attrney Admissin Licensing Fund 759, % Curt Technlgy Fund 1,631, % Other fund surces: Waste Management Fund 128, % Envirnmental Permit 148, % Tbacc Litigatin Settlement 39, % Inter-Unit Transfer Fund 2,325, % Federal Revenue Funds 473, % TOTAL 43,713, % In additin t being heavily reliant n General Funds, the Judiciary s budget is cncentrated in several cst areas. The three largest items -- salary and fringe benefits; Fee fr Space; and curt security cntracts accunt fr ver 87% f the branch s expenses. After accunting fr mandatry internal service charges; accunting transactins; and prgram-related grants and cntracts, less than 9% f the Judiciary s budget is assciated with perating expenses. Majr categry f expense (all funds): FY 2016 Gvernr's Recmmendatin As Percent f Ttal Salary and Fringe (less vacancy savings) 31,261, % Fee fr Space 4,721, % Curt security cntracts 2,227, % Other internal service charges (DII; VISION) 742, % Cash payment t DCF (Title IVD accunting transactin) 422, % Prgram-related grants and cntracts 478, % All ther expenses 3,860, % Ttal (all funds) 43,713, % Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

5 FY 2016 Budget: Gvernr s Recmmendatin The Gvernr s recmmendatin fr the Judiciary s FY 2016 General Fund apprpriatin represents a 5.0% increase, r $1,816,163, ver FY All f the General Fund increase is assciated with State-wide mandatry charges and ther pressures; it cntains n Judiciary-specific increases. Annualizatin f the FY 2015 Pay Act (including acrss-the-bard increases; step increases; and statutry Judicial Officer increases) and the 18% increase in the emplyer prtin f the health insurance premiums accunts fr $1,654,585. The net impact f mandated increases in internal service charges (Fee fr Space; VISION; DII) and insurance charges accunts fr the remainder f the General Fund increase, r $161,578. This $1.8M General Fund increase in the Gvernr s recmmendatin is absent: Any allcated reductin based n the Gvernr s prpsed budget language ($500K); Any unidentified share f FY 2016 Pay Act; r, Any prtin f the Gvernr s $5M labr savings reductin. Items Nt Included in the Gvernr s Recmmendatin The Gvernr s recmmendatin des NOT include almst $900,000 f items requested by the Judiciary related t existing fiscal and peratinal pressures. It shuld be nted that these requests are NOT new initiatives; rather they reflect increased csts f current services. These unfunded items are as fllws: Level-fund sheriffs; eliminate sheriff deficit: $239,358. This existing deficit is currently being managed by hlding pen Judiciary staff psitins (equivalent t apprximately fur Judiciary FTE psitins.) Increase sheriffs 3%: $75,000. Cunty sheriffs prvide cntract-based curt security at mst Judiciary curthuses. Sheriffs have nt received hurly rate increases in all years (but did receive an increase last year). Eliminate Tech Fund supprt f RIS staff: $424,627. In FY 2015, the Judiciary requested $800,000 f General Funds in rder t reduce reliance n the Curt Technlgy Fund fr supprt f nging IT persnnel csts. Apprximately half f that request was funded; the Executive Branch indicated t request the remainder in FY The Gvernr s FY 2016 request des nt include this amunt. As a result, the Curt Technlgy Fund is nt available t supprt the technlgy acquisitin fr which it was riginally intended. Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

6 Security perating needs: $150,000. Sec. E f last year s Apprpriatins Act mandated a security study. That study reviewed fur facilities and fund significant security needs with perating and capital cst implicatins; cst estimates are under develpment, but are likely t meet r exceed the Judiciary s request. In the absence f funding fr the abve items, the Judiciary will have n chice but t cntinue t use vacancy savings as a primary tl fr fiscal management. See discussin belw regarding ther savings initiatives within the Branch. During restructuring, the number f Judiciary trial curt emplyees was reduced by 22 psitins (r 10%). In additin, due t budget pressures, the Judiciary has been running a higher than typical vacancy savings rate (apprximately 7-8%) versus the typical Vermnt state gvernment target range (f 3.5%-6.0%). This higher level f vacancy savings has created peratinal strains thrughut the branch. All nn-gf funding surces were reviewed fr accuracy and adjusted t reflect prjected revenues and expenditures. Additinal Ptential General Fund Budget Reductins fr FY 2016 and Beynd Systemic Changes in Justice System: As nted abve, the $1.8M General Fund increase in the Gvernr s recmmendatin is absent any allcated reductin based n the Gvernr s prpsed BAA, which wuld have cut an additinal $500,000 frm the Judiciary FY 2016 budget based n a plan t be submitted by the Judiciary. Instead f fllwing this mdel, the Huse Cmmittee n Apprpriatins, the Senate Cmmittee n Apprpriatins, and the Senate Cmmittee n Judiciary have requested the Judiciary t ffer alternatives that can assist the Judiciary and Apprpriatins Cmmittees t address the serius fiscal challenges facing the State f Vermnt. In particular, the Huse Cmmittee n Apprpriatins has requested the Judiciary t cnsult with justice cmmunity partners t identify systemic changes t service delivery t assure timely access t justice and facilitate savings within the Judicial Branch f State gvernment: This may include a plan fr savings in the shrt term, fiscal year 2016, as well as lnger term strategic changes that will result in efficiencies thrughut the system. The Supreme Curt cnvened a meeting n Mnday, February 9, 2015, f representatives f the Judiciary, the State s Attrneys, the Attrney General s Office, the Department f Crrectins, the Department f Children and Families, the Office f Child Supprt, and the Vermnt Bar Assciatin fr the purpse f cnsulting with the justice cmmunity in rder t respnd t the Cmmittee s request n a time urgent basis. (The Office f Defender General was invited but was unable t participate.) The meeting addressed State General Funds budget reductins and the efficiency f the justice system. Steve Kimbell facilitated this discussin. Representatives frm the Huse Cmmittee n Judiciary; the Huse Cmmittee n Apprpriatins; the Gvernr s Office; the Department f Finance and Management; and the Sheriff s Assciatin attended as bservers. Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

7 The tpics that were suggested by plicymakers in ther branches f gvernment, r that were therwise cnsidered, included the fllwing: 1. Clsing curthuses / right-sizing ur use f curthuses 2. Use f remte technlgies such as vide cnferencing 3. Reginalizatin, including reginal venue 4. Technlgy / E-filing 5. Reducing curt security csts 6. Prisner transprt 7. Reducing the number f Prbate Judges 8. Specialty curt dckets 9. BGS 10. Investment in Lamille Cunty curthuse 11. Jint Training 12. Reduce curt wrklad fr service f prcess and calendaring f child supprt cases 13. Reduce curt wrklad by triaging case manager cnferences and applying the mdificatin prcess as set frth in 15 V.S.A. 660(d) 14. Increase federal funding by encuraging mre participatin in the IV-D prgram 15. Restructuring State-wide administrative adjudicatin. The lng term structural challenges f the Vermnt justice system are bviusly nt ging t be slved in a three-hur meeting. The Judiciary des hpe, hwever, that the useful discussin that ccurred at this meeting will prvide the infrmatin the Cmmittees are seeking in the shrt term and will serve as the beginning f a lnger discussin with justice cmmunity partners abut sustainable structural changes leading t stability in funding fr the Judicial Branch f State gvernment. Pay Act: The FY 2016 Pay Act apprpriatin includes an apprpriatin t the Judiciary f $1,044,179. This amunt funds: (1) the statutry salaries fr Judicial Officers; and (2) the negtiated ABI and steps fr classified bargaining unit emplyees, and the classified and managerial emplyees wh fllw thse increases. The Gvernr prpses t reduce Pay Act funding, but did nt state a specific reductin t the Judiciary s apprpriatin. Given the high share f labr csts as a percentage f the Judiciary s budget (as nted abve), any under-funding the Judiciary s Pay Act apprpriatin will cripple the Judiciary s ability t manage its finances, putting it back int the difficult situatin frm which it just emerged. Labr Savings : The Gvernr prpsed $5M fr savings assciated with the labr cntract, t be allcated by the Secretary f Administratin. The Judiciary as a separate branch f gvernment cannt be subject t an allcatin under the jurisdictin f the Secretary f Administratin. If the Administratin s prpsal envisins repening the Executive Branch cntract, there has been n indicatin f such a repening. The Judiciary has its wn cllective bargaining agreement which wuld require a separate negtiatin if any. Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

8 Operatinal Efficiencies and Budget Imprvements Reflected in FY 2016 Request In light f the difficult budget situatin, the Judiciary has put increased emphasis n identifying savings pprtunities within the branch and utilizing thse savings t self-fund existing budget pressures. The Judiciary has already embarked n a variety f efficiency endeavrs and will cntinue t d s in FY These include expanded use f technlgy (e.g., thrugh electrnic use f ntices), which will be discussed separately at greater length. Als critical has been the develpment f unit budgets that are managed by the Superir Clerk fr each cunty (r ther unit divisin managers). (The unit budget prcess empwers the unit manager wh is in the best psitin t weigh the peratinal needs f the unit versus budget pririty t make purchasing decisins.) These varius effrts have resulted in current and anticipated savings in a variety f perating expenses, including: Reduced use f 3 rd party cntractrs; Eliminatin f the use f the Equipment Revlving Fund fr regular perating expense items; Pstage (reduced $17K r 7%); In-state mileage (reduced $22K, r 8%) via increased use f fleet and applicatin f mileage limit fr Judicial Officers; Office supplies (reduced $25K, r 12%); Office rent (reduced $114K, r 60%) via relcatin f the Envirnmental Curt. The savings assciated with these items have been reinvested in areas f the Judiciary that have chrnically been under-funded. T be clear, this des NOT represent increased spending n these items, but rather truing up their budget lines t mre accurately represent their actual csts, where previusly funding frm ther budget lines was diverted t cver these shrtfalls. These include: Alternative Dispute Reslutin t mre efficiently reslve certain cases; ($20K increase); Guardian Ad Litem vlunteers perating cst supprt ($20K increase); Curt security csts directing funds t the existing $250K deficit between actual csts f sheriffs cntracts and the Judiciary s budget line item ($93K increase). NOTE: This is NOT an increase fr sheriffs cntracts; rather, it mves budget authrity t the areas where it is actually being spent. FY 2016 Gvernr s recmmendatin includes n change in the sheriffs hurly rates. Strategic Issues with Ptential r Likely Budget Implicatins Legislatin: Implementatin and funding fr legislatin enacted during 2015 legislative sessin that has a financial impact n the curts, such as changes in emplyment r labr laws, expedited time frames fr particular kinds f cases, and changes t law that wuld require increased staff time r judge time. Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee

9 Case Management System: Identificatin and securing f funding package t supprt Judiciary electrnic case management system (CMS), including the establishment f autmatic electrnic data exchanges with ther parties that interact with the Judiciary. Part f any funding strategy fr the CMS shuld include an increase in General Fund supprt fr nging IT peratins, s that the Curt Technlgy Fund can functin t its riginal intended purpse: t supprt technlgy acquisitin with the Judiciary. Caselad trends: Future budget pressures due t rising abuse and neglect cases (up 62% in last five years); terminatin f parental rights matters (up 21% in last five years); invluntary medicatin applicatins (filings have dubled in FY 2014 ver filings in FY 2013). Weighted Caselad Study: Cmpletin and cntinued analysis f weighted caselad study begun in FY 2015 regarding allcatin f staff time and judge time, including cmpnents f different kinds f cases in different dckets and divisins. Vermnt Judicial Branch; FY 2016 Budget Summary Huse Apprpriatins Cmmittee