MEETING AGENDA 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday, June 4, 2018 Telephone Conference Call

Transcription

1 MEETING AGENDA 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday, June 4, 2018 Telephone Conference Call Note: On Friday, June 1, 2018, materials will be posted at: I. Due Process Issues 12:00-12:20 p.m. II. Supplemental Year-End Spending Plan Virtual Remote Interpreting 12:20-12:40 p.m. III. Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group Status/Recommendations 12:40-12:50 p.m. IV. Other Business 12:50-1:00 p.m. Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 26, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Orlando FY Allocations 1 of 26

2 Agenda Item I. Due Process Issues 2 of 26

3 Trial Court Budget Commission June 4, 2018 Conference Call Agenda Item I: Due Process Issues Background At the May 16, 2018, conference call, the TCBC considered several recommendations submitted by the Due Process Workgroup (Workgroup). As part of the recommendations, the Workgroup proposed using a portion of any remaining FY due process services funds to support the expansion and maintenance of virtual remote interpreting (VRI) equipment. The Workgroup stated it anticipated individual circuit accounts will have remaining balances at the end of the fiscal year. To make use of these balances, circuits would need to return any remaining balances for reallocation. OSCA staff would continue to work with the circuits to determine interest in VRI expansion and maintenance and present final estimated costs to the TCBC. See Agenda Item II. The TCBC approved the recommendation of the Workgroup to use remaining FY due process services category funding to support VRI expansion and maintenance. Issue Based on due process contractual expenditures through May 31, 2018, there is an estimated cumulative remaining due process allotment of $1,259,469 (see attached summary). Each circuit s projected remaining allotment (Column G) was determined using actual FY expenditures from July 2017 through May 2018 plus estimated expenditures for June 2018 through certified forward. Estimated expenditures are based on the monthly average expenditures from August 2017 through May Of the remaining allotments, there are seven circuits with projected deficits in the amount of $221,033. In addition to projected remaining allotments, there is a remaining reserve balance of $371,564 for a total projected available FY funds of $1,631,033. Of the available funding, $100,000 could be maintained in reserve to address any unanticipated deficits through fiscal year-end. Options Option 1: Maintain $100,000 in reserve for unanticipated deficits through fiscal year-end. Authorize staff of the Office of the State Court Administrator to transfer funds from the due process reserve to those circuits with projected deficits in each element as reflected. Recommend any circuits requiring additional funds after the deficit mitigation distribution follow the Procedures for Addressing Deficits in Due Process Services Category. The remaining estimated available due process funds will be $1,531,033. Option 2: Adopt an alternative using a different reserve amount. 3 of 26

4 Trial Court Budget Commission June 4, 2018 Conference Call Note: The FY Trial Court Budget and Pay Administration Memorandum states that expenditures for due process equipment are not allowable from the Due Process Contractual Services category (with the exception of Cost Recovery funds). Both options, if approved, will require an exception to the memorandum from the chief justice in order to support VRI maintenance and expansion. 4 of 26

5 Agenda Item I.: Due Process Issues - Attachments FY Trial Court Due Process Budget Allocations All Due Process Elements-Cost Centers-127, 129, 131 As of May 31, 2018 ESTIMATE Actual Expenditures Jul-May and Average Aug-May Expenditures for FY Jun-CF A B C D E F G Circuit Current Allotment Actual Expenditures as of 05/31/18 Estimated Additional Maintenance Costs Not Yet Paid Estimated Expenditures Jun-CF (average of FY Aug-May) Total Estimated Expenditures Jul-CF (Columns C+D+E Projected Remaining Allotment (Column B Minus F) 1 430, , , , , , , , , , ,099 55, , , (1,380.86) 4 1,842,460 1,566, , ,860, (18,118.11) 5 562, , , , (22,898.12) 6 937, , , ,066, (128,841.96) 7 367, , , , , , , , , , (4,366.09) 9 825, , , , , , , , , ,887,280 2,591, , ,110, , , , , , , ,293,047 1,794, , ,151, , , , , , (575.26) , , , , (44,852.50) 16 70,410 52, , , , ,712,606 1,414, , ,678, , , , , , , , , , , , ,297,916 1,071, , ,232, , Total 18,553,017 14,550, , ,739, ,293, ,259, Due Process Reserve Balance as of May 31, , Maintain reserve for unanticipated deficits through fiscal year end (100,000.00) Projected Due Process Funds Available 1,531, of 26

6 Agenda Item I.: Due Process Issues - Attachments FY Trial Court Due Process Budget Allocations Expert Witness Element-Cost Center-127 ESTIMATE Actual Expenditures Jul-May As of May 31, 2018 F and O Average Aug-May Expenditures for FY R Jun-CF A B C D E F Circuit Current Allotment Actual Expenditures as of 05/31/18 Estimated Expenditures Jun-CF (average of FY Aug-May) Total Estimated Expenditures Jul-CF (Column C+D) Projected Remaining Allotment (Column B Minus E) 1 349, , , , , , , , , , ,650 24, , , (2,930.00) 4 176, , , , (1,122.12) 5 137, , , , (26,750.00) 6 290, , , , (38,952.16) 7 174, , , , (7,360.87) 8 93,621 77, , , , , , , , (5,367.44) , , , , , ,344, , , ,148, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (13,851.00) 16 28,768 19, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Total 7,144,334 5,345, ,065, ,410, , FY May YTD 6,357, of 26

7 Agenda Item I.: Due Process Issues - Attachments FY Trial Court Due Process Budget Allocations Court Reporting Element-Cost Center-129 As of May 31, 2018 ESTIMATE Actual Expenditures Jul-May and Average Aug-May Expenditures for FY Jun-CF A B C D E F G Circuit Current Allotment Actual Expenditures as of 05/31/18 Estimated Additional Maintenance Costs Not Yet Paid Estimated Expenditures Jun-CF (average of FY Aug-May) Total Estimated Expenditures Jul-CF (Columns C,D,E) Projected Remaining Allotment (Column B Minus F) 1 33,365 31, , , ,234 17, , , , ,259 14, , , (948.14) 4 1,294,637 1,096, , ,296, (1,742.40) 5 264, , , , , , , , , (55,549.83) 7 122,100 88, , , , , ,724 14, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,981,718 1,265, , ,518, , ,024 29, , , , ,346,399 1,128, , ,354, (8,137.33) 14 9,185 9, , (569.40) , , , , (20,644.94) 16 23,197 20, , , , , , , (17,605.68) , , , , (1,911.90) 19 60,501 51, , , (707.66) , , , , , Total 7,674,758 6,174, , ,070, ,248, , FY May YTD 6,276, * Note: For comparison purposes in the Court Reporting Element, maintenance costs were excluded for those circuits that have transitioned to OpenCourt 7 of 26

8 Agenda Item I.: Due Process Issues - Attachments FY Trial Court Due Process Budget Allocations Court Interpreting Element-Cost Center-131 As of May 31, 2018 ESTIMATE Actual Expenditures Jul-May and Average Aug-May Expenditures for FY Jun-CF A B C D E F Circuit Current Allotment Actual Expenditures as of 05/31/18 Estimated Expenditures Jun-CF (average of FY Aug-May) Total Estimated Expenditures Jul-CF (Columns C+D) Projected Remaining Allotment (Column B Minus E) 1 47,630 41, , , (2,439.73) 2 27,755 14, , , , ,190 16, , , , , , , , (15,253.59) 5 160, , , , (11,023.31) 6 237, , , , (34,339.97) 7 70,816 57, , , , ,079 41, , , (8,150.91) 9 222, , , , ,332 56, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (11,720.76) 14 39,498 33, , , (725.35) , , , , (10,356.56) 16 18,445 12, , , , , , , , , ,456 42, , , , , , , , (3,295.67) , , , , (51,525.29) Total 3,733,925 3,030, , ,634, , FY May YTD 2,957, of 26

9 Agenda Item II. Supplemental Year-End Spending Plan Virtual Remote Interpreting 9 of 26

10 Trial Court Budget Commission June 4, 2018 Telephone Conference Agenda Item II.: Supplemental Year-End Spending Plan - Virtual Remote Interpreting Background Florida s trial courts have been using Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI) since FY when the Legislature appropriated $100,000 to begin a pilot project to evaluate the viability of using this technology to facilitate the delivery of critical due process services. The pilot was conducted between five judicial circuits (7 th, 9 th, 14 th, 15 th, and 16 th ) by deploying equipment and establishing relationships between the participating circuits to provide services using full time equivalent (FTE) employees and contractual support. Following the success of the pilot, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) authorized a recurring appropriation to expand and sustain the initiative, and five additional circuits have since joined the shared VRI model. Several other circuits have deployed VRI within their own circuit boundaries and have realized efficiencies by applying the technology in this manner. Current Issue The joint Due Process Workgroup (Workgroup) is charged with developing comprehensive fiscal and operational recommendations to address the provision of due process services in the trial courts and is currently focused on the court interpreting element. Challenges in the court interpreting area include the availability of certified interpreters and ensuring the most efficient use of employee and contractual resources. At their meeting on April 23, 2018, and their conference call on May 10, 2018, the Workgroup examined FY due process budgets and anticipated expenditures and determined there would likely be excess funds of approximately $1.7 million that could be redirected to maximize current-year resources. In order to address immediate needs, the Workgroup recommended implementing a year-end spending plan designed to direct resources toward the purchase and installation of VRI equipment. They further discussed using these funds for the greatest impact in helping the circuits provide interpreting services effectively and efficiently. At their May 16, 2018, conference call, the TCBC approved using a portion of the remaining balance of the FY due process contractual funds to support virtual remote interpreting maintenance and expansion, and directed staff from Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) to work with the circuits to determine the cost to procure and install the equipment. Additionally, Judge Steinbeck, chair of the TCBC, requested that the Workgroup review the allocation proposal and provide a recommendation to the TCBC. OSCA staff reached out to trial court administrators on May 14, 2018, asking them to submit requests for equipment for which funds could be encumbered before the end of fiscal year deadline of June 26, In advance of the Workgroup vote, OSCA s budget office projected the balance available for reallocation at $1,795,654, and 12 circuits submitted requests totaling 10 of 26

11 $2,673,141 (see Attachment). Since the amount requested exceeds available funds, there are two options for allocating the available $1,795,654. The options are described below. Options for Consideration Option 1 This option fully funds all circuits requests, with the exception of the 10 th Judicial Circuit, which was reduced based on their prioritization of funding and the remaining available funds after funding the 11 th Judicial Circuit. The 10 th Judicial Circuit has provided assurance that they will be able to cover future installations with county funds, if needed. This option fully funds the 11 th Judicial Circuit for what they have requested and can be accomplished by September 30, This includes equipment for 16 courtrooms, 4 workstations, and installation for 4 of the courtrooms using current year funds. This option requires allocating $76,800 (non-recurring) from next year s due process contractual funds for installation of the remaining 12 courtrooms. The 11 th Judicial Circuit has confirmed that they cannot cover any installation costs with county funds. Option 2 This option fully funds all circuits requests, with the exception of both the 10 th and 11 th circuits and does so by reducing the 11 th Judicial Circuit s request based on what they have reported can be installed by September 30, 2018, and then gives the remaining funds to the 10 th Judicial Circuit. For the 11 th Judicial Circuit, this option covers only what can accomplished using current-year funds (equipment for 4 courtrooms and 4 workstations and installation for 4 courtrooms). This option does not obligate the TCBC to use next year s funds for the remaining 12 installations, and it would therefore eliminate the need to buy the equipment for those 12 courtrooms in the current year. The 11 th Judicial Circuit has confirmed that they cannot cover any installation costs with county funds. The Workgroup and TCBC already agreed in concept with the FY recurring costs for VRI maintenance in columns H and J, and directed the Funding Methodology Committee (FMC) to consider recurring maintenance costs in their allocation recommendations to the TCBC in June. OSCA staff are working with the circuits to finalize any new recurring maintenance costs for FY , which will be presented to the FMC on June 7, Due Process Workgroup Recommendation: The Due Process Workgroup considered this issue via last week and recommends Option 1. Special Note/Update: The issue presented to the Due Process Workgroup for a vote last week was based on information available as of May 25, 2018, when the vote was sent out. 1) Therefore, these VRI allocation options were developed based on the expenditure report through April 2018, which produced an available balance of $1,795,654 for the spending plan, if $200,000 is set aside for a reserve. 2) However, as noted under Agenda Item I, there is now available data through May, which reduces the amount available by $264,621 to $1,531,033 for the spending plan, if $100,000 is set aside for a reserve. 11 of 26

12 Decision Needed Approve allocation for the supplemental year-end spending plan based on updated due process data under Agenda Item I. Because the updated available funds are less than the amount considered by the Workgroup for allocation in the attached chart, the TCBC must decide whether to: a) utilize other sources such as the cost-recovery trust fund in order to keep the spending plan at the level recommended by the Workgroup; or b) approve an alternative that, for example, adjusts the reserve and reduces the spending plan. The TCBC may wish to direct the OSCA to determine the amount of available cash and authority in the cost recovery trust fund, to maximize the amount of the spending plan that can be funded. Further, the TCBC may wish to direct the OSCA to work with the circuits to determine if they can feasibly adjust their request in order to stay within the available funds. 12 of 26

13 Agenda Item II. - Attachment (As of May 25, 2018, based on expenditure data through April 2018) A B C D E F G H I J Circuit CR WS Intended Use Total Request Joint Due Process Workgroup Distribution Options for Remaining FY Funds in Support of Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI) Circuit Requests FY Non-Recurring FY Non- Recurring Distribution Options OPTION ONE - Includes Funding for Installation for the 11th Circuit in FY FY Recurring OPTION TWO - Excludes Funding for Installation for the 11th Circuit in FY FY Non- Recurring FY Recurring 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 4 Inter-Circuit $70,128 $70,128 $0 $0 $70,128 $0 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Inter-Circuit $182,540 $182,540 $0 $0 $182,540 $0 6 1 Intra-Circuit $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $0 7 2 Inter-Circuit $15,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Inter-Circuit $614,198 $614,198 $0 $0 $614,198 $ Inter-Circuit $848,434 $169,074 $0 $0 $466,895 $ Pilot $679,028 $480,901 $76,800 $103,748 $183,080 $23, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Intra-Circuit $194,250 $194,250 $0 $0 $194,250 $0 15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 Intra-Circuit $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 18 Inter-Circuit $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $ Inter-Circuit $14,030 $14,030 $0 $0 $14,030 $ Inter-Circuit $21,533 $21,533 $0 $0 $21,533 $0 Total $2,673,141 $1,795,654 $76,800 $103,748 $1,795,654 $23,312 Option One - Provides the 10th Circuit in FY $169,074 for hardware and installation for 4 CR's and 6 WS's; and hardware only for 3 Jail Courtrooms and 1 Portable Cart System. Provides the 11th Circuit in FY ($480,901) hardware and installation for 4 CR's and 4 WS's; and hardware only for 12 CR's. Provides the 11th Circuit in FY ($76,800) installation for 12 CR's and ($103,748) for recurring WAN services and ongoing maintenance. Option Two - Provides the 10th Circuit $466,895 in funding to allow them to purchase as many endpoints as possible in FY and to install with local funds in FY Provides the 11th Circuit $183,080 in funding to purchase and install by Sept. 30 equipment for 4 CR's and 4 WS's; and in FY $23,312 in funding for WAN services and ongoing maintenance. Note: Ongoing maintenance costs may be incurred in future years. These costs are not yet known and therefore are not included in these calculations (except for 11th Circuit). CR = Courtrooms, Hearing Rooms, and Jails WS = Interpreter Workstations 13 of 26

14 Agenda Item III. Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group Status/Recommendations 14 of 26

15 Trial Court Budget Commission June 4, 2018 Conference Call Agenda Item III.: Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group Status/Recommendations Background The fiscal year GAA appropriates $8.9 million in recurring general revenue in one special category appropriation for problem-solving courts (Attachment A). The funding is comprised of $5 million in existing recurring funds, which is the amount appropriated in the current fiscal year for 10 post-adjudicatory drugs courts; $1.4 million in existing recurring funds for veterans courts, which is designated for nine counties in the current fiscal year; and $2.5 million in additional recurring funds. The new budget designates the $1.4 million in veterans court funding for the nine counties receiving recurring funding in the current fiscal year and in the same amounts as the current fiscal year for each county. The remaining $7.5 million is to be allocated by the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) and is not designated for any particular type of problem-solving court or counties, such as the 10 post-adjudicatory drug court counties. Further, the appropriation does not appropriate any non-recurring problem-solving court funding to any county, including counties receiving non-recurring funding for problem-solving courts in the current fiscal year. The TCBC approved formation of an advisory group to assist with the various policy and fiscal considerations related to implementation of the appropriation with membership from the TCBC, the Task Force on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues in the Courts, and the Steering Committee on Children and Families in the Court. At its telephone meeting on May 16, 2018, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) acted on two initial recommendations from the Problem-Solving Court Advisory Group. Continuation Funding Problem-Solving Courts with Recurring Funding in Current Year For the 10 post-adjudicatory drug courts receiving recurring funding in fiscal year , the advisory group recommended the same level of funding for fiscal year , with the exception of Seminole County, which would receive a reduced amount based on its indication of a reduced need. The advisory group also recommended that post-adjudicatory drug courts receiving allocations from the TCBC continue to operate under the program criteria that the Legislature prescribed in the fiscal year General Appropriations Act, namely that each program shall serve prison-bound offenders (at least 50 percent of participants shall have Criminal Punishment Code scores of greater than 44 points but no more than 60 points) and shall make residential treatment beds available for clients needing residential treatment. (Note: The nine veterans courts receiving recurring funding in the current fiscal year already receive designated recurring funding for fiscal year under the new appropriation.) 15 of 26

16 The TCBC concurred with this recommendation. Continuation Funding Problem-Solving Courts with Non-Recurring Funding in Current Year For problem-solving courts receiving non-recurring funding in fiscal year (i.e., certain veterans courts and the Seminole County adult and juvenile drug courts), the advisory group recommended the same level of funding for fiscal year , with the exception of the Seminole County veterans court, for which the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit is not requesting continuation funding. However, the advisory group further recommended that the TCBC allocate funds to these problem-solving courts solely for the first quarter of fiscal year , pending analysis of additional data for consideration of funding beyond the first quarter. The TCBC concurred with this recommendation. Issue: Problem-Solving Courts Receiving Non-Recurring Funding in FY In providing funds in the special problem-solving court appropriation, the fiscal year General Appropriations Act specifies that the TCBC shall phase in implementation to avoid disruption in services for individuals who are participating in state-funded problem-solving courts as of June 30, 2018, and to provide time for circuits to meet the requirements of the appropriation and request funding. Any such problem-solving court shall be in compliance with the match requirement no later than January 4, The following problem-solving courts receive non-recurring funding in the current fiscal year: Fiscal Year (Current Year) Problem-Solving Court Funding Non-Recurring Type Amount County(ies) Comments Juvenile Drug Court $175,000 Seminole Designated for Grove Counseling Center to provide treatment services for Seminole County Juvenile Drug SA 3187 Adult Drug Court Court. $124,421 Seminole For drug court treatment. SA 3187 Veterans Court Non- Recurring $802,649 Nassau $150,000 For felony and/or misdemeanor Lake $200,000 pretrial or post-adjudicatory veterans Leon 1 $50,000 treatment intervention programs. 1 This funding is to support provision of legal assistance for veterans as part of the Tallahassee Veterans Legal Cooperative, including the Florida State University College of Law. The funds support faculty oversight of legal clinics that are being held multiple times a month. The legal services are provided to any veteran, regardless of whether or not he or she is in a problem-solving court. The fiscal year state budget also provided $200, of 26

17 Type Amount County(ies) Comments Marion $50,000 SA 3191 Miami-Dade $150,500 Seminole $116,149 Collier 2 $86,000 Total $1,102,070 As noted above, the advisory group recommended the same level of funding for fiscal year , with the exception of the Seminole County veterans court, for which the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit is not requesting continuation funding. However, the advisory group further recommended that the TCBC allocate funds to these problem-solving courts solely for the first quarter of fiscal year , pending additional data analysis for consideration of funding beyond the first quarter. Attached are tables containing information on expenditures by these problem solving courts (Attachment B) and on anticipated use of funds for next fiscal year and availability of matching funds (Attachment C). The issue for consideration is to what extent continuation funding should be provided for these problem-solving courts. It should be noted that some individuals participating in the program as of June 30, 2018, may not complete their scheduled participation within the first quarter (by September 30, 2018). Any funds allocated by the TCBC to problem-solving courts must be matched by local government, federal government, or private funds at a ratio of 30 percent non-state and 70 percent state funding, other than veterans courts, which shall use a ratio of 20 percent non-state and 80 percent state funding. However, no match is required: In the case of a fiscally constrained county as defined by statute. Twenty-nine counties are designated as a fiscally constrained county as of January 2018: Baker, Bradford, Calhoun, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Okeechobee, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, and Washington counties. For a problem-solving court that by its primary purpose or mission addresses activities for which state dollars are typically expended. One of the action items for the advisory group and the TCBC going forward will be establishing parameters governing the application, calculation, and qualification of matching-fund requirements. for the collaborative in the education section of the budget. The fiscal year state budget provides $400,000 for the collaborative in the education section of the budget. 2 Designated for reimbursement of the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. 17 of 26

18 Options 1) For problem-solving courts currently receiving non-recurring state funding, allocate funding solely sufficient to serve those individuals who are participating as of June 30, This option will require a detailed assessment from each of the problem-solving courts on the number of individuals participating as of that date and on the amount of time each participant will need to complete the program. 2) For problem-solving courts currently receiving non-recurring state funding, allocate funding to maintain the same overall level of service provided in the current fiscal year (i.e., fund each at its current level of funding, with the exception of the Seminole County veterans court and the $50,000 for veterans legal services in Leon County). Monitor expenditures quarterly during the fiscal year to identify spending challenges and consider reallocation of dollars that are likely to go unexpended. 3) Adopt an alternative. The advisory group recommended Option of 26

19 Agenda Item III. Attachment A FY Problem-Solving Court Appropriation and Proviso Following is the specific appropriation and accompanying proviso for the problem-solving court appropriation in the fiscal year General Appropriations Act enacted by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. 3165A SPECIAL CATEGORIES PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS FROM GENERAL REVENUE FUND ,926,846 From the funds in Specific Appropriation 3165A, $7,500,000 in recurring general revenue funds is provided for treatment services, drug testing, case management, and ancillary services for participants in problem-solving courts, including, but not limited to, adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, family dependency drug courts, early childhood courts, mental health courts, and veterans courts. The Trial Court Budget Commission shall determine the allocation of funds to the circuits. Funds distributed from this specific appropriation must be matched by local government, federal government, or private funds. The matching ratio for allocation of these funds shall be 30 percent non-state and 70 percent state funding, other than veterans court, which shall have a matching ratio of 20 percent non-state funding and 80 percent state funding. However, no match will be required for a problem-solving court that by its primary purpose or mission addresses activities for which state dollars are typically expended. Further, if the county meets the definition of a fiscally constrained county, as provided in section , Florida Statutes, no match will be required. In pursuing funding under this specific appropriation, a circuit may consider, among other criteria, the extent to which a problem-solving court addresses the needs of individuals with an opioid use disorder. The Trial Court Budget Commission shall phase in implementation of this specific appropriation to avoid disruption in services for individuals who are participating in state-funded problemsolving courts as of June 30, 2018, and to provide time for circuits to meet the requirements of this appropriation and request funding. As part of the phased-in implementation, the commission may allocate funding to any problem-solving court that received state funding in Fiscal Year while the problem-solving court secures and demonstrates the required match. Any such problem-solving court shall be in compliance with the match requirement no later than January 4, of 26

20 From the funds in Specific Appropriation 3165A, $1,425,000 in recurring general revenue funds is provided for felony and/or misdemeanor pretrial or post-adjudicatory veterans treatment intervention programs in the following counties: Alachua. 150,000 Clay ,000 Duval. 200,000 Escambia ,000 Leon.. 125,000 Okaloosa ,000 Orange.. 200,000 Pasco. 150,000 Pinellas.. 150, of 26

21 Agenda Item III. -- Attachment B FY Non-Recurring Problem-Solving Court Funding Expenditures Legislative Projects Circuit County FY Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered 1 Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Status of Current/Anticipated Spending through June 30, 2018 Juvenile Drug Court 18 Seminole $ 175, $ 175, $ % Funds have been fully utilized. Adult Drug Court 18 Seminole $ 124, $ 17, $106, % Spending levels have been low because it took a long time to execute a contract with the treatment services provider. The contract was finally executed in January. We anticipate expenditures for the last quarter of the fiscal year will be $11 $12k per month. Therefore, we expect to spend approximately $36,000 during the remainder of the fiscal year. Veterans Court 2 04 Nassau $ 150, $ 73, $ 76, % Contractual services expenditures are through March. It is anticipated that 90% of the funding will be spent by the end of the fiscal year. We did not have a case manager hired until December. Had the position been hired earlier in the year, we would have utilized the full appropriation. 1 Expenditures current as of the April 30, 2018, FLAIR report. 2 The $50,000 in non-recurring funding for Leon County originally identified as veterans court funding was removed from the above table because these funds are not designated for veterans courts. Funding was designated for legal services for any veteran in Leon County. These funds are being administered by the OSCA via a contract with the FSU Law School to provide the services of 26

22 FY Non-Recurring Problem-Solving Court Funding Expenditures Legislative Projects Circuit County FY Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered 1 Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Status of Current/Anticipated Spending through June 30, 2018 Veterans Court 05 Lake $ 200, $ 65, $134, % Spending levels were affected by the vacancy of the case manager position. The original case manager planned and started the Lake County veterans court but then relocated to Wisconsin. In addition, spending levels were affected by the recent vacancy of our general counsel position, which delayed execution of ending contracts. Local providers with treatment and substance abuse resources are very limited in Lake County, but three providers were able to be secured. Veterans Court 05 Marion $ 50, $ 24, $ 25, % Spending levels were affected by the recent vacancy of our general counsel position, which delayed execution of pending contracts required for operation of the Marion VTC. The Marion VTC projects to have a zero budget balance at year end. Veterans Court 11 Miami- Dade $ 150, $ 99, $ 51, % The circuit has had a difficult time recruiting and retaining two OPS case manager positions due to limited benefits, short term funding/employment, no holiday pay and no leave accrual. The veterans court has had to suspend accepting new participants during position vacancies, which has impacted expenditures. In addition, contracts with treatment providers took several months to negotiate and execute, which delayed expenditures. The veterans court is now accepting new participants, and an increase in spending is anticipated of 26

23 FY Non-Recurring Problem-Solving Court Funding Expenditures Legislative Projects Circuit County FY Appropriation Expended/ Encumbered 1 Remaining Balance % Expended/ Encumbered Status of Current/Anticipated Spending through June 30, 2018 Veterans Court 18 Seminole 3 $ 116, $ - $116, % The VA and Seminole County provide a broad range of services to the veterans court at no cost. Therefore, funding is not needed this year or next year. Veterans Court 20 Collier 4 $ 86, $ 37, $ 48, % The treatment provider has had some difficulty keeping the case manager position filled, which has resulted in a lower utilization of expenditures, including incidental expenses with no case manager to coordinate those purchases. The treatment provider is planning to address this issue next FY by funding their case manager through DCF to allow for a pool of case managers to be available whenever there is turnover. Veterans Court Total $ 752, $ 301, $ 451, % 3 Seminole County received a non-recurring veterans court appropriation of $150,000 in FY 16-17; however, expenditure data is not provided because the veterans court does not wish to receive funding for FY Collier County received a non-recurring veterans court appropriation of $105,000 in FY and spent a total of $53, (51%) of the appropriation of 26

24 Agenda Item III. -- Attachment C Survey of Problem-Solving Courts with Non-Recurring Funding in FY Legislative Project Juvenile Drug Court Adult Drug Court Veterans Court Circuit County Current uses of funds Anticipated uses of funds for next year Match anticipated to be required? (Yes/No) 18 Seminole Treatment Services Treatment Services Yes Yes 18 Seminole Case Management and Treatment Services Case Management and Treatment Services 4 Nassau (Not provided) Treatment Services, Case Management, Mileage, Drug Testing, Ancillary Services 4 Lake Treatment Services, Drug Testing, Case Management, Ancillary Services 5 Marion Treatment Services, Drug Testing, Case Management, Ancillary Services 11 Miami- Dade Two OPS Positions (case manager and intake specialist), Staff Training, Treatment Services, Housing, Full-time Urinalysis Technician, Drug and Alcohol Testing Kits, RANT licenses Treatment Services, Drug Testing, Case Management, Ancillary Services Treatment Services, Drug Testing, Case Management, Ancillary Services Two OPS Positions (case manager and intake specialist), Staff Training, Treatment Services, Housing, Full-time Urinalysis Technician, Drug and Alcohol Testing Kits, RANT licenses, SCRAM bracelets 18 Seminole N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Match anticipated to be available? (Yes/No) Yes Unclear w/out further information on match Yes Yes Match will be identified but not fully available on January 1, 2019, as it will be prorated throughout the year 24 of 26

25 Survey of Problem-Solving Courts with Non-Recurring Funding in FY Legislative Project Circuit County Current uses of funds Anticipated uses of funds for next year 20 Collier Salaries/Benefits of Treatment Provider Staff, Treatment Services, Staff Mileage, Housing, Medications, Drug Screens, Support Services, and Program Administration Treatment Services, Ancillary Services (Housing), Medications Match anticipated to be required? (Yes/No) Yes Match anticipated to be available? (Yes/No) Yes 25 of 26

26 Agenda Item IV. Other Business There are no materials for this agenda item. 26 of 26