Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request Issue 1: Restoration of Salaries and Benefits Category Base Budget Reduction Historically, the trial courts begin each fiscal year with a deficit in the salary budget, due to the base salary budget being less than the projected payroll liability for the year. Throughout the year, the deficit is normally made up through lapse and no further action is necessary. With the passage of the Fiscal Year 2017-18 General Appropriations Act, the trial courts sustained a base budget reduction in the amount of $2 million, in the Salaries and Benefits appropriations category. The trial courts are unable to sustain the reduction and immediately implemented budgetary actions to mitigate the projected salary budget deficit, including a hard hiring freeze of most positions within the trial courts. The budgetary actions have already affected many circuits, and sustained restrictions will result in impacts to court operations. At the July 22, 2017, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) recommended filing a FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) to restore the $2 million reduction to the base salary budget. Page 1 of 43
43
Embed
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Issue 1: Restoration of Salaries and Benefits Category Base Budget Reduction
Historically, the trial courts begin each fiscal year with a deficit in the salary budget, due to the
base salary budget being less than the projected payroll liability for the year. Throughout the
year, the deficit is normally made up through lapse and no further action is necessary.
With the passage of the Fiscal Year 2017-18 General Appropriations Act, the trial courts
sustained a base budget reduction in the amount of $2 million, in the Salaries and Benefits
appropriations category. The trial courts are unable to sustain the reduction and immediately
implemented budgetary actions to mitigate the projected salary budget deficit, including a hard
hiring freeze of most positions within the trial courts. The budgetary actions have already
affected many circuits, and sustained restrictions will result in impacts to court operations.
At the July 22, 2017, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) recommended filing
a FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) to restore the $2 million reduction to the base
salary budget.
Page 1 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Legislative Budget Request
Issue 2: Employee Pay Issue
In its Fiscal Year 2014-15 legislative budget request (LBR), in order to retain highly skilled
employees and to experience more equality with other government salaries, the judicial branch
requested $18,828,193 in recurring salary appropriation. Recognizing the considerable size of
such request, the judicial branch proposed a two-year implementation period. In 2014 the
Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year implementation. That funding assisted the judicial
branch in making significant headway in addressing retention and salary equity between the
branch and other governmental entities for similar positions and duties.
As a top priority of its FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 LBRs, the judicial branch requested second
year funding of $5,902,588 in recurring salary dollars to finish addressing a wide range of salary
issues. In FY 2017-18, the request was updated to $6,388,909. At the July 22, 2017, meeting,
the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) again considered filing a FY 2018-19 Legislative
Budget Request (LBR) for second-year funding to address court staff salary equity, recruitment,
and retention issues.
Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation:
The TCBC approved filing a FY 2018-19 LBR for second-year funding for court staff salary
equity, recruitment, and retention issues. OSCA staff is conducting a review to develop the
updated total amount for the request and to ensure the court interpreting classes are adequately
addressed. The final amount will be reported to the TCBC prior to submission of the issue to the
Supreme Court for consideration for inclusion in the 2018 judicial branch legislative agenda.
Page 2 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Comprehensive Trial Court Technology
Background
In FY 2015-16, the Supreme Court submitted a supplemental legislative budget request (LBR) for
$25,606,097 in non-recurring general revenue and 65 FTE to fund the first year of a multi-year
comprehensive strategy for addressing the statewide technology needs of the trial courts. The issue was
also filed for FY 2016-17, with minor modifications to some components of the request, resulting in an
LBR of $25,299,973 and 65 FTE. For FY 2017-18, each element of the comprehensive request was
updated and support for the cross-jurisdictional support unit within the Office of the State Courts
Administrator (OSCA) was added, resulting in a request of $21,846,048. These requests have not been
funded.
Current Issue
At their meeting on June 27, 2017, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) directed staff of the
OSCA to develop a proposal for a comprehensive trial court technology LBR for FY 2018-19. Using
last year’s LBR of $21,846,048 as a base, OSCA staff worked with the trial courts to update cost
estimates for the Court Application Processing Systems (CAPS), digital court reporting and remote court
interpreting equipment, and a minimum level of technology to support court functions and accomplish
the business capabilities of the Florida Trial Court Technology Strategic Plan 2015-2019. Revisions to
the request were necessitated by factors such as deployment of technology since the LBR was originally
developed (e.g., through end-of-year spending plans), changes in circuit readiness to deploy technology,
and new or changed circuit needs. In addition, circuits were given the discretion to request funds to
Trial Court Technology Comprehensive Plan FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Solution I: Secure Case Management and Processing System (CAPS Viewers)
Remote Interpreting and Bandwidth Subtotal
5 Non-recurring costs for remote interpreting implementation are based on an average cost of $14,153 per courtroom. Implementation of statewide remote interpreting equipment (non-recurring costs) will occur over a three-
year period, with recurring maintenance costs associated with the equipment lagging 1 year behind purchase date. This will allow for continued implementation of interpreter endpoints with the goal of coverage in 1/3 of non-
civil courtrooms in large circuits; 1/2 of non-civil courtrooms in medium circuits; and 3/4 of non-civil courtrooms in small circuits. It is anticipated that for FY 2020-21, $2,646,611 in non-recurring funds would be
requested for the third year of expansion and $486,920 in recurring funds would be requested for maintenance to support equipment purchased in the previous year. For FY 2021-22, $567,416 in recurring funds would be
requested for maintenance to support equipment purchased in the previous year and $1,483,531 in recurring funds would be requested for refreshing equipment in the out years.
6 FY 2018-19 includes $27,840 for the statewide call manager and $143,531 for a cloud-supported bridge to facilitate multi-point connectivity with 10 licenses. FY 2019-20 includes $93,619 to purchase an additional 17
licenses.
Solution II: Digital Court Reporting (DCR)
Solution III: Support for Minimum Level of Technology
Remote Court Interpreting and Bandwidth
1 Includes funding for proposed order submission enhancement.
2 Includes funding for hardware and server refresh and maintenance on existing hardware and software.
3 Includes $230,000 in recurring contractual funds and $277,291 for FTE costs.
4 Includes $190,000 in recurring contractual funds, $90,000 in non-recurring contractual funds, and $277,291 for FTE costs.
Group III Subtotal
TOTAL
Group I Subtotal
FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request
Group II Subtotal
Technology Projects to Support Business Capabilities
FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Page 7 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Court Interpreting
Background
Due to the high concentration of limited-English-proficient (LEP) population in our state, Florida
is one of the largest stakeholders in the nation with respect to spoken language access demands.
Thus, in order to afford Floridians the ability to fully participate in the court process, it is critical
the courts adopt strategies designed to remove linguistic barriers and increase both the
availability and effectiveness of qualified spoken language court interpreters.
Florida’s court system has focused most of its resources on providing court interpreting services
in cases in which constitutional rights are at stake and other proceedings involving fundamental
rights. Even in proceedings where not required by state or federal law, the judicial branch has
recognized the ultimate benefit of providing language services to any LEP participant in a court
proceeding. Providing such services helps ensure the court system operates efficiently, which is
a benefit for all stakeholders. This Fiscal Year 2018-19 request supports immediate and critical
needs for the availability of court interpreters both in person and remotely through the use of
technology. It also lays the foundation for a multi-year funding strategy to facilitate a long-term
goal of expanding court interpreting services to all case types and all court-managed activities.
Through its Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch 2016-2021, the State
Courts System (SCS) has established several goals intended to advance the mission and vision of
the judicial branch in coming years. Such goals include: 1) deliver justice effectively, efficiently,
and fairly; 2) enhance access to justice and court services by reducing communication and
language barriers to facilitate participation in court proceedings; and 3) modernize administration
of justice and operation of court facilities. The State Courts System has made significant strides
in the provision of court interpreting services consistent with the SCS’s long-range goals. The
SCS strives to provide consistent and equitable assistance to persons with disabilities and to LEP
individuals. To strengthen the state’s court interpreting program and better equip the courts to
provide effective interpreting services, persons who are appointed by the courts to provide these
services must comply with rules governing registration and designations, professional conduct,
and discipline.
As part of the SCS’s FY 2015-16 budget request, a request in the amount of $1,367,126
($1,233,292 in contractual funds; $133,834 in salary dollars) was filed for this issue. The
Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring contractual dollars, partially funding the FY
2015-16 request. Additionally, as part of the Comprehensive Trial Court Technology legislative
budget request in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, the SCS requested $3,031,560 and $2,412,750,
respectively, to expand remote interpreting systems. In FY 2017-18, the SCS requested
$6,288,545 as part of a comprehensive court interpreting resources issue. State funding was not
received for technology in any of the last three years for the other issues included in the
comprehensive court interpreting resources issue last year.
Page 8 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Current Issue
There are four components related to court interpreting for consideration this year: 1) additional
resources to address market-driven factors leading to increased contractual costs; 2) funding for
recruitment and retention of qualified court interpreting staff; 3) funding for implementation of
technology solutions through the use of digital remote interpreting to maximize current
resources; and 4) funding for Title IV-D cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit.
a) Funding to Support Additional Court Interpreting Resources
Since the passage of Revision 7 to Article V of the Florida Constitution, when the
responsibility of providing interpreting services shifted from the county to the state, the trial
courts have received limited additional funding for court interpreting services. In FY 2006-
07, the courts received 4.0 FTE and $1,049,387 in contractual funds; however, in FY 2008-
09, the budget was reduced by 2.0 FTE and $184,739. In FY 2013-14, the Legislature
provided $100,000 in non-recurring funds for the courts to conduct a remote interpreting pilot
project to assess the viability of virtual remote interpreting as a service delivery model.
On March 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in SC13-304 amending the rules
for certification and regulation of court interpreters. In response to concerns expressed
during the FY 2014-15 allocation process regarding additional funding needed to comply
with the requirements of the opinion, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) directed
OSCA staff to examine options for requesting additional funding through a legislative budget
request (LBR) and to also consider additional workload needs. Based on circuit requests
from the FY 2014-15 allocation process and extrapolating to a statewide need, the TCBC
approved an LBR of $1,367,126 ($1,233,292 contractual funds; $133,834 salary dollars) in
recurring funds for FY 2015-16. The Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring
contractual dollars, partially funding this request for FY 2015-16. In FY 2016-17, the
judicial branch filed an LBR for the remaining unfunded portion of the initial request in the
amount of $483,292, which was not funded. Also, in FY 2017-18, the judicial branch filed a
comprehensive court interpreting resource issue for $6,288,545, of which $1,608,230 was
identified for additional court reporting resources. This issue was not funded.
The trial courts continue to experience the effect of market-driven factors leading to
difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified court interpreters and increasing contractual
costs. The courts have experienced vacancies in court interpreting positions as a result of
retirements and resignations. These positions often remain vacant for long periods due to the
inability to find qualified applicants and compete with higher paying salaries for similar
positions and skill sets. Due to these staff shortages, many circuits have had to rely on
contract interpreting services, in which rates can be significantly higher than typical FTE
costs. At their June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed the FMC to provide
recommendations for determining court interpreting needs for consideration in the FY 2018-
19 LBR. OSCA staff developed four options for consideration.
Page 9 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
LBR
Option 1 – Percent Increase in Population Growth $1,044,139
Option 2 – Percent Increase in Statewide Expenditures $1,058,969
Option 3 – Percent Increase in Circuit Expenditures $1,487,818
Option 4 – Percent Increase in Expenditures for Select Circuits $2,925,306
Option 1 (see Attachment A) utilizes the current funding methodology in which FY 2018-19
need is projected using FY 2016-17 estimated costs and applying a 6.5% statewide growth
rate to each circuit. The estimated growth rate is based on the statistics of “People who speak
English at home less than very well” in Florida, which was taken from the 2000 and 2010
Census. The growth rate is derived by first estimating the annual statewide population
growth from 2000 to 2010, then multiplying by 2 in order to obtain an estimated statewide
growth from 2016 to 2018.
Option 2 (see Attachment B) projects the FY 2018-19 need by applying the average
statewide growth rate in contractual expenditures over the last three years to estimated FY
2016-17 expenditures. The average growth rate is multiplied by 2 in order to obtain an
estimated statewide growth rate from 2016 to 2018.
Option 3 (see Attachment C) projects the FY 2018-19 need based on the average percent
change in expenditures for each circuit from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17. Circuits with a
negative percent change in expenditures were set at FY 2016-17 estimated expenditures.
Option 4 (see Attachment D) projects the FY 2018-19 need based on the average percent
change in expenditures for the circuits that have experienced the largest increase in
expenditures (5th, 9th, 11th, and 15th circuits) from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17.
Please note, under all four options, the amount of funding requested is not yet specified as
either contractual or salary dollars. If the TCBC recommends filing an LBR for this issue, the
specific type of funding would be determined from circuit input prior to filing the LBR. It
should also be noted that the pending Internal Revenue Service desk audit of the state of
Florida regarding whether certain contractors should have been classified as employees could
have implications for the use of contract interpreters. It is possible that contract dollars may
need to be converted Other Personal Services (OPS) dollars.
Decision Needed
Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR based on the current methodology for a total request of
$1,044,139 (see Attachment A) and direct OSCA staff to work with the circuits to determine
the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.
Option 2: Recommend filing an LBR based on a statewide historical growth rate
methodology for a total request of $1,058,969 (see Attachment B) and direct OSCA staff to
work with the circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.
Page 10 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Option 3: Recommend filing an LBR based on a circuit historical growth rate methodology
for a total request of $1,487,818 (see Attachment C) and direct OSCA staff to work with the
circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.
Option 4: Recommend filing an LBR based on a circuit-specific historical growth rate
methodology for a total request of $2,925,306 (see Attachment D) and direct OSCA staff to
work with the circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.
Option 5: Do not file an LBR for funding to support additional court interpreting resources.
Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation
The Funding Methodology Committee considered these options and recommended Option 3.
Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation
The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 3, as reflected in Attachment C.
b) Court Interpreting Resources for Title IV-D Cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit
The 11th Judicial Circuit has the highest language access demand in the state. Some of this
demand is met through staff interpreters; however, as a result of limited staff resources, the
circuit must also rely on contracted interpreters to provide interpreting services. Oftentimes,
contracted interpreters are assigned to provide services in Title IV-D proceedings. In FY
2015-16, the circuit held 6,665 hearings for Title IV-D Child Support enforcement,
modification, and establishment proceedings. At their June 27, 2017 meeting, the Trial Court
Budget Commission directed OSCA staff to present this issue to the Funding Methodology
Committee and back to the Commission for consideration as a possible LBR for FY 2018-19.
Based on the reported contractual rates from the full service firm in the Miami-Dade area, an
additional $75,000 would provide funding for 18.75 hours per week of interpreting services,
which would provide the minimum level of coverage for Title IV-D cases. For FY 2015-16,
the total budget for court interpreting resources in the 11th circuit was $3,149,959. This
request represents 2.4% of the total current budget.
Decision Needed
Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $75,000 for court interpreting
resources in Title IV-D cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit. If approved by the Court for
inclusion in the 2018 judicial branch legislative agenda, a companion request would ideally
be filed by the Florida Department of Revenue in order to obtain both funding and budget
authority.
Option 2: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue.
Page 11 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation
The Funding Methodology Committee considered this issue and recommended Option 1.
Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation
The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 1.
c) Court Interpreting Base Salary Increase
In its FY 2014-15 legislative budget request, in order to retain highly skilled employees and
to foster equity with other government salaries, the SCS requested $18,828,193 in recurring
salary appropriation. Recognizing the considerable size of such a request, the SCS proposed
a two-year implementation period. The 2014 Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year
implementation. That funding assisted the judicial branch in making significant progress in
addressing retention and salary equity between the branch and other governmental entities for
similar positions and duties. As noted previously, the court interpreting class still
experiences ongoing equity, retention, and recruitment issues not sufficiently addressed with
the funding received in 2014. Although positively impacted by the 2014 legislative funding,
without additional funding for FY 2017-18, the trial courts’ ability to obtain highly skilled
spoken language court interpreters, to maximize the use of current resources through
technology, and to promote efficient operations will continue to be limited.
As referenced above, an LBR was filed in FY 2017-18 to comprehensively address issues
related to providing court interpreting services throughout the state. A portion, $1,052,624,
of this request was associated with providing an increase to the base salary and an adjustment
for salary compression. This year, staff of OSCA’s Human Resources office reviewed the
issue and updated the figure to $2,472,979 for FY 2018-19, increasing the base salary for
certified court interpreters from $43,331 to $60,000, with corresponding adjustments to
supervising interpreters. This LBR does not include an adjustment for salary compression, as
no current employees are above the proposed new minimums.
It is anticipated that the interpreter classes will be addressed in the statewide pay plan LBR.
This decision would be to recommend filing a request for a base salary increase as a separate
issue, in the event that the statewide pay plan is not included in the FY 2018-19 judicial
branch legislative agenda or if the issue is not ultimately funded.
Decision Needed
Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR for $2,472,979 to address base salary issues in the
court interpreter classes. It is anticipated that the interpreter classes will be addressed in the
statewide pay plan LBR. This decision would be to recommend filing a request for a base
salary increase as a separate issue, in the event that the statewide pay plan is not included in
the FY 2018-19 judicial branch legislative agenda or if the issue is not ultimately funded.
Page 12 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Option 2: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue.
Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation
The Funding Methodology Committee considered this issue and recommended Option 1.
Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation
The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 1.
d) Funding for the Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting
In addition to seeking funds for certified court interpreters, the trial courts continue to seek
ways to maximize resources through the use of available technology. While areas that are
population centers are home to more interpreters, rural areas of the state lack the same
resources. In order to provide higher quality services in areas where resources are scarce, the
trial courts requested additional funding as part of the FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY
2017-18 budget requests. This funding was intended to expand the use of remote interpreting
technology currently being implemented as a pilot project in a few circuits to test the
viability of the system. Remote technology would allow access to qualified interpreters over
a broader geographical area, which allows for the pooling of limited resources for certified
interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across the state at a
lower per-event cost. These requests have not been funded.
Implementation of statewide remote interpreting equipment (non-recurring costs) would
occur over a three-year period, with recurring maintenance costs associated with the
equipment lagging one year behind the purchase date. The implementation plan
contemplates full life cycle funding and recurring maintenance costs to support future fiscal
years, with expansion to more circuits in the second year of funding and ultimately
expanding to the full state in the third year. It is anticipated that requests would be made for
FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 for the remaining expansion and maintenance/refresh of
equipment purchased in previous years.
These requests will continually support, maintain, and refresh the remote interpreting
equipment necessary to ensure trial courts statewide are able to meet the needs of judges,
court staff, and the public they serve in future years. Among other benefits, the requests:
Provide access to qualified interpreters remotely over a broader geographical area,
using audio/video technology, which allows pooling of limited resources for certified
interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across
the state.
Allow circuits to maximize existing resources across a single county with multiple
courthouses, using localized remote interpreting.
Allow for cost containment in interpreter staff and contractor expenses.
Page 13 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Create potential for expansion to utilize this technology platform in expert witness
testimony.
Technology Components Associated with Remote Interpreting
Remote Interpreting Implementation $2,841,610
Support Services – Remote Interpreting Refresh and Maintenance $84,428
Support Services – Statewide Call Manager1 $171,371
Support Services – Bandwidth $1,471,366
Total for All Components $4,568,775 1 Includes $27,840 for the statewide call manager and $143,531 for cloud-supported connectivity for
up to 17 concurrent events.
Decision Needed
Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $4,568,775 for technology associated
with the statewide expansion of remote interpreting. Authorize OSCA staff to make
necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for
presentation to the Supreme Court.
Option 2: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $4,568,775 for technology associated
with the statewide expansion of remote interpreting as a component of the Comprehensive
Trial Court Technology issue.
Option 3: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue in FY 2018-19.
Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation
The Funding Methodology Committee considered this issue and recommended Option 1.
Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation
The TCBC considered this issue and approved filing the technology components associated
with statewide implementation of remote interpreting in two separate issues: 1) with the
comprehensive trial court technology; and, 2) with the pay and workload issues related
specifically to court interpreting.
Comprehensive Court Interpreting LBR – Total Anticipated Cost
Funding to Support Additional Court Interpreting Resources $1,487,818
Court Interpreting Resources for Title IV-D Cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit $75,000
Court Interpreter Base Salary Increase $2,472,979
Funding for Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting $4,568,775
1 As reported by circuits in July 2016, with adjustments for 2017 new appropriations. Includes FTE in all court divisions as well as OPS and contractual case management services.
2 Includes Post-Adjudicatory Drug Court.
FY 2017-18 Case Management Resources by Court Division1
Note: Case management resources include FTEs and contractual/OPS resources, converted to FTEs.
Trial Court Budget Commission
July 22, 2017 MeetingFY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
3 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in the Civil division including Foreclosure case managers.
4 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in the Family division including Domestic Violence, Domestic Relations, Unified Family Court, Pro Se litigant support, and Other or Unspecified Family case managers.
5 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in Juvenile, Dependency, Delinquency, and Juvenile Specialty or Drug courts.
6 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in for Probate, Guardianship, Baker Act and Substance Abuse Act cases.
Probate/Guardianship 1:3 Ratio Grand
Total
Net
Need
Note: Case management resources are calculated by adding FTEs and contractual/OPS resources, converted to FTEs, for purposes of applying the methodology.1 Judicial FTE were self-reported as part of the Judicial Needs Application as of July 1, 2016. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.
2 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in Circuit Criminal, Drug Court (CC 217 and CC 753), and Veterans Court (CC 377).
Family Court
Circuit
Circuit Criminal 1:3 Ratio Circuit Civil 1:3 Ratio Domestic Relations Juvenile 1:2 Ratio
Total
Need
FTE
Net
Need
FTE
Trial Court Budget Commission
July 22, 2017 Meeting
FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
FMC and TCBC Recommendation: Option 3 Case Management FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division
Page 25 of 43
Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request
Staff Attorneys
Background
Historically, the State Courts System (SCS) has requested additional trial court staff attorney
resources using a methodology based on a ratio of one staff attorney for every two existing
judges (staff attorneys for new judges are considered during the certification process1).
However, starting in FY 2014-15, the TCBC began a more targeted approach in developing their
2 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the average number of filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15,
and 2015-16 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real
property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence,
delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated
General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General
Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.
3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.
Trial Court Budget Commission
July 22, 2017 Meeting
Background Statistics - Option 3
1 Total current general magistrate FTE assignments may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self reported by FTE equivalent as of July 1, 2016.
Circuit Civil Family Court Probate
Mental Health and
GuardianshipCircuit Criminal
Page 40 of 43
General Magistrate LBR - Attachment G
A B C D E F G H
Circuit Civil Family Court
Mental Health and
Guardianship
Circuit
Proposed General
Magistrate LBR
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
Proposed General
Magistrate LBR
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
Proposed General
Magistrate LBR
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
FY 2017-18
Administrative
Support FTE
FY 2018-19
Administrative
Support FTE
Need2
1 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 5.4 2.0
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0
5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.9 1.0
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.5 1.0
7 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.4 1.0
8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
9 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 5.0
10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.2 1.0
11 0.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 11.0 16.0 5.0
12 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0
13 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.5 2.0
14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0
163 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
17 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 8.5 14.0 6.0
18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 2.0
19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.6 0.0
20 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.4 0.0
Total 1.0 16.0 5.00 22.0 82.5 116.4 34.0
Option 3
FY 2018-19
Legislative
Budget Request
Administrative
Support2
Option 3
FY 2018-19
Legislative Budget
Request
General Magistrate
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.
Trial Court Budget Commission
July 22, 2017 Meeting
General Magistrates
FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request - Option 3
1 Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments.
2 FY 2018-19 Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY 2018-19 Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY 2018-19 FTE need
1 Total current general magistrate FTE assignments may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self reported by FTE equivalent as of July 1, 2016.
2 Total need reflects the average projected General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the average projected filings for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-
18 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure,
guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the
appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.
3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.
Trial Court Budget Commission
July 22, 2017 Meeting
Background Statistics - Option 4
Circuit Criminal Circuit Civil Family Court Probate
Mental Health and
Guardianship
Page 42 of 43
General Magistrate LBR - Attachment I
A B C D E F G H
Circuit Civil Family Court
Mental Health and
Guardianship
Circuit
Proposed General
Magistrate LBR
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
Proposed General
Magistrate LBR
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
Proposed General
Magistrate LBR
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
FY 2017-18
Administrative
Support FTE
FY 2018-19
Administrative
Support FTE
Need2
1 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 6.4 3.0
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0
5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.9 1.0
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.5 1.0
7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.4 0.0
8 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0
9 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 4.0
10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.2 1.0
11 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 13.0 2.0
12 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0
13 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.5 2.0
14 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
15 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 9.0 3.0
163 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
17 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 8.5 12.0 4.0
18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 2.0
19 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.6 1.0
20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.4 0.0
Total 1.0 17.0 4.00 21.0 82.5 115.4 34.0
2 FY 2018-19 Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY 2018-19 Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY 2018-19 FTE need
minus FY 2017-18 Administrative Support FTE.3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.
Trial Court Budget Commission
July 22, 2017 Meeting
General Magistrates
FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request - Option 4
Option 4
FY 2018-19
Legislative Budget
Request
General Magistrate
(Rounded to the
nearest whole FTE)1
Option 4
FY 2018-19
Legislative
Budget Request
Administrative
Support2
1 Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments.