CSA
Summary
Read the report at California State Auditor ↗
rotiduA
etatS
ainrofilaC
S
T
I
D
U
A
E
T
A
T
S
F
O
U
A
E
R
U
B
Judicial Council of
California:
Its Governing Committee on
Education Has Recently Proposed
Minimum Education Requirements for
Judicial Officers
August 2006
2005-131
The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free.
Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order.
You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits
at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-0255 or TTY (916) 445-0033
OR
This report is also available
on the World Wide Web
http://www.bsa.ca.gov
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce
the availability of an on-line subscription service.
For information on how to subscribe, please contact
the Information Technology Unit at (916) 445-0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
C S A
ALIFORNIA TATE UDITOR
ELAINEM.HOWLE STEVENM.HENDRICKSON
STATEAUDITOR CHIEFDEPUTYSTATEAUDITOR
August 29, 2006 2005-131
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report
concerning California’s current education requirements for judicial officers, a recent proposal on expanding these
requirements, and how the Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) and the Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC) allocate, monitor, and use the judicial branch’s appropriation to provide training to judicial
officers.
This report concludes that the AOC’s Education Division, authorized by the Judicial Council to implement a
comprehensive education program for the judicial branch, offers a broad variety of courses to judicial officers.
However, much of the training is not required, and judicial officers take most courses at their discretion as
current education requirements apply only to new judicial officers and those hearing certain types of cases. The
governing committee that advises the Judicial Council on education has proposed education requirements that
would generally require judicial officers to attain 30 hours of training over a three-year cycle. However, judicial
officers have questioned the proposal, including the Judicial Council’s constitutional authority to establish
minimum education requirements. In mid-August 2006, after further review, the governing committee voted
to move forward the proposal with slight modifications. The proposal is scheduled to be considered by the
Judicial Council in October 2006. Additionally, the Legislature does not appropriate funding specifically for
judicial education; rather, the Judicial Council and the AOC allocate funding to the Education Division, which
collaborates with the federally funded Violence Against Women Education Project to provide judicial education.
Finally, our review of selected expenditures for the period July 2004 through December 2005 found they were
for appropriate and allowable purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 445-0255 Fax: (916) 327-0019 www.bsa.ca.gov
ConTenTS
Summary 1
Introduction 5
Chapter 1
The Judicial Council of California’s Governing
Committee on Education Is Proposing Expanded
Education Requirements for Judicial Officers 11
Recommendations 32
Chapter 2
The Judicial Council of California and the Administrative
Office of the Courts Allocate and Monitor Funds for
Judicial Education 33
Appendix A
Continuing Education Requirements for
Judicial Officers by State 43
Appendix B
Summary of Traditional Delivery Education Programs
Provided by the Education Division of the Administrative
Office of the Courts and the Violence Against Women
Education Project 47
Response to the Audit
Judicial Council of California,
Administrative Office of the Courts 55
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
summary
ReSultS in bRief
The Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council),
empowered by the California Constitution, is the
policy-making body of California’s court system and
Audit Highlights . . . is charged with improving the administration of justice.
It makes recommendations to the courts as well as annual
Our review of the Judicial recommendations to the governor and Legislature. Further,
Council of California’s
it adopts and revises California Rules of Court, which have
(Judicial Council) training
the force of law, in the areas of court administration, practice,
programs for judicial officers
revealed: and procedure, including education. The Judicial Council has
authorized the Education Division of the Administrative Office
Current education
of the Courts (AOC) to implement a comprehensive education
requirements apply only
to new judicial officers program for the judicial branch.
and those hearing certain
types of cases.
Although the Education Division offers a broad variety of
The Judicial Council’s courses to judicial officers, much of the education offered is
governing committee not required, and judicial officers take most courses at their
on education recently discretion. Current education requirements, set forth in state law
proposed a Rule of Court
and Rules of Court, apply only to new judicial officers and those
that includes minimum
education requirements hearing certain types of cases. Further, neither statute nor Rules
for judicial officers; of Court generally require the AOC to track compliance with the
however, judicial officers
education requirements; rather, it is the responsibility of each
have questioned the
judicial officer and court to comply.
proposal.
The Legislature does not In February 2003 the governing committee that advises the
appropriate funding
Judicial Council on education began to review the concept
specifically for judicial
of mandatory education and to consider whether to submit
education; rather, the
Judicial Council and the a proposal to the Judicial Council on minimum education
Administrative Office of requirements for all judicial officers. As part of its process, the
the Courts allocate funds
governing committee reviewed other state education models,
for this purpose.
assessed judicial officers’ attendance at programs offered by
Expenditures we tested the Education Division, considered prior efforts to establish
for the period July 2004
minimum education requirements, and surveyed judicial officers
through December 2005
in California.
were for appropriate and
allowable purposes.
Subsequent to that review process, the governing committee
proposed a Rule of Court that includes minimum education
requirements for judicial officers. The proposed rule
generally calls for 30 hours of continuing education for all
judicial officers in a three-year cycle, or 10 hours per year.
If approved by the Judicial Council, judicial officers will be
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 1
responsible for maintaining records that show compliance
with the requirements. Judicial officers have questioned
the governing committee’s proposal, including the Judicial
Council’s constitutional authority to establish minimum
education requirements. In mid-August 2006, after further
review, the governing committee voted to move forward the
proposal with slight modifications. The governing committee’s
recommendation on the proposal is scheduled for submission to
the Judicial Council for its consideration in October 2006.
The Education Division provides training to judicial officers
through various methods, but traditional delivery education—
in which faculty and participants interact in the same place
and time—represents the largest percentage of the Education
Division’s direct operating expenses and equipment for judicial
education. In addition, staff responsible for administering the
federally funded Violence Against Women Education Project
(VAWEP) collaborate with the Education Division to provide
education to judicial officers in the areas of domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking. State law requires, and the Standards
of Judicial Administration Recommended by the Judicial
Council prescribe, that the Judicial Council and Education
Division provide education programs to judicial officers in
certain subject areas. However, many education programs focus
on a specific area of law and apply to judicial officers assigned
to hearing cases involving that area, so only some programs
apply to all judicial officers. Moreover, the Education Division
generally cannot identify the individual judicial officers for
which a specific training course applies because it does not
track judicial officer assignments. At our request the Education
Division compiled records demonstrating the number of newly
appointed or elected judicial officers in the State for July 2002
through mid-April 2006. We noted that nearly all the judicial
officers we reviewed attended the required education programs,
although some did not do so within the required time.
The Education Division currently uses an event-based method
of prioritizing and planning its education programs. According
to the director of the Education Division, event-based planning
focuses on filling a designated time slot with a training event
that is recreated each time the event is planned. However, the
Education Division began a formal curriculum development
process in 2000 that will form the basis of a method for
developing its education programs. The Education Division
believes this curriculum-based approach, anticipated for
2 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
completion within a few years, is more stable and can be
designed to target specific audiences at entry, intermediate, or
advanced career levels.
The Legislature does not appropriate funding specifically for
judicial education; rather, it appropriates funding for the
State’s judicial branch. The Judicial Council and the AOC’s
administrative director of the courts allocate most of the judicial
branch’s appropriation to the various courts, with a smaller
piece going to the AOC. The AOC’s executive management and
its Finance Division develop the Education Division’s annual
budget by considering the priorities of the Judicial Council and
Education Division as well as the Education Division’s budget
and actual expenditures from the prior year.
The State’s General Fund is the primary source of money
for the Education Division and is used largely for personnel
costs and education program expenses. The State’s Office of
Emergency Services funds the VAWEP with resources from the
federal Office on Violence Against Women, and funds are used for
judicial branch education programs on domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. We examined selected expenditures from
the Education Division and the VAWEP for the period July 2004
through December 2005 and noted the expenditures were for
appropriate and allowable purposes and that each transaction had
undergone the AOC’s established approval process.
However, the AOC faced obstacles in fully expending its grant
awards for the first two years that the VAWEP was funded.
VAWEP staff point to various factors that contributed to the
AOC not using all the grant awards it received, including
its inability to hire staff initially because of the state hiring
freeze in effect at the time. Additionally, the AOC experienced
delays in receiving grant awards in the first two years of the
project. VAWEP staff also assert that the first two years of
the grant were developmental, devoted in part to assessing
the educational needs of the judicial branch. Since that time,
according to VAWEP staff, the AOC has been able to align its
expenditures more closely with the awarded amounts.
ReCommendATionS
The Judicial Council should implement a plan to ensure that
there is a system for tracking participation to meet judicial
education requirements and that the records kept are accurate
and timely.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 3
The Education Division should continue its efforts in designing
curricula to use in developing its judicial education programs.
After implementing the curriculum-based planning approach,
the Education Division should formally assess whether it has
been successful.
AgenCy CommenTS
The AOC states that it appreciates the recommendations
and notes that the report will contribute to the continued
improvement of the California courts. n
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
inTroduCTion
bACkgRound
The Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) is the
policy-making body of California’s court system, which is
the largest of its kind in the nation. Established in 1926 by
the California Constitution, the Judicial Council is charged with
improving the administration of justice by performing certain
duties. The duties include making recommendations to the
courts, making annual recommendations to the governor and
Legislature, and adopting and revising California Rules of Court,
which have the force of law, in the areas of court administration,
practice, and procedure. These rules establish a decentralized
system of trial court management, under which the courts
have the authority and responsibility to, among other things,
manage their daily operations and personnel system, as well as
develop and implement processes and procedures to improve
court operations. Chaired by the chief justice and comprising
28 members,1 the Judicial Council is responsible for setting the
direction and providing leadership for improving quality and
advancing the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible
administration of justice. The Judicial Council performs these
functions with the support of its staff agency, the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC).
As shown in Figure 1 on the following page, most of the
$2.8 billion appropriation received by the Judicial Council for the
judicial branch in fiscal year 2004–05 went to the various courts.
Moreover, the appropriation does not include funding specifically
for education programs; rather, the Judicial Council and the AOC
allocate funds that are used for training judicial officers.
bASiS of eduCATion RequiRemenTS And
ReCommendATionS
The California Constitution gives the Judicial Council the authority
to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure
that are not inconsistent with statute. Under this authority, the
1 The nominating procedure used to select members of the Judicial Council is intended
to attract applicants from across the legal system and to result in a membership that is
diverse in experience, gender, background, and geography. The 21 voting members of
the Judicial Council consist of the chief justice, 14 justices and judges appointed by the
chief justice, four attorney members appointed by the State Bar Board of Governors,
and two members from the Legislature.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 5
figuRe 1
distribution of the Judicial branch’s
Appropriation for fiscal year 200–05
Administrative Office of
the Courts, including the
Education Division
$126 million* (4%)
California Courts,
including the Supreme
Court, Courts of Appeal,
and Trial Courts
$2.7 billion (96%)
Sources: The Administrative Office of the Courts’ Finance Division and California
Department of Finance budget reports.
* The $126 million includes $35 million that was primarily for court facilities construction,
of which $18 million was ultimately expended.
Judicial Council has adopted Rules of Court, which have the
force of law for practices and procedures in the courts. In
addition, the Judicial Council has adopted the Standards of
Judicial Administration Recommended by the Judicial Council
(judicial standards), in which it makes recommendations
on practices and procedures, expresses goals that courts and
judicial officers are urged to try to attain, and sets guidelines for
discretionary action. Courts and judicial officers are not obligated
to comply with the judicial standards’ recommendations, goals,
and guidelines but should consider them as highly desirable
standards of good practice. In the judicial standards, the Judicial
Council authorizes the governing committee that advises it on
education with developing and maintaining a comprehensive and
quality education program for the judicial branch. These standards
also authorize the Education Division to implement the governing
committee’s comprehensive education program.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
The judicial standards acknowledge that education
for all judicial officers is essential to enhancing
elected officials or Court
employees defined as Judicial officers the fair, effective, and efficient administration
of justice. They recommend that judicial officers
Judge—An elected official authorized to decide
consider participation in education activities an
lawsuits brought before the courts.
official duty. Our report focuses on education
Commissioner—An employee of the court given
offered to judicial officers who, as defined in the
the power to hear and make decisions in certain
legal matters, such as those heard in family court text box, are elected officials or court employees
and small claims court.
who make court decisions in lawsuits or other legal
Referee—An employee of the court appointed matters but are not engaged in the practice of law.
to hear and make decisions on limited legal
matters, such as traffic offenses or certain
juvenile matters. Education requirements that apply to attorneys
do not apply to judicial officers. In California
an attorney must be certified by the Supreme
Court and be an active member of the State Bar
of California (state bar) to practice law. Among other things,
the State Bar Act contains provisions requiring the state bar
to request the California Supreme Court to adopt a Rule of
Court authorizing the state bar to establish and administer
a mandatory continuing legal education program for its
members.2 Thus, the California Supreme Court adopted a Rule
of Court that requires members of the state bar, except those
who are specifically exempt from those continuing education
requirements, such as judicial officers, to receive 25 hours of
continuing education over a 36-month period.
The California Constitution prohibits a judicial officer from
practicing law, and the State Bar Act and the California Code
of Judicial Ethics mirror this prohibition. Accordingly, judicial
officers are not subject to regulation by the state bar. Instead,
the Commission on Judicial Performance (commission)
oversees the conduct of judicial officers. With regard to judicial
officers who are commissioners or referees, the commission has
shared authority with the courts that employ them. Among the
commission’s various powers is its ability to censure, remove,
retire, or privately admonish judicial officers for their misconduct
or inability to perform their duties because of permanent
disability. Rather than being subject to the continuing education
requirements applicable to members of the state bar, judicial
officers are subject to the education requirements described in
Chapter 1.
2 The California Supreme Court is responsible for overseeing the state bar in its
administration of the State Bar Act and is authorized to adopt Rules of Court related to
the state bar.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
eduCATion PRogRAmS And SeRviCeS offeRed
The AOC offers education programs to the more than
2,000 judicial officers and 21,000 court personnel in California’s
court system. It also administers the Judicial Council’s budget
and works with advisory committees, task forces, and working
groups to help the Judicial Council shape its policies and create
programs for administering justice in California’s courts. With
its headquarters in San Francisco and three regional offices
located throughout the State, the AOC is organized based on
functional responsibilities rooted in judicial administration and
court operations. Although these responsibilities are carried out
across the AOC, certain roles and activities are division specific,
including the provision of education for the judicial branch.
The Judicial Council has authorized the AOC’s
Education Division to implement the governing
committee’s comprehensive education program
five units of the education division
for the judicial branch. The Education Division
1. Curriculum and Course Development was formed in 1994 when the Center for Judicial
2. Design, Consulting, and Systems Development Education and Research merged with the
3. Operations Administrative Education Unit of the AOC.3 Staff
4. Production, Delivery, and Educational
and volunteer subject-matter experts and faculty
Technologies
provide professional training as well as legal
5. Publications and Resources
education for judicial officers and court personnel.
The Education Division is composed of five units,
as shown in the text box.
The Education Division offers a year-round series of education
programs and services for judicial officers, including
orientation programs for new judicial officers, continuing
education programs, publications, videotapes, and other
educational aids. The Education Division also offers programming
and services for court personnel and AOC staff in the areas of
orientation, management and supervision, and leadership.
The AOC’s Center for Families, Children, and the Courts (CFCC)
also provides some educational and professional training
opportunities for the judicial branch. The CFCC’s mission
is to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the
diverse needs of children, youth, families, and self-represented
litigants in the state courts. In carrying out this mission, the
CFCC provides courts with legal and court services, research,
educational and training opportunities, and print and
3 The Center for Judicial Education and Research was established in 1973 as a joint
enterprise of the Judicial Council and the California Judges Association.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
electronic publications. Additionally, the CFCC collaborates
with the Education Division in implementing the federal
Violence Against Women Education Project (VAWEP), which
is an initiative designed to provide information, educational
materials, technical assistance, and training to the courts on
their role in responding to issues of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking.
SCoPe And meThodology
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee)
requested the Bureau of State Audits to review and assess how
funds appropriated to the Judicial Council are used for training
judicial officers and to determine the processes and practices
used in developing the budget for training judicial officers. We
were asked to determine the amount appropriated and spent
for training judicial officers over the past three years and to
review the purposes and appropriateness of those costs. Finally,
the audit committee asked us to review and assess management
controls to ensure that funds appropriated for training are
used for allowable activities and to select a sample of costs to
determine whether they were valid.
We reviewed state law and Rules of Court to determine the
education provisions applicable to California’s judicial officers.
We learned that the governing committee had recently proposed
enhancing education requirements for judicial officers. We
interviewed staff from the Education Division and reviewed
relevant documentation to determine the processes the governing
committee employed to establish the proposal. Additionally, we
assessed the extent to which requirements under the proposal
differ from those currently in place. We also interviewed the
manager of the AOC’s Internal Audit Services Unit to determine
whether the scope of its periodic audits of courts includes
procedures related to judicial education requirements.
To determine how funds appropriated to the Judicial Council are
used for training judicial officers, we interviewed key personnel
in the AOC’s Education and Finance divisions and the CFCC.
We also determined the training courses offered to judicial
officers in fiscal years 2002–03 through 2004–05 by reviewing
course materials, descriptions, training methods, and attendance
rosters. We focused our review on traditional delivery education
programs—in which faculty and participants interact in the
same place and time—because these courses represent the largest
percentage of the Education Division’s direct operating expenses
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
and equipment for judicial education. Further, we determined
whether new judicial officers attended the required training
programs within the specified periods by reviewing the dates
they were appointed as well as attendance rosters. Additionally,
we interviewed key personnel in the Education Division
and staff assigned to the VAWEP as well as reviewed relevant
documentation to determine the AOC’s process for developing
training programs. As we did so, we learned that the AOC was
in the process of changing its approach to developing training
programs. We examined that development process and what the
AOC hopes to accomplish.
To assess the controls the AOC has in place to ensure that
training funds are used for allowable activities, we interviewed
key personnel from the Finance Division and selected a sample
of costs from the Education Division and the VAWEP for
the period July 2004 through December 2005. To determine the
processes and practices used in developing the budget
for training judicial officers, we interviewed key personnel from
the Finance and Education divisions as well as VAWEP staff
within the CFCC. We also reviewed periodic financial reports
for fiscal years 2002–03 through 2004–05 to determine that the
training budgets were monitored appropriately and expenditures
did not exceed budgeted amounts.
Although we were asked to determine the amount appropriated
for training judicial officers over the past three years, the Judicial
Council’s appropriation does not include funding specifically
for education programs. To identify the amount allocated
by the AOC for education, we reviewed budgetary reports
from the Finance Division. To identify the amounts awarded
for the VAWEP, we reviewed grant award agreements for the
past three federal fiscal years. Further, to determine the amount
spent on education, we obtained electronic data from the AOC’s
database and expenditure reports from its Finance Division.
Generally accepted government auditing standards require us
to assess the reliability of computer-processed data. We assessed
the reliability of the data by performing electronic testing of
required data elements, reviewing existing information about
the data and the system that produced them, interviewing
agency officials knowledgeable about the data, and testing the
accuracy and completeness of the data. Based on our analysis,
we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our report. n
10 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
ChApTer 1
The Judicial Council of California’s
Governing Committee on Education
Is Proposing Expanded Education
Requirements for Judicial Officers
ChAPTeR SummARy
The Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council),
empowered by the California Constitution, has authorized
the governing committee that advises the Judicial Council
on education with developing and maintaining education
programs for the judicial branch. Additionally, the Judicial Council
has authorized the Education Division of the Administrative Office
of the Courts (AOC) with implementing the governing committee’s
comprehensive education program. The Education Division offers
training to judicial officers in several legal areas; however, current
requirements established by California Rules of Court and state
law apply only to initial education for new judicial officers and
initial and continuing education for those hearing certain types of
cases. Further, although these judicial officers are required to attend
certain courses, the AOC is generally not responsible for tracking
compliance with the education requirements. Rather, it is the
responsibility of judicial officers and the courts to ensure that the
requirements are followed.
The governing committee has proposed expanding education
requirements that generally would require judicial officers
to attain 30 hours of training over a three-year cycle. If the
proposed change is adopted, judicial officers will be required to
annually submit records of participation in education programs
to their applicable presiding judges. Judicial officers have
questioned the governing committee’s proposal, including the
Judicial Council’s constitutional authority to establish minimum
education requirements. In mid-August 2006, after further
review, the governing committee voted to move forward the
proposal with slight modifications. The governing committee’s
recommendation on the proposal is scheduled for submission to
the Judicial Council for its consideration in October 2006.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 11
Among the various methods the Education Division uses
to provide training to judicial officers, traditional delivery
education—in which faculty and participants interact in
the same place and time—represents the largest percentage
of the Education Division’s direct operating expenses and
equipment for judicial education. Some training is offered
by the federally funded Violence Against Women Education
Project (VAWEP); staff responsible for administering the VAWEP
collaborate with the Education Division to provide education to
judicial officers in the areas of domestic violence, sexual assault,
and stalking.
Because many education programs focus on a specific area of
law and apply to certain judicial officers, only some education
programs are general in content and apply to all judicial officers.
Moreover, the Education Division generally cannot identify the
individual judicial officers for which a specific training course
applies because it does not track judicial officer assignments.
Using records provided by the Education Division for July 2002
through mid-April 2006, compiled at our request, we found that
nearly all newly appointed or elected judicial officers that we
reviewed attended the required education programs, although
some did not do so within the required time frame.
To design and develop its programs, the Education Division
uses an event-based method that focuses on filling a designated
time slot with a training event. Although the Education
Division is using this method, in 2000 it began a formal
curriculum development process that, when completed in a
few years, will form the basis of a method for developing its
education programs.
The STATe’S CuRRenT eduCATion RequiRemenTS
APPly only To JudiCiAl offiCeRS in limiTed
CiRCumSTAnCeS
As part of its comprehensive education program for judicial
officers, the Education Division offers training in areas such as
ethics, family law, criminal law, and juvenile dependency law.
Because much of the education offered is not required, judicial
officers participate in most training at their own discretion. In
fact, current requirements established by Rules of Court and state
law apply only to initial education for new judicial officers and
initial and continuing education for those hearing certain types of
cases. In its Standards of Judicial Administration Recommended by
12 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
the Judicial Council (judicial standards), the Judicial Council only
recommends certain educational goals but does not require them.
Table 1 summarizes the current requirements.
TAble 1
Current education Requirements for Judicial officers as
established by Rules of Court or State law
Rule of Court or State law Participants Program Time frame
Rule 970 Newly appointed or elected One-week orientation Within six months of taking the
program and a two-week oath of office for the orientation
judicial college provided by program and within two years for
the Education Division the judicial college
Rule 5.30 New to hearing family law Basic education program on Within six months of assignment,
cases California family law or one year of assignment in
courts with five or fewer judicial
officers, based on availability
of funds
Rule 5.30 Assigned principally to hear Periodic update on new Not specified and based on
family law matters developments in California availability of funds
family law and procedure
Rule 5.340 New to hearing child Basic education program on Within six months of assignment
support cases California child support law
Rule 5.340 Assigned principally to hear Update on new At least once each calendar year
child support matters developments in child
support law and procedure
Welfare and Institutions New to hearing juvenile Basic education program on Within one year of assignment, as
Code, Section 304.7 dependency cases juvenile dependency law specified by the judicial standards
(Section 304.7 requires the
Judicial Council to implement
education standards in this area)
Welfare and Institutions Assigned to conduct juvenile A training session on Annually
Code, Section 304.7 dependency hearings California juvenile
dependency law
Sources: California Rules of Court, state law, and the judicial standards as they relate to the Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 304.7.
State law requires the Judicial Council to submit an annual
report to the Legislature on judicial officer compliance with
the juvenile dependency overview course requirement. The
Education Division develops the report using information
submitted by the courts in each county. For calendar year 2005
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 13
the Education Division reported that 178 (94 percent) of the
190 judicial officers assigned to hear dependency cases attended
the required course.4,5
According to the assistant director of the Education Division,
the motivation for requiring training in certain areas of law,
such as family and juvenile dependency law, is the perception
that these assignments are very difficult and involve some of the
most critical issues and vulnerable parties in the court system.
He added that the judicial officers given these assignments often
Although judicial officers have less seniority and experience and therefore have a greater
are required to attend need for education in these areas. However, although judicial
certain courses, the AOC officers are required to attend certain education courses, neither
generally is not required state law nor the Rules of Court require the AOC to track judicial
to track judicial officers’ officers’ compliance with the training requirements (except
compliance with the for the juvenile dependency overview course for which it has
training requirements. to submit an annual report, as discussed earlier). Rather, it is
the responsibility of judicial officers and the courts to ensure
compliance with the requirements.
Additionally, Audit Services conducts periodic audits of the
courts primarily to ensure court compliance with the Trial Court
Financial Policies and Procedures Manual. It does not include
testing to ensure whether judicial officers are complying with
the education requirements described previously. The current
scope of the audits includes, but is not limited to, financial,
performance, and compliance tests and includes testing of
transactions and balances, financial procedures, internal
controls, compliance with rules and regulations, and certain
performance criteria. Further, the judicial standards recommend
that judicial officers participate in eight days of education
annually. As part of its testing, Audit Services determines
whether the applicable presiding judge for each court has
established a system that allows judicial officers sufficient time
away from their duties if they choose to take the recommended
number of days of education.
4 Some counties reported more judicial officers completing the juvenile dependency
overview course than were assigned to hear juvenile dependency cases. According
to the assistant director of the Education Division, some judicial officers not currently
assigned to these types of cases may take the course in preparation for a future
assignment to hear juvenile dependency cases.
5 Our review revealed that the Education Division reported on three years of data
(2003 through 2005) when it submitted its report in March 2006. According to its
assistant director, the Education Division discovered in November 2005 that it had
not submitted reports for 2003 and 2004. He states that the division now has a better
tracking system for the annual report.
1 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
The goveRning CommiTTee ConSideRed vARiouS
fACToRS in deTeRmining WheTheR To PRoPoSe
minimum eduCATion RequiRemenTS
In February 2003 the governing committee began to review
the concept of mandatory education and to consider whether
to submit a proposal to the Judicial Council on education
requirements for all judicial officers. The governing
committee studied other state education models, assessed
The governing judicial officers’ attendance at programs offered by the
committee began to Education Division, considered prior efforts to establish
review the concept of minimum education requirements, and conducted surveys of
mandatory education in judicial officers in California.
February 2003.
At the February 2003 meeting Education Division staff and
the governing committee discussed the findings of a 2002
survey conducted by an organization that serves as a national
clearinghouse for information on education for judicial officers
and other court personnel. Education Division staff noted that
of the 48 states that responded to the survey, 36 had education
requirements that applied to judicial officers and 12 had none.
Further, the survey found that 23 of the 36 states mandating
judicial officer education required a specific number of
education hours annually, ranging from 10 hours in some states
to 30 or more hours in one, with the majority of states requiring
11 to 20 hours per year. Additionally, the governing committee
reviewed participation figures reported by the Education
Division for the programs it offered during 2002. According
to Education Division data, 1,122 (56 percent) of California’s
2,021 judicial officers in 2002 attended the Education Division’s
judicial education programs.6
At its July 2003 meeting the governing committee discussed
the likelihood of resistance by judicial officers to establishing
additional education requirements given the response to an
earlier attempt to enhance those requirements. In 1994 the
governing committee at that time proposed Rule of Court 970,
which included not only education requirements for newly
appointed or elected judicial officers, which ultimately were
adopted, but also a requirement mandating judicial officers
to attain a minimum of 40 hours of continuing education
annually. The proposed Rule of Court was submitted for public
comment in June 1994, and the governing committee received
6 The Education Division also reported that 698 judicial officers attended the Qualifying
Ethics Program, but it did not identify the extent to which they already had been
counted as participants in other education programs.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 15
numerous responses from judicial officers expressing concerns
In 1994 the governing about the proposal. At that time the judicial officers questioned
committee proposed the Judicial Council’s constitutional authority for requiring
a Rule of Court that education for judicial officers and voiced concerns about
included a mandate for various other issues, including enforcement and compliance.
judicial officers to attain After further examination, the governing committee reported
a minimum of 40 hours at a June 1995 meeting that the California Judges Association
of continuing education (CJA) refused to support a Rule of Court requiring continuing
annually; however, the education for judicial officers. Subsequently, the governing
mandate was ultimately committee removed the continuing education requirement
removed from the of 40 hours per year from the proposed rule, and the Judicial
proposal. Council adopted Rule of Court 970 effective January 1996.
Another topic of discussion at the July 2003 meeting was whether
a mandatory education model similar to that of the State Bar of
California (state bar) should be adopted for the entire judiciary.
As mentioned in the Introduction, state bar members, unless
they are exempt from the requirement, are required to receive
25 hours of continuing education over a 36-month period.
The governing committee indicated that adopting this type of
model would ensure that every judicial officer participates in
some form of education regularly, which would enhance judicial
performance and elevate education as an essential component of
each judicial officer’s career. Further, the governing committee
noted that if no additional education were required for judicial
officers, the current level of voluntary participation for most
areas of continuing education likely would remain unchanged.
Specifically, the governing committee stated that although a
large number of judicial officers currently take part in education
programs, a significant percentage of the judiciary does not
participate and probably would continue not participating.
The governing committee also considered the many forms that
additional education requirements could take, ranging from
specifying mandated courses to requiring a minimum number
of education hours over a given period, with the latter giving
judicial officers wide discretion in choosing the content of their
training. The governing committee concluded the July 2003
meeting by indicating that it would develop a survey to canvass
judicial officers about the issue before proposing minimum
education requirements for judicial officers.
Later that summer, in an initial effort to gather opinions on
mandatory education, the governing committee conducted a
telephone survey of nine presiding judges representing both
large and small courts in Northern and Southern California. The
1 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
governing committee reported that all but one of the presiding
judges it contacted strongly supported the idea of mandatory
judicial education. However, the responses of some judges
to a follow-up question regarding the possibility of enforcing
education requirements significantly reduced the level of support
for mandatory judicial education. The governing committee
reported that it distributed additional surveys at an October 2003
meeting of the trial court presiding judges advisory committee and
received several more responses, all of which strongly supported
the idea of mandatory judicial education. At a November 2003
meeting the governing committee decided to begin developing
various models for mandatory judicial education and to begin
engaging various stakeholders in reviewing, commenting on, and
evaluating the merits of these models.
As a result, in February 2004 the governing committee met
to discuss mandatory judicial education in preparation for a
meeting scheduled with the Judicial Council in April 2004. At
that meeting the committee described the education models
it had considered: expanding existing education requirements
that focus on specific subjects, implementing a model similar
to the state bar’s, elevating existing education provisions
recommended in the judicial standards to requirements in
the Rules of Court, and modifying existing models based on a
review of mandatory education in other states. Additionally,
the governing committee considered whether to implement the
education model immediately or phase it in over a period of
years and decided that it would not make any recommendations
regarding compliance because the matter of enforcement is
beyond the scope of its responsibility. At the April 2004 meeting
the Judicial Council gave a favorable response to the governing
committee’s presentation on education requirements and
directed it to continue its study and research and report back
with recommendations on how to move forward.
As its next step, the governing committee sent out surveys
The 16 percent of in August and September 2004 to gather data on continuing
California judicial officers education requirements in the judicial branch. The survey aimed
responding to a 2004 to determine judicial officers’ current level of participation in
survey conducted by the education programs. Based on a response rate of 16 percent,
governing committee or 324 responses from California’s 2,043 judicial officers as of
reported participating in July 2004, judicial officers reported participating in an average
an average of 26 hours of 26 hours of continuing education each year. According to
of continuing education the assistant director of the Education Division, which provided
each year. staff to support the governing committee’s survey effort, the
low survey response rate was not a concern. In fact, the assistant
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 1
director commented that the Education Division was pleased to
receive the number of responses it did because judicial officers
are very busy and the survey may not be as high a priority as
other matters.
The goveRning CommiTTee ReCenTly PRoPoSed
minimum eduCATion RequiRemenTS foR JudiCiAl
offiCeRS
The governing committee considered two overarching goals as
it began developing a recent proposal on minimum education
requirements for judicial officers. The first goal was to preserve
the ability of each judicial officer and court, through the
presiding judge, to determine the content and means by which
an individual would participate in continuing education.
Second, the governing committee sought to establish broad
educational parameters for judicial officers newly appointed
to the bench or those with experience but new to a particular
role or an assignment. The governing committee believed
these parameters would ensure that judicial officers receive the
information they need to succeed in their new assignments.
In February 2005 the governing committee presented to the
In 2005 the governing Judicial Council a conceptual example of how current education
committee presented requirements might be enhanced. The example included
to the Judicial Council adding an assignment-based overview course for judicial officers
an example of how new to an assignment. Additionally, the example outlined an
current education individualized three-year cycle judicial officers could follow to
requirements might satisfy the proposed 30-hour continuing education requirement.
be enhanced, which Based on this presentation, the Judicial Council directed the
included a proposed governing committee to continue gathering feedback, refining
requirement that judicial the example, and developing a proposal.
officers attain 30 hours
of education over a The governing committee presented the example to presiding
three‑year period. judges at regional meetings in San Francisco, Sacramento, and
Burbank in April 2005, and it reported that the feedback it
received was generally favorable. Additionally, in May 2005 the
governing committee asked members of the CJA executive board
to express its collective opinion on the conceptual example.
According to the governing committee, the CJA submitted a
statement commenting that it was strongly in favor of enhanced
voluntary educational opportunities for judicial officers, and it
requested that adequate resources be made available to permit
1 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
officers to use these opportunities. The CJA’s statement did not
specifically comment on continuing education requirements for
judicial officers.
In May 2005 the governing committee conducted a survey
of California’s judicial officers to determine support for
the example. It subsequently reported that it received
160 responses,7 with 75 percent supporting the example,
19 percent opposing it, and 6 percent answering the questions
ambiguously. In September 2005 the governing committee
formally recommended that the Judicial Council approve the
following proposed model of minimum education requirements
for judicial officers:8
• In addition to the existing orientation and judicial college
requirements, newly appointed or elected judicial officers
would be required to take an assignment-based overview
course within the first year of taking the bench. Beginning
on January 1 of the year following completion of these
requirements, judicial officers would participate in an
individualized cycle of education and be required to receive
30 hours of continuing education during a three-year cycle,
or 10 hours per year (much less than the eight days a year the
judicial standards recommend).
• Beginning January 1, 2007, all other judicial officers would be
required to participate in an individualized cycle of education
and to receive 30 hours of continuing education during a
three-year cycle.
• Judicial officers would receive an overview course whenever
changing primary assignments unless they return to an
assignment within two years.
• Judicial officers could receive continuing education from
several approved providers, including the CJA and the state
bar. Local courts could approve other education providers.
• Tracking of compliance with the proposed education
requirements would continue to be the responsibility of the
individual and the court. Judicial officers would be required
7 The 160 responses represent 8 percent of the California judicial officer population of
2,037 as of July 2005.
8 The proposed requirements focus on trial courts. The governing committee commented
that if the proposal is adopted, it will assess whether to recommend enhancing
minimum education requirements for appellate courts. Further, although there are
specific proposed requirements for new presiding judges or new supervising judges, we
do not list these here.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 1
to give their presiding judges copies of their records of
participation in education at the end of each year and submit
statements of completion at the end of each three-year period.9
Additionally, in its September 2005 report to the Judicial
Council, the governing committee stated that data provided
by the National Center for State Courts in 2005 indicated that
42 states required continuing education for judicial officers,
ranging from 10 hours per year in Florida to 64 hours per
year in Vermont. The table in Appendix A lists the states that
do not require continuing education for judicial officers and
the states that do, specifying the number of education hours
judicial officers are required to attain annually.10 We asked the
assistant director of the Education Division why the governing
committee proposed a model requiring judicial officers to attain
10 hours of education annually, the minimum level noted in the
survey. He stated that the governing committee believed that a
higher hourly requirement—for example, 40 hours—would likely
increase resistance to the model. Further, he commented that
given the amount that judicial officers are currently participating
and the amount of programs the Education Division offers,
the governing committee believed this level would not have a
significant fiscal impact at the state and local levels.
The governing committee reported to the Judicial Council
information related to implementation costs at the state and
local levels. The Education Division analyzed the amount of
education delivered and attended by California judicial officers
The governing committee in 2003 and determined that it provided enough education for
reported that the judicial officers to attend an average of 15 hours annually. Given
additional cost of that the proposed model calls for 10 hours of education per year,
delivering enough content the governing committee reported that the additional cost of
to meet the proposed delivering enough content to meet the requirement would be
education requirement minimal. Further, in relation to local costs, although state funds
would be minimal. currently cover lodging and group meals at Education Division
training programs, in most cases travel is the responsibility
of the court or the judicial officer. However, the governing
committee believes that, because some judicial officers attend
many training sessions and some attend none, costs will likely
be redistributed among the courts if all judicial officers are
required to meet minimum education requirements.
9 When it submitted the proposed minimum education requirements for judicial officers,
the governing committee also submitted proposed education requirements for court
administrators and other court personnel.
10 Table A in Appendix A, which lists 43 states as having continuing education
requirements, is based on updated data from the Court Statistics Project of the
National Center for State Courts.
20 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
In April 2006 the Judicial Council’s Rules and Projects
Committee, which directs and oversees the development and
approval of Rules of Court, approved the release for public
comment of the proposed minimum education requirements
for the judicial branch, including judicial officers. As discussed
further in the next section, in mid-August 2006, after
considering public comments, the governing committee voted
to move forward the proposed rules with slight modifications.
It intends to submit its recommendation on the proposed
rules to the Rules and Projects Committee for its review in
September 2006 and to the Judicial Council for its consideration
in October 2006.
JudiCiAl offiCeRS hAve RAiSed ConCeRnS AbouT
The PRoPoSAl
Judicial officers have questioned the governing committee’s
proposal, including the Judicial Council’s authority to mandate
education. In March 2006 two judicial officers wrote a letter to
the CJA questioning the legal authority of the Judicial Council
Judicial officers have to adopt a Rule of Court mandating educational standards for
questioned the governing judicial officers. The two judicial officers also indicated that they
committee’s proposal, believe there is a reasonable probability that the proposed Rule
including the Judicial of Court, if adopted and subjected to a legal challenge, would be
Council’s authority to found to be outside the Judicial Council’s authority to adopt rules
mandate education. for court administration, practice, and procedure. Subsequently, at
its midyear conference in May 2006, CJA board members voted to
seek outside counsel’s opinion of whether the Judicial Council has
the authority to establish education requirements.
In response to these concerns, in April 2006 the AOC’s Office
of the General Counsel (general counsel) issued a legal opinion
concluding that the Judicial Council does have the authority
to establish minimum education requirements. The opinion
explains that the general counsel’s conclusion is based on the
belief that requiring judicial officers to acquire a certain level
of education is within the Judicial Council’s authority to adopt
rules for court administration, is not inconsistent with statute,
and does not add a qualification for holding judicial office
that is not otherwise required by the California Constitution.
Additionally, the general counsel pointed out that many states
have adopted continuing education requirements for judicial
officers, and in doing so some have relied on constitutional
provisions related to rule-making authority over the court
administration that are similar to those found in the California
Constitution. With respect to its conclusion that the rules would
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 21
not be inconsistent with statute, the general counsel indicated in
its written legal opinion that relevant case law provides support
for the Judicial Council to adopt rules that go beyond statutes
if the rules reasonably further the purpose of the statutes and
that the proposed rules do not conflict with any of the current
statutes addressing judicial education. In addition, the general
counsel explained that it is its belief that the current statutory
scheme regarding judicial education reflects a broad legislative
intent that the Judicial Council address judicial education in
a comprehensive manner, and there is no indication of any
legislative intent to limit the Judicial Council’s authority to
require minimum judicial education.
In June 2006 the CJA’s outside counsel provided its opinion on
the Judicial Council’s authority to enact the proposed minimum
education requirements for judicial officers. The outside counsel
concluded that the proposed minimum education requirements
may fall within the Judicial Council’s authority to adopt rules
for court administration; however, it noted that there is at least
a substantial argument that the proposal is “inconsistent with
statute” and thus exceeds the Judicial Council’s rule-making
authority. The outside counsel stated in its written legal opinion
that the current statutory scheme in California permits, and in
some instances requires, the Judicial Council to provide training
and education programs for judicial officers that deal with
specific areas of law. Further, the outside counsel expressed its
belief that this pattern suggests that the Legislature, although it
has never expressly prohibited education requirements, did not
contemplate that the Judicial Council would be able to create
such requirements for the entire judiciary without statutory
approval or authorization. The outside counsel stated that it
seems reasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended that
the judiciary be subject to mandatory training and education
only when such programs were specifically authorized by
statute. From this perspective, the outside counsel believes that
the proposed minimum education requirements could not align
with the implicit intent of the Legislature and therefore would
be inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
The public comment period on the proposal closed in late
July 2006. According to the assistant director of the Education
Division, as of late July 2006 the governing committee had
received more than 200 public comments from groups and
individuals, of which the majority disagreed with the proposed
education requirements. He explained the comments that
disapprove of the proposal follow certain themes, such as stating
22 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
the Judicial Council does not have the constitutional authority
As of late July 2006 the to adopt education requirements and claiming that the rules
governing committee would be an infringement on judicial officers’ independence.
had received more than Additionally, the assistant director of the Education Division
200 public comments, explained that the governing committee received some
of which the majority comments approving of the proposed education requirements,
disagreed with the including statements that the public deserves and expects no
proposed education less of its judicial officers, and that the education requirements
requirements. would not be overly burdensome because most judicial officers
already participate in as much or more than the 10 hours per
year the proposal would require.
In late July 2006, in response to the AOC’s request, the Office of
the Attorney General provided informal legal advice regarding
whether the Judicial Council is vested with authority to adopt
rules for judicial education. The Office of the Attorney General
concluded that the Judicial Council has such legal authority.
Further, it concluded that if the rules for judicial education
currently proposed by the governing committee are adopted
by the Judicial Council, the rules would not be inconsistent
with statute. In mid-August 2006, after considering the
informal legal advice and the public comments, the governing
committee voted to move forward the proposed rules with
slight modifications. According to the governing committee,
the modifications included some simplifications of the
language that made no substantive change and an amendment
to the education criteria that local courts use to approve
education programs that would give them more flexibility to
approve those programs. The Judicial Council is scheduled
to consider the proposed rules in October 2006.
The eduCATion diviSion CooRdinATeS WiTh The
violenCe AgAinST Women eduCATion PRoJeCT
To PRovide eduCATion PRogRAmS To JudiCiAl
offiCeRS
The Education Division provides education programs to California’s
judicial officers in accordance with several requirements in state
law and recommendations made by the Judicial Council in its
judicial standards. In addition, staff administering the federally
funded Violence Against Women Education Project (VAWEP)
collaborate with the Education Division to provide education to
judicial officers in the areas of domestic violence, sexual assault,
and stalking.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 23
The Education Division provides training through
traditional delivery education, distance education,
Training methods used by the
education division and practice-oriented publications and other
print resources, as shown in the text box. It offers
• Traditional delivery education: Faculty and
a year-round series of education programs and
participants are face-to-face in both time and
place. services for judicial officers, including orientation
programs for new judicial officers, continuing
• distance education: Faculty and participants
are separated by time and/or geography, as in education programs, videotapes, and other
satellite broadcasts and online courses.
educational aids. In addition, state law requires and
• Practice-oriented publications and other the judicial standards recommend that the Judicial
print resources: These books, handbooks,
Council and the Education Division provide
and loose-leaf guides cover court procedures,
include judicial practice tips, and are intended education programs for judicial officers in certain
to provide a balanced presentation of the law.
subject areas, as shown in Table 2.
As indicated in Table 2, the Education Division
offers training programs that comply with state law
requirements and the judicial standards’ recommendations. The
traditional delivery education programs offered by
the Education Division represent the largest percentage of the
Education Division’s expenditures for direct operating expenses
and equipment for judicial education. As shown in Figure 2
on page 26, 66 percent of the Education Division’s judicial
education program expenditures for direct operating expenses
and equipment in fiscal year 2004–05 were for traditional
delivery education programs. An additional 28 percent of
education program expenditures were for distance education,
and 6 percent were for various practice-oriented publications
and print resources.
Among the distance education courses the Education Division
offers is an annual series of two-hour broadcasts on sexual
harassment prevention and online courses that cover areas such
as child support and juvenile dependency for judicial officers to
access at their discretion. Practice-oriented publications and other
print resources include information related to a particular area of
the law or judicial proceedings. For example, publications and print
resources on court procedures are intended to provide a balanced
presentation of the law to avoid taking an advocacy position.
2 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
TAble 2
education Programs for Judicial officers as Required by
State law or Recommended by the Judicial Standards
Programs offered by the
education division That Satisfy
Provision Area of law Summary of education Provisions the Provision*
State law Requirements
Government Code, Family law The Judicial Council shall establish training that B.E. Witkin Judicial College and
Section 68553 includes a family law session in any orientation Family Law Institute
conducted for newly appointed or elected judicial
officers and an annual training session in family law.
Government Code, Juvenile To the extent resources are available, the Judicial Juvenile Law Institute†
Section 68553.5 delinquency Council shall provide education to judicial
officers on mental health and developmental
disability issues affecting juveniles in delinquency
proceedings.
Government Code, Domestic The Judicial Council shall establish training that B.E. Witkin Judicial College,
Section 68555 violence includes a domestic violence session in any Domestic Violence Institute, and
orientation conducted for newly appointed or multiple Violence Against Women
elected judicial officers and an annual training Education Project (VAWEP) programs
session in domestic violence.
Penal Code, Criminal The Judicial Council shall conduct annual criminal Criminal Law Institute
Section 1170.5 sentencing institutes.
Welfare and Juvenile The Judicial Council shall establish training that B.E. Witkin Judicial College and
Institutions Code, dependency includes, but is not limited to, a component Juvenile Law Institute
Section 304.7 related to juvenile dependency proceedings for
newly appointed or elected judicial officers and
an annual training session in juvenile dependency
proceedings.
Judicial Standards Recommendations
Judicial Standards, General The Education Division should provide a B.E. Witkin Judicial College, Criminal
Section 25.3 comprehensive educational curriculum for judicial Law Institute, Civil Law Institute,
officers in the following assignments: jury trials, Continuing Judicial Studies Program,
family court, and juvenile dependency court. Family Law Institute, and Juvenile
Law Institute
Judicial Standards, Capital cases The Education Division should provide a Criminal Law Institute and
Section 25.4 comprehensive educational curriculum and Continuing Judicial Studies Program
updates for training on the law and procedure
relevant to capital cases. Judicial officers assigned
to capital cases should attend this training before
commencing the case.
Sources: State law, the judicial standards, and the Education Division.
* Three-day institutes and one- to five-day programs are offered by the Education Division or VAWEP generally on an annual basis.
The B.E. Witkin Judicial College is a two-week residency program offered annually by the Education Division for newly appointed
or elected judicial officers.
† The assistant director of the Education Division explained that it has not yet had an opportunity to design a course specifically
meeting the provisions of Government Code, Section 68553.5, which took effect on January 1, 2006. However, he explained that
mental health and developmental disability issues are topics that have been included in its recent juvenile law education programs.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 25
figuRe 2
Judicial education expenditures by Training method
for fiscal year 200–05
(direct operating expenses and equipment only)
Practice-oriented publications
Distance education and other print resources
$683,000 (28%) $139,000 (6%)
Traditional delivery
judicial education
programs
$1.6 million (66%)
Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Administrative Office of the Courts’
expenditure database.
Note: The expenses presented do not include indirect costs of $1.2 million, which
represent such items as rent and various support costs. The expenses presented do
include costs of $900,000, which, according to the assistant director of the Education
Division, primarily include payments for lodging and meals incurred by judicial officers
participating in Education Division trainings.
Appendix B lists the traditional delivery education programs
for judicial officers the Education Division offered in fiscal
years 2002–03 through 2004–05. The expenditures listed in
Appendix B represent direct operating and equipment expenses
associated with each program, as discussed in Chapter 2. In
addition, the Education Division works with staff administering
the VAWEP, an initiative designed to provide information,
educational materials, technical assistance, and training on the
role of the courts in responding to cases involving domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The VAWEP is funded with
an annual grant from the federal Office on Violence Against
Women and is described further in Chapter 2.
As shown in Appendix B, most of the judicial education
programs funded by the VAWEP are offered concurrently with
the Education Division’s programs. For example, the Education
Division annually conducts the B. E. Witkin Judicial College of
California (Judicial College), a two-week residency program. All
new judicial officers are required to attend the course within
two years of taking office. As part of the Judicial College, VAWEP
funds are used to conduct three training sessions covering the
2 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
topics of criminal domestic violence, criminal sexual assault,
and domestic violence awareness. In fiscal year 2004–05, the
Education Division and VAWEP offered a total of 35 traditional
delivery programs for judicial officers at a combined cost of
$1.7 million. The AOC believes that collaborating with the
VAWEP ensures that programs relating to domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking are integrated into the Education
Division’s regularly offered programs. Additionally, the
AOC believes that collaboration reduces costs, such as those
associated with participants’ lodging and meals, that it would
otherwise incur if it offered programs independent of the
Education Division.
feW eduCATion PRogRAmS APPly To All JudiCiAl
offiCeRS, And noT All neW JudiCiAl offiCeRS TAke
RequiRed CouRSeS PRomPTly
As mentioned previously, judicial officers in California
Many education participate in most education programs at their own discretion.
programs focus on a Further, many judicial education programs focus on a specific
specific area of law and area of law and apply to certain judicial officers. Only some
apply to certain judicial programs offered are general in content and apply to all judicial
officers; only some officers. Moreover, the Education Division generally cannot
programs are general in identify the individual judicial officers for which a specific
content and apply to all training course applies because it does not track judicial officer
judicial officers. assignments. However, at our request the Education Division
compiled records demonstrating the number of newly appointed
or elected judicial officers in the State for the period July 2002
through mid-April 2006, and we noted that although nearly all
that we reviewed attended the required education programs,
some did not do so within the time period required.
Some programs offered by the Education Division do not
focus on a specific area of law and apply to all judicial officers
regardless of the types of cases they are assigned to hear.
Despite the broad content of these programs, participation as a
percentage of the total judicial officer population in California
varies. For example, the Continuing Judicial Studies Program
is a conference offered three times each year and covers topics
such as jury issues and settlement. According to the Education
Division’s records, attendance at this conference ranged from
21 percent of California’s judicial officers in fiscal year 2002–03
to 50 percent in fiscal year 2004–05, when several institutes were
presented within the Continuing Judicial Studies Program.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 2
Staff at the Education Division and the VAWEP track the
attendance for each program they offer. However, they generally
cannot identify the number of judicial officers for whom specific
program requirements apply, such as family law, because the
Education Division does not track judicial officer assignments.
According to the assistant director of the Education Division, it
is not currently able to track judicial officers assigned to family
law matters and other assignments because the trial courts do
not inform the Judicial Council of judicial officer assignments.
As discussed previously, newly appointed or elected judicial
Six of the 40 newly officers must attend an orientation and the Judicial College
appointed or elected within six months and two years, respectively, of taking the oath
judicial officers we of office. Although nearly all newly appointed or elected judicial
reviewed did not attend officers we reviewed attended the required training programs,
the required judicial some did not do so within the required period. According
orientation within the to records provided by the Education Division, 361 judicial
specified time period. officers were appointed or elected in the State from July 2002
through mid-April 2006. We reviewed the records of 40 newly
appointed or elected judicial officers to determine whether
they attended the Judicial College and noted that each judicial
officer who had held the position for at least two years had
taken the course within the required two-year period. However,
six of the 40 judicial officers did not attend the required judicial
orientation within six months of taking the oath of office.
One judicial officer had not yet attended the required judicial
orientation as of the time of our review in early April 2006,
which was more than five months after the deadline. Two
judicial officers attended the orientation two to five months
late. The remaining three were less than a month late, with
two missing their deadlines by only 11 days or less.
When newly appointed judicial officers do not attend the
required training courses within the specified times, they may
run the risk of lacking necessary information to perform their
duties adequately. As discussed previously, generally neither
state law nor the Rules of Court require the AOC to track judicial
officers’ compliance with education requirements. Currently, the
courts and judicial officers bear the responsibility for maintaining
compliance with judicial education requirements. However, if
the Judicial Council implemented a plan to ensure that there is
a system for tracking participation to meet judicial education
requirements, it could gain assurance that judicial officers are
attending the training sessions as required.
2 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
The eduCATion diviSion iS in The midST of A
lengThy PRoCeSS To ChAnge iTS APPRoACh To
PRoviding eduCATion PRogRAmS
The Education Division uses a method of designing and
planning its education programs referred to as event-based
In 2000 the Education planning. According to the director of the Education Division,
Division began a formal event-based planning focuses on filling a distinct time slot
curriculum development with a training event that tends to be recreated each time the
process that, once event is planned. Although the Education Division continues
completed in a few years, to use this method, it began a formal curriculum development
it will use in developing process in 2000 that, once completed in a few years, it will use
its education programs. in developing its education programs. According to the director
of the Education Division, a curriculum-based approach is much
more stable than event-based planning and can be designed to
meet the needs of specific audiences at entry, intermediate, or
advanced levels of their careers.
As described by the assistant director of the Education Division,
the event-based planning approach begins with the Education
Division establishing a time frame for a training program and
then assigning a committee to organize the event. Prior to
2000, planning committees were responsible for designing
and developing training for a particular event. The program
manager overseeing a particular event began roughly six months
before the scheduled training program by compiling a list of
possible volunteer members of the planning committee. Possible
committee members were selected from a listing of people who
had expressed interest in participating and those who had served
as faculty for previous education programs. After the program
manager compiled the list of possible members, the chair of the
governing committee appointed the members of the planning
committee, who served as volunteers in the sense that they were
not paid, except for their out-of-pocket expenses in serving on
the planning committee. Members generally served for just one
year,11 and there were roughly 10 to 12 planning committees
organized annually, depending on what education programs were
planned for the particular subject areas in the respective year.
According to the director of the Education Division, to organize
an education program, members of the respective planning
committees would meet and decide what programs to provide,
including main topics and time frames for each topic. She said
11 According to the assistant director of the Education Division, the planning committees
for the B. E. Witkin Judicial College and the Continuing Judicial Studies Program had
standing committees that served for three-year terms because of the need for more
continuity on these committees.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 2
that the planning committees could choose topics at their own
discretion based on ease of access to faculty or general or specific
interest in a topic. The director noted, however, that education
programs do not necessarily complement one another with this
type of planning. She commented that some programs may be
offered only once and programs do not fit into a long-range
strategy to meet ongoing educational needs.
In 2000 the governing committee asked Education Division
While developing the staff and members of its numerous education committees to
new curricula, the design, develop, and implement a new educational delivery
education committees approach, referred to as curriculum-based planning, for their
continue to develop respective target audiences. The Education Division began its
and design programs first application process for members of the new education
using the event‑based committees in February 2000, converting its event-based
approach, which focuses planning committees to education committees focused on
on designing training for developing subject matter and audience-specific curriculum.
a particular event. However, while developing the new curricula, the education
committees continue to develop and design education programs
using the event-based approach, which focuses on designing
training for a particular event.
The director of the Education Division explained that, in
some cases, curricula have been developed that the education
committees use as a resource sporadically within the event-based
planning model. She said that if an education committee decides
to include in a training event certain content for which curriculum
is available, the committee uses the curriculum to develop the
program. However, she noted that many courses are developed for
various training events without using any curriculum work and
that implementing the event continues to be the main objective.
According to the director, not until the education committees
finalize their curricula can the education programs be planned
using the curriculum-based approach. This will be a very different
approach in which the education committees will begin their
planning by considering what is in the curriculum and how to
deliver the content. She explained that the curriculum will be more
than a resource used sporadically; it will be the foundation for
planning training events.
30 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
As listed in the text box, 12 education committees
primarily develop and design education programs
education Committees That Primarily
develop and design Training for for judicial officers. Nine other committees
Judicial officers develop and design programs for court personnel,
participants of which in a few cases are judicial
1. Appellate Justices
officers. In May 2000 the Education Division
2. Civil Law
reviewed applications for education committees
3. Continuing Judicial Studies
and appointed members to two-year terms.
4. Criminal Law
5. Family Law During the subsequent application process in
6. Judicial Ethics May 2002, the Education Division filled vacant
7. Judicial Technology positions and appointed members to serve
8. Juvenile Law three-year staggered terms to ensure consistency in
9. New Judge Education program content from year to year.
10. Probate and Mental Health
11. Rural Courts
Members of these education committees, as
12. Science and the Law
assisted by Education Division staff, are developing
the curricula for their respective education areas
by examining the tasks, skills, abilities, and
information needed by judicial officers to perform their work. The
education committees also are determining how best to deliver
the curricula to their respective target audiences. For example,
according to the director of the Education Division, if the target
audience needs to access the content on an ongoing basis, it likely
would be placed on the Internet, and if the content is needed
on a one-time basis, it may be delivered through a conference
or seminar. She explained that content under curriculum-based
planning ideally would be delivered in several ways to ensure
that the target audience has several opportunities to access it.
Further, the director stated that with this type of planning,
content is consistent, essential content is offered regularly, and
all delivery is designed to meet the ongoing educational needs of
judicial officers.
In developing the curriculum each education committee is
focusing on numerous goals, including providing relevant
content to individuals at all levels of their careers, ensuring
consistency of content over time, and developing flexible
curricula that can be used in various situations by various
individuals. Further, the education committees, with the
assistance of Education Division staff, are developing curricula
in three phases, as shown in the text box on the following
page. According to the director of the Education Division, as of
July 2005 each of the judicial education committees completed
and submitted for approval phases I and II of their curricula. The
director stated that in January 2007 the education committees
are scheduled to begin their phase III work, which she explained
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 31
will likely take a few years to complete. When we
asked the director of the Education Division why
Three Phases of Curriculum development
followed by the education Committees this process has taken as long as it has, she stated
that each committee works at a pace dependent on
Phase i—Assess the work, including the tasks,
many variables, including the complexity of the
skills, and abilities of individuals in a target
audience. content and the ability of the education committee
members and Education Division staff to devote
Phase ii—Develop educational designs based on
work done in phase I, including creating content the necessary time to develop the content.
for beginning, experienced, and advanced
audience members.
Phase iii—Create a series of lesson plans
ReCommendATionS
outlining the basic information needed to deliver
the content.
The Judicial Council should implement a plan
to ensure that there is a system for tracking
participation to meet judicial education
requirements and that the records kept are accurate and timely.
The Education Division, in conjunction with the education
committees, should continue its efforts in designing curricula
to use in developing its judicial education programs. After
implementing the curriculum-based planning approach, the
Education Division should formally assess whether it has
been successful. n
32 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
ChApTer 2
The Judicial Council of California
and the Administrative Office of the
Courts Allocate and Monitor Funds
for Judicial Education
ChAPTeR SummARy
The Legislature does not appropriate funding specifically
for judicial education; rather, it appropriates funding for
the State’s judicial branch, which includes entities such
as the Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) and the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The Judicial Council
and the AOC’s administrative director of the courts allocate
most of the judicial branch’s appropriation to the courts, with a
smaller amount given to the AOC. The executive management
and Finance Division of the AOC allocate funding to its other
divisions, including the Education Division and the Center for
Families, Children, and the Courts (CFCC), which collaborate
in administering the federally funded Violence Against Women
Education Project (VAWEP).
The AOC’s executive management and Finance Division develop
the Education Division’s annual budget by considering the
previous year’s budget and actual expenditures as well as the
current priorities of the Judicial Council and the Education
Division. The State’s General Fund is the primary source of
money for the Education Division and is used largely for
personnel and education program costs, including travel,
lodging, and meal costs for Education Division staff and
education committee members.
Funded by the State’s Office of Emergency Services (Emergency
Services) with resources from the federal Office on Violence
Against Women, the VAWEP provides judicial branch education
programs on domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
The process for developing the budget for the VAWEP involves
input from several parties. For the first two years that the VAWEP
was funded, the AOC faced obstacles in fully spending its grant
awards. VAWEP staff point to various factors that limited the
AOC’s ability to use its grant awards completely, including a
state hiring freeze that initially prevented it from hiring staff.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 33
Additionally, the AOC experienced delays in receiving the grant
awards during the first two years. VAWEP staff explained further
that the first two years of the grant were developmental, focused
on assessing the educational needs of the judicial branch
and that since that time the AOC has been able to align its
expenditures more closely with the awarded amounts.
The majority of operating and equipment costs for traditional
delivery education programs—in which participants and faculty
interact in the same time and place—are for travel, lodging,
and meals. We examined 40 expenditures from the Education
Division and 10 from the VAWEP for the period July 2004
through December 2005 and noted that the expenditures were for
appropriate and allowable purposes and that each transaction had
undergone the AOC’s established approval process.
The eduCATion diviSion iS funded PRimARily
by The geneRAl fund, And iTS exPendiTuReS ARe
lARgely foR PeRSonnel CoSTS
The General Fund is the primary funding source for the
Education Division. The General Fund is the principal operating
fund for most governmental activities and consists of all money
received in the state treasury that is not required by law to
be credited to any other fund. The General Fund represents
The General Fund 81 percent of the money budgeted for the Education Division
represents 81 percent of for fiscal year 2004–05 and is used primarily to cover the costs
the money budgeted for of personnel and education programs for judicial officers.
the Education Division for Travel, lodging, and meal costs for Education Division staff and
fiscal year 2004–05. education committee members, as well as expenses for hotel
conference rooms and audio-video equipment rental, are paid
for with money from the General Fund.
The Judicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization
Fund (Modernization Fund) also provides funding for the
Education Division. The Modernization Fund exists to promote
improved access, efficiency, and effectiveness in trial courts
and to implement projects approved by the Judicial Council.
The major revenue sources for the Modernization Fund are
transfers from the General Fund. In fiscal year 2004–05, the
Modernization Fund amounted to 18 percent of the Education
Division’s allocation and was used for costs incurred on behalf
of education program participants, including lodging and group
meals, and in some cases travel. The remaining money the
Education Division receives, representing less than 1 percent of
its total allocation, is from the Trial Court Improvement Fund.
3 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
The amount allocated from the General Fund to the Education
Division increased from $7.5 million for fiscal year 2002–03
to $8.9 million for fiscal year 2004–05. However, the amounts
allocated from the Modernization Fund decreased from
$2 million for fiscal year 2002–03 to $1.6 million for fiscal
year 2003–04 before returning to $2 million for fiscal year
2004–05. The amounts allocated for fiscal year 2005–06 from
the General Fund and Modernization Fund were $9.1 million
and $3.3 million, respectively. Table 3 presents the Education
Division’s allocations and expenditures for fiscal years 2002–03
through 2004–05 and shows that expended amounts from each
fund in all fiscal years did not exceed the respective allocations.
The Education Division has three fiscal years from the initial
fiscal year of allocation to spend these funds; thus, the amounts
presented as expenditures for fiscal years 2003–04 and 2004–05
are subject to change until their respective three-year spending
periods are complete. The assistant director of the Education
Division pointed to various budgetary and other matters that
contributed to the division not fully expending its allocations.
For example, he commented that the Education Division
presented fewer education programs in fiscal years 2002–03 and
2003–04 because tight budgets affected the ability of trial courts
to send individuals to programs. Additionally, a state hiring
freeze affected staffing within the Education Division.
TAble 3
Comparison of Amounts Allocated and expended for the State’s
general fund and the Judicial Administration efficiency and
modernization fund for fiscal years 2002–03 Through 200–05
general fund modernization fund
fiscal year Allocated expended difference Allocated expended difference
2002–03 $7,495,090 $6,878,284* $616,806 $1,989,890 $1,759,619* $230,271
2003–04 8,433,223 7,435,573† 997,650 1,560,500 1,343,531† 216,969
2004–05 8,900,963 8,382,693† 518,270 2,000,000 1,562,880† 437,120
Sources: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Administrative Office of the Courts’ expenditure database and information from its
Education and Finance divisions.
* Actual costs for fiscal year 2002–03 represent final expenditures charged as of June 30, 2005, the end of the spending period for
monies allocated that year.
† Actual costs for these two fiscal years represent final expenditures (including encumbrances) charged as of December 31, 2005,
for which recorded expenditures may not ultimately occur against the encumbrances.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 35
Education Division expenditures are primarily for personnel costs
such as salaries and benefits for its staff in its five units, including
the Curriculum and Course Development Unit and the Production,
Delivery, and Educational Technologies Unit. Figure 3 displays
the Education Division’s expenditures in fiscal year 2004–05 by
personnel costs; operating expenses and equipment related to
judicial education; and miscellaneous operating expenses and
equipment not related to judicial education programs, such as
training programs for court personnel.
figuRe 3
education division expenditures by
Type of expenditure for fiscal year 200–05
Operating expenses and
equipment not related to
judicial education programs
$0.6 million (6%)
Personnel costs
$6 million (60%)
Operating expenses and
equipment related to
judicial education
programs
$3.4 million (34%)
Sources: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Administrative Office of the Courts’
expenditure database and information from its Education Division.
The eduCATion diviSion eSTAbliSheS iTS
budgeTARy PRioRiTieS To SuPPoRT The JudiCiAl
CounCil’S STRATegiC And oPeRATionAl PlAnS
The AOC’s executive management and Finance Division
consider two elements when developing the Education
Division’s annual budget: the priorities of the Judicial Council
and Education Division and the Education Division’s budget
and actual expenditures for the prior year. The Judicial Council
identifies goals for education in its six-year strategic plan,
which was issued in 2000, and identifies specific objectives in
its operational plans, issued every three years, to achieve those
goals. Additionally, beginning in 2004 and on an annual basis,
the governing committee that advises the Judicial Council on
education creates work plans that address the activities the
3 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
Education Division will employ to support the
achievement of the Judicial Council’s strategic and
Six Activities identified in the education
division’s 200 Work Plan to Support the operational plans. For example, as shown in the
Strategic and operational Plans of the text box, the 2006 work plan submitted by the
Judicial Council
governing committee identified six activities
to support the Judicial Council’s strategic and
1. Develop a proposed Rule of Court to implement
the model for minimum education requirements operational plans. According to the assistant
for judicial officers and court personnel and
director of the Education Division, before 2004 the
ensure that the proposed rule is entered into the
Judicial Council’s rule-making process. governing committee was not required to submit
2. Oversee short-term implementation projects for work plans; rather, it used its own strategic plans to
improving public trust and confidence in the guide its activities.
courts as delegated to Education Division staff
and education committees.
3. Explore options for potential partnering with Additionally, as previously mentioned, the
institutions of higher learning, associations, and AOC’s executive management and Finance Division
national organizations to develop a systemic
develop the budget for the Education Division based
approach to judicial education.
on its budget and expenditures in the previous year.
4. Oversee development of curricula and education
programs for temporary judicial officers. The Finance Division distributes to the Education
5. Develop a handbook or document to clarify Division an initial budget allocation report at
the roles of those members who serve on and
the beginning of each fiscal year. This report
support the governing committee.
details the Education Division’s allocation and
6. Oversee a study conducted by Education
Division staff to determine how to improve the actual expenditures from the previous fiscal year.
effectiveness of information provided to the
According to a manager in the Finance Division, the
judicial branch regarding education programs.
initial allocation report enables Education Division
management to make decisions on fine-tuning
the budget and to provide feedback to the Finance
Division, including any necessary changes or questions regarding
the allocation.
Next, the Education Division receives a final approved budget
from the Finance Division. Subsequently, the Finance Division
produces one of several periodic reports, referred to as financial
forecast reports, used throughout the fiscal year by Education
Division management and the Finance Division to monitor
and track expenditures to ensure that they do not exceed
budgeted amounts. The financial forecast report consists of
three sections on the division’s initial allocation, personnel
costs, and position vacancies. These sections provide Education
Division management the information they need to monitor
salaries, benefits, and position vacancies, thus assisting them in
tracking the allocated budget and plan for any unexpected or
sudden budgetary needs. In reviewing the budget process for the
Education Division for fiscal years 2002–03 through 2004–05, we
noted its budget was monitored in accordance with the AOC’s
established procedures.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 3
The AoC iniTiAlly fACed obSTACleS in SPending
All iTS gRAnT AWARdS foR The vAWeP
The VAWEP is an initiative designed to provide the courts with
information, educational materials, technical assistance, and
training on the courts’ role in responding to cases involving
violence against women. As mentioned earlier,
Emergency Services funds the project with
Selected vAWeP Project goals resources from the federal Office on Violence
Against Women. The VAWEP has several project
• Identify the primary educational and
goals, including those shown in the text box.
informational needs of the courts on issues of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. According to the supervising attorney for the
• Initiate new and enhance existing judicial VAWEP, the Education Division administered
branch education programs pertaining to the VAWEP at the time the AOC received its
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
first grant award; however, the majority of
• Institutionalize inclusion of domestic violence,
the staff working on the project was assigned
sexual assault, and stalking issues in all relevant
judicial education curricula, programs, and to the CFCC. In August 2003 AOC executive
publications. management transferred the project to the CFCC
for administrative purposes. The supervising
attorney noted that VAWEP staff continue to work
collaboratively with the Education Division by
attending governing committee, education committee, and
staff meetings and by developing education plans and training
materials in conjunction with the Education Division.
Table 4 displays the grant award amounts and expenditures
for the VAWEP for the first three years of the grant. The grant
requires a 25 percent matching contribution of the total award
amount, which the AOC complies with partly by using in-kind
services, including personnel costs. As shown in Table 4, the
AOC did not fully spend the grant awards it received, with the
larger differences occurring in the first two years of the grant.
The supervising attorney for the VAWEP described several
factors that prevented the AOC from spending all the awarded
amounts. She explained that in the first year of the grant, the
project was unable to hire critical staff to work on grant projects
because of the state hiring freeze in effect at the time. She stated
that, as a result, it was not possible to expend the entire award,
and the remaining funds were returned to the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning for redistribution to other entities. The Office of
Criminal Justice Planning, which was abolished in January 2004,
was the state agency responsible for administering the grant at
that time. In fact, the Office of Criminal Justice Planning and the
AOC ultimately agreed to decrease the amount of the first year’s
grant award by $100,000. The supervising attorney for the VAWEP
stated further that programmatically, the first two years
3 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
TAble
Comparison of Amounts Awarded and expended for
violence Against Women education Project for the
federal fiscal years 2002–03 Through 200–05
federal fiscal year Awarded expended difference
2002–03* $383,503† $338,318 $ 45,185
2003–04 582,208 467,175 115,033
2004–05 504,308 491,493 12,815
Sources: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Administrative Office of the Courts’ (AOC)
expenditure database, grant award letters, and expenditure reports.
* The first grant award period was April 2002 through September 2003 rather than
October 2002 through September 2003, which is the actual federal fiscal year.
† The awarded amount for this year reflects the $100,000 decrease that was agreed upon
because AOC recognized it could not spend all the funds it had been awarded.
of the grant were developmental in nature, focusing on assessing
the educational needs of the judicial branch. She explained that
the grant is strictly limited to judicial branch education programs
on domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. She said these
programs take at least six months to plan, so the AOC’s ability to
spend the entire grant awards was further limited.
Additionally, the AOC experienced delays in receiving the grant
awards for the first two years. The Office of Criminal Justice
Planning awarded the first year’s grant two and a half months
after the beginning of the grant award period of April 2002
through September 2003. Similarly, Emergency Services, which
assumed responsibilities for the grant after the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning disbanded, awarded the grant for the second
year nearly four months after the grant period started. According
to the supervising attorney for the VAWEP, the late issuance of
the grant award caused a delay in spending, preventing VAWEP
staff from conducting meetings or education programs during
that time.
According to the chief of the Victim Services Branch of
Emergency Services, who is a former employee of the Office
of Criminal Justice Planning, an extension to the first year’s
grant was not considered because the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning wanted to close out the grant award and
avoid the overlap in grant periods that would occur when the
AOC received its grant for the second year. She explained that
Emergency Services did not allow an extension to the period for
the second year’s grant because it wanted to have all grant awards
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 3
closed by the end of the federal fiscal year. She noted further
that the federal government previously had denied some grant
extension requests, and Emergency Services prefers to redirect
unexpended funds to other entities rather than requesting the
federal government to extend a grant award period.
The supervising attorney for the VAWEP cited several factors
causing expenditures for federal fiscal year 2004–05 to align
more closely with the grant award amount. As examples, she
noted that Emergency Services has broadened the scope of the
grant to provide technical assistance and related equipment and
services to the courts, it has issued the awards more promptly,
and the AOC has not experienced another hiring freeze.
vARiouS PARTieS ARe involved in develoPing The
budgeT foR The vAWeP
Developing the budget for the VAWEP involves input from
The Education Division several parties: Emergency Services, through its grant application
and education committees process; the Education Division; education committees;
are also part of the and the VAWEP planning committee, which is composed of
budget process for the judicial officers, attorneys, victim advocates, and other experts
VAWEP. who guide the project staff in identifying key training issues
and developing appropriate education programs. Emergency
Services’ application process mandates that certain objectives be
addressed during the year and that funding be spent to develop
and provide training, technical assistance, publications, and
other programs dedicated to increasing the knowledge of judicial
officers and court personnel in cases involving violence against
women. Most judicial education programs funded by the VAWEP
are integrated with regular Education Division programming, so
the Education Division and education committees are also part
of the budget process for the VAWEP.
With input from the VAWEP planning committee, staff develop
a grant application requesting funding for judicial training
programs in the areas of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking. When AOC management approves the application,
it is submitted to Emergency Services for its approval and its
subsequent notification to the AOC of the grant award amount.
The AOC’s Finance Division monitors the budget for the VAWEP
using the same process described previously for the Education
Division. Similarly, we noted in reviewing the VAWEP’s budget
for fiscal years 2002–03 through 2004–05 that its budget was
monitored in accordance with the AOC’s established procedures.
0 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
The mAJoRiTy of exPendiTuReS foR TRAdiTionAl
deliveRy eduCATion PRogRAmS ARe foR TRAvel,
lodging, And meAlS
The expenditures for traditional delivery education programs
offered by the Education Division and the VAWEP, listed in
Appendix B, include operating expenses and equipment costs for
each program. Operating expenses include program materials,
lodging, and meal costs for faculty and participants, 12 meeting
room rental costs, and audio-video equipment rental fees.
Other expenses include direct costs incurred by the Education
Division and VAWEP staff, such as airfare, vehicle rental, mileage
reimbursement, staff meals, and miscellaneous incidentals.
However, these program costs do not include personnel costs for
the Education Division or the VAWEP that we described previously.
Additionally, the AOC has internal controls and procedures in
place to ensure that the Education Division’s and the VAWEP’s
expenditures are for allowable activities. Specifically, the AOC
requires documentation with approval for expenditures, such as
travel expense claims, contracts, and invoices.
In reviewing its internal control structure, we examined
40 expenditures from the Education Division and 10 from the
VAWEP for the period July 2004 through December 2005, and
noted the expenditures were for appropriate and
allowable purposes. The expenditures we reviewed
four Policy directions for Judicial branch
included those for traditional delivery education
education established by the
programs as well as those for other training
Judicial Council’s Strategic Plan
methods such as distance education. Additionally,
1. Provide for comprehensive education programs each transaction underwent the AOC’s established
for judicial officers and court personnel that
approval process. Further, the expenditures aligned
address essential needs and requirements,
including ethics training. with the Judicial Council’s education priorities as
described in its strategic plan, which identifies four
2. Develop education standards for judicial officers
and court personnel that promote professional policy directions for judicial education in general,
development and continuing education
as shown in the text box. The overarching goal
programs.
for education, as stated in the Judicial Council’s
3. Enhance the use of alternative approaches to
strategic plan, is to enhance the effectiveness of
delivering judicial branch education.
judicial officers, court personnel, and other judicial
4. Establish incentives and offer recognition for
participation in judicial branch education. branch staff through high-quality continuing
education and professional development.
12 Emergency Services’ grant manual prohibits the use of VAWEP funds for the cost of
food or beverages at grant-sponsored conferences, meetings, or office functions. To
provide for these costs, the AOC uses other funds such as the Modernization Fund
discussed previously, and these costs cannot be claimed as part of the 25 percent
matching contribution required by the grant.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 1
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by
Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit
scope section of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date: August 29, 2006
Staff: Karen L. McKenna, CPA, Audit Principal
Laura G. Kearney
Justin McDaid
Valerie Richard
Ben Ward
2 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
Appendix A
Continuing Education Requirements
for Judicial Officers by State
Table A on the following page presents the continuing
education requirements for judicial officers by state in
three categories, as reported by the National Center for
State Courts (center) for its Court Statistics Project in 2006.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the governing committee, which
advises the Judicial Council of California on education matters,
reviewed the center’s 2005 data when it developed its proposal
on minimum education requirements for judicial officers.
The first section of Table A on the following page presents the
38 states that the center reported as requiring judicial officers
to attain a specific number of hours of continuing education
annually (unless otherwise specified). The second section
presents the five states that the center reported as requiring
judicial officers to participate in continuing education but
that have no established hourly requirement. Finally, the third
section lists the seven states that the center reported as having
no continuing education requirements for judicial officers.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 3
TAble A
Continuing education Requirements
for Judicial officers by State
States Requiring Judicial officers to Participate in a
Specific number of Continuing education hours Annually
State Required hours if Applicable
1 Arizona 16
2 Arkansas 12
3 Colorado 15
4 Connecticut 16
5 Delaware 23
6 Florida 10
7 Georgia 12
8 Hawaii 32
9 Indiana 36
10 Iowa 15
11 Kansas 12
12 Kentucky 25*
13 Maryland 28
14 Minnesota 45†
15 Mississippi 12
16 Missouri 15
17 Montana 15
18 Nevada 26
19 New Hampshire 12
20 New Jersey 15
21 New Mexico 15
22 New York 24*
23 North Carolina 30*
24 North Dakota 15
25 Ohio 20
26 Oklahoma 12
27 Oregon 45
28 Rhode Island 10
29 South Carolina 15
30 Tennessee 15
31 Texas 16
32 Utah 30
33 Vermont 64
34 Virginia 12
35 Washington 15
36 West Virginia 15
37 Wisconsin 30
38 Wyoming 15
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
States Requiring Participation in Continuing education, but not
Requiring Judicial officers to Attain a Specific number of hours
State Required hours if Applicable
39 Alabama NA
40 Alaska NA
41 Idaho NA
42 Louisiana 12.5‡
43 South Dakota NA
States not Requiring Judicial officers to Participate in Continuing education
44 California§ NA
45 Illinois NA
46 Maine NA
47 Massachusetts NA
48 Michigan NA
49 Nebraska NA
50 Pennsylvania NA
Source: The Court Statistics Project of the National Center for State Courts 2006 update.
Note: The continuing education requirements in this table do not include those applicable to judicial officers
serving on the courts of appeal or those serving limited jurisdictions.
NA = Not applicable.
* Judicial officers are required to participate in this amount of education hours every two years.
† Judicial officers are required to participate in this amount of education hours every three years.
‡ Although Louisiana requires judicial officers to participate in education, the hours specified are not
mandatory but strongly encouraged.
§ Although California does not have an overall requirement for judicial officers to participate in continuing
education, it does require continuing education for those hearing certain types of cases as discussed in
Chapter 1.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 5
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
Appendix B
Summary of Traditional Delivery
Education Programs Provided
by the Education Division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts
and the Violence Against Women
Education Project
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee requested that
the Bureau of State Audits review the purposes and
costs of programs related to the professional training
and development of judicial officers for the last three fiscal
years. We reviewed education programs offered in fiscal years
2002–03 through 2004–05 by the Education Division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Additionally, we
reviewed education programs offered to judicial officers by the
Violence Against Women Education Project (VAWEP) within
the AOC’s Center for Families, Children, and the Courts, the
only other significant education programs for judicial officers
that were offered consistently.
For each traditional delivery education program—in which
faculty and participants interact in the same time and place—
Table B beginning on page 49 lists the name, description,
number of judicial officer and other participants, and
expenditures by fiscal year if available. In the table, programs
in bold type are offered by the Education Division or are
offered by the VAWEP exclusive of the Education Division,
and programs in regular type are offered by the VAWEP in
collaboration with the Education Division.
Table B summarizes education programs by the following
categories: training for new trial court judicial officers, programs
and conferences covering legal topics, training related to court
administration, training for judicial officers serving as faculty
for other judicial education programs, and VAWEP programs
independent of the Education Division’s programs. The table
generally does not present individual costs for VAWEP programs
for fiscal years 2002–03 through 2004–05. That information is
not available because the AOC typically does not account for
costs by individual VAWEP programs.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
In some instances, the Education Division’s program costs
are shared with other programs. These costs are not available
because the AOC does not always account for costs by individual
education programs. As a result, we have presented the shared
costs in Table B by fiscal year in the following three categories:
(1) shared costs for program participants, (2) shared costs for
program faculty, and (3) shared costs for Education Division staff
and education committee members.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
California State Auditor Report 2005-131
b
elbAT
srecfifo
laiciduJ
rof
smargorP
noitacude
yreviled
lanoitidarT
50–002
raey
lacsif
0–3002
raey
lacsif
30–2002
raey
lacsif
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
noitpircsed
margorP
srecfifo laiciduJ
truoC
lairT wen
rof gniniarT
yllaunna dereffo margorp ycnediser keew-owT
laiciduJ
niktiW
.e.b
owt nihtiw srecfifo laiciduj wen lla fo deriuqer dna
ainrofilaC
fo egelloC
edulcni scipoT .ecfifo fo htao eht gnikat fo sraey
360,931$
0
231
729,252$
0
211
599,123$
0
031
.wal eht fo saera evitnatsbus eht lla ni sesruoc )PEWAV( tcejorP noitacudE nemoW tsniagA
ecneloiV
gniwollof
eht sedulcnI
:smargorp
noitacude
lanimirc fo weivrevo daorb a gnitneserp pohskroW
citsemoD lanimirC
.srettam lanimirc ecneloiv citsemod ni erudecorp
eht gniyrT :ecneloiV
sessentiw ot gnitaler swal etats edulcni scipoT
ecneloiV citsemoD
eht dna ,lairt ydeeps ,truoc ni raeppa ot liaf ohw
esaC
†
0
02
AN
AN
*dereffo
toN
AN
AN
*dereffo
toN
.sessentiw fo ytilibiderc ot esnopser ’struoc lanimirc eht no noitamrofnI
lauxeS lanimirC
†
0
7
†
0
15
†
0
32
.sesac tluassa lauxes
tluassA
weivrevo daorb a gnitneserp pohskrow deriuqeR
ecneloiV citsemoD
citsemod fo scimanyd eht ot gnitaler seussi
fo
ssenerawA
noisiced rof scipot detceles sa llew sa ecneloiv lanimirc yek fo weivrevo na gnidulcni ,gnikam
†
0
36
†
0
211
†
0
131
.sredro gniniartser wal ylimaf dna seussi erudecorp semit 01 ot enin dereffo esruoc gnol-keeW
wen rof
noitatneiro
srecfifo laiciduj wen lla fo deriuqer dna yllaunna
laiciduJ
truoC lairT
scipoT .hcneb eht gnikat fo shtnom xis nihtiw
srecfifo
705,24
0
85
736,66
0
89
051,611
0
841
.tnemeganam lairt dna ,ronaemed ,scihte edulcni scipoT lagel gnirevoC
secnerefnoC
dna
smargorP
eht no dereffo muisopmys ,yad-eno ,emit-enO
fo draob
.v nworb
.noitacudE fo draoB .v nworB fo yrasrevinna ht05
muisopmyS
noitacude
mret-gnol ,yrotsih eht no snoitatneserp dedulcnI eht rof noisiced eht fo snoitacilpmi dna ,stceffe
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
442
27
‡722,2
AN
dereffo
toN
.erutuf sedulcni taht yllaunna dereffo etutitsni yad-eerhT
etutitsni
wal
liviC
,noitacfiilauqsid ,noitartibra sa hcus scipot
982,94
4
ll17
‡429,8
AN
dereffo
toN
276,03
4
88
.snoitcurtsni yruj laiceps dna ,tnemelttes scipoT .raey a eciwt dereffo pohskrow yad-enO
liviC
xelpmoC
evitaerc ,sesac xelpmoc ni yrevocsid edulcni
pohskroW
noitagitil
fo tnemelttes dna ,seuqinhcet tnemeganam-esac
§
0
33
§
0
21
§
0
61
.snoitca ssalc
egap
txen
eht
no
deunitnoc
50 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
50–002
raey
lacsif
0–3002
raey
lacsif
30–2002
raey
lacsif
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
noitpircsed
margorP
sesruoC .raey rep semit eerht dereffo tneve yad-eviF
laiciduJ
gniunitnoC
,ytlanep htaed eht ot detaler seussi edulcni dna
yrav
margorP
seidutS
detegrat era sesruoc ehT .tnemelttes dna ,seiruj edulcni osla tub ,srecfifo laiciduj decneirepxe
ta
srecfifo laiciduj rof sesruoc weivrevo wal evitnatsbus
866,662$
291
710,1
#794,922$
401
515
245,482$
88
724
.tnemngissa na gnignahc ro ot
wen
:smargorp noitacude
PEWAV
gniwollof
eht sedulcnI
stceffe eht dna ,noitatisiv ,ydotsuc edulcni scipoT
weivrevO
waL ylimaF
†
9
83
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.tnempoleved dlihc no ecneloiv citsemod
fo
redneffo ,gnipyt AND cisnerof edulcni scipoT
ni
seussI
detceleS
dna ,tnemssessa ksir dna scitsiretcarahc
sesaC
tluassA
lauxeS
†
5
45
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.semirc xes ot euqinu serudecorp sreirrab ,seussi noitargimmi cisab edulcni scipoT
seussI
noitargimmI
tnargimmi rof struoc eht ot ssecca gnitceffa
ecneloiV
citsemoD
ni
noitargimmi dna ,ecneloiv citsemod fo smitciv
sesaC
†
0
02
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.smitciv ecneloiv citsemod rof snoitpo fo tnemssessa laitnereffid fo seussi edulcni scipoT
ydotsuC
decnavdA
desopxe nerdlihc rof semoctuo ,ecneloiv citsemod
citsemoD
dna
fo spihsnoitalerretni dna ,ecneloiv citsemod
ot
seussI
ecneloiV
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
†
01
04
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.ecneloiv citsemod dna esuba ecnatsbus detaler wal eht fo weivrevo na edulcni scipoT
:scisaB
eht
dnoyeB
smraerfi fo seitilacinhcet ,sredro evitcetorp
ot
ni
seussI
laicepS
citsemod ni tnemhsiuqniler dna snoitcirtser
sredrO
gniniartseR
ot tnemssessa ksir gniylppa dna ,sesac ecneloiv
tnemssessA
ksiR dna
ni regnad eht ot detaler gnikam noisiced laiciduj
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
†
8
63
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.snrettap tcaf ecneloiv citsemod tluassa lauxes ot noitcudortni na edulcni scipoT
noisiceD
laiciduJ
,sessentiw trepxe fo elor eht ,seussi yruj ,sesac
lauxeS
ni
gnikaM
stca dab roirp dna ,smitciv rof snoitcetorp laiceps
sesaC
tluassA
†
0
41
†
7
27
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.seussi yraitnedive laiceps rehto
dna
edulcni scipoT .yllaunna dereffo etutitsni yad-eerhT
)laruR(
ytnuoC
woC
,ytilibissecca dna ssenriaf ,seussi naciremA evitaN
etutitsni
segduJ
dna ,ycneuqniled dna ycnedneped decnavda
579,22
72
301
600,71
0
27
775,61
21
96
.srerrumed dna stnemgduj yrammus :smargorp noitacude
PEWAV
gniwollof
eht sedulcnI
dna raelc tfarc ot woh no saedi edulcni scipoT
citsemoD
fo weivrevO
;snoitcirtser smraerfi ;sredro evitcetorp elbaecrofne
dna
sesaC
ecneloiV
dna ,stceffe ,secnaussi eht ot gnitaler smelborp
dna
sredrO
evitcetorP
†
0
22
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.sredro evitcetorp fo tnemecrofne tluassa lauxes ot noitcudortni na edulcni scipoT
noisiceD
laiciduJ
,sessentiw trepxe fo elor eht ,seussi yruj ,sesac
lauxeS
ni
gnikaM
stca dab roirp dna ,smitciv rof snoitcetorp laiceps
sesaC
tluassA
†
5
11
†
6
91
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.seussi yraitnedive laiceps rehto
dna
evitcetorp tfarc ot woh no noissucsid htped-ni
nA
sredrO
evitcetorP
,sredro evitcetorp ycnegreme gnidulcni ,sredro evitcetorp lanimirc ,sredro gniniartser yraropmet
†
0
82
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.sredro tnemssarah livic dna ,sredro
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 51
50–002
raey
lacsif
0–3002
raey
lacsif
30–2002
raey
lacsif
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
noitpircsed
margorP
scipoT .yllaunna dereffo etutitsni
yad-eerhT
etutitsni
wal lanimirC
,sesac gniklats ,ecneloiv citsemod
lanimirc edulcni
dna ,tnemeganam lairt ,ecnedive
,ytiruces truoc
803,25
$
0
ll83
‡963,6
$
AN
dereffo
toN
577,05
$
1
711
.secitcarp
yruj evitavonni
ni dedulcnI
sedivorp taht yllaunna dereffo etutitsni
yad-eerhT
etutitsni
wal ylimaf
gniunitnoC
citsemod edulcni scipoT .etadpu
wal ylimaf a
seidutS
laiciduJ
cinortcele ,moortruoc eht ni nerdlihc
,ecneloiv
–margorP
dna seef yenrotta dna ,troppus
dlihc ,ecnedive
#206,74
AN
noisseS
gnirpS
#719,84
13
97
#349,14
8
051
.snoitcnas
:margorp
noitacude PEWAV
gniwollof
eht sedulcnI
dna raelc tfarc ot woh no sesucof
esruoc ehT
ecneloiV
citsemoD
sisahpme na htiw sredro evitcetorp
elbaecrofne
:sredrO
evitcetorP
dna ,stceffe ,ecnaussi eht ot gnitaler
smelborp no
dna ,stceffE
,ecnaussI
†
0
91
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.sredro evitcetorp
fo tnemecrofne
tnemecrofnE
detaler scipot sedulcni taht ecnerefnoc
yad-ruof A
eht dna sciteneg
,roivaheb dna sciteneg ,noitalsigel
dna wal esac ot
ecnerefnoC
struoC
eneg dna gnitset citeneg dna ,hcraeser
llec mets
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
43
63
.ypareht
ni dedulcnI
taht yllaunna dereffo etutitsni
yad-eerhT
etutitsni
wal elinevuJ
gniunitnoC
edulcni scipoT .etadpu wal elinevuj
a sedivorp
seidutS
laiciduJ
ni seussi noitargimmi ,sredro
gniniartser
–margorP
dlihc dna ,ecneloiv citsemod
,ycneuqniled
700,24
AN
noisseS
gnirpS
984,03
3
401
#732,21
52
721
.esuba lauxes
:margorp
noitacude PEWAV
gniwollof
eht sedulcnI
esuba dlihc fo smitciv rehtehw
edulcni scipoT
,ecneloiV
citsemoD
citsemod fo srotarteprep ro smitciv
emoceb retal
,esubA
lauxeS dlihC
htiw smelborp evah yeht rehtehw
dna ecneloiv
erehT
sI :noitciddA
dna
†
0
75
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.noitcidda
?muunitnoC
a
sedivorp taht yllaunna dereffo etutitsni
yad-eerhT
latnem
dna etaborP
edulcni scipoT .etadpu wal
htlaeh latnem a
etutitsni htlaeh
,ycnetepmoc/yticapac/aitnemed ,spihsrotavresnoc
526,42
24
82
518,91
54
91
‡91
AN
dereffo
toN
.stsurt sdeen laiceps
dna ,stsurt
.yllaunna eciwt dereffo muisopmys
yad-enO
3 noitisoporP
63 noitisoporP ot noitcudortni
na sedulcnI
muisopmyS
eht etavitom ot woh no sdohtem
sedivorp dna
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
**376
701
76
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.redneffo
devlovni-gurd
dereffo sesruoc gnol-yad dna yad-flah
suoremuN
scihte gniyfilauq
gnitapicitrap segduj taht ainrofilaC
ssorca yllaunna
margorP
ecnamrofreP laiciduJ no noissimmoC
eht ni
025,92
0
018
020,42
0
631,1
105,55
0
072
.dnetta ot deriuqer era margorp
ecnarusni noitartsinimdA truoC
ot
detaleR gniniarT
.yltnettimretni dereffo pohskrow
yad-owT
lagel decnavdA
,gnitirw doog fo stnemele
edulcni scipoT
dna gnitirW
cinortcele dna ,ssecorp
gnitirw eht
hcraeseR
cinortcele
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
0
01
.hcraeser
pohskroW
egap
txen
eht
no
deunitnoc
52 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
50–002
raey
lacsif
0–3002
raey
lacsif
30–2002
raey
lacsif
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
noitpircsed
margorP
livic edulcni scipoT .etutitsni launna yad-eerhT
secitsuJ etaleppA
fo thgir eht ;ytiruces lanoitan fo semit ni sthgir
etutitsni
,snoitcnas laeppa fo truoc dna ;noitatnorfnoc
**850,21
$
0
48
**909
$
0
09
‡82
$
AN
dereffo
toN
.erudecorp dna ,ecitcarp
yllacidoirep
dereffo margorp yad-eno ot yad-flaH
segduJ dengissA
-
A
dengissa ot tnaveler seussi scihte sedulcni taht
ecnerefnoC
scihte
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
0
98
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.segduj
††597,424
erudecorp
dna ecitcarp laiciduj ot tnaveler scipoT
segduJ dengissA
-
b
raeh ot dengissa yliraropmet segduj deriter rof
etutitsni
dna ,snoitcurtsni yruj ,snoitom gnidulcni ,sesac
019,313
0
501
0
721
661,082
0
551
.gnicnetnes no ecnerefnoc launna yad-flah-eno-dna-owT
laiciduJ ainrofilaC
hcnarb rof seussi noitartsinimda hcnarb laiciduj
noitartsinimdA
163,67
AN
dereffo
toN
322,25
571
121
814,18
861
601
.pihsredael
ecnerefnoC
scipoT .yllacidoirep dereffo esruoc yad-owT
pihsredael llihcruhC
fo rewop eht ,pihsredael yranoisiv edulcni
margorP
toliP
dna ,noitavonni dna egnahc ,noitacinummoc
§
8
6
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.secnailla gnidliub syad owt ot sruoh owt morf gnignar sesruoC
rof ssalC retupmoC
ssalc enola-dnats a sa rehtie dereffo htgnel ni
srecfifo laiciduJ
edulcni scipoT .smargorp rehto ta sesruoc sa ro lareneg dna slliks hcraes dna retupmoc cisab detaler-truoc dna tenretnI eht no noitamrofni
102,9
0
81
244,41
0
44
087,01
0
24
.erawtfos .5002 ni dereffo tsrfi esruoc tolip yad-owT
wen rof noitatneiro
evitartsinimda dna yrosivrepus edulcni scipoT
segduJ gnisivrepuS
§
52
42
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.tnemeganam
radnelac sa llew sa seitilibisnopser dereffo ecnerefnoc yad-flah-eno-dna-owT
segduJ gnidiserP
seitud yrotutats edulcni scipoT .yllaunna
dna noitatneiro
dna ,gnidliub maet ,seitilibisnopser dna
tnemeganam
truoC
§
65
06
§
74
04
§
23
36
.pihsredael
margorP
,gnilfiorp laicar gnirevoc ecnerefnoc yad-owT
ecnerefnoC ediwetatS
dna ,selyts tnemeganam ni secnereffid larutluc
cinhte dna ecaR
no
183,05
361
71
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.saib lanoitutitsni
saib
smargorP
noitacude
laiciduJ rehto rof ytlucaf sa gnivreS srecfifo
laiciduJ rof gniniarT
gnidiserp rof tnempoleved ytlucaF
tnempoleved
ytlucaf
.srecfifo evitucexe truoc dna segduj
segduJ gnidiserP
rof
laiciduj dna scihte edulcni scipoT
evitucexe truoC
dna
dna ,ssenriaf dna ssecca ,pihsredael
sa gnivreS srecfifo
§
3
3
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
3
3
.snoitaler aidem
sihT ni ytlucaf margorP
no oediv gniniart a rof tnempoleved ytlucaF
tnempoleved
ytlucaf
sa hcus scipot gnidulcni stnemgduj yrammus
yrammuS
rof
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
22
5
#753,3
31
51
.gnipytoerets laicar dna tnemssarah lauxes
margorP stnemgduJ
scihtE gniyfilauQ eht rof noitaraperp ytlucaF
dna gniniarT
ytlucaf
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
0
55
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.margorP
rof tnempoleved scihte gniyfilauq
eht
margorP
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 53
50–002
raey
lacsif
0–3002
raey
lacsif
30–2002
raey
lacsif
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
laiciduJ
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
latoT
rehto
recfifo
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
serutidnepxe
stnapicitraP
stnapicitraP
noitpircsed
margorP
weN rof noitatneirO
eht rof noitaraperp
ytlucaF
rof gniniarT
ytlucaf
§
0
72
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
§
0
32
.srecfifO laiciduJ
truoC lairT
recfifo
laiciduJ wen noitatneiro
ranimes
dna ytlucaf
ot dedivorp
noitamrofnI
ranimeS
dna ytlucaf
ta selor rieht
fo noitcnuf
eht sedulcni
taht sredael
rof gniniarT
redael
dna gnikrowten
etomorp
ot woh
dna egelloc eht
laiciduJ niktiW
.e.b eht
#317,1
$
0
83
#537
$
0
52
#096,3
$
01
52
.gnidliub maet
egelloC
smargorP
s’noisivid
noitacude
eht fo tnednepedni
smargorP
PeWAv
edulcni scipoT
.etutitsni
yad-flah-eno-dna-eerht
A
ecneloiv
citsemod
dna ssenriaf
,roivaheb
rotarteprep
dna mitciv
:etutitsni
laiciduJ
081,64
02
04
†
02
33
†
41
54
.slliks
gnikam-noisiced
dna
,seussi erutluc
laiciduJ
gnicnahne
citsemod
ni sllikS
sesaC
ecneloiv
rof ssecorp
a dedivorp
taht
tneve emit-enO
ecneloiv
ylimaf
†
981
201
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
AN
AN
dereffo
toN
.ecneloiv
ylimaf ot
sesnopser
’struoc gnissessa
:struoC
eht dna
yrasrevinnA
ht01 ecnerefnoC stsoC derahS
stnapicitrap
yb derrucni
stsoc laem
dna gnigdoL
rof
stsoC derahS
665,421
—
—
259,19
—
—
467,541
—
—
.sesruoc
suoirav ta
stnapicitraP
margorP
margorp
rof stsoc
laem dna
,gnigdol ,levarT
rof
stsoC derahS
249,632
—
—
996,002
—
—
844,013
—
—
.sesruoc
suoirav ta ytlucaf
ytlucaf
margorP
yb derrucni
stsoc
laem dna
,levart ,gnigdoL
rof
stsoC derahS
noitacudE
dna srebmem
eettimmoc
noitacude
noisivid
noitacude
dna seilppus
margorp
sa llew
sa ,ffats noisiviD
noitacude
dna ffatS
640,98
—
—
567,72
—
—
262,93
—
—
.sesruoc
suoirav
rof latner
moor gniteem
srebmem
eettimmoC
1,3
2
52,3
21
12,2
230,21,1$
stnapicitrap
stnapicitrap
5,0,1$
stnapicitrap
stnapicitrap
21,,1$
stnapicitrap
stnapicitrap
srecfifo laiciduJ
rof
smargorP
noitacude yreviled
lanoitidarT
rof slatoT
‡‡smargorp
53
‡‡smargorp
2
‡‡smargorp
32
.struoC
eht
dna
,nerdlihC
,seilimaF
rof
retneC
eht
dna
noisiviD
noitacudE
)COA(
’struoC eht fo ecfifO
evitartsinimdA
eht ,sisylana ’stiduA
etatS fo
uaeruB :secruoS
.smargorp
noisiviD
noitacudE
evitcepser
eht
htiw
noitaroballoc
ni
PEWAV
yb dereffo
era smargorp
rehto
llA
.noisiviD
noitacudE
eht
fo
evisulcxe
PEWAV
yb dereffo era
ro noisiviD
noitacudE
eht yb dereffo
era dlob ni
smargorP :etoN
.elbacilppa
toN = AN
niktiW
.E.B
eht
rof
slatot
eht
ni
dedulcni
era
margorp
siht
rof
stsoc
dna
stnapicitrap
dna
sraey
lacsfi
emas
esoht
ni
esruoc
eht
dereffo
noisiviD
noitacudE
eht
,40–3002
dna 30–2002
sraey lacsfi
ni PEWAV
yb dereffo ton
saw esruoc
siht hguohtlA
*
.ainrofilaC
fo egelloC
laiciduJ
.elbat
siht
fo dne
eht
ta
smargorp
lla
rof
derrucni
stsoc
latot
eht
tneserp
ew
,tluser
a sA
.yllaudividni
stsoc
eseht
rof
tnuocca
ton
seod
COA
eht
esuaceb
margorp dednuf-PEWAV
siht rof
elbaliava ton era
stsoc margorp
laudividnI
†
.raey
lacsfi
gniwollof
eht
ot
detaler
margorp
eht
rof
derrucni
erew
stsoc
gninnalp ,raey
lacsfi evitcepser
eht
ni dereffo ton saw
margorp
siht hguohtlA
‡
.elbat
siht
fo dne eht ta seirogetac
stsoc
derahs
eht ni dedulcni era
margorp
siht fo stsoc llA
§
.50–4002
raey
lacsfi
gnirud
noisses
remmus
margorP
seidutS
laiciduJ
gniunitnoC
eht
ta dereffo etutitsni
eht dednetta
ohw
esoht edulcni ton
od stnapicitrap
margorP
ll
.elbat
siht fo
dne
eht
ta yrogetac stsoc
derahs
eht ni dedulcni
era margorp
siht fo stsoc
eht fo emoS
#
egap
txen
eht
no
deunitnoc
5 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
.COA
eht
nihtiw
snoisivid
rehto
gnidulcni
,seititne
rehto
yb
dedivorp
osla
saw
margorp
siht
rof
gnidnuF
**
.yletarapes
rof
detnuocca
ton
era
smargorp
eseht
rof
stsoC
††
.ecno
ylno
smargorp
eseht
tnuoc
ew
elbat
siht
fo
sesoprup
rof
,margorP
scihtE
gniyfilauQ
eht
dna
srecfifO
laiciduJ
truoC
lairT
weN
rof
noitatneirO
eht
sa
hcus
,raey
lacsfi
evitcepser
a
gnirud
semit
elpitlum
dereffo
era
smargorp
emos
hguohtlA
‡‡
.raey
lacsfi
eht
gnirud
dednetta
ohw
esoht
lla tneserper
detsil
stnapicitrap
ehT
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
August 15, 2006
Ms. Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
I am responding to the audit report prepared by your office which examines issues related to how
funds appropriated to the Judicial Council are used for training judicial officers and the processes
and practices used in developing the budget for training judicial officers. We appreciate the time
and effort expended by your staff in preparing this report that will contribute to the continued
improvement of the California courts.
The discussion below responds to the two recommendations included in the audit report:
Recommendation on Development of System for Tracking Participation to Meet Education
Requirements
The audit report recommends:
The Judicial Council should implement a plan to ensure that there is a system for tracking
participation to meet judicial education requirements and that the records kept are accurate
and timely.
We appreciate the recommendation regarding development of a system for tracking participation
to meet any judicial education requirements and acknowledge the importance of and need for
accurate and timely records of this use of public funds. The Judicial Council may consider several
approaches to ensure a system is in place that is efficient, effective, and administratively feasible.
Recommendation on Curriculum Development Process
The audit report recommends:
The Education Division should continue its efforts in designing curricula to use in
developing its judicial education programs. After implementing the curriculum-based
planning approach, the Education Division should formally assess whether it has
been successful.
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 55
Ms. Elaine M. Howle
August 15, 2006
Page 2
We appreciate the recommendation to continue with the transition from event-based planning to
curriculum-based planning and to evaluate its success. The following outlines some of the steps
toward this recommendation:
• Each participating education committee will continue to develop the curriculum for their target
audiences;
• Each participating committee will before the end of 2006 identify the essential content from its
curriculum work so resources can be applied to those areas;
• Each participating committee will initiate the Phase III work (developing delivery plans) no later
than January, 2007;
• Each participating committee will implement an evaluation process that includes an initial
review of each new course developed through the curriculum (underway now) and an annual
review of all course offerings to ensure the goals of curriculum-based planning are met
(beginning in 2007).
As noted in the audit report, each committee works with a unique set of variables and thus will be at
varying levels of implementation for the next couple of years.
We recognize the challenges ahead and will keep you informed of significant milestone achievements.
Your support is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
(Signed by William C. Vickrey)
William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts
5 California State Auditor Report 2005-131
cc: Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press
California State Auditor Report 2005-131 5