Completing the Goals of Trial Court Realignment

Completing the Goals of Trial Court Realignment MAC TAylor • le g i s lA Ti v e A nAl y sT • sep T eMber 28, 2011 An LAO RepOR t 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t ExECuTivE SummaRy Historically, counties had the primary responsibility for (1) funding the trial courts, (2) constructing and maintaining court facilities, and (3) employing most court employees. However, beginning in 1997, the Legislature adopted a series of statutory changes that shifted or realigned each of these responsibilities from the counties to the state. In enacting these changes, the Legislature sought to create a trial court system that was more uniform in terms of standards, procedures, and performance standards. The Legislature also wanted to maintain a more efficient trial court system through the implementation of cost management and control systems. In this report, we review the realignment of the trial courts from the counties to the state and assess whether the goals the Legislature set for it have been achieved. In general, our analysis indicates that a number of existing barriers have prevented the trial court realignment from fully achieving the expressed goals and objectives of the Legislature. By giving individual courts complete control over all employee-related issues, we find that enacted legislation did not go far enough in providing the state sufficient control and oversight over these signif- icant costs. For example, the state and individual trial courts lack complete control over the retirement and health benefits being provided to some court workers, and there are indications that trial courts have not effectively bargained costs in their negotiations with trial court employees. While other states have implemented comprehensive programs to assess the performance of their trial courts, such as a nationally developed set of assessment measures called CourTools, California’s efforts have been limited primarily to a few pilot programs. As a result, there is no comprehensive set of measures for which data is collected on a statewide basis in California and what data is collected is seldom used to hold trial courts accountable. Based upon our analysis, it is also apparent that the implementation of realignment to date has not ensured an efficient division of responsibilities between the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and individual trial courts to advance the primary goals of the trial court realignment. No analysis has been done to assess whether the current division of responsibilities between the AOC and individual trial courts is cost-efficient, with the result that the state may be missing opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies in trial court operations. In order to assist the Legislature in eliminating these barriers, we have identified significant oppor- tunities for the state to exercise a greater role in the court system that would help advance the intended goals of realignment. For example, we recommend that the state assume true operational control over many aspects of trial court operations for which it already has financial responsibility, such as trial court employee classifications and benefits. Our proposals would also ensure that a comprehensive trial court performance assessment system is put in place and that there is a more efficient division of responsibilities between AOC and the trial courts. In our view, these changes would complete the original realignment plan begun by the Legislature and achieve improved performance and outcomes for the courts and state taxpayers. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 An LAO RepOR t inTRoduCTion Currently, the state maintains 58 trial court In this report, we review the realignment of the systems, each having jurisdiction over a single trial courts from the counties to the state (including county. These courts have trial jurisdiction over all whether the objectives and goals the Legislature criminal cases (including felonies, misdemeanors, set have been achieved) and present recommen- and traffic matters). They also have jurisdiction dations for building upon this realignment to over all civil cases (including family law, probate, achieve improved outcomes for the trial courts. juvenile, and general civil matters). In 2008-09, In preparing this report, we met with judges and more than ten million cases were filed in trial administrative staff from different trial courts courts throughout the state. Historically, counties throughout the state, as well as individuals who had the primary responsibility for (1) funding trial were involved in the structuring and implemen- courts, (2) constructing and maintaining court tation of the realignment (such as former members facilities, and (3) employing most court employees. of the Legislature), in order to gain an in-depth However, beginning in 1997, the Legislature understanding on the extent to which the goals adopted a series of statutory changes that shifted of realignment have been met. We also met with or realigned each of these responsibilities from the numerous representatives from the AOC and counties to the state. analyzed data that they provided to us. BaCkGRound What are Trial Courts? amendment approved by the voters in 1994, justice courts were merged into municipal courts. Under the California Constitution, the state’s Subsequently, in 1998, Proposition 220, a further judicial system is comprised of the Supreme constitutional change approved by California Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the trial courts. voters, authorized the merger of municipal courts Generally, judicial proceedings begin in the trial with superior courts if a majority of judges in each courts and are subsequently heard by the Courts of court within a county voted for such unification. By Appeal or the Supreme Court only if the decision 2001, all municipal courts were unified with their made at the trial court level is appealed. respective superior courts. As a result, the existing Prior to 1994, the state maintained three trial courts in each county are often referred to as different types of trial courts—municipal, justice, superior courts. and superior courts. Municipal and justice Realignment of the trial courts from the courts—which were also referred to as “inferior counties to the state has not changed their basic courts”—had jurisdiction over limited types of organization. Below, we describe some of the cases. These courts generally had jurisdiction over key entities in the trial court system and their misdemeanors and infractions and most civil responsibilities. lawsuits involving disputes of $25,000 or less. Decisions made in these particular types of courts • Trial Court Judges. Trial court judges are could be appealed to superior courts. With the primarily responsible for the day-to-day passage of Proposition 191, a state constitutional operations of trial courts, including the 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t adoption of local court rules. Such rules resources, and legal support. The Director of typically cover a wide range of issues— AOC is appointed by the Judicial Council. from how cases are managed to how • Legislature and Governor. The Legislature presiding judges are selected. The presiding and the Governor are responsible for judge of each trial court is responsible enacting statutes that establish judge- for leading the court by overseeing the ships—with the Governor responsible for assignment of cases, managing its budget, filling judicial vacancies—and making and establishing various trial court policies budgetary decisions regarding the overall and procedures. funding level for the trial courts. In • Court Executive Officers. Court executive addition, the court rules adopted by the officers, who are selected based on Judicial Council must comply with state procedures adopted by each trial court, law, which often specify how trial courts generally carry out and oversee much shall operate. of the non-judicial administrative and operational duties of the trial courts What is Realignment? (such as human resources, budgeting and Several times over the last 20 years, the accounting, and managing the flow of cases Legislature has sought to achieve notable policy through the court system). improvements by reviewing state-local program responsibilities and taking action to realign or shift • Judicial Council. The Judicial program and funding responsibility to the level of Council—which is primarily made up of government likely to achieve the best outcomes. judges—consists of 21 voting members For example, in 1991, the Legislature shifted and, currently, 10 advisory members. The state mental health responsibilities to counties, council is responsible for making statewide giving counties a reliable funding stream and the rules for trial courts and recommenda- authority to develop innovative and less costly tions to the Governor and Legislature for approaches to providing services. More recently, improving court operations. The Chief as part of the 2011-12 budget, the Legislature Justice of the Supreme Court serves as shifted responsibility for low-level offenders, parole chair of the Judicial Council. Following violators, and parolees from the state to counties. realignment, the council became respon- This realignment package also provided funding sible for court facilities and the allocation for the provision of court security directly to local of funds to trial courts. sheriff’s offices rather than being appropriated in • AOC. The AOC is responsible for carrying the annual state budget to the trial courts. While out the administrative responsibilities of the implementation of realignment proposals the Judicial Council. For example, AOC has been complex, the net result of some of these staff helps develop the budget requests for changes is that California state and local govern- the statewide trial court system and oversee ments have improved their ability to implement the construction of trial court facilities. In programs successfully. Below, we discuss how addition, AOC provides various services the Legislature realigned various responsibilities to the courts, including financial, human related to the trial courts from counties to the state. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 An LAO RepOR t Realignment of the Trial Courts responsibility for trial court funding from the counties to the state. Under the measure, individual For many years, trial courts were essentially trial court budgets would no longer depend on county entities. Counties were primarily respon- fiscal decisions made by the counties. Specifically, sible for financing the operations of the trial courts the measure had these features: and counties employed nearly all individuals working in the trial courts. As such, individuals • Transfer of Responsibility for Trial Courts working in trial courts were classified as county to State Budget. Chapter 850 gave the rather than state employees, meaning that Legislature the authority to appropriate all counties were responsible for all aspects of each of the funding for trial courts in the annual court’s personnel system, including establishing state budget. Previously, the Legislature employment policies and carrying out collective only appropriated state General Fund bargaining with individuals working in the support and fine and penalty revenue, courts. In addition, counties built, owned, and but not funds provided by counties. In maintained trial court facilities. However, in 1997, addition, the Judicial Council was given the the state began taking significant steps towards authority to allocate appropriated funds shifting some responsibilities for the trial courts to individual trial courts. The expectation from counties to the state. The three major pieces was that the state would support any future of legislation that authorized the realignment of increases in the costs to operate responsibility for the trial courts to the state are trial courts. summarized in Figure 1 and discussed in the • Fiscal Relief to Counties. Although sections that follow. Chapter 850 required counties to continue State assumes Primary Responsibility to provide some financial support for for Funding Trial Courts trial courts operations, their payments to the state for this purpose were initially In 1997, the Legislature passed and the based on the amount of funding they Governor signed into law Chapter 850, Statutes provided to the courts in 1994-95. These of 1997 (AB 233, Escutia and Pringle), commonly payments generally were not adjusted to referred to as the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court reflect increases in court costs that had Funding Act of 1997. This measure implemented occurred due to inflation or increased the Legislature’s goal of shifting primary Figure 1 Major Trial Court Realignment Legislation Legislation Description Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997. Transferred financial responsibility for trial courts Chapter 850, Statues of 1997 (AB 233, Escutia and Pringle) (above a fixed county share) from the counties to the state. Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act. Classified most individuals working in the trial Chapter 1010, Statutes of 2000 (SB 2140, Burton) courts as court employees. Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002. Chapter 1082, Initiated the transfer of ownership and responsi- Statutes of 2002 (SB 1732, Escutia) bility of trial court facilities from the counties to the state. 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t workload. Chapter 850, as well as subse- Main Goals: Stabilization and Simplification quent legislation, included provisions of Trial Court Funding. Chapter 850 was intended that significantly reduced many of these mainly to provide a mechanism that would ensure county payments. adequate funding levels for trial courts and thereby ensure equal access to justice across the • Significant Fiscal Autonomy for Trial state. During the years preceding its enactment, Courts. Although the state would have some trial courts had been on the verge of closing greater responsibility for funding trial or laying off employees due to a lack of financial courts, the legislation left individual resources. For example, in 1995-96 and 1996-97 courts the responsibility for their day-to- the Legislature provided supplemental funding day operations, such as the allocation to prevent the closure of some trial courts. The of funding within their own budgets. Legislature declared in Chapter 850 that the The legislation also allowed the Judicial funding of trial court operations should be a Council to authorize trial courts to keep state function because “such funding is necessary and carry over unexpended funds from to provide uniform standards and procedures, one fiscal year to the next. Currently, the economies of scale, and structural efficiency and Judicial Council has authorized all of the simplification.” The Legislature said funding these trial courts in the state to do so. At the courts was primarily the state’s responsibility beginning of 2010-11, trial courts had over because “the overwhelming business of the trial $300 million in unexpended funds that courts is to interpret and enforce provisions of state were not restricted by future contractual or law and to resolve disputes among the people of the statutory obligations. State of California.” Another stated goal of realigning trial court • Task Forces to Address Employee and funding from the counties to the state was to Facilities Issues. Chapter 850 did not simplify the “bifurcated funding structure” that directly address whether individuals observers contended overly complicated financial working in the trial courts would planning for the courts. The trial court for each continue to be county employees or if county previously had to participate in both that they would transition to a new employee county’s budget process as well as the state budget status. In addition, the legislation did not process. This made budgetary planning more specify who would be responsible for the difficult—particularly in counties that operated on construction and maintenance of trial a different fiscal year than the state. Chapter 850 court facilities. The management of both removed trial courts from county budget delibera- personnel and facilities continued to be tions as funding for these courts primarily became county responsibilities. However, the the state’s responsibility. legislation did establish a Task Force on Other Goals: Greater Efficiencies and Trial Court Employees and a Task Force on Uniformity in Trial Court Operations. In Court Facilities to make recommendations adopting Chapter 850, the Legislature also outlined for addressing these issues under a state- other goals it hoped to achieve from the state’s funded system. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 An LAO RepOR t assumption of funding responsibility for the trial the Judicial Council were consolidated into budget courts. These stated goals included: change proposals that were then submitted to the Department of Finance (DOF). Upon approval by • More uniform standards and procedures DOF, the requests were presented to the Legislature for the operation of the courts. as part of the Governor’s annual budget proposal. • The development and implementation of However, the above process was replaced comprehensive budget procedures and beginning in 2005-06 with the enactment of performance standards. legislation authorizing an automated annual increase in trial court funding based on the State • Achievement of structural simplification, Appropriations Limit (SAL) growth factor—rather economies of scale, and efficiencies in trial than based on annual budget requests reviewed court operations. and approved by the Legislature. (Please see the • Increased access to the courts for the nearby box for a more detailed discussion of the citizens of California. SAL adjustment.) As a result, a portion of the total trial court budget was increased each year by a While Chapter 850 increased the state’s respon- percentage equal to the SAL growth rate. Under sibility for the funding of trial courts, it maintained this revised funding process, the Judicial Council individual trial courts’ primary responsibility for allocated most of the additional funding provided their day-to-day operations (such as funding alloca- by the SAL adjustment to individual trial courts tions, processing of cases, trial court management, based on their share of the total trial court budget. and hiring of personnel). Some of the SAL funding, however, was allocated Subsequent Legislative Action Authorized to those courts that were identified as “under- Automated Funding Increases for Trial Courts. resourced” based on a methodology developed by Following the enactment of Chapter 850, trial AOC that compared the amount of personnel a courts submitted individual budget requests to court would need to address the cases filed at the the Judicial Council. Those requests approved by What is the State appropriations Limit (SaL)? The SAL was established in the State Constitution in 1979 by Proposition 4, and later amended by Propositions 98 (1988) and Proposition 111 (1990). The purpose of the SAL is to provide a limit on annual state and local government spending from tax revenues. Every year, the SAL is adjusted to account for changes in the cost-of-living (the percent change in the state’s per-capita personal income) and population (the weighted average of growth in California’s civilian population and K-14 average daily attendance). Although written into law as a statewide limit, the SAL growth factor has also been used to provide annual budget adjustments for some state entities. For example, growth in the Legislature’s overall budget is limited annually to the increase in the SAL. Over time, the SAL grows roughly in line with the state’s economy. Its growth rate can also fluctuate substantially from year to year, depending on numerous economic factors. Between 2005-06 and 2010-11, the SAL growth factor averaged 3.6 percent, but varied from a high of 6.6 percent in 2005-06 to a low of -1.8 percent in 2010-11. 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t court with the court’s resources for hiring these from the trial court budget and who personnel. may be hired, supervised, disciplined, From 2005-06 through 2007-08, additional or terminated by the trial court would funding was provided to the trial courts in the be considered a trial court employee annual state budget based on the SAL adjustment. rather than a county or state employee. However, due to the state’s dire fiscal condition, (Currently, employees of the Supreme SAL-adjusted funding has not been provided in Court, the Appellate Courts, and AOC are each of the past three years. Legislation enacted classified as state employees.) as part of the 2009-10 budget package eliminated • Shift of Personnel Policy Decisions to the automatic application of various cost-of-living Trial Courts. The legislation required increases—including the SAL adjustment for the the trial courts to develop policies on trial courts. job classification, hiring, promotion, State Establishes Trial Court transfer, and employee protection (such Employee Personnel System as employee rights in disciplinary and layoff processes) under specified condi- Another significant part of the realignment tions subject to some minimum standards of trial courts to the state was the enactment (such as the requirement that employee of Chapter 1010, Statutes of 2000 (SB 2140, protection policies include a system of Burton), commonly referred to as the Trial Court progressive discipline). Employment Protection and Governance Act. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, individuals • No Change in Employee Pay, Benefits, and working in trial courts were considered county Representation. Although employees at employees. As discussed above, this is because the trial courts would no longer be considered counties were responsible for all employee issues county employees, Chapter 1010 required (such as the determination of retirement benefits that trial court employees’ pay and benefits and labor relations). As required by Chapter 850, remain unchanged until any labor agree- the Task Force on Trial Court Employees reviewed ments that existed with the counties at and made recommendations as to whether trial that time expired. At that point, individual court workers should remain county employees, trial courts could negotiate new salary become regular state employees, or maintain some and benefit agreements. However, not all other employee status. The Task Force recom- aspects of employee benefits are subject to mended that these workers become “trial court negotiation. This is because existing state employees” managed by individual trial courts. law requires trial courts to participate Chapter 1010 largely implemented this and in county retirement benefit programs. other recommendations of the Task Force. As a In addition, some courts have elected to result, the courts made these specific changes: participate in county-run health benefit • Establishment of a New Trial Court programs. As a result, certain aspects of Employee Designation. Chapter 1010 such benefit plans are determined by the stated that anyone whose salary is paid county, not the state or the courts. The act www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 An LAO RepOR t also allowed the unions which represented • Transfer of Responsibility for Trial Court the workers when they were deemed Facilities. The legislation authorized county employees to continue to represent the transfer of title and all management them as trial court employees. responsibility for most court facilities from the counties to the state by June 30, Main Goals: Clarification of Employee 2007. (Exceptions were allowed for certain Status, Local Control, and Maintenance of buildings—particularly those for which Existing Compensation. In adopting Chapter 1010, use was shared by the county and the the Legislature sought to clarify the status of court, as well as those of historical value individuals working in the trial courts. This is to the counties. These could remain under because after the state took over primary responsi- county ownership.) Chapter 1082 required bility for funding trial courts, there was confusion the Judicial Council and the California among the courts and counties as to whether State Association of Counties to establish individuals working in the trial courts were still a process for transferring facilities on a classified as county employees. In addition, the building-by-building basis. Moreover, legislation sought to ensure that trial courts had the Judicial Council—not individual trial local control over their day-to-day operations, courts—was given the primary responsi- which it did by giving virtually all employee-related bility for the provision of court facilities, as responsibilities to individual trial courts. Finally, well as the authority to own and construct Chapter 1010 aimed to protect and maintain—to future court facilities. The Judicial Council the extent possible—the pay and benefits that court has since assumed responsibility from the employees were receiving from the counties in counties for all trial court facilities. order to minimize disruption. • Required County Facility Payment. State assumes Responsibility Although the state would assume respon- of Trial Court Facilities sibility for trial court facilities, the legis- Although the state assumed responsibility lation required counties to make annual for funding the operations of trial courts in 1997, payments into a newly created Court the state did not begin to take over the respon- Facilities Trust Fund based on the amount sibility for and ownership of trial court facilities the county had historically spent on the from counties until 2002 with the enactment of maintenance and operation of the trans- Chapter 1082, Statutes of 2002 (SB 1732, Escutia). ferred facilities. The state would be respon- This legislation, commonly referred to as the Trial sible for all operation and maintenance Court Facilities Act of 2002, sought to implement costs above the fixed county payment. the recommendations of the Task Force on Court Facilities to transition facilities from county • Established State Court Facility to state control. In contrast to the Legislature’s Construction Fund (SCFCF). In order decision to decentralize control of court to support the improvement of existing employees to individual trial courts, Chapter 1082 court facilities and the construction of new realigned responsibility for facilities to a statewide facilities, the legislation increased fines and entity, the Judicial Council. The legislation had fees. The resulting revenue is deposited into these key components: the newly established SCFCF. These funds 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t were used to finance $1.5 billion in lease- In addition, AOC took on the duty of providing revenue bonds to support 13 trial court certain fiscal management, human resources, and facility projects. building-related services to various courts. As a result of the expanded role of AOC, the Main Goal: Ensure More Efficient Operation budget of the Judicial Council has significantly of Court Facilities. In adopting the Trial Court increased since trial court realignment. As Facilities Act, the stated intent of the Legislature shown in Figure 2, the Judicial Council’s budget was to ensure the entity responsible for using has quadrupled from $77 million in 1997-98 to trial court facilities and determining the amount $362 million in 2010-11. Similarly, the number of and type of space needed—the state—would also positions in AOC has more than tripled from be responsible for building and maintaining the 244 in 1997-98 to 960 in 2010-11. facilities. Specifically, the Legislature concluded that “uniting responsibility for operations and facilities increases the likelihood that Figure 2 operational costs will Rapid Growth in Judicial Council Budget and Staffing be considered when facility decisions are (Dollars in Millions) made, and enhances $400 1,200 the economical, efficient, and effective Judicial Council Staffing court operations.” 350 (right axis) 1,000 Judicial Council Budget Expanded Role of (left axis) 300 Judicial Council and aoC 800 As indicated 250 above, the various pieces of realignment 200 600 legislation required the Judicial Council, 150 through the AOC, to 400 take on budgetary, administrative, and 100 facility-related duties 200 for the trial courts. 50 For example, the Judicial Council became responsible 1997-98 2000-01 2003-04 2006-07 2009-10 for allocating funds to each trial court. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 An LAO RepOR t REaLiGnmEnT GoaLS noT yET FuLLy aChiEvEd As discussed above, the Legislature had some This is particularly problematic in that effective important goals in mind when it realigned trial management of personnel is fundamental to the courts to the state. For example, the Legislature sound and efficient operation of the trial court sought to create a trial court system that was more system, a key goal of the realignment. uniform in terms of standards, procedures, and As discussed above, individual trial courts— access to justice. The Legislature also wanted to rather than the state—are deemed to be the maintain a more efficient court system through the employer of most of the individuals who work implementation of cost management and control in the trial courts. Accordingly, the salaries and systems, and budget procedures and performance benefits for trial court employees are determined standards. Based on our review, we find that the as a result of separate and independent negotia- package of legislation approved by the Legislature tions between individual trial courts (primarily to shift most aspects of the trial court system to trial court judges and court executive officers) and the state was a step in the right direction towards local labor organizations, rather than through state meeting these goals. However, by giving individual negotiations with a statewide entity such as the courts complete control over all employee-related Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). issues, we find that enacted legislation did not In addition, unlike memoranda of understanding go far enough in providing the state sufficient negotiated with state employee bargaining groups, control and oversight, as well as ensuring greater agreements negotiated with trial court employees coordination between AOC and individual trial are not subject to ratification by the Legislature. courts, to advance the primary goals of the trial Moreover, as discussed earlier in this court realignment. Thus, as we discuss below, the report, trial court employees have continued to realignment of the trial courts to the state has been participate in individual county retirement benefit incomplete. We outline these concerns below. programs and—to a certain extent—county health benefit programs (including health insurance, Lack of State Control over Trial Court dental insurance, and long-term disability). As a Employee Personnel System result, both the state and individual trial courts Given that the trial courts are now the financial lack complete control over the level of these responsibility of the state, it is essential that the benefits provided to trial court employees and, state have sufficient control over the operations more importantly, the costs that must be paid to of the trial courts to also effectively control their provide those benefits. For example, trial courts costs. However, the realignment legislation gave are unable to change some of the terms of county- control over most employee issues to individual controlled benefit plans in their negotiations with trial courts. Thus, there is currently an inherent labor organizations. conflict in the existing structure and governance In addition, our preliminary analysis suggests of the state trial court system in that the state has that trial courts may not have effectively contained full responsibility for paying employee-related costs in their negotiations with trial court costs but does not have full control over these costs. employees. For example, the average salary of trial 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t court employees increased about 55 percent from inadequate State oversight over 2001-02 to 2010-11 (from about $40,000 to Trial Court Performance $62, 000), according to the most recent data As noted above, the Legislature’s stated goals available. In contrast, the average salaries of both of the realignment of the trial courts from the executive branch employees and state judicial counties to the state included both an increase in employees have increased by about half that rate. the efficiency of the court system and improved Moreover, although existing state law authorizes access to the courts for Californians. In order to trial courts to negotiate the level of retirement ensure programs operate in the most effective contributions paid by their employees, only 31 of manner, however, it is critical that the level of the 58 trial courts require any of their employees government responsible for a particular program to make such contributions. In contrast, executive exercise sufficient oversight to ensure accountability branch employees are generally required to for achieving good outcomes. An effective way contribute 8 percent to 10 percent of their salary to exercise such oversight is through the imple- towards these costs. mentation of performance assessment programs. CourTools Performance assessment Program The CourTools program is a performance assessment program developed by the National Center for State Courts, an independent, nonprofit organization established to improve court systems. Under this program, data on court performance is collected in a variety of ways such as through surveys of court stakeholders and reviews of case filings based on a series of measurements. The measurements include: • Scored assessments of employee satisfaction and the accessibility, fairness, and equality of the trial courts. • Data related to a court’s ability to resolve cases in a timely manner. • The ability of courts to carry out key activities like document retrieval, debt collection, and jury selection. • The average cost of processing each type of case. The National Center for State Courts and California’s Administrative Office of the Courts concluded in a joint October 2007 report that the various CourTools measurements “generate useful information to manage cases in a controlled efficient manner and to contribute to the enhancement of procedural fairness.” The report also concluded that the measurements “identify where current operations are successful in meeting desired goals as well as opportunities for improvement.” Moreover, both the Conference of Chief Justices and the national Conference of State Court Administrators adopted a resolution that recommended that states “develop and test a balanced set of performance measures using the CourTools.” Both Utah and Massachusetts have implemented the complete CourTools performance measurement program statewide, while other states— including Arizona and Minnesota—have implemented the complete program in multiple courts. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 An LAO RepOR t For example, both Utah and Massachusetts have remains difficult to identify underper- implemented comprehensive trial court perfor- forming courts and best practices. mance assessment programs based on a program • Lack of Accountability. The limited data developed by the National Center for State Courts, collected to assess the performance of known as CourTools. The CourTools program trial courts is very seldom used to hold measures court performance in ten different areas trial courts accountable. This is because such as satisfaction of stakeholders and a court’s the existing performance measurements ability to carry out various tasks. (Please see the do not have established benchmarks that box on page 13 for additional information about the courts are required to meet. For example, CourTools program.) the California Rules of Court (a set of Although California’s AOC endorsed the use of requirements adopted by Judicial Council CourTools years ago, comprehensive performance to which courts must adhere) identify measurement and assessment as envisioned in the standards related to various aspects of trial court realignment legislation has been imple- trial court operations (such as access to mented in California’s trial courts only on a very justice). However, these standards (1) are limited basis. For example, since the realignment of not defined in a detailed way that allows for the trial courts to the state, the CourTools program objective measurement and assessment to was piloted in four trial courts on a limited-term see if trial courts are meeting them and basis, and implemented to a certain extent in a few (2) do not specify consequences for courts other courts. In addition, the AOC has initiated that fail to meet them. some efforts (not involving CourTools) to collect statewide information related to certain measures Little to Suggest Responsibilities of trial court performance, such as the time it takes are Efficiently divided Between a court to process its caseload. aoC and the Trial Courts Although these various efforts are a step in the right direction of meeting the realignment goals of As previously mentioned, one of the goals of increased efficiency and improved access, they have trial court realignment was to ensure structural two primary shortcomings. efficiency and simplification by having a more unified court system. Prior to the realignment of • Lack of Complete Set of Comparative the trial courts to the state, many of the services Statewide Data. Currently, there is no that courts rely on for their daily operations (such comprehensive set of measurements for as human resource management and janitorial which data is collected on a statewide basis. services) were generally carried out by county For example, there is no way currently to employees on behalf of each individual court. Staff compare the performance of courts that in AOC’s headquarters office usually were not have used CourTools measurements to that involved in such matters. Following the enactment of trial courts in the rest of the state. In of the realignment legislation, each court was addition, the limited statewide data that allowed to decide whether it would continue to be has been collected by AOC only focuses on responsible for a given service or if it would rely on a narrow aspect of a court’s performance AOC for that service. As a result, the assignment of (such as a trial court’s ability to process these responsibilities was not done in a systematic cases in a timely manner). As a result, it 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t way across all courts to ensure maximum to the extent that AOC is able to provide certain efficiency. For example, while seven courts rely on services at lower cost on a statewide basis due to AOC to process payroll, the other 51 counties either economies of scale, trial courts that fail to take contract with a private provider or contract with advantage of their services are not as efficient as their respective counties for such payroll services. they would otherwise be. Conversely, in certain At this time, no analysis has been done to cases, it may be more effective and efficient for assess whether the current division of responsi- individual courts to provide a certain service, bilities is cost-efficient. Thus, it is not known if the rather than AOC. However, without additional state is missing opportunities for achieving greater information, the state does not have the ability to efficiencies in trial court operations. For example, identify opportunities for greater efficiencies. RECommEndaTionS To EnhanCE and ComPLETE ThE REaLiGnmEnT oF ThE TRiaL CouRTS In this report, we have reviewed the realignment of realignment remains problematic—the state’s of the trial courts from the counties to the state and lack of sufficient authority over the personnel who identified a number of existing barriers that have are the key to the efficient and effective operation of prevented it from fully achieving the expressed goals the trial court system. Accordingly, we recommend and objectives of the Legislature. Based on our review that the Legislature adopt legislation to realign and findings, we have identified significant oppor- full responsibility for the trial court employment tunities for the state to exercise a greater role in the system to the state—similar to the way the court system that would help advance the intended Legislature shifted the full responsibility of trial goals of realignment. While our recommendations, court facilities to the state. which are summarized in Figure 3 and discussed Under our proposal, Judicial Council, with in detail below, generally provide for a greater state the assistance of AOC, would assume essentially role in the trial court system, individual trial courts the same types of responsibilities for trial court would continue to maintain control over many of employees that the Governor, DPA, and the the day-to-day operations (such as processing of State Personnel Board (SPB) carry out for state cases and hiring of employees). Thus, they would employees in the executive branch. (While SPB’s operate similarly to other state agencies and would Figure 3 retain the independence LAO Recommendations to Enhance and Complete envisioned in the Trial Court Realignment realignment legislation. 9 Shift Responsibility Shift Responsibility for Trial Court Employee Personnel System to the State. for Trial Court 9 Employee Personnel Establish a Comprehensive Trial Court Performance Assessment System to the State Program. 9 As previously Establish a More Efficient Division of Responsibilities Between the Administrative Office of the Courts and Trial Courts. mentioned, one key aspect www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 An LAO RepOR t responsibilities include administering civil service The benefits from these changes could be examinations, establishing job classifications, and significant. Our proposed shift of the employee disciplinary policies, DPA is generally responsible personnel system from individual trial courts to for all other personnel management functions, the Judicial Council would give the state needed such as collective bargaining.) For example, the control over employee issues and would further Judicial Council would be responsible for creating advance the Legislature’s ability to achieve the a uniform employee classification system and for expressed realignment goal of greater uniformity determining the number and type of employees in the operation of the trial court system. For who would perform duties at each trial court. instance, requiring the Judicial Council to be (We note that under our approach, individual responsible for collective bargaining would trial courts would retain authority over which ensure that such negotiations take statewide individuals they would hire or promote to these fiscal concerns into full account. It would reduce positions.) In addition, the Judicial Council would the number of separate labor negotiations that be responsible for proposing uniform, statutory were conducted, which could also result in personnel rules for the Legislature to adopt for all budgetary savings. In addition, the establishment trial courts (such as rules governing the procedures of uniform personnel rules and standards would for employee discipline, and whether seniority help create the structural efficiency and simplifi- would be taken into account in any future lay-off cation envisioned in the trial court realignment decisions). They would also be responsible for legislation. Our proposed approach of vesting transitioning all trial court employees from control over the personnel system with the Judicial county-administered benefits systems to one that Council, rather than assigning these duties to is administered by the state in order to give the an executive branch agency such as DPA, would state full control over employee benefits. appropriately protect the state constitutional In addition, the Judicial Council (in consul- independence and authority of the judicial branch. tation with representatives of the trial courts) Establish a Comprehensive Trial Court would be responsible for negotiating with trial Performance assessment Program court employee unions, which would need to be reorganized to represent employees within the Recent efforts by California’s courts have newly developed statewide employee classification fallen short in fulfilling the goals of realignment system. Although these negotiations would create pertaining to the use of performance measures. additional workload for AOC, we note that AOC For example, there is currently no comprehensive currently maintains a staff of several profes- set of measurements for which data is collected on sional labor negotiators that provide assistance to a statewide basis regarding trial court operations. individual courts when requested. Additional labor Consequently, we recommend that the Legislature negotiators could be hired at AOC with some of take steps towards establishing a comprehensive the savings derived from funds currently spent by performance assessment program for the trial individual trial courts on labor negotiations. As courts, in order to allow the state to more effec- with other state collective bargaining agreements, tively manage its trial court system. under our proposed approach any labor agreements First, we recommend that the Legislature negotiated with trial court employees would need specify in statute the specific performance to be ratified by the Legislature. measurements it believes are most important and 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t require the Judicial Council to collect data on Establish a more Efficient division of each measurement from individual trial courts Responsibilities Between aoC and Trial Courts on an annual basis. In determining the specific As indicated above, there is little evidence that performance measurements, we believe that it will the current division of responsibilities between first be important for the Legislature to solicit input AOC and the trial courts is efficient. This is because from the Judicial Council. Thus, we recommend AOC does not collect information on the types the Judicial Council report to the Legislature by a of services that each trial court provides and how specified date—say, March 1, 2013—on its recom- that compares to the services it provides to courts. mendations regarding appropriate measurements. Thus, we recommend that the Legislature adopt In preparing this report, the Judicial Council statutory changes that direct AOC to provide the should examine the measurements currently used Legislature with an inventory of the specific services by federal courts and other state courts. that are provided by each trial court and those that After the Legislature adopts specific perfor- it provides, including the cost of providing each mance measurements for the trial courts in statute, service. The Judicial Council should then report and after data on these measurements has been its recommendations for assigning each service to collected and reported by the Judicial Council for at the entity able to the deliver the service with the least two years, we recommend that the Legislature greatest efficiency. Such information would help establish a system for holding individual courts the Legislature consider statutory changes to help accountable for their performance relative to clarify the responsibilities of AOC and the trial those standards. Such an accountability system courts as well as any necessary budget adjustments would involve the establishment of (1) a specific to reflect these changes, which would likely result in benchmark that the courts would be expected budgetary savings. We find that efficiently dividing to meet for each measurement and (2) steps that the roles and responsibilities of AOC and the trial would be taken should the court fail to meet the courts will help achieve the economies of scale from benchmark over time (such as by requiring a court having a unified, state-run trial court system. that fails meet a benchmark to adopt the practices of those courts that were successful in meeting the same performance benchmark). ConCLuSion In realigning the responsibility of the prevented the trial court realignment from fully trial courts from the counties to the state, the achieving the expressed goals and objectives of the Legislature sought to create a trial court system Legislature. In effect, critical components of the that would be more uniform in terms of standards, realignment of the trial courts from the counties to procedures, and access to justice. The Legislature the state remain undone. also wanted to create a more efficient court system Given the massive investment that the state through the implementation of cost management has made in establishing a state-run trial court and control systems, budget procedures, and system, we believe that the Legislature should seek performance standards. However, our analysis to eliminate these barriers and provide the state indicates that a number of existing barriers have with greater control and responsibility over trial www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 An LAO RepOR t courts, rather than undo the realignment of the such as trial court employee classifications trial courts. As we have shown, there are important and benefits. Our proposals would also ensure steps the Legislature could take to build upon its that a comprehensive trial court performance past efforts. For example, we recommend that assessment system is put in place and that there the state assume true operational control over is a more efficient division of responsibilities many critical aspects of trial court operations between AOC and the trial courts. for which it already has financial responsibility, 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepOR t www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 An LAO RepOR t Lao Publications This report was prepared by Drew soderborg, and reviewed by Anthony simbol. The legislative Analyst’s office (lAo) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the lAo’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The lAo is located at 925 l street, suite 1000, sacramento, CA 95814. 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov