BJA Adopts Plan For Court Funding

At its July 16 meeting, the Board of Judicial Administration adopted recommendations of the Trial Court Funding Task Force for a way to develop “stable, adequate, long-term funding” for Washington trial courts.

Background
The Board of Judicial Administration is the embodiment of and voice for the judicial branch of government. Composed of representatives of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Courts, District Courts, Municipal Courts and the Washington State Bar Association, the BJA provides strategic leadership for the courts, including among its duties assessing the adequacy of court resources and developing a strategy for adequate funding.

Increasingly severe budget cuts throughout the state led BJA to create the Trial Court Funding Task Force in July 2002. Led by former KCBA president Wayne Blair (also a past WSBA president), the task force included representatives of every level of court, KCBA, WSBA, WSTLA, city and county officials, court clerks and administrators, labor, and business. Over 100 members worked to define the precise nature of the funding problem, identify alternative sources of funding, examine issues in courts of limited jurisdiction, and recommend strategies for public education and implementation.

The task force began with the expectation of finding a stream of funding that would flow reliably to the trial courts year after year. The expectation was defeated. There is no stream of gold. Courts cannot be insulated from either the general fiscal situation of the state or from the basic budget processes of government.

The task force presented BJA with an analytical framework for court funding and a recommendation that BJA establish a committee to focus over the long-term on the nitty-gritty legislative and budget activity needed to achieve adequate, reliable, and stable funding.

Analytical Framework
The analytical framework rests on an accurate and detailed accounting of present spending. Because of the predominance of local government funding, this accounting was not an easy exercise. Local governments do not record their expenditures the same way. For example, some counties include indigent defense in the court budget; others do not. The Administrative Office of the Courts had to contact each county and sort through detail level accounts to compile a consistent estimate of spending. The result of the four-month effort is the first contemporary, reliable estimate of spending on Washington trial courts.

The accounting shows that local governments spend $296 million on trial courts and another $79 million on indigent criminal defense, for a total of $375 million. State government spends $46 million on trial courts and nothing on indigent criminal defense. Of the total of $421 million, local government paid 89 percent and state government 11 percent.

As these percentages make clear, Washington’s trial courts are financed principally by local government. By one estimate, Washington stands last in the nation in the percentage of court expenditures paid by the state. BJA accepted the task force’s recommendation that the state’s share should be increased from its present 11 percent to somewhere around the national average--about 40 percent to 50 percent.

In order to avoid a wish-list approach to funding, the task force developed a model to estimate the aggregate level of funding that is necessary on a statewide-basis for the courts to fully perform their duties. The model is based on the objective work load analysis presently used to determine the number of judges needed to handle current case load and on staffing ratios for principal courthouse functions. The needs of indigent criminal defense were similarly determined by caseloads, staffing ratios and standards developed by the state bar and accepted by the legislature.

A task force commissioned by the Supreme Court recently ascertained funding levels needed to meet the civil legal needs of the indigent. The analysis shows that additional spending is required as follows:

Funding Gap
• Trial Courts - $53 million
• Indigent Defense - $123 million
• Civil Legal Needs - $18 million
• Total - $194 million

The analytical framework sets the task force’s report apart from the work of previous panels. No other study has produced as detailed knowledge about current expenditures. No other study has created a model to estimate the statewide level of adequate funding.

Organizing for Action
Most panels report their recommendations and dissolve, leaving it to someone else to carry out the recommendations. Only rarely does someone pick up the ball. The task force took a different approach. It recognized that the means of implementation is as important as the recommendations and made it one of its principal points that BJA establish its own committee to carry on with the court funding effort.

BJA concurred and created a Trial Court Funding Implementation Committee. The committee will focus exclusively on funding. The committee is designed for a long-term effort. Although some of the committee’s membership will change from time to time to reflect changes in BJA membership, the committee will have long-term members to give it consistent direction and institutional memory.

The committee is expected to take an incremental approach to its task. Year-by-year, the committee will identify and recommend legislation to meet court needs. The cumulative effect will be to increase the state’s share of court funding and to fill the funding gap identified in the analytical framework. The committee will build the legislative infrastructure necessary for effective action--forming coalitions, building relations with legislators, and developing the legislature’s understanding of court needs.

Conclusion
The task force did not give BJA another volume to go on the long shelf of unread reports. Instead, it presented a plan for effective action.

and the judiciary deserve enthusiastic applause from the bar for quickly adopting the plan and immediately beginning the next steps. But BJA and the judiciary deserve more than applause. They need strong and continuing support from the bar as they go forward. They need well-informed lawyers who will tell their friends and neighbors that the courts are integral to the well-being of our society. They need lawyers who will stand up and say that justice has to be paid for and that the time to start is now. n