|
Media
Alert
Colorado Judicial Department
Mary J. Mullarkey, Chief Justice
Gerald Marroney, State Court Administrator
June
18, 2003
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
Karen Salaz
Fact
Sheet: Colorado Judicial Branch layoffs and realignments to
meet
FY
2003-04 funding levels
The
following details the reductions imposed by the Colorado Judicial
Branch [1] to begin reaching Fiscal Year
2003-04 reduced funding levels implemented by the General
Assembly. This information is being provided as background
for the June 18, 2003, press release, "Judicial Branch
implements workforce reduction and realignment, Colorado courts
restructured to operate within budgetary constraints."
Based
on preliminary projections calculated in April using the average
employee salary, the branch originally estimated that as many
as 320 positions would need to be vacated to make the FY 03-04
budget. Actual layoff plans submitted by local administrators [2] reduced the number
of positions to the equivalent of 290 positions needing to
be left vacant during FY 03-04. The 290 positions represent
about a 13 percent reduction in non-judge staff at a time
when caseloads have increased nearly 7 percent over the last
12 months.
In
achieving the equivalent of 290 vacancies, managers used a
combination of voluntary separation of long-term employees,
transfers, demotions, and combining positions which resulted
in 218 vacant positions on July 1, 2003. Seventy-two additional
vacancies are being projected to occur through attrition and
these vacancies will be held open over the course of FY 03-04.
Summary:
94
employees were laid off effective July 1, 2003 (60 in trial
courts, 34 in probation)
60
employees chose to take voluntary separation (these positions
were then either eliminated, combined with other positions,
or filled at lesser salary)
137
positions were unfilled vacancies resulting from the Branch’s
hiring freeze in place Sept. 1, 2002. Some strategic waivers
have been granted to prevent disruption of essential court
functions.
Personal services funding cuts:
Comparison
of personal services funding cuts from FY 03 to FY 04 [3] .
- Combined State Court Administrator’s Office, Judicial Heritage [4] , Integrated Information
Services, Appellate Courts, -7 percent
- Trial
Courts, -8 percent
- Probation,
-8 percent
Budget
overview [5] :
Comparing
the FY2003 Long Bill appropriation to the FY2004 Long Bill
appropriation, and including SB03-273, the salary survey bill,
the Judicial General Fund appropriation was reduced by $21.0
million. Cash funds generated through SB 03-186, SB 03-282
and HB 03-1387, will offset that amount by $10.3 million for
a total reduction of $10.7. million. (Decrease in General
Fund was $21.0 million, offset by increase in Cash Funds of
$10.3 million, for a total decrease of $10.7 million.)
| |
Appropriation
(millions)
|
Reduction from FY 2003 Long Bill (millions)
|
|
FY
2003 Long bill General Fund Appropriation
|
$177.6
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FY
2004 Long bill General Fund Appropriation
|
$161.8
|
|
|
SB
03-273 (Salary Survey Elimination)
|
$ (5.2)
|
|
|
Resulting
FY 2004 General Fund appropriation
|
$156.6
|
$(21.0)
|
|
Restored
through SB 03-186 (Court Fee Bill)
Restored
through SB 03-282 (Family Violence)
Restored
through HB 1378 (Jud. Performance)
|
$ 9.3
.5
.5
|
|
|
FY
04 Judicial Budget
|
$166.9
|
$(10.7)
|
Judicial
workforce: Two-thirds
of the Colorado Judicial Department’s non-judicial officer
employees work on the court side of business and one-third
in probation. The state court system includes county and
district courts, the court of appeals and the supreme court.
The state’s 257 judges collectively handle more than 12,000
cases every week. Probation, run by the Colorado Judicial
Department, is the largest component of Colorado’s correctional
system. It is responsible for the community supervision
of 52,000 of the state’s more than 78,000 individuals under
correctional supervision.
Voluntary
separation plan overview:
The
purpose of the incentives was to encourage employees to voluntarily
leave state service, in order to avoid the involuntary layoff
of other employees.
- The
approved incentives had to contribute to savings that would
avoid the layoff of other staff members identified in the
job abolishment/retention rights process.
- An
employee could receive no more than one week’s pay for each
full year of state service, not to exceed 12 weeks or $20,000
whichever was less.
- Decisions
were based upon the benefit gained by the department and
avoidance of possible layoff(s) within the Colorado Judicial
Department.
Collective
duties of Court Clerks -- impact patrons can expect to experience:
The
Court Clerk position is the largest category of employees
the courts employs. Clerks provide
a wide variety of services including clerical work and office
duties; information and assistance regarding cases and procedures
upon request by court officials, employees, litigants, attorneys,
law enforcement representatives, jurors and the general public;
prepares and certifies copies of court documents; enters new
cases and updates current case information on the computer;
accepts new cases; issues, cancels and dismisses warrants;
may report dispositions to the Department of Motor Vehicles
and other agencies as required by law; posts filings, pleadings
and orders on the computer; issues writs, transcripts of judgment,
garnishments; accepts and receipts payments for filings, fines,
bail and other monies (makes disbursements as ordered); sets
cases for court appearances; acts as a liaison with judges,
division personnel and other agencies; may be responsible
for maintaining inventory and possession of all exhibits after
trial for preparation of appeal record; may perform courtroom
duties.
Probation
officers serve two primary functions. First, they
provide pre-sentencing investigation reports (PSIR) to the
court to assist in making sentencing decisions. In general,
each report contains personal background, family and criminal
history and includes an assessment of offender risk and needs.
An officer spends between 9 and 11 hours to complete one PSIR.
The second function a probation officer performs is offender
supervision.
The
goals of probation supervision are to hold the offender accountable,
support the victims of crime, and assist the offender in changing
his or her behavior or life circumstances in a way that will
keep them from committing any further crimes. Probation supervision
is based on the results of risk assessments as well as the
probation officer’s experience with offenders. A higher level
of supervision is provided to those offenders who pose a greater
risk to community safety. The average number of offenders
supervised by each probation officer in Colorado currently
exceeds nationally recommended standards by a wide margin.
Excessively high caseloads require probation to prioritize
supervision strategies, potentially leading to limited supervision
for certain categories of offenders. To be effective, probation
officers need time to assess offender risk and need, refer
offenders to the most appropriate programs, work with other
agencies, deliver targeted services, provide appropriate levels
of monitoring, and be prepared to respond to factors that
often impact public safety.
With
the cuts in the probation workforce, specialized supervision
programs for high risk female and drug offenders have been
eliminated, which allows us to free up staff to supervise
growing probation caseloads. Probation caseloads, which already
exceed national standards, are expected to increase from the
current rates of 77 per juvenile officer and 215 per adult
officer to a high of 90 juveniles and 315 for adult probationers
per officer.
Areas
where court patrons and the public should expect to see the
greatest impact:
- Reduction
in the number of hours courthouses are open to the public.
- Delays
in conducting business.
- Delays
in responding to phone calls.
- Cases
will be prioritized based upon public safety and statutory
considerations.
- Civil
matters will be impacted the greatest.
- Landlord
tenant cases may be delayed
- Imposition
and collection of civil judgments may be delayed
- Name
changes, probate matters, accident cases may be delayed
- Delays
should be expected in dissolution of marriage, child support
and child visitation cases
- The
increase in civil court user fees paid by the public, an
anticipated $9.3 million, will be used to offset a General
Fund reduction in Judicial Department funding in an equal
amount. [6]
- Public
Safety
- Criminal
Defendants placed in the community on probation supervision
will experience fewer contacts with probation officers
- Historically,
as the economy declines, crime increases; any increases
experienced by the courts are expected to further delay
non-public safety related actions.
Things
the public can do to mitigate delays:
[3] Full staffing refers to the number of people
needed to fully staff the court based on caseload and weighted
caseload standards. (Weighted caseload standards indicate
the number of cases one staff person can handle in one year.)
The Department, effective June 30, 2003, will be 17 percent
under the required staffing level to handle all cases filed
when using weighted caseload standards.
|
