Small Court Dependency Workload Working Group
Purpose
The Small Court Dependency Workload (SCDW) Working Group was formed to consider changes to the court-appointed–counsel funding methodology as it relates to small courts and to garner input from specific stakeholders about the allocation methodology as it pertains to courts with smaller caseloads to ensure that costs particular to the smaller courts are reflected in the court-appointed–counsel funding allocation methodology workload model.
The working group will report to the Executive and Planning Committee and will present recommendations to the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC) for input. Those recommendation(s) will be presented to the Judicial Council in May 2017 by the chairs of both the SCDW Working Group and the TCBAC, after which the SCDW Working Group will have fulfilled its purpose and dissolve.
Date Established: October 2016
There are no meetings scheduled at this time.
Hon. David Rosenberg, Chair, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Yolo
Hon. Andrew S. Blum, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Lake
Hon. Ira R. Kaufman, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Plumas
Hon. B. Scott Thomsen, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Nevada
Hon. Jerilyn L. Borack, Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Hon. Tari L. Cody, Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Ventura
Ms. Sherri R. Carter, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Ms. Rebecca Fleming, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus
Mr. Kevin Harrigan, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Glenn
Mr. James Kim, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Marin
Mr. Brian Taylor, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Solano
- Whether attorney salaries should continue to be based on an average salary by region, or whether another method should be used, such as an individual county index of salaries
- Whether the attorney salaries used in the model should be updated
- Whether the calculation for benefits costs in the model is accurate or should be changed
- Whether the calculation for overhead costs in the model is accurate or should be changed
- Whether the state child welfare data reported through the University of California, Berkeley, accurately represents court-supervised juvenile dependency cases in each county, or whether court filings data or another source of data should be used
- Whether the ratio used to estimate parent clients in the model is accurate or should be changed
- Whether a modified methodology should be used for funding small courts
- Whether dependency counsel funding should be a court or county obligation
The Judicial Council asked that recommendations from the joint working group be brought to the respective committees in time for consideration by the Judicial Council at its April 2016 meeting. In June 2016, the Judicial Council tabled any action on the two recommendations provided by the Court-Appointed Counsel Funding Allocation Methodology Joint Subcommittee of the TCBAC and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee. The Judicial Council also tabled action on a recommendation of the TCBAC related to one of its subcommittee’s recommendations and directed the TCBAC to further advise the council on the recommendations provided by the subcommittee at the council’s July 2016 meeting, including when allocations for fiscal year 2016–2017 should be adopted by the council.
On July 29, 2016, the Judicial Council unanimously adopted a motion to form a small court working group to consider changes to the court-appointed–counsel funding methodology as it relates to small courts.