Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission

Recommendations of the Trial Court Budget Commission

Fiscal Year 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Issue 1: Restoration of Salaries and Benefits Category Base Budget Reduction

Historically, the trial courts begin each fiscal year with a deficit in the salary budget, due to the

base salary budget being less than the projected payroll liability for the year. Throughout the

year, the deficit is normally made up through lapse and no further action is necessary.

With the passage of the Fiscal Year 2017-18 General Appropriations Act, the trial courts

sustained a base budget reduction in the amount of $2 million, in the Salaries and Benefits

appropriations category. The trial courts are unable to sustain the reduction and immediately

implemented budgetary actions to mitigate the projected salary budget deficit, including a hard

hiring freeze of most positions within the trial courts. The budgetary actions have already

affected many circuits, and sustained restrictions will result in impacts to court operations.

At the July 22, 2017, meeting, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) recommended filing

a FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request (LBR) to restore the $2 million reduction to the base

salary budget.

Page 1 of 43



Issue 2: Employee Pay Issue

In its Fiscal Year 2014-15 legislative budget request (LBR), in order to retain highly skilled

employees and to experience more equality with other government salaries, the judicial branch

requested $18,828,193 in recurring salary appropriation. Recognizing the considerable size of

such request, the judicial branch proposed a two-year implementation period. In 2014 the

Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year implementation. That funding assisted the judicial

branch in making significant headway in addressing retention and salary equity between the

branch and other governmental entities for similar positions and duties.

As a top priority of its FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 LBRs, the judicial branch requested second

year funding of $5,902,588 in recurring salary dollars to finish addressing a wide range of salary

issues. In FY 2017-18, the request was updated to $6,388,909. At the July 22, 2017, meeting,

the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) again considered filing a FY 2018-19 Legislative

Budget Request (LBR) for second-year funding to address court staff salary equity, recruitment,

and retention issues.

Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation:

The TCBC approved filing a FY 2018-19 LBR for second-year funding for court staff salary

equity, recruitment, and retention issues. OSCA staff is conducting a review to develop the

updated total amount for the request and to ensure the court interpreting classes are adequately

addressed. The final amount will be reported to the TCBC prior to submission of the issue to the

Supreme Court for consideration for inclusion in the 2018 judicial branch legislative agenda.

Page 2 of 43



Comprehensive Trial Court Technology

Background

In FY 2015-16, the Supreme Court submitted a supplemental legislative budget request (LBR) for

$25,606,097 in non-recurring general revenue and 65 FTE to fund the first year of a multi-year

comprehensive strategy for addressing the statewide technology needs of the trial courts. The issue was

also filed for FY 2016-17, with minor modifications to some components of the request, resulting in an

LBR of $25,299,973 and 65 FTE. For FY 2017-18, each element of the comprehensive request was

updated and support for the cross-jurisdictional support unit within the Office of the State Courts

Administrator (OSCA) was added, resulting in a request of $21,846,048. These requests have not been

funded.

Current Issue

At their meeting on June 27, 2017, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) directed staff of the

OSCA to develop a proposal for a comprehensive trial court technology LBR for FY 2018-19. Using

last year’s LBR of $21,846,048 as a base, OSCA staff worked with the trial courts to update cost

estimates for the Court Application Processing Systems (CAPS), digital court reporting and remote court

interpreting equipment, and a minimum level of technology to support court functions and accomplish

the business capabilities of the Florida Trial Court Technology Strategic Plan 2015-2019. Revisions to

the request were necessitated by factors such as deployment of technology since the LBR was originally

developed (e.g., through end-of-year spending plans), changes in circuit readiness to deploy technology,

and new or changed circuit needs. In addition, circuits were given the discretion to request funds to

implement intra-circuit remote interpreting systems.

The comprehensive LBR will support trial court technology and will ensure that the trial courts have:

Hardware and Software to Receive and Manage Documents Electronically;

Functional Digital Court Reporting Staff to Support Court Technology;

Remote Interpreting Equipment and Sufficient Bandwidth;

A Minimum Level of Technology Services in Communities Across the State.

As in the previous years’ LBRs, this request would not be designed to supplant county funding of court

technology. It addresses funding gaps and provides a minimum level of technology services in each

county. Based on the comprehensive trial court technology strategic plan, the FY 2018-19 LBR groups

critical technology needs into three funding solutions:

Secure Case Management and Processing System (CAPS)

This solution includes the Court Application Processing System (CAPS), which provides judges and

court staff electronic case file information needed to perform their adjudicatory function. Judges and

court staff face challenges using multiple systems to access electronic case files in real-time in order to

address the specific case processing and resource management needs of the trial courts. Servers in use

are well past recommended usable lifespan. Foreclosure funding, which expired June 30, 2015,

Page 3 of 43



purchased the initial hardware and software for CAPS in civil divisions, but ongoing maintenance and

refresh are needed to protect the initial investment. Further, not all judges and staff have CAPS.

Benefits of Proposed Solution

o Provides consistent access to and availability of data across counties and circuits.

o Provides complete, accurate, real-time information from multiple sources to judges, allowing for

improved efficiency in judicial decision-making and reducing file movement between the clerk

and court.

o Ensures judges have technology necessary to securely transmit court orders to the clerks of court.

o Builds upon current $9 million investment in CAPS, funded with resources from the National

Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement.

o Provides infrastructure needed to effectively manage court business processes and provides the

court system with monitoring tools that allow courts to tailor performance measures and improve

case management.

Digital Court Reporting

Court reporting updates include technological systems comprising audio/video hardware and software to

support service delivery of critical due process court functions. Courts utilize outdated hardware and

software to create the official court record, presenting the risk of system failure. Many circuits report

that equipment and parts are no longer available and that manufacturers have ended technical support for

these models. This mission-critical equipment is in use 365 days a year, sometimes for over 8 hours per

day.


o Provides continued ability to create the official court record.

o Improves access to court reporting services and allows for more timely access to transcripts and

official records.

Support for Minimum Level of Technology Services

Support for a minimum level of technology services includes core-function technology services, and

staff to support a minimum level of technology in all counties and judicial circuits. Technology services

vary across counties and circuits based on the county’s ability to provide funding for needed services;

multi-county circuits have difficulty sharing resources across county boundaries; and many technology

initiatives require dedicated staff support. Circuits must often pay costly outside vendors to support

audio equipment. Citizens in different counties may not have comparable access to minimum standard

core services.


o Ensures citizens receive access to a consistent level of minimum court technology services,

regardless of geography.

o Includes state-level technical expertise, upon request, to bridge knowledge gaps in counties of

critical need.

Page 4 of 43



o Provides court with dedicated staff to maintain state-owned hardware and software, resulting in

cost savings.

o Allows court staff to maintain a skill set that keeps pace with evolving technology and ensures

technology investment is fully supported throughout full life cycle.

Remote Court Interpreting and Bandwidth

Remote court interpreting includes costs associated with the technological systems comprising

audio/video hardware and software to support delivery of spoken and sign language services via remote

connection. This funding would allow for expansion of the pilot project, begun in 2014 between six

circuits, to all circuits interested in participating in shared or intra-circuit remote interpreting. The

request includes support for the statewide call manager and funding for additional licenses to facilitate

multi-point connections for and expanded number of interpreting events. In addition, increased

bandwidth is needed to accommodate the demaind associated with virtual remote interpreting.


o Provides access to qualified interpreters remotely over a broader geographical area, using

audio/video technology.

o Allows for cost containment in interpreter staff and contractor expenses.

o Creates potential for expansion to utilize this technology platform in expert witness testimony.

o Includes support for the statewide call manager and cloud-supported solution for additional

licenses.

o Provides additional bandwidth to accommodate increased demand related to virtual remote

interpreting events.

Options for Consideration

Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $26,008,762 (see Attachment A), including the

technology components related to remote court interpreting and bandwidth. Authorize OSCA staff to

make necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for

presentation to the Supreme Court.

Option 2: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $21,439,987 (see Attachment A), that does not

include the technology components related to remote court interpreting and bandwidth. These

components could be addressed as a separate comprehensive court interpreting LBR. Authorize OSCA

staff to make necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for


Option 3: Consider an alternative option.

Option 4: Do not recommend as an LBR for FY 2018-19.

Page 5 of 43



Funding Methodology Committee Recommendation

The Funding Methodology Committee (FMC) recommended Option 2, to file an LBR for approximately

$21,439,987, and recommended filing the portions of the technology request related to remote

interpreting as a separate comprehensive court interpreting request. The FMC authorized OSCA staff to

make necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for


Trial Court Budget Commission Recommendation

The Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) approved Option 1, to file a comprehensive technology

LBR for aproximately $26,008,762. The TCBC authorized OSCA staff to make necessary revisions to

the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for presentation to the Supreme Court.

Page 6 of 43

Trial Court Technology - Attachment A

General

Revenue

Recurring

General

Revenue Non-

Recurring

Total

General

Revenue

Recurring

General

Revenue Non-

Recurring

Total

1 Applications Development and Licensing1

$250,000 $3,284,931 $3,534,931 $0 $0 $0

2 Support Services - Refresh and Maintenance2

$2,331,589 $0 $2,331,589 $0 $0 $0

3 Support Services - Statewide Cross-Jurisdictional CAPS (Includes 2.5 FTE)3

$497,791 $9,500 $507,291 $0 $0 $0

$3,079,380 $3,294,431 $6,373,811 $0 $0 $0

4 Expansion $0 $1,368,155 $1,368,155 $0 $0 $0

5 Support Services - Refresh and Maintenance $2,991,337 $299,261 $3,290,598 $0 $0 $0

6 Support Services - Statewide Cross-Jurisdictional DCR (Includes 2.5 FTE)4

$547,791 $9,500 $557,291 $0 $0 $0

$3,539,128 $1,676,916 $5,216,044 $0 $0 $0

7 Core Function Capabilities $3,821,790 $0 $3,821,790 $0 $0 $0

8 Information Resource Management Consultant (20 FTE, 1 per Circuit) $2,151,182 $47,980 $2,199,162 $0 $0 $0

9 Information Systems Analysts (45 FTE) $3,324,476 $107,955 $3,432,431 $0 $0 $0

10 Training and Education $396,750 $0 $396,750 $0 $0 $0

$9,694,198 $155,935 $9,850,133 $0 $0 $0

11 Remote Interpreting Implementation5

$0 $2,841,610 $2,841,610 $0 $2,951,549 $2,951,549

12 Support Services - Refresh/Maintenance for Remote Interpreting Equipment5

$84,428 $0 $84,428 $445,293 $0 $445,293

13 Support Services - Statewide Call Manager for Remote Interpreting6

$171,371 $0 $171,371 $93,619 $0 $93,619

14 Bandwidth $1,471,366 $0 $1,471,366 $0 $0 $0

$1,727,165 $2,841,610 $4,568,775 $538,912 $2,951,549 $3,490,461

$18,039,870 $7,968,892 $26,008,762 $538,912 $2,951,549 $3,490,461

Trial Court Budget Commission

July 22, 2017 Meeting

Trial Court Technology Comprehensive Plan FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Solution I: Secure Case Management and Processing System (CAPS Viewers)

Remote Interpreting and Bandwidth Subtotal

5 Non-recurring costs for remote interpreting implementation are based on an average cost of $14,153 per courtroom. Implementation of statewide remote interpreting equipment (non-recurring costs) will occur over a three-

year period, with recurring maintenance costs associated with the equipment lagging 1 year behind purchase date. This will allow for continued implementation of interpreter endpoints with the goal of coverage in 1/3 of non-

civil courtrooms in large circuits; 1/2 of non-civil courtrooms in medium circuits; and 3/4 of non-civil courtrooms in small circuits. It is anticipated that for FY 2020-21, $2,646,611 in non-recurring funds would be

requested for the third year of expansion and $486,920 in recurring funds would be requested for maintenance to support equipment purchased in the previous year. For FY 2021-22, $567,416 in recurring funds would be

requested for maintenance to support equipment purchased in the previous year and $1,483,531 in recurring funds would be requested for refreshing equipment in the out years.

6 FY 2018-19 includes $27,840 for the statewide call manager and $143,531 for a cloud-supported bridge to facilitate multi-point connectivity with 10 licenses. FY 2019-20 includes $93,619 to purchase an additional 17

licenses.

Solution II: Digital Court Reporting (DCR)

Solution III: Support for Minimum Level of Technology

Remote Court Interpreting and Bandwidth

1 Includes funding for proposed order submission enhancement.

2 Includes funding for hardware and server refresh and maintenance on existing hardware and software.

3 Includes $230,000 in recurring contractual funds and $277,291 for FTE costs.

4 Includes $190,000 in recurring contractual funds, $90,000 in non-recurring contractual funds, and $277,291 for FTE costs.

Group III Subtotal

TOTAL

Group I Subtotal

FY 2019-20 Legislative Budget Request

Group II Subtotal

Technology Projects to Support Business Capabilities


Page 7 of 43



Court Interpreting

Background

Due to the high concentration of limited-English-proficient (LEP) population in our state, Florida

is one of the largest stakeholders in the nation with respect to spoken language access demands.

Thus, in order to afford Floridians the ability to fully participate in the court process, it is critical

the courts adopt strategies designed to remove linguistic barriers and increase both the

availability and effectiveness of qualified spoken language court interpreters.

Florida’s court system has focused most of its resources on providing court interpreting services

in cases in which constitutional rights are at stake and other proceedings involving fundamental

rights. Even in proceedings where not required by state or federal law, the judicial branch has

recognized the ultimate benefit of providing language services to any LEP participant in a court

proceeding. Providing such services helps ensure the court system operates efficiently, which is

a benefit for all stakeholders. This Fiscal Year 2018-19 request supports immediate and critical

needs for the availability of court interpreters both in person and remotely through the use of

technology. It also lays the foundation for a multi-year funding strategy to facilitate a long-term

goal of expanding court interpreting services to all case types and all court-managed activities.

Through its Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch 2016-2021, the State

Courts System (SCS) has established several goals intended to advance the mission and vision of

the judicial branch in coming years. Such goals include: 1) deliver justice effectively, efficiently,

and fairly; 2) enhance access to justice and court services by reducing communication and

language barriers to facilitate participation in court proceedings; and 3) modernize administration

of justice and operation of court facilities. The State Courts System has made significant strides

in the provision of court interpreting services consistent with the SCS’s long-range goals. The

SCS strives to provide consistent and equitable assistance to persons with disabilities and to LEP

individuals. To strengthen the state’s court interpreting program and better equip the courts to

provide effective interpreting services, persons who are appointed by the courts to provide these

services must comply with rules governing registration and designations, professional conduct,

and discipline.

As part of the SCS’s FY 2015-16 budget request, a request in the amount of $1,367,126

($1,233,292 in contractual funds; $133,834 in salary dollars) was filed for this issue. The

Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring contractual dollars, partially funding the FY

2015-16 request. Additionally, as part of the Comprehensive Trial Court Technology legislative

budget request in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, the SCS requested $3,031,560 and $2,412,750,

respectively, to expand remote interpreting systems. In FY 2017-18, the SCS requested

$6,288,545 as part of a comprehensive court interpreting resources issue. State funding was not

received for technology in any of the last three years for the other issues included in the

comprehensive court interpreting resources issue last year.

Page 8 of 43



Current Issue

There are four components related to court interpreting for consideration this year: 1) additional

resources to address market-driven factors leading to increased contractual costs; 2) funding for

recruitment and retention of qualified court interpreting staff; 3) funding for implementation of

technology solutions through the use of digital remote interpreting to maximize current

resources; and 4) funding for Title IV-D cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit.

a) Funding to Support Additional Court Interpreting Resources

Since the passage of Revision 7 to Article V of the Florida Constitution, when the

responsibility of providing interpreting services shifted from the county to the state, the trial

courts have received limited additional funding for court interpreting services. In FY 2006-

07, the courts received 4.0 FTE and $1,049,387 in contractual funds; however, in FY 2008-

09, the budget was reduced by 2.0 FTE and $184,739. In FY 2013-14, the Legislature

provided $100,000 in non-recurring funds for the courts to conduct a remote interpreting pilot

project to assess the viability of virtual remote interpreting as a service delivery model.

On March 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in SC13-304 amending the rules

for certification and regulation of court interpreters. In response to concerns expressed

during the FY 2014-15 allocation process regarding additional funding needed to comply

with the requirements of the opinion, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) directed

OSCA staff to examine options for requesting additional funding through a legislative budget

request (LBR) and to also consider additional workload needs. Based on circuit requests

from the FY 2014-15 allocation process and extrapolating to a statewide need, the TCBC

approved an LBR of $1,367,126 ($1,233,292 contractual funds; $133,834 salary dollars) in

recurring funds for FY 2015-16. The Legislature appropriated $750,000 in recurring

contractual dollars, partially funding this request for FY 2015-16. In FY 2016-17, the

judicial branch filed an LBR for the remaining unfunded portion of the initial request in the

amount of $483,292, which was not funded. Also, in FY 2017-18, the judicial branch filed a

comprehensive court interpreting resource issue for $6,288,545, of which $1,608,230 was

identified for additional court reporting resources. This issue was not funded.

The trial courts continue to experience the effect of market-driven factors leading to

difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified court interpreters and increasing contractual

costs. The courts have experienced vacancies in court interpreting positions as a result of

retirements and resignations. These positions often remain vacant for long periods due to the

inability to find qualified applicants and compete with higher paying salaries for similar

positions and skill sets. Due to these staff shortages, many circuits have had to rely on

contract interpreting services, in which rates can be significantly higher than typical FTE

costs. At their June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed the FMC to provide

recommendations for determining court interpreting needs for consideration in the FY 2018-

19 LBR. OSCA staff developed four options for consideration.

Page 9 of 43



LBR

Option 1 – Percent Increase in Population Growth $1,044,139

Option 2 – Percent Increase in Statewide Expenditures $1,058,969

Option 3 – Percent Increase in Circuit Expenditures $1,487,818

Option 4 – Percent Increase in Expenditures for Select Circuits $2,925,306

Option 1 (see Attachment A) utilizes the current funding methodology in which FY 2018-19

need is projected using FY 2016-17 estimated costs and applying a 6.5% statewide growth

rate to each circuit. The estimated growth rate is based on the statistics of “People who speak

English at home less than very well” in Florida, which was taken from the 2000 and 2010

Census. The growth rate is derived by first estimating the annual statewide population

growth from 2000 to 2010, then multiplying by 2 in order to obtain an estimated statewide

growth from 2016 to 2018.

Option 2 (see Attachment B) projects the FY 2018-19 need by applying the average

statewide growth rate in contractual expenditures over the last three years to estimated FY

2016-17 expenditures. The average growth rate is multiplied by 2 in order to obtain an

estimated statewide growth rate from 2016 to 2018.

Option 3 (see Attachment C) projects the FY 2018-19 need based on the average percent

change in expenditures for each circuit from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17. Circuits with a

negative percent change in expenditures were set at FY 2016-17 estimated expenditures.

Option 4 (see Attachment D) projects the FY 2018-19 need based on the average percent

change in expenditures for the circuits that have experienced the largest increase in

expenditures (5th, 9th, 11th, and 15th circuits) from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17.

Please note, under all four options, the amount of funding requested is not yet specified as

either contractual or salary dollars. If the TCBC recommends filing an LBR for this issue, the

specific type of funding would be determined from circuit input prior to filing the LBR. It

should also be noted that the pending Internal Revenue Service desk audit of the state of

Florida regarding whether certain contractors should have been classified as employees could

have implications for the use of contract interpreters. It is possible that contract dollars may

need to be converted Other Personal Services (OPS) dollars.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR based on the current methodology for a total request of

$1,044,139 (see Attachment A) and direct OSCA staff to work with the circuits to determine

the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 2: Recommend filing an LBR based on a statewide historical growth rate

methodology for a total request of $1,058,969 (see Attachment B) and direct OSCA staff to

work with the circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Page 10 of 43



Option 3: Recommend filing an LBR based on a circuit historical growth rate methodology

for a total request of $1,487,818 (see Attachment C) and direct OSCA staff to work with the

circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 4: Recommend filing an LBR based on a circuit-specific historical growth rate

methodology for a total request of $2,925,306 (see Attachment D) and direct OSCA staff to

work with the circuits to determine the specific type of funding (contractual or FTE) needed.

Option 5: Do not file an LBR for funding to support additional court interpreting resources.


The Funding Methodology Committee considered these options and recommended Option 3.


The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 3, as reflected in Attachment C.

b) Court Interpreting Resources for Title IV-D Cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit

The 11th Judicial Circuit has the highest language access demand in the state. Some of this

demand is met through staff interpreters; however, as a result of limited staff resources, the

circuit must also rely on contracted interpreters to provide interpreting services. Oftentimes,

contracted interpreters are assigned to provide services in Title IV-D proceedings. In FY

2015-16, the circuit held 6,665 hearings for Title IV-D Child Support enforcement,

modification, and establishment proceedings. At their June 27, 2017 meeting, the Trial Court

Budget Commission directed OSCA staff to present this issue to the Funding Methodology

Committee and back to the Commission for consideration as a possible LBR for FY 2018-19.

Based on the reported contractual rates from the full service firm in the Miami-Dade area, an

additional $75,000 would provide funding for 18.75 hours per week of interpreting services,

which would provide the minimum level of coverage for Title IV-D cases. For FY 2015-16,

the total budget for court interpreting resources in the 11th circuit was $3,149,959. This

request represents 2.4% of the total current budget.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $75,000 for court interpreting

resources in Title IV-D cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit. If approved by the Court for

inclusion in the 2018 judicial branch legislative agenda, a companion request would ideally

be filed by the Florida Department of Revenue in order to obtain both funding and budget

authority.

Option 2: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue.

Page 11 of 43




The Funding Methodology Committee considered this issue and recommended Option 1.


The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 1.

c) Court Interpreting Base Salary Increase

In its FY 2014-15 legislative budget request, in order to retain highly skilled employees and

to foster equity with other government salaries, the SCS requested $18,828,193 in recurring

salary appropriation. Recognizing the considerable size of such a request, the SCS proposed

a two-year implementation period. The 2014 Legislature provided $8,132,614 for first-year

implementation. That funding assisted the judicial branch in making significant progress in

addressing retention and salary equity between the branch and other governmental entities for

similar positions and duties. As noted previously, the court interpreting class still

experiences ongoing equity, retention, and recruitment issues not sufficiently addressed with

the funding received in 2014. Although positively impacted by the 2014 legislative funding,

without additional funding for FY 2017-18, the trial courts’ ability to obtain highly skilled

spoken language court interpreters, to maximize the use of current resources through

technology, and to promote efficient operations will continue to be limited.

As referenced above, an LBR was filed in FY 2017-18 to comprehensively address issues

related to providing court interpreting services throughout the state. A portion, $1,052,624,

of this request was associated with providing an increase to the base salary and an adjustment

for salary compression. This year, staff of OSCA’s Human Resources office reviewed the

issue and updated the figure to $2,472,979 for FY 2018-19, increasing the base salary for

certified court interpreters from $43,331 to $60,000, with corresponding adjustments to

supervising interpreters. This LBR does not include an adjustment for salary compression, as

no current employees are above the proposed new minimums.

It is anticipated that the interpreter classes will be addressed in the statewide pay plan LBR.

This decision would be to recommend filing a request for a base salary increase as a separate

issue, in the event that the statewide pay plan is not included in the FY 2018-19 judicial

branch legislative agenda or if the issue is not ultimately funded.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR for $2,472,979 to address base salary issues in the

court interpreter classes. It is anticipated that the interpreter classes will be addressed in the

statewide pay plan LBR. This decision would be to recommend filing a request for a base

salary increase as a separate issue, in the event that the statewide pay plan is not included in

the FY 2018-19 judicial branch legislative agenda or if the issue is not ultimately funded.

Page 12 of 43



Option 2: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue.





d) Funding for the Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting

In addition to seeking funds for certified court interpreters, the trial courts continue to seek

ways to maximize resources through the use of available technology. While areas that are

population centers are home to more interpreters, rural areas of the state lack the same

resources. In order to provide higher quality services in areas where resources are scarce, the

trial courts requested additional funding as part of the FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY

2017-18 budget requests. This funding was intended to expand the use of remote interpreting

technology currently being implemented as a pilot project in a few circuits to test the

viability of the system. Remote technology would allow access to qualified interpreters over

a broader geographical area, which allows for the pooling of limited resources for certified

interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across the state at a

lower per-event cost. These requests have not been funded.

Implementation of statewide remote interpreting equipment (non-recurring costs) would

occur over a three-year period, with recurring maintenance costs associated with the

equipment lagging one year behind the purchase date. The implementation plan

contemplates full life cycle funding and recurring maintenance costs to support future fiscal

years, with expansion to more circuits in the second year of funding and ultimately

expanding to the full state in the third year. It is anticipated that requests would be made for

FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 for the remaining expansion and maintenance/refresh of

equipment purchased in previous years.

These requests will continually support, maintain, and refresh the remote interpreting

equipment necessary to ensure trial courts statewide are able to meet the needs of judges,

court staff, and the public they serve in future years. Among other benefits, the requests:

Provide access to qualified interpreters remotely over a broader geographical area,

using audio/video technology, which allows pooling of limited resources for certified

interpreters and provides a more consistent level of interpreting services across

the state.

Allow circuits to maximize existing resources across a single county with multiple

courthouses, using localized remote interpreting.

Allow for cost containment in interpreter staff and contractor expenses.

Page 13 of 43



Create potential for expansion to utilize this technology platform in expert witness

testimony.

Technology Components Associated with Remote Interpreting

Remote Interpreting Implementation $2,841,610

Support Services – Remote Interpreting Refresh and Maintenance $84,428

Support Services – Statewide Call Manager1 $171,371

Support Services – Bandwidth $1,471,366

Total for All Components $4,568,775 1 Includes $27,840 for the statewide call manager and $143,531 for cloud-supported connectivity for

up to 17 concurrent events.

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $4,568,775 for technology associated

with the statewide expansion of remote interpreting. Authorize OSCA staff to make

necessary revisions to the cost estimates and add out-year costs as the issue is finalized for


Option 2: Recommend filing an FY 2018-19 LBR for $4,568,775 for technology associated

with the statewide expansion of remote interpreting as a component of the Comprehensive

Trial Court Technology issue.

Option 3: Do not recommend filing an LBR for this issue in FY 2018-19.




The TCBC considered this issue and approved filing the technology components associated

with statewide implementation of remote interpreting in two separate issues: 1) with the

comprehensive trial court technology; and, 2) with the pay and workload issues related

specifically to court interpreting.

Comprehensive Court Interpreting LBR – Total Anticipated Cost

Funding to Support Additional Court Interpreting Resources $1,487,818

Court Interpreting Resources for Title IV-D Cases in the 11th Judicial Circuit $75,000

Court Interpreter Base Salary Increase $2,472,979

Funding for Statewide Implementation of Remote Interpreting $4,568,775

Total for All Issues $8,604,572

Page 14 of 43

Court Interpreting LBR - Attachment A

A B C D E F G

Circuit FTE

Salaries,

Benefits, &

Expenses

Beginning

Contractual

Allotment

Total

Budget

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Contractual

Expenditures2

FY 2018-19

Estimated

Total Need

Based on 6.5%

Growth Rate3

1 0 $0 $47,630 $47,630 $51,630 $54,986

2 0 $0 $30,094 $30,094 $26,549 $28,275

3 0 $0 $34,190 $34,190 $28,282 $30,120

4 0 $0 $276,793 $276,793 $278,909 $297,038

5 5 $319,582 $145,386 $464,968 $190,266 $542,988

6 2 $138,155 $268,624 $406,779 $256,869 $420,700

7 3 $190,830 $72,686 $263,516 $65,887 $273,403

8 1 $67,554 $41,079 $108,633 $40,275 $114,838

9 10 $600,784 $187,108 $787,892 $216,222 $870,112

10 6 $413,499 $74,332 $487,831 $70,328 $515,276

11 52 $3,282,412 $561,370 $3,843,782 $557,147 $4,274,930

12 2 $122,916 $312,997 $435,913 $274,439 $423,183

13 10 $618,910 $152,332 $771,242 $151,250 $820,221

14 0 $0 $39,498 $39,498 $44,133 $47,002

15 13 $823,429 $172,141 $995,570 $206,947 $1,097,351

16 2 $133,467 $18,445 $151,912 $18,238 $161,565

17 16 $970,515 $150,919 $1,121,434 $152,740 $1,196,266

18 1 $60,793 $44,456 $105,249 $51,362 $119,446

19 2 $135,356 $472,670 $608,026 $494,025 $670,290

20 7 $437,355 $430,190 $867,545 $440,245 $934,644

Total 131.5 $8,315,555 $3,532,940 $11,848,495 $3,615,743 $12,892,634

Option 1: FY 2018-19 LBR4

$1,044,139

1 FY 2017-18 Allocation includes CC 131 (Court Interpreting), CC 267 (Cost Recovery), and CC 730 (Cost Sharing).

3 FY 2018-19 Estimated Total Need applies an estimated 6.5% statewide growth rate to the sum of each circuit's FY 2017-18

Allocation - Salaries, Benefits, and Expenses and FY 2016-17 Estimated Contractual Expenditures. The estimated growth rate

is based on the statistic "People who speak English at home less than very well" in Florida provided in the 2000 and 2010

Census. The growth rate was derived by first estimating the annual statewide growth from 2000 to 2010 and then multiplying

by 2 in order to obtain an estimated statewide growth from 2016 to 2018.

4 Option 1 FY 2018-19 LBR is the difference between FY 2018-19 Estimated Total Need and FY 2017-18 Total Budget.



Court Interpreting

FY 2017-18 Allocation1

(CC 131, CC 267, and CC 730)

FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request - Option 1

2 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is based on actual

expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward.

Page 15 of 43

Court Interpreting LBR - Attachment B

A B C D E

Circuit

FY 2014-15

Expenditures

FY 2015-16

Expenditures

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Expenditures1

FY 2018-19

Estimated

Expenditures2

1 $41,245 $53,316 $51,630 $61,683

2 $37,671 $25,430 $26,549 $31,718

3 $44,584 $25,702 $28,282 $33,789

4 $250,788 $287,069 $278,909 $333,216

5 $145,607 $101,730 $190,266 $227,313

6 $280,116 $272,261 $256,869 $306,884

7 $65,207 $85,557 $65,887 $78,716

8 $40,543 $44,673 $40,275 $48,117

9 $159,537 $175,102 $216,222 $258,323

10 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $84,022

11 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $937,771

12 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $327,875

13 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $180,700

14 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $52,726

15 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $247,242

16 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $21,789

17 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $182,480

18 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $61,363

19 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $590,217

20 $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $525,966

Total $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $4,591,909

16.7% 1.9%

$1,058,969Option 2: FY 2018-19 LBR

2 FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on the average statewide percent change in

expenditures from 2014-15 to estimated 2016-17.



Court Interpreting


Percent Change

Average Increase 9.3%

1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is

based on actual expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June

through Certified Forward.

Page 16 of 43

Court Interpreting LBR - Attachment C

A B C D E F

Circuit

FY 2013-14

Expenditures

FY 2014-15

Expenditures

FY 2015-16

Expenditures

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Expenditures1

FY 2018-19

Estimated

Expenditures2

1 $33,691 $41,245 $53,316 $51,630 $69,957

2 $36,770 $37,671 $25,430 $26,549 $26,549

3 $44,832 $44,584 $25,702 $28,282 $28,282

4 $252,370 $250,788 $287,069 $278,909 $298,462

5 $102,346 $145,607 $101,730 $190,266 $299,231

6 $187,843 $280,116 $272,261 $256,869 $319,796

7 $73,713 $65,207 $85,557 $65,887 $65,887

8 $33,878 $40,543 $44,673 $40,275 $45,345

9 $98,531 $159,537 $175,102 $216,222 $388,401

10 $65,379 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $73,877

11 $228,157 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $1,092,731

12 $313,591 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $274,439

13 $131,576 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $166,327

14 $33,321 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $53,680

15 $83,088 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $412,610

16 $16,822 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $19,261

17 $119,644 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $180,907

18 $25,650 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $85,686

19 $391,374 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $580,408

20 $329,474 $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $538,920

Total $2,602,050 $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $5,020,758

$1,487,818Option 3: FY 2018-19 LBR

2 FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on each Circuit's average percent change in expenditures from 2013-14 to

estimated 2016-17. Circuits with a negative percent changes in expenditures were set at FY 2016-17 estimated expenditures.



Court Interpreting

Proposed FY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is based on actual

expenditure data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward.

FMC Recommendation

FMC and TCBC Recommendation: Option 3

Page 17 of 43

Court Interpreting LBR - Attachment D

A B C D E F

Circuit

FY 2013-14

Expenditures

FY 2014-15

Expenditures

FY 2015-16

Expenditures

FY 2016-17

Estimated

Expenditures1

Estimated

FY 2018-19

Expenditures2

1 $33,691 $41,245 $53,316 $51,630 $94,535

2 $36,770 $37,671 $25,430 $26,549 $48,611

3 $44,832 $44,584 $25,702 $28,282 $51,784

4 $252,370 $250,788 $287,069 $278,909 $510,682

5 $102,346 $145,607 $101,730 $190,266 $348,377

6 $187,843 $280,116 $272,261 $256,869 $470,327

7 $73,713 $65,207 $85,557 $65,887 $120,639

8 $33,878 $40,543 $44,673 $40,275 $73,744

9 $98,531 $159,537 $175,102 $216,222 $395,902

10 $65,379 $77,671 $77,072 $70,328 $128,771

11 $228,157 $258,042 $506,051 $557,147 $857,957

12 $313,591 $304,968 $357,548 $274,439 $502,498

13 $131,576 $156,427 $145,968 $151,250 $276,939

14 $33,321 $38,041 $38,581 $44,133 $80,808

15 $83,088 $131,713 $173,904 $206,947 $378,920

16 $16,822 $19,234 $17,672 $18,238 $33,394

17 $119,644 $142,831 $149,759 $152,740 $279,667

18 $25,650 $44,486 $35,693 $51,362 $94,044

19 $391,374 $444,108 $477,354 $494,025 $904,560

20 $329,474 $357,673 $498,686 $440,245 $806,089

Total $2,602,050 $3,040,492 $3,549,128 $3,615,743 $6,458,246

16.8% 16.7% 1.9%

$2,925,306Option 4: FY 2018-19 LBR

2 FY 2018-19 Estimated Expenditures is based on the average percent change in expenditures from 2013-14 to estimated 2016-17 for the

5th, 9th, 11th, and 15th circuits, where increases in interpreting demand has been greatest.



Court Interpreting


Percent Change

Average Increase 5th, 9th, 11th and 15th 83.1%

1 Expenditures include contractual and cost recovery. In addition, FY 2016-17 Estimated Expenditures is based on actual expenditure

data from July 2016 to May 2017 plus FY 2015-16 actual expenditures for June through Certified Forward.

Page 18 of 43



Case Management

Background

Case managers provide early and continuous intervention through the life of a case that leads to timely

disposition. Specifically, case managers perform intake, screening, evaluation, monitoring, tracking,

coordinating, scheduling, and referral activities. In FY 2015-16, a legislative budget request (LBR) was

filed for 92 FTE case managers, which was partially funded during the 2015 Special Session when the

Legislature appropriated $2.0 million to the trial courts for this issue, resulting in 38 new FTE.

Additionally, as part of the State Courts System’s FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 LBRs, 52.5 FTE and

50.0 FTE case managers, respectively, were requested but not funded. Based on feedback from circuits,

there still exists a need for additional case managers in order to provide an adequate level of services

throughout the state.

In December 2015, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA)

released a report that discusses staffing formulas used for case managers and staff attorneys and

recommends refining the approach to staffing need projections in these areas. The report stated the

current methodology of requesting 1 case manager for every 5,500 filings “was not a meaningful

number for evaluating the need for case managers.” Further, the report noted, “case managers were

usually assigned to divisions, such as a family court, where they help litigants unrepresented by

attorneys, or to specialty courts where they monitor the participants’ compliance with obligations like

drug testing and family counseling between court appearances. The need for case managers appears to

be more dependent upon how they are used in each circuit.”

As a remedy, the report stated “in some circuits, adding additional case managers may be useful for

improving the efficient disposition of cases, and could lead to more timely case closure. In circuits with

drug treatment courts, veterans’ courts, and mental health courts, case managers may have more of an

effect on participant outcomes than on case timeliness, as they guide participants through treatment steps

and frequent court appearances.” Last year, the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) considered

multiple options for determining the need for case managers in the trial courts, including a new option

using a revised case manager staffing formula based on division of court workload. Ultimately, the

TCBC selected the more refined approach of considering the specific types of cases and types of courts

where the case managers could be used in a divisional case management analysis.

Current Issue

At the June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed staff to examine the need and cost for additional case

managers in the trial courts as part of the FY 2018-19 LBR. OSCA staff prepared three options for

consideration.

FTE LBR

Option 1 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio (3 Year Maximum) 39.0 $2,612,746

Option 2 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio (3 Year Average) 15.0 $1,007,585

Option 3 – Proposed Ratio by Court Division 50.0 $3,344,085

Option 1 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio Using Three-Year Maximum Filings

Page 19 of 43



The official needs assessment funding methodology for the case management element is based on a ratio

of 1.0 FTE case manager for every 5,500 projected filings, with a floor of 8.0 FTE. Option 1 applies the

same formula but uses maximum filings from FY 2013-14 through FY 2015-16, with the exception of

civil traffic infraction filings and excluding any negative net need. This option uses existing FTE in the

Case Management (CC 122) and Drug Court (CC 217) cost centers, based on FY 2017-18 allocations

(see Attachment B). Based on this methodology, an additional 39.0 FTE are needed. The positions

would be funded at the Court Program Specialist II level, totaling $2,612,746. (See Attachment A.)

Option 2 – 1:5,500 Filings Ratio Using Three-Year Average Filings

Option 2 applies the same formula as in the official needs assessment funding methodology but uses an

average of filings from FY 2013-14 through FY 2015-16, with the exception of civil traffic infraction

filings and excluding any negative net need. This option uses existing FTE in the Case Management

(CC 122) and Drug Court (CC 217) cost centers, based on FY 2017-18 allocations (see Attachment B).

Based on this methodology, an additional 15.0 FTE are needed. The positions would be funded at the

Court Program Specialist II level, totaling $1,007,585. (See Attachment A.)

Option 3 – FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Court Division

Option 3 applies a ratio of case management FTE per judge by division of court in order to provide more

directed support in the divisions where case managers may be needed. This option uses the number of

judges by division, which were self-reported on the Judicial Needs Application by judicial FTE as of

July 1, 2016. Due to the short timeframe to develop the legislative budget requests for the 2018

legislative session, the number of existing case management FTE by division is based on information

reported by the circuits as of July 2016 (see Attachment C), with a few minor adjustments based on

additional funding of problem-solving courts for specific counties. Based on this methodology, an

additional 50.0 FTE are needed. The positions would be funded at the Court Program Specialist II level,

for a total cost of $3,344,085. (See Attachment D.)

Please note, if additional resources are appropriated, circuit allocations will be determined during the FY

2018-19 allocation process. Allocations may be determined using a methodology different than that

used in developing the LBR. Divisional assignment of resources is at the discretion of the chief judge in

each circuit.

Decision Needed

Option 1: File an LBR for $3,731,096 in recurring funds for an additional 60.5 FTE case managers.



Option 4: Do not file an LBR for additional case managers.



Page 20 of 43





Page 21 of 43

Case Management LBR - Attachment A

A B C D E F G H

Three-Year

Maximum

Filings3

Total Need

(Rounded to whole

FTE)

Net Need

FTE5

Three-Year

Average

Filings4

Total Need

(Rounded to whole

FTE)

Net Need

FTE5

1 13.0 70,315 13.0 0.0 66,635 12.0 0.0

2 6.0 38,999 8.0 2.0 36,175 8.0 2.0

3 7.0 19,156 8.0 1.0 17,323 8.0 1.0

4 21.0 119,113 22.0 1.0 111,257 20.0 0.0

5 13.0 84,484 15.0 2.0 76,041 14.0 1.0

6 23.0 141,146 26.0 3.0 132,815 24.0 1.0

7 17.5 90,926 17.0 0.0 85,105 15.0 0.0

8 7.0 37,632 8.0 1.0 34,498 8.0 1.0

9 21.0 157,365 29.0 8.0 145,580 26.0 5.0

10 12.5 75,798 14.0 1.5 70,352 13.0 0.5

11 50.0 287,018 52.0 2.0 263,550 48.0 0.0

12 11.0 67,461 12.0 1.0 61,963 11.0 0.0

13 23.0 157,739 29.0 6.0 143,104 26.0 3.0

14 8.0 35,515 8.0 0.0 33,458 8.0 0.0

15 21.0 134,811 25.0 4.0 117,967 21.0 0.0

16 8.0 10,551 8.0 0.0 9,117 8.0 0.0

17 34.0 204,773 37.0 3.0 185,480 34.0 0.0

18 14.5 86,839 16.0 1.5 80,475 15.0 0.5

19 9.0 54,947 10.0 1.0 51,437 9.0 0.0

20 18.0 106,700 19.0 1.0 97,871 18.0 0.0

Total 337.5 1,981,288 376.0 39.0 1,820,203 346.0 15.0




Case Management

Option 2: Average Filings

Using 1:5,500 Filings Ratio2

FY 2017-18

FTE1

Circuit

Option 1: Maximum Filings

Using 1:5,500 Filings Ratio2

4 Three-year average filings based on fiscal years 2013-14 through 2015-16 and does not include civil traffic infraction filings.

5 Net need does not include circuits with a negative need.

1 Includes case management FTE in cost centers 122 (Case Management) and 217 (Drug Court).

2 Based on current funding methodology of a 1:5,500 filings ratio and a floor of 8.0 FTE.

3 Three-year maximum filings based on fiscal years 2013-14 through 2015-16 and does not include civil traffic infraction filings.

Page 22 of 43

Case Management LBR - Attachment B

Drug Court - CC217Post-Adjudicatory

Drug Court - CC 753Juvenile Drug Court

FTE

OPS

030000

Contracted

Services

100777 FTE FTE

Recurring

Veterans

Court

103770

Nonrecurring

Veterans

Court

103770

Contracted Services

(Non-Recurring)

1 12.0 1.0 1.0 $300,000

2 6.0 $125,000 $50,000

3 6.0 1.0

4 20.0 $924 1.0 $350,000 $150,000

5 12.0 $27,819 1.0 1.0 $250,000

6 23.0 $14,600 2.0 $300,000

7 15.5 2.0 1.0

8 7.0 $150,000

9 19.0 2.0 2.0 $200,000

10 12.5 2.0

11 48.0 2.0 $150,500

12 9.0 2.0

13 22.0 $86,400 1.0 3.0

14 7.0 1.0

15 20.0 1.0

16 6.0 2.0

17 33.0 $2,400 1.0 2.0

18 12.5 2.0 1.0 $116,149 $175,000

19 7.0 2.0

20 18.0 $86,000

Total 315.5 $42,419 $89,724 22.0 15.0 $1,425,000 $802,649 $175,000

Note: Not all funding received for problem solving courts is used for case management positions.

Veterans Court - CC 377

Trial Court Budget Allocations

FY 2017-18

Circuit

Case Management - CC 122


July 22, 2017, Meeting

Page 23 of 43

Case Management LBR - Attachment C

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Q

Pro Se DV/ DR UFC

Other/

Unsp.

Total

Family

1 5.50 3.50 2.00 11.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 16.00

2 3.50 3.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 7.00

3 2.00 3.25 1.00 0.25 4.50 0.50 7.00

4 1.00 3.00 14.00 17.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 23.00

5 1.00 3.50 7.50 1.00 8.50 0.75 0.25 2.00 16.00

6 4.00 5.00 12.00 17.00 3.00 6.00 2.00 32.00

7 2.00 1.50 9.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 18.50

8 2.00 5.00 5.00 0.30 7.30

9 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 25.00

10 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.50 4.00 1.00 9.50 1.00 2.00 14.50

11 7.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 13.00 22.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 51.00

12 3.00 3.00 6.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 11.00

13 9.00 2.00 11.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 26.00

14 1.75 0.75 4.25 4.25 0.25 1.00 8.00

15 1.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 21.00

16 1.50 2.00 2.00 4.00 0.50 2.00 8.00

17 1.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 8.00 17.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 36.00

18 1.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.50 3.00 1.00 16.50

19 0.75 0.50 4.00 4.50 1.75 1.00 2.00 10.00

20 5.00 13.00 13.00 1.00 19.00

Total: 18.75 38.00 1.00 1.00 25.25 38.50 19.50 107.50 190.75 31.75 23.00 15.25 39.00 14.30 372.80

Percent: 5.0% 10.2% 0.3% 0.3% 6.8% 10.3% 5.2% 28.8% 51.2% 8.5% 6.2% 4.1% 10.5% 3.8% 100.0%

1 As reported by circuits in July 2016, with adjustments for 2017 new appropriations. Includes FTE in all court divisions as well as OPS and contractual case management services.

2 Includes Post-Adjudicatory Drug Court.

FY 2017-18 Case Management Resources by Court Division1

Note: Case management resources include FTEs and contractual/OPS resources, converted to FTEs.


July 22, 2017 MeetingFY 2018-19 Legislative Budget Request

Circuit Total

Family Court

Circuit

Criminal

Circuit

Civil

County

Criminal

County

Civil Juvenile

Probate

/ Guar.

Other /

General

Drug

Court2

Veterans

Court

Page 24 of 43

Case Management LBR - Attachment D

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

FMC

Rec.

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources2

Total

Need

Net

Need

FTE

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources3

Total

Need

FTE

Net

Need

FTE

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources4

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources5

Judicial

FTE1

Case

Manager

Resources6

Total

Need

FTE

Net

Need

FTE

1 9.7 4.0 3.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.3 1.0 4.8 11.0 3.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 4.0

2 5.9 1.5 2.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.4 1.0 3.2 3.5 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0

3 2.5 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

4 10.7 3.0 3.6 1.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 7.9 17.0 3.7 0.0 1.9 2.0 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.0

5 9.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 3.5 2.7 0.0 8.6 8.5 3.4 0.8 1.7 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.0

6 13.0 8.0 4.3 0.0 11.5 4.0 3.8 0.0 13.5 17.0 3.8 0.0 1.9 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 3.0

7 8.5 5.0 2.8 0.0 6.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0

8 4.0 2.3 1.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.9 1.0 3.8 5.0 1.2 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0

9 16.0 7.0 5.3 0.0 10.0 1.0 3.3 2.0 8.5 14.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 4.0

10 9.2 3.0 3.1 0.0 6.8 1.0 2.3 1.0 6.5 9.5 3.7 0.0 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 3.0

11 25.1 10.0 8.4 0.0 24.1 4.0 8.0 4.0 13.4 22.0 9.8 6.0 4.9 0.0 3.8 6.0 1.3 0.0 4.0

12 6.7 2.0 2.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.7 2.0 5.3 6.0 2.1 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 2.0 0.4 0.0 3.0

13 12.3 4.0 4.1 0.0 13.4 0.0 4.5 4.0 8.9 11.0 7.7 7.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 4.0

14 3.1 2.8 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.8 0.9 0.0 2.1 4.3 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0

15 8.5 1.0 2.8 2.0 11.7 3.0 3.9 1.0 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.0 2.6 0.0 3.1 3.0 1.0 0.0 3.0

16 1.1 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.5 0.4 0.0 1.2 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 19.0 5.0 6.3 1.0 15.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 10.0 17.0 10.0 8.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0

18 9.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 5.8 5.0 1.9 0.0 6.7 3.0 3.6 1.0 1.8 1.0 0.8 2.5 0.3 0.0 1.0

19 6.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.8 1.7 1.0 4.4 4.5 2.3 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.8 0.4 0.0 2.0

20 8.8 1.0 2.9 2.0 8.1 5.0 2.7 0.0 8.0 13.0 3.5 0.0 1.8 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.7 1.0 5.0

Total 188.1 72.1 62.7 6.0 156.2 38.0 52.1 22.0 129.8 190.8 78.2 31.8 39.1 19.0 31.2 23.0 10.4 3.0 50.0

Percent 31% 19% 26% 10% 22% 51% 13% 8% 5% 6%

3 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in the Civil division including Foreclosure case managers.

4 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in the Family division including Domestic Violence, Domestic Relations, Unified Family Court, Pro Se litigant support, and Other or Unspecified Family case managers.

5 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in Juvenile, Dependency, Delinquency, and Juvenile Specialty or Drug courts.

6 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in for Probate, Guardianship, Baker Act and Substance Abuse Act cases.

Probate/Guardianship 1:3 Ratio Grand

Total

Net

Need

Note: Case management resources are calculated by adding FTEs and contractual/OPS resources, converted to FTEs, for purposes of applying the methodology.1 Judicial FTE were self-reported as part of the Judicial Needs Application as of July 1, 2016. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

2 Includes case management resources as reported by circuits in Circuit Criminal, Drug Court (CC 217 and CC 753), and Veterans Court (CC 377).

Family Court

Circuit

Circuit Criminal 1:3 Ratio Circuit Civil 1:3 Ratio Domestic Relations Juvenile 1:2 Ratio

Total

Need

FTE

Net

Need

FTE




FMC and TCBC Recommendation: Option 3 Case Management FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division

Page 25 of 43



Staff Attorneys

Background

Historically, the State Courts System (SCS) has requested additional trial court staff attorney

resources using a methodology based on a ratio of one staff attorney for every two existing

judges (staff attorneys for new judges are considered during the certification process1).

However, starting in FY 2014-15, the TCBC began a more targeted approach in developing their

staff attorney legislative budget requests (LBR) – anticipated increases in workload associated

with the often complex and legally significant matters related to a sentence of death.

Additionally, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability

(OPPAGA), in their December 2015 report, suggested “the circuit courts may have a need for

additional staff attorneys, but the magnitude of that need is not clearly defined with data. The

numbers of death penalty cases, complex civil cases, and post-conviction motions are more

relevant measures of need than the ratio of attorneys to judges. A ratio of one staff attorney for

two judges may not be sufficient for criminal court judges but for other divisions, a lower ratio

may be sufficient.”

In response to the OPPAGA report, the TCBC directed staff of the Office of the State Courts

Administrator (OSCA) to develop alternative LBR funding formulas for staff attorneys for

consideration. For the 2017-18 LBR cycle, the OSCA developed a new methodology based on

divisional workload.

Current Issue

At their June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed the Funding Methodology Committee

(FMC) to provide recommendations for determining staff attorney needs for consideration in the

FY 2018-19 LBR. OSCA staff developed three options for consideration. The first option uses

the historical methodology, with the need based on a ratio of one staff attorney for every two

judges. The second option is based on 10 years of cumulative capital murder conviction data, the

official judicial Delphi case weight for Capital Murder cases, and a ratio of staff attorney

workload associated with these cases to the FTE equivalent of judicial workload. This option

uses the judicial case weights approved in the 2015 Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final

Report, developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). The third option assumes

workload is driven by the type of divisions and number of judges assigned to each division. It

sets a statewide reasonable support ratio based on the level of research support needed in the

division.

FTE LBR

Option 1 – Ratio of 1 Staff Attorney for every 2 Judges 102 $8,079,964

1 The methodology for calculating staff attorney need associated with the certification of new judges is based on a

ratio of three judges (existing and new) to every one staff attorney for those circuits certified to receive additional

judges. The need is then compared to the current number of staff attorneys to develop the total request for new staff

attorneys.

Page 26 of 43



Option 2 – Targeted for Death Penalty Workload 43 $3,432,413

Option 3 – Targeted Ratio by Court Division 37 $2,930,967

Decision Needed

Option 1: Recommend filing an LBR based on the current methodology using a ratio of 1 staff

attorney for every 2 existing judges for a request of 102 FTE staff attorney positions totaling

$8,079,964. (See Attachment A)

Option 2: Recommend filing an LBR based on a targeted approach for death penalty staff

attorneys for a request of 43 FTE staff attorney positions totaling $3,432,413. (See Attachment

B)

Option 3: Recommend filing an LBR based on proposed ratios of staff attorney support per

judge by division of court for a request of 37 FTE staff attorney positions totaling $2,930,967.

(See Attachment C)

Option 4: Do not file an LBR for Staff Attorney FTE.




The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 4, to not file an LBR for Staff Attorney

FTE for FY 2018-19.

Page 27 of 43

Staff Attorney LBR - Attachment A

A B C D E

Circuit

Number of

Circuit

Court Judges

FY 2017-18

Trial Court

Staff Attorney

FTE Allocation1

Trial Court

Staff Attorney

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

Trial Court

Staff Attorney

Net Need3

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 24 9 12 3

2 4

16 8 9 1

3 7 3 4 1

4 35 13.5 18 5

5 31 10 16 6

6 45 16 23 7

7 27 8.5 14 6

8 13 6 7 1

9 43 14 22 8

10 28 10 14 4

11 80 25 40 15

12 4

21 7 12 5

13 45 17 23 6

14 11 6 6 0

15 35 11.5 18 7

16 4 1 2 1

17 58 18 29 11

18 26 9 13 4

19 19 5 10 5

20 31 10 16 6

Total 599 207.5 308 102

Note: Resources associated with new judges are addressed in the certification process.

2 Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need is based on the current funding methodology ratio of 1 Staff

Attorney to every 2 circuit court judges, rounded to the nearest whole FTE.3

Trial Court Staff Attorney Net Need is the difference between Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need

and FY 2017-18 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation.4

The 2nd Circuit includes 1.0 FTE prison petition Staff Attorney in their FY 2017-18 Trial Court Staff

Attorney FTE Allocation and Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need. The 12th Circuit includes 1.0

FTE Jimmy Ryce Staff Attorney in their FY 2017-18 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation and

Trial Court Staff Attorney Total Need.



Trial Court Staff Attorneys

Option 1: Ratio of 1 Staff Attorney for Every 2 Judges

1 FY 2016-17 Trial Court Staff Attorney FTE Allocation includes positions in CC 258 and CC 257.

(post conviction).


Page 28 of 43

Staff Attorney LBR - Attachment B

A B C D E F

3,273

Circuit

10 Year

Cumulative

Capital

Murder

Convictions 1

Weighted Judicial

Workload (in Minutes)

Associated with Capital

Murder Convictions

Based on 10 Years of

Cumulative Convictions

Available Minutes

Per Judge

Estimated

Number of

Capital Murder

Judges

(Unrounded)

FTE Need

based on 1:2

Ratio

(Rounded to

the Nearest

0.5 FTE)

1 109 356,757 77,400 4.6 2.5

2 62 202,926 77,400 2.6 1.5

3 29 94,917 77,400 1.2 1.0

4 178 582,594 77,400 7.5 4.0

5 69 225,837 77,400 2.9 1.5

6 170 556,410 77,400 7.2 3.5

7 81 265,113 77,400 3.4 2.0

8 25 81,825 77,400 1.1 0.5

9 214 700,422 77,400 9.0 4.5

10 76 248,748 77,400 3.2 1.5

11 156 510,588 77,400 6.6 3.5

12 64 209,472 77,400 2.7 1.5

13 106 346,938 77,400 4.5 2.0

14 30 98,190 77,400 1.3 0.5

15 180 589,140 77,400 7.6 4.0

16 4 13,092 77,400 0.2 0.0

17 170 556,410 77,400 7.2 3.5

18 138 451,674 77,400 5.8 3.0

19 65 212,745 77,400 2.7 1.5

20 40 130,920 77,400 1.7 1.0

Total 1,966 6,434,718 83.1 43.0

1 The 10 Year Cumulative Capital Murder Convictions include Summary Reporting System data from FY 2006-07 through FY 2015-

16. The Summary Reporting System statistics provided above were extracted from a dynamic data base and may be amended by the

Clerk of Court.





Option 2: Death Penalty Staff Attorneys (Based on 10 Years of Cumulative Convictions)

Capital Murder Delphi Case Weight (in Minutes) FMC

Recommendation

Page 29 of 43

Staff Attorney LBR - Attachment C

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

Judicial

FTE1

Staff Attorney

FTE Need

1 9.7 4.9 3.8 1.5 8.6 2.9 1.6 0.6 9.9 9.0 1.0

2 5.9 3.0 4.2 1.7 4.8 1.6 0.7 0.3 6.5 8.0 0.0

3 2.5 1.3 1.8 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 2.8 3.0 0.0

4 10.7 5.4 9.0 3.6 11.6 3.9 1.4 0.6 13.4 13.5 0.0

5 9.0 4.5 8.0 3.2 12.0 4.0 2.0 0.8 12.5 10.0 3.0

6 13.0 6.5 11.5 4.6 17.3 5.8 2.5 1.0 17.9 15.0 3.0

7 8.5 4.3 6.0 2.4 10.0 3.3 2.4 1.0 10.9 8.5 2.0

8 4.0 2.0 2.7 1.1 5.0 1.7 0.8 0.3 5.1 6.0 0.0

9 16.0 8.0 10.0 4.0 14.5 4.8 1.5 0.6 17.4 14.0 3.0

10 9.2 4.6 6.8 2.7 10.2 3.4 1.3 0.5 11.2 10.0 1.0

11 25.1 12.6 24.1 9.6 23.2 7.7 3.8 1.5 31.4 25.0 6.0

12 6.7 3.4 5.2 2.1 7.4 2.5 1.2 0.5 8.4 7.0 1.0

13 12.3 6.2 13.4 5.4 16.6 5.5 1.0 0.4 17.4 16.0 1.0

14 3.1 1.6 2.8 1.1 4.1 1.4 0.5 0.2 4.2 6.0 0.0

15 8.5 4.3 11.7 4.7 10.7 3.6 3.1 1.2 13.7 11.5 2.0

16 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.0 1.0

17 19.0 9.5 15.0 6.0 20.0 6.7 3.0 1.2 23.4 17.0 6.0

18 9.0 4.5 5.8 2.3 10.3 3.4 0.8 0.3 10.6 9.0 2.0

19 6.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 6.6 2.2 1.1 0.4 7.6 5.0 3.0

20 8.8 4.4 8.1 3.2 11.5 3.8 2.1 0.8 12.3 10.0 2.0

Total 188.1 94.1 156.2 62.5 208.0 69.4 31.2 12.5 238.4 204.5 37.0

Percent 31.4% 26.1% 34.7% 5.2%


Option 3: FTE Need Based on Proposed Ratio by Division




2 Rounded to the 1.0 FTE level and does include negative net need values.

FY 2017-18

Trial Court

Staff

Attorney

Allocation

1 Judicial FTE were self-reported as part of the Judicial Needs Application as of July 1, 2016. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

Probate/Guardianship

2.5:1 Ratio Total Trial

Court Staff

Attorney

FTE Need

Trial Court

Staff

Attorney

FTE Net

Need2

Circuit

Circuit Criminal

2:1 Ratio

Circuit Civil

2.5:1 Ratio

Family

3:1 Ratio

Page 30 of 43



General Magistrates

Background

The State Courts System has relied on funding formulas to define what is reasonable and

necessary to fund the elements of the court system in order to ensure adequate and equitable

funding for all circuits. The funding methodology approved for the General Magistrates element

is based on a case weighted methodology for general magistrates and a ratio of one

administrative support position per magistrate. If the funding methodology indicated a need for

0.5 FTE, the number was rounded up. Current FTE numbers were subtracted from the whole

numbers identified by the funding methodology to obtain additional FTE need. This

methodology does not expand on the use of these resources within the judicial system to

divisions where general magistrates are not used statewide.

In November 2014, the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) entered into a contract

with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to evaluate judicial workload in

Florida. Funding for the workload study was provided by the TCBC. In June 2015, the Supreme

Court decided to include quasi-judicial officers such as senior judges, general magistrates, child

support enforcement hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers as part of the

workload study. In June 2016, the Supreme Court approved the updated case weights from the

NCSC report.

The new workload study documents the important contribution made by general magistrates in

the efficient and effective resolution of cases. However, the study recognizes the variations

across counties and circuits in the availability and current use of general magistrates based on the

time study results. The new weights developed in the 2016 workload study did not account for

additional need in order to expand resources to other divisions. The case weights represent

workload that incorporates sufficient time for efficient and effective case processing of the cases

that are handled by the existing resources available in the trial courts.

The trial courts have not received additional general magistrate resources since the initial

funding in FY 2004-05, during Revision 7 to Article V. Additionally, general magistrates and

their support staff were reduced by 23.75 FTE in 2008. The last request submitted by the Court

for general magistrate resources was for the FY 2012-13 LBR. This request was identified by

the trial courts as an attempt to improve efficiencies in the management of the trial courts’

workload in absence of additional judicial resources, but was not funded. The trial courts have

not received additional judicial resources since FY 2007-08.

Current Issue

At the June 27, 2017, meeting, the TCBC directed staff to examine the need and cost for

additional general magistrates in the trial courts as part of the FY 2018-19 LBR. Additionally,

the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit sent a letter to the chair of the TCBC (see Attachment A),

Page 31 of 43



requesting the TCBC to consider including general magistrate resources in its recommendation

for the State Courts System LBR.

OSCA staff prepared four options for the FMC’s and TCBC’s consideration:

FTE LBR

Option 1 – Need based on average actual filings over 3 years 33.5 $2,850,653

Option 2 – Need based on average projected filings over 3 years 40.5 $3,535,727

Option 3 – Divisional need based on average actual filings over 3 years 56.0 $4,888,725

Option 4 – Divisional need based on average projected filings over 3 years 55.0 $4,755,502

Total and net need for general magistrates and administrative support are reflected in the

following eight attachments. In Option 1 (Attachments B and C), the total need is based on the

average number of actual filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 for non-capital

murder, sexual offense, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto

negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage

foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support,

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), other domestic relations, domestic violence,

repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act,

Substance Abuse Act, and other social cases. The total need is calculated in two steps. The first

step estimates general magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight.

In the second step, general magistrate total need is calculated by dividing the estimated general

magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work. Additionally,

administrative support need is calculated to achieve the 1:1 ratio of general magistrates to

support staff.

In Option 2 (Attachments D and E), the total need is calculated similarly to Attachments A and

B, but is based on the average number of projected filings over fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17,

and 2017-18, for the same case types.

In Option 3 (Attachments F and G), the total need is calculated similarly to Option 1, but is

divided across the divisions of circuit court in comparing total need to current general magistrate

assignment. As noted above in the Background section, this option does not represent an

expansion in the use of general magistrates to new divisions.

In Option 4 (Attachments H and I), the total need is calculated similarly to Option 2, but is

divided across the divisions of circuit court in comparing total need to current general magistrate

assignment. As noted above in the Background section, this option does not represent an

expansion in the use of general magistrates to new divisions.

Decision Needed

Option 1: File an LBR for the General Magistrate element (12.0 Magistrate FTEs; 21.5

Page 32 of 43



Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $2,850,653) based on the official methodology, using

the average actual filings over three fiscal years.


Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $3,535,727) based on the official methodology, using

the average projected filings over three fiscal years.


Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $4,888,725) based on divisional need, using the

average actual filings over three fiscal years.


Administrative Support FTEs; for a total of $4,755,502) based on divisional need, using the

average projected filings over three fiscal years.

Option 5: Do not file an LBR for the General Magistrate element.




The TCBC considered this issue and approved Option 5, to not file an LBR for General

Magistrates for FY 2018-19.

Page 33 of 43

General Magistrates LBR - Attachment A

Page 34 of 43

General Magistrates LBR - Attachment A

Page 35 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment B

A B C D E F

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE Allocation

Administrative

Support

FTE Allocation Total Need1

General

Magistrate

Average

Total Need (Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

Administrative

Support Average

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 3.5 3.0 4.3 4.0 4.0

2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

3 1.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.0

4 7.0 6.0 6.4 6.0 6.0

5 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.0

6 7.25 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.0

7 3

3.5 4.0 4.8 5.0 5.0

8 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

9 6.0 4.0 8.1 8.0 8.0

10 4.0 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.0

11 11.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

12 4.0 3.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

13 7.0 7.0 8.1 8.0 8.0

14 2.0 1.0 1.9 2.0 2.0

15 7.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.0

16 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0

17 9.0 8.5 10.4 10.0 10.0

18 4.0 3.0 4.8 5.0 5.0

19 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.0

20 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.0 6.0

Total 93.25 82.5 105.7 105.0 105.0

2 Administrative Support average total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate.

3 Circuit 7 FY 2017-18 allocation has 0.5 FTE more Administrative Support FTE than General Magistrate FTE but is not

considered in excess of the 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrates due to their total need.



General Magistrates

Background Statistics - Option 1

FY 2017-18 Allocation Total Need

1 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the

average number of actual filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 for serious felony offenses, felony drug

court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness,

real property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support,

UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship,

trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated

General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate

total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related

work.

Page 36 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment C

A B C D E

Circuit

General

Magistrate Net

Need

Administrative

Support

Net Need

General

Magistrate

FTE

Administrative

Support

FTE

1 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 -0.25 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0

8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

9 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0

10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

14 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

15 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

16 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5

18 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Total 10.75 21.5 12.0 21.5

2 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.



General Magistrates


Net Need1

FMC Recommendation

Option 1

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget Request

1 Net Need is the difference between total need and FY 2017-18 FTE allocation.

Page 37 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment D

A B C D E F

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE Allocation

Administrative

Support

FTE Allocation Total Need1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need (Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

Administrative

Support

Maximum

Total Need2

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)

1 3.5 3.0 5.9 6.0 6.0

2 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.0 3.0

3 1.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 2.0

4 7.0 6.0 6.3 6.0 6.0

5 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.0

6 7.25 7.0 5.7 6.0 6.0

7 3

3.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

8 2.0 1.0 3.4 3.0 3.0

9 6.0 4.0 7.3 7.0 7.0

10 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

11 11.0 11.0 12.1 12.0 12.0

12 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0

13 7.0 7.0 8.3 8.0 8.0

14 2.0 1.0 2.6 3.0 3.0

15 7.0 6.0 8.8 9.0 9.0

16 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

17 9.0 8.5 9.7 10.0 10.0

18 4.0 3.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

19 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

20 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.0

Total 93.25 82.5 106.0 106.0 106.0

2 Administrative Support maximum total need assumes a 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrate.

3 Circuit 7 FY 2017-18 allocation has 0.5 FTE more Administrative Support FTE than General Magistrate FTE but is not

considered in excess of the 1:1 ratio of Administrative Support to General Magistrates due to their total need.



General Magistrates


FY 2017-18 Allocation Total Need

1 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the

average projected filings for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court,

professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real

property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA,

other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust,

Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated

General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate

total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related

work.

Page 38 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment E

A B C D E

Circuit

General

Magistrate Net

Need

Administrative

Support

Net Need

General

Magistrate

FTE

Administrative

Support

FTE

1 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0

2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 -1.25 -1.0 0.0 0.0

7 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0

8 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

9 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0

10 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

12 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

14 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

15 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

16 2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

17 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5

18 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

19 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 12.75 23.5 16.0 24.5



General Magistrates


Net Need1

Option 2

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget Request

1 Net Need is the difference between total need and FY 2017-18 FTE allocation.


Page 39 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment F

A B C D E F G H I J K

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

1 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.12 1.90 3.59 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.55

2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.11 2.00 1.49 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.37

3 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.07 0.33 1.02 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.11

4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.22 6.80 5.48 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.66

5 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.26 4.60 4.33 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.67

6 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.30 5.25 5.51 0.00 0.06 2.25 0.88

7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16 3.40 3.94 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.60

8 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.05 1.30 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.33

9 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.36 4.25 6.88 0.00 0.03 0.75 0.81

10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 2.90 3.51 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.58

11 0.00 0.04 1.00 0.74 10.00 12.58 0.00 0.06 1.00 1.59

12 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.13 2.90 3.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.70

13 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.27 5.50 6.78 0.00 0.03 2.00 0.97

14 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.06 1.50 1.68 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.19

15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.35 5.80 5.38 0.00 0.06 1.20 0.70

16 3

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.20 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

17 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.57 6.00 8.58 2.00 0.05 0.50 1.10

18 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.17 4.74 3.96 0.00 0.04 0.58 0.59

19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.15 2.25 2.67 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.35

20 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.25 3.80 5.22 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.73

Total 0.50 0.30 5.73 4.51 75.42 87.72 2.27 0.72 10.51 12.49

2 Total need reflects the average General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the average number of filings over fiscal years 2013-14, 2014-15,

and 2015-16 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real

property/mortgage foreclosure, eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence,

delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate, guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated

General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General

Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.





1 Total current general magistrate FTE assignments may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self reported by FTE equivalent as of July 1, 2016.

Circuit Civil Family Court Probate

Mental Health and

GuardianshipCircuit Criminal

Page 40 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment G

A B C D E F G H

Circuit Civil Family Court

Mental Health and

Guardianship

Circuit

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

FY 2017-18

Administrative

Support FTE

FY 2018-19

Administrative

Support FTE

Need2

1 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 5.4 2.0

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0

3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0

5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.9 1.0

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.5 1.0

7 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.4 1.0

8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

9 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 5.0

10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.2 1.0

11 0.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 11.0 16.0 5.0

12 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

13 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.5 2.0

14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0

163 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

17 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 8.5 14.0 6.0

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 2.0

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.6 0.0

20 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.4 0.0

Total 1.0 16.0 5.00 22.0 82.5 116.4 34.0

Option 3

FY 2018-19

Legislative

Budget Request

Administrative

Support2

Option 3

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget

Request

General Magistrate

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1




General Magistrates


1 Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments.

2 FY 2018-19 Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY 2018-19 Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY 2018-19 FTE need

minus FY 2017-18 Administrative Support FTE.

Page 41 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment H

A B C D E F G H I J K

Circuit

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

General

Magistrate

FTE

Assignments1

General

Magistrate

Maximum

Total Need

(Unrounded)2

1 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.12 1.90 5.19 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.51

2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.12 2.00 2.38 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.37

3 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.07 0.33 1.56 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.11

4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.23 6.80 5.37 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.61

5 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.23 4.60 4.25 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.70

6 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.28 5.25 4.35 0.00 0.06 2.25 0.90

7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16 3.40 3.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.58

8 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.05 1.30 3.00 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.29

9 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.32 4.25 6.17 0.00 0.03 0.75 0.76

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 2.90 4.34 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.56

11 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.90 10.00 9.46 0.00 0.07 1.00 1.57

12 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.11 2.90 2.59 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.70

13 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.32 5.50 6.97 0.00 0.03 2.00 0.94

14 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.05 1.50 2.34 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.17

15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.33 5.80 7.74 0.00 0.06 1.20 0.69

16 3

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.20 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

17 0.50 0.06 0.00 0.58 6.00 8.00 2.00 0.05 0.50 0.96

18 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16 4.74 3.11 0.00 0.04 0.58 0.56

19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 2.25 3.50 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.32

20 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.26 3.80 3.57 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.72

Total 0.50 0.34 5.73 4.57 75.42 88.32 2.27 0.71 10.51 12.04

1 Total current general magistrate FTE assignments may not be exact due to rounding. In addition, assignments were self reported by FTE equivalent as of July 1, 2016.

2 Total need reflects the average projected General Magistrate FTE total need over a three-year period. The total need is based on the average projected filings for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-

18 for serious felony offenses, felony drug court, professional malpractice, products liability, auto negligence, other negligence, condominium, contract and indebtedness, real property/mortgage foreclosure,

eminent domain, other circuit civil, simplified dissolution, dissolution, child support, UIFSA, other domestic relations, domestic violence, repeat violence, delinquency, dependency, TPR, probate,

guardianship, trust, Baker Act, Substance Abuse Act, and other social. The total need was calculated in two steps. The first step estimated General Magistrate workload by multiplying filings by the

appropriate case weight. In the second step, General Magistrate total need was calculated by dividing the estimated General Magistrate workload by the total time available for case related work.





Circuit Criminal Circuit Civil Family Court Probate

Mental Health and

Guardianship

Page 42 of 43

General Magistrate LBR - Attachment I

A B C D E F G H

Circuit Civil Family Court

Mental Health and

Guardianship

Circuit

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Proposed General

Magistrate LBR

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

FY 2017-18

Administrative

Support FTE

FY 2018-19

Administrative

Support FTE

Need2

1 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 6.4 3.0

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0

3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 1.0

5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.9 1.0

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.5 1.0

7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.4 0.0

8 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0

9 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 4.0

10 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.2 1.0

11 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 13.0 2.0

12 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

13 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 8.5 2.0

14 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

15 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 9.0 3.0

163 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

17 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 8.5 12.0 4.0

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 2.0

19 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.6 1.0

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.4 0.0

Total 1.0 17.0 4.00 21.0 82.5 115.4 34.0

2 FY 2018-19 Administrative Support FTE need is based on a 1:1 ratio to General Magistrates. FY 2018-19 Proposed Administrative Support LBR is based on the FY 2018-19 FTE need

minus FY 2017-18 Administrative Support FTE.3 The 16th circuit does not have general magistrate FTEs.



General Magistrates


Option 4

FY 2018-19

Legislative Budget

Request

General Magistrate

(Rounded to the

nearest whole FTE)1

Option 4

FY 2018-19

Legislative

Budget Request

Administrative

Support2

1 Proposed General Magistrate LBR is the difference between total need and General Magistrate FTE assignments.

Page 43 of 43