California Courts’ New Funding Formula: The Workload Allocation Funding Methodology

By Tim Cory | September 5, 2014

Report

Credit: Scott / Flickr CC

In Brief

In April 2013, the Judicial Council approved the Workload Allocation Funding Methodology (WAFM), an entirely new formula to determine each California county court system’s budget allotment through calculated demand. To minimize financial stress, trial courts are phasing in the WAFM over a five-year period. During its initial introduction, the program boosted funding for some trial courts and reduced funding for others. In some counties, the program is only worsening the limited access citizens already have to their court systems. Critics of the methodology emphasize that basing distribution primarily on case volume creates vulnerabilities to variances in efficiency. Malleability from both the Judicial Council and California legislative bodies will be necessary to fine-tune the WAFM over the next decade. In the meantime, California trial courts will have to expect and operate with volatile funding.

Background

It has been a taxing decade for California trial courts, which repeatedly underwent budget cuts (Figure 1). The funding cuts have resulted in service cuts for citizens, as illustrated by the decline in the number of cases county courts can now hear. Trial courts continue to struggle to meet public demand for everything from traffic tickets to custody hearings. Yet, even the systems’ seemingly reduced caseloads are not easing the demand for court resources. Though county courts are hearing fewer cases, those few are growing more complex and now require greater resources from the systems. Ultimately, we can trace most of these service cuts and resource strains back to state-level decisions.

Figure 1: Trial Court Trust Fund Allocation 2006-13 v Trial Court Caseload 2006-13

To combat depleted budgets and a quietly growing demand for court resources, the state has introduced a new trial court funding approach meant to better evaluate each county court’s financial need. During its initial introduction, the program boosted funding for some trial courts and reduced funding for others. In some counties, the program is only worsening the limited access citizens already have to their court systems.

Figure 2: Complex v Simple Case Filings 2012-2013

The Evolution of Trial Court Funding

In 1997, to establish greater funding stability, the state took control of trial court funding (traditionally a county responsibility). The state initially allocated funding through a provisional formula based on counties’ needs in 1994. While California’s Judicial Council worked on a permanent solution, the provisional formula remained in place for over a decade. In 2005, findings from the Resource Allocation Study resulted in the first significant funding adjustments. The state selectively increased funding for trial courts with the greatest financial need (between 18-26 counties per year).

In April 2013, the Judicial Council approved the Workload Allocation Funding Methodology (WAFM), an entirely new formula to determine each California county court system’s budget allotment through calculated demand.

Figure 3: Changes Under the Workload Allocation Funding Methodology

To minimize financial stress, trial courts are phasing in the WAFM over a five-year period. For 2013-14, the WAFM determined only 10% of the funding distribution. It will determine 100% of the statewide trial court budget distribution by 2018-19.

The first year excluded 14 smaller counties because their funding cuts under the formula would be drastic and unmanageable. The Judicial Council recently eliminated this exception in hopes of maintaining a comprehensive model in 2014-15.

A Shaky First Year

In 2013-14, twenty populous counties became “donor counties” under the formula, losing substantial portions of their budgets to underfunded counties. Five counties (Alameda, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) each lost over $1 million in funding.

San Francisco, for example, is stomaching an additional $1.5 million cut due to the WAFM. The county court system has estimated a $7.3 million deficit this year, which it attributes to the new funding formula. As a result, San Francisco has cut civil self-help services by 50%, limiting programs meant to increase accessibility for low-income residents. The county has also stopped providing court reporters for civil, traffic, and misdemeanor cases, noting that parties must now provide their own reporters. In 2013, the California Senate argued that eliminating court reporters is “as much a threat to the public’s access to justice as is the closure of courtrooms themselves.”

To minimize future losses, San Francisco has committed a portion of its limited funding to a statewide technology effort meant to streamline case management. The software should reduce document handling and help mitigate the stress of future financial deficits. Other donor counties have not been able to make the same commitment. Orange County, which includes “advanced technology” in its vision statement, has cut its technology budget by 32% this year to manage its more than $2 million cut due to WAFM. The technology cut will help balance its current budget, but the divestment in accessibility could be damaging in later years, given the new funding methodology’s contingency on caseload quantity.

Those in Favor

WAFM supporters argue that donor counties’ problems are products of state underfunding in general, not of the new formula per se. They note that even counties receiving funding increases under the new formula are suffering. Los Angeles County, awarded an additional $2 million under the WAFM, had to close eight courthouses this year while cutting its budget for court reporters.

State officials estimate that the statewide judicial system is $266 million short of the funding required to maintain the status quo. Santa Clara County Judge Brian Walsh says the WAFM funding redistribution does not play Robin Hood, taking from the rich counties and giving to the poor ones. Rather, he argues it is akin to leaving “two people out of luck.”

Tweaking the System

WAFM integration includes an adjustment process that allows county trial courts to directly request refinement. However, as of July 2014, the Judicial Council has yet to approve any significant adjustment requests. Instead, the council has used major requests to reaffirm its stance on the difference between funding burdens caused by WAFM and those caused by the state’s overall underfunding of courts.

Mendocino County’s court system recently requested an adjustment. Under the new WAFM, it surrendered a significant portion of its operating budget. A physically large county, Mendocino splits its funding between a primary superior court and a coastal branch court, the branches separated by two hours and sixty miles of windy mountain roads. Due to the distance, Mendocino has historically kept the low-volume coastal court open and operating at full capacity in response to citizen protests against reducing its capacity.

Under the WAFM, Mendocino County’s funding was based on its two branches’ combined caseload, resulting in a loss significant enough to threaten the low-volume coastal branch’s operations. The county appealed the funding distribution, describing it as inappropriate to split the combined caseload between two distinct bodies instead of one. The Judicial Council denied Mendocino’s request, supported by another half-a-dozen counties suffering from the same predicament. At this point, it seems unlikely that the Council will make substantial adjustments to the formula.

Moving Forward

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) recently published a short list of recommendations to improve the WAFM. Most emphasize that basing distribution primarily on case volume creates vulnerabilities to variances in efficiency. The LAO calls for trial courts to begin reporting annual courtroom data to develop some form of performance measurement. It also calls upon the State Legislature to help the court system operate more efficiently. In early 2012, the California judicial branch submitted 17 measures to the legislative branch regarding more efficient trial court policies. As of now, the Legislature has only implemented four of them.

Malleability from both the Judicial Council and California legislative bodies will be necessary to fine-tune the WAFM over the next decade. In the meantime, California trial courts will have to expect and operate with volatile funding. Courts already near the breaking point will struggle further. Unfortunately for them, the message right now is clear: take what you can and use it as efficiently as possible.

Works Cited[+ Expand][- Shrink]