RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LOUISIANA COMMISSION ON JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING To T/96 LOUISIANA STATE LEGISLATURE In Regbome To HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 87 OF THE 2019 REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION FEBRUARY 1, 2020 LOUISIANA COMMISSION ON JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE For The 2020 1. LEGISLATIVE SESSION The Commission should be reconstituted with an expanded mandate to examine criminal fines, fees, and costs assessed in all courts, including but not limited to mayor's courts, municipal courts, city courts, parish courts, and 2. The district courts. legislature should require uniform reporting by all those that assess, collect, or receive revenue from pre or post—adjudicati0n costs, fines, and fees, what costs, fines, and fees are assessed, how they are collected and disbursed, and how much is spent on collecting. 001 EXHIBIT I WILL OF THE COMMISSION Of POSSIBLE AREAS OF LEGISLATION TO CARRY OUT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOR USE BY THE RECONSTITUTED COMMISSION The Commission should be reconstituted with an expanded mandate to examine criminal fines, fees, and costs assessed in all courts, including but not limited to mayor's courts, municipal a. courts, city courts, parish courts, and district courts and should develop recommendations relative to: Developing definitions for the various types of system, and core/essential court functions; legal financial obligations, the court Determining the amount needed from state and local general revenue funds that would enable courts to substantially reduce reliance on self—generated revenue; Identifying fees and costs that can be eliminated, beginning with self—generated funds assessed by the courts; Creating a system for collecting, disbursing, and tracking collected amounts, including payments; and Proposing statutory safeguards that ensure adequate court funding and limit the use of self-generated funds to cover essential court functions; Expanding Commission membership to include a limited jurisdiction court judge and partial vi. up to two members of local government. The legislature should require uniform reporting by all those that assess, collect, or receive revenue from pre or post—adjudication costs, fines, and fees, what costs, fines, and fees are b. 002 assessed, how they are collected and disbursed, and how much is spent on collecting. Additionally, the legislation should: i. include an immediate reporting requirement to allow for a reconstituted Commission to determine the ii. iii. iv. v. amount of funding needed to replace user fees; Create an ongoing annual reporting requirement to ensure transparency and accountability around the assessment and use of fines and fees; Include enforcement mechanisms to incentivize compliance; The uniform reporting should include, but not be limited to, amounts assessed or imposed, amounts collected, amounts outstanding, and amounts disbursed; The legislative auditor should develop Agreed—Upon Procedures (AUPs) to provide for uniform reporting from all agencies required to report. 003 EXHIBIT II REPORT DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTE On JANUARY 30, 2020 004 INTRODUCTION The Louisiana Legislature passed House Concurrent Resolution 87 during the 2019 regular legislative session. A copy of the resolution is attached as Exhibit A. The resolution created the Louisiana Commission on Justice System Funding and tasked the Commission as follows: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby authorize and direct the creation ofthe Louisiana Commission on Justice System Funding to study current financial obligations of criminal defendants and how those financial obligations are used to fund and subsidize core functions of the Louisiana court system, and to study and determine optimal methods of supporting and funding the Louisiana court system in a way that would allow for the implementation of changes made in Act No. 260 ofthe 2017 Regular Session ofthe Legislaturel. The Commission was to hold its first meeting prior to September 1, 2019, and present its recommendations to the governor and legislature no later than February 1, 2020. In accordance with its provisions, the chair of the commission created by the resolution, the Louisiana Commission on Justice System Funding, requested identification of the designees from the entities listed in the resolution and convened the Commission with the following members, listed in order and numbered as in the resolution: initial findings and Rep. Tanner Magee, the author of Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the (1) Legislature, co—chair of the commission. (2) Ms. (3) ChiefJustice Bernette (4) Rep. Blake Miguez, designee of the speaker ofthe House of Representatives. (5) Sen. Rick Ward, designee ofthe president of the Senate. (6) Rep. Leslie Chambers, designee ofthe governor. J. Johnson, the chiefjustice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Sherman Mack, the chair of the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice. (7) Rep. Joseph A. Marino, (8) Sen. Gary Smith, the chair of the Senate (9) Sen. Dan Claitor, the chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary C. Ill, designee of the chair of the House Committee on Judiciary. Committee on Judiciary B. (10) Ms. Molly Lancaster, designee ofthe attorney general. (11) Ms. Natalie Laborde, designee ofthe secretary ofthe Department of Public Safety and Corrections. 1 HCR 87 of 2019, pg. 3. 005 (12) Mr. Rick McGimsey, a representative from the division of administration appointed by the commissioner of administration and co—chair of the commission. The president of the Louisiana (13) Sheriffs’ Association or his designee — none. (14) Mr. Richard Berger, a probation and parole officer appointed by the Louisiana Probation and Parole Association. Bo Duhe and Mr. Loren Lampert, two of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association. (15) Mr. district attorneys appointed by the president Ms. Lindsay Blouin, a public defender appointed by the State Public Defender Board. (16) (17) Judge Lori Landry, appointed by the chiefjustice of the Louisiana Supreme Court and Judge Glenn Ansardi, appointed by the Louisiana District Judges Association. (18) Ms. Debbie Hudnall, the president of the Louisiana Clerks of Court Association. (19) Ms. Dayna Andry and Mr. Norris Henderson, representatives from Louisianans for Prison Alternatives. Ms. Renee (20) Crime Coalition. Amar and Mr. Scott Peyton, representatives from the Louisiana Smart on Meetings ofthe Commission were conducted on the following dates: August 29, 2019 September October 10, November January 12, 9, 2019 2019 14, 2019 2020, January 30, 2020 As provided the resolution, the division of administration and the office of the judicial administrator of the Louisiana Supreme Court provided administrative assistance and staffing to the commission to assist it in conducting its meetings and accomplishing its duties. A quorum in of Commission members attended each meeting are attached as Exhibit B. on the legislative website. of the meetings. The minutes of each The meetings were recorded and the video recording is available The Commission heard presentations from the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Louisiana Defender Board, and the National Center for State Courts. Written materials from those presentations and any other written materials reviewed by the Commission are attached as Exhibits C and D. Legislative Auditor, the Louisiana Public As provided in the resolution, the Commission prepared its initial findings and recommendations. Those recommendations and findings are submitted as part of this report. 006 INITIAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LOUISIANA COMMISSION ON JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING Commission Background I. The Louisiana System Funding Commission was established by House Concurrent in 2019 to research and recommend ways to fund the court system while allowing Act 260 to be implemented. Act 260 (HB 249) is one ofthe ten bills that make up Louisiana's 2017 Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) reforms. Signed into law in 2017, the package of bills was designed Justice Resolution 87 to steer people convicted of less serious crimes from prison, strengthen alternatives to incarceration, reduce prison terms for those who can be safely supervised in the community, and remove barriers to successful reentry. Act 260 intends to ensure that criminal justice fines and fees do not become a barrier to successful reentry by determining a person's ability to pay, creating a payment plan that people can comply with, creating incentives for consistent to payments, and differentiating inability to Act 260 was to be effective on August pay vs. a choice not to pay. 2 2018. However, during the 2018 legislative session the effective date was delayed by one year to August 1, 2019. The effective date was pushed back once again in 2019, the bill has been repeatedly delayed due to concerns about how the courts will be funded if they can't collect fines and fees that are a major source oftheir funding. ll. The Commission hereby finds a. 1, Commission Findings that: Courts are a basic civic function that should be funded primarily from general government revenue sources Courts are a fundamental institution of governance and democracy. Criminal courts are tasked with the vital duty of protecting public safety. The public reasonably expects courts to adjudicate cases impartially, and for the criminal justice system to prioritize enforcing laws for the good of public safety, rather than revenue generation. However, as discussed below, the current system in Louisiana compromises these values by relying substantially on fines and fees to fund the local Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections Louisiana Commission on Reinvestment Reforms First Annual Performance Report. (June 2018). htlp://gm‘.louisizma.gov/assets/docs/JRI/LA JRI Annual Report FINALPDF 3 Law Enforcement: Louisiana’s Justice 007 courts. Courts should be funded primarily from general revenue, not from user fines and the Council of State Court Administrators has stated, '’It is fees. As as illogical to expect the judiciary to be self—supporting through userfees as it would be to expect the executive or legislative branches of government to be funded through user fees/'3 b. Louisiana's court system is overly reliant on fines and user fees Louisiana has a tiered court funding system in which state appropriations vary by court level. While state appropriations cover the majority of appellate court funding, at the district court level the state covers onlyjudges’ salaries and benefits, travel, and some office expenses. At the city and parish courts level, the state appropriation covers only a portion ofjudges' salaries/l As a result, district, parish, costs and local and city courts rely heavily on a combination of self—generated court government support to finance court operations. parish Clerk's office maintains the records of district courts including document processing, case the case of district courts, the court proceedings, providing services to the management In software, and clerks to staff and preserve court proceedings. These services are covered entirely by user fees as the Clerk does not receive any state funding. The parish government contributes at varying levels and is typically responsible for the court building (which may house other parish government offices) and its maintenance. Security services and collection services may be provided by the sheriff or other law enforcement agency and are partly supported by user fees assessed by the courts. Prosecutors and public defenders are funded by a combination ofself—generated funds, user fees assessed by the courts, and state appropriations separate from the appropriation for the judiciary. These agencies’ reliance on such funding raises its own concerns about their incentives to serve the public. For instance, the state public defender board collects a $45 "special cost” that is assessed only if their client is found gui ty—significant y undermining public trust in the agency.5 Beyond these contributions, or in the absence ofthem, much of the responsibility for managing and funding daily court operations (including misdemeanor probation) falls to each district court's administrators and judges. in an estimate using audits submitted to the Legislative 2018, self—generated funds covered Auditor in As with district courts, the parish and/or city 51% of district court expenditures. government contributes to city varying levels and are typically responsible for the court building, which local government offices. However, city and parish courts receive entirely fund clerk operations (city courts only) as well as city and parish courts rely more and parish courts may less state also house other funding and also misdemeanor probation. As heavily than district courts on self—generated funds; Conference of State Court Administrators. 201 1-2012 Policy Paper: Courts Are Not Revenue Centers. available https://www.csgjusticecenter.org%2Fwp—content%2Fup1oads%2F2013%2FO7%2F201 1-12-COSCA— 3 at a result, 71% of their at report.pdf&usg=AOvVaw302466SdyI-lgs-4YcUOSNvk Act 60 of 2019 and previous years’ legislation to appropriate funds to defray the expenses of the Louisiana Judiciary 5 La. R.S. 1S:168(B); 5 Presentation to the Commission of the Louisiana Public Defender Board. November 14, 2019. 4 008 2018 expenditures were covered by self-generated funds according to estimates based on Legislative audits. c. governments rely significantly on fines assessed by local courts, thereby exacerbating the problem of an overreliance on fines and fees. Additionally, local While the lack of state funding forces judicial system stakeholders to rely on user fees or "court costs,” the flow of fine revenue to local government agencies creates a separate structural problem. At the district court level, fine revenue is generally placed in a criminal court fund that is shared by the sheriff, court, and district attorney. At the city, parish, and mayor's courts, fine revenue usually goes to either the local government general fund or the parish general fund and can become an important source of funding.5 While Louisiana is not the only state wherein both state and local government agencies generate revenue through court fines and fees, it assesses more in total fines per adult resident than nearly every other state. According to research based on recent Louisiana audits, 21 localities in localities in and fees per adult resident.7 In addition, more Louisiana receive over half oftheir general revenue from court fines, forfeitures, and fees than any other Louisiana have assessed over $500 Of the 80 in state.8 nationwide that draw more than half of their revenue from localities restitution, 25 were in Louisiana.9 To illustrate: a the most reliant on fines and fees of all collected $500,000 town a fines in in fines, localities nationally. This small of fewer than four hundred people“), collected $1.2 million 91% of its general fund revenue for that year.“ These numbers d. The current system Louisiana's current 6 town ofjust 500 system places on its in fines illustrate residents 2017 Fenton, LA, which accounted for In the enormous financial citizens. an ineffective and unreliable source of funding method of funding its courts through the collection of fines and fees is Rather, funding does not allocate funding based on the actual needs of the dependent on the ability of that jurisdiction to generate revenue from fines and fees. ineffective. is is justice and recent survey found that Georgetown, LA was which accounted for 92% of its general revenue. burden that Louisiana's user—funded fines, fees court.-12 It La. R.S. 15:571.] 1(A)(2): La. R. S. l3:2563.l6: La. R.S. 13225618. Governing: The States and Localities. Local Government Fine Revenues By State. available at https://www.uovei‘nlnu.cmn/§m'—tlala/other/local—u0\'ernments—hinh—fine—revenues—bv—sLa1e,html. Governing: The States and Localities. Local Government Fine Revenues By State. available at htlps://wwwqoverning.Con1/;zov-data/(>1her/loc;1l—uovernmcnls—hieh-Iine—revenues—bv—sIate.html. 9 Governing: The States and Localities. Local Government Fine Revenues By State, available at htlps://www.izovernina.c0In/20v-data/otlier/local—20vernmenLs—hiuh-fine-revenues—bv—slale.hlml. l” 2010 Census. liltps://l‘actlindencensus.gov/faces/tubleservices/isl7pa£es/productvicvvxhlml‘?src:hlFiiies Final5Lll‘. 009 Further, the costs of collecting these fines and fees than, the revenue that is what the collect taxes, is disproportionate to, and sometimes greater some spend roughly 121 times and some localities spend more money to collect than they take in.13 Localities thatjail people who are unable to pay fees and fines spend up to 115 percent of the amount collected and generate no revenue in return.” In 2015, the City of New Orleans spent $6.4 million to detain people jailed solely because they couldn't pay and collected just $4.5 million in fines and fees—spending $1.9 million more than it collected.” In IRS spends to ultimately collected. In states, localities may significantly underestimate the true cost of collection, account the web of collateral consequences faced by people who are addition, analyses of fines and fees as they may not take into unable to pay, and also do not take into account the burden on court and law enforcement resources that must devote time to enforcing fines and fees on those who can't pay. To illustrate, many courts require multiple additional appearances by defendants simply to pay outstanding which draws upon the time and resources or judges and court could otherwise be deployed on active cases.” fines or fees, each of immense Despite the cost and effort expended to collect fines unpredictable source of funding. ”A substantial portion of fees and fines likely uncollectable, revenue that will and is fees, staff that they are an never collected and is meaning that these assessments are an unreliable source of government always come up short/'17 Moreover, fines and fees can vary greatly year—to—year, leaving court and other agency administrators at the whim of the number of traffic tickets written, crimes committed, and people able to pay in any given year.” e. The current system lacks accountability and transparency The Commission's attempts to investigate and understand the current revealed a lack of basic information about disbursed. The Legislative Auditor, who was fines and fees are assessed, collected, and tasked with surveying several district courts, no standardized system for tracking how much money is collected in fines how such moneys are disbursed between the various agencies that receive reported that there versus user fees, how state of court funding has is 13 For example, one New Mexico county spent $1.17 to collect every dollar raised through fines. In Texas. criminal courts spent $27.4 million on collection activities, including paying the salaries. benefits. and operating costs of approximately 750 employees. See Brennan Center. The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines. November 21. 2019. 5. 9. 26. Available at https://www.brennzincentcizorg/si[es/<_lel'uult/files/20 9-1 l/2019 10 Fees%26Fines Fl nL1l5.ptll. 1* https://www.brennancenier.ore/sites/dellttili/lilcs/20 9-1 l/2019 I0 Fccs%26Fines Finaliptlf at 5. 15 Vera Institute of Justice. Past Due: Examining the Costs and Consequences of Charging for Justice in New Orleans. January 2017. available at Imps://www.Vera.org/puhlications/past—due—cosls—consequei1ces—char0ine-for»iL1stice—new—orleuns. l 1 15 17 Presentation to the Commission of the Louisiana Public Defender Board. November 14. 2019. Brennan Center. The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines. November 21, 2019. 10. Available at htt.ps://www.brennuncenter.org/sites/tlelltult/files/20l9-l 1/2019 I0 Fces‘.”(«26Fiiies Finalipdl‘. '5' Case filings fluctuate and have been decreasing statewide since at least 2013. See Louisiana Supreme Court The reports are available at http://www.lusc.ore/press room/annual i‘epoi'ts/tlefault.asp. Annual reports. 010 these funds, and what resources are spent on collection. Indeed, in many cases the legislative auditor could not discern which fees each court assessed. This extreme level of opacity creates conditions ripe for abuse.” The current system harms vulnerable communities f. Funding courts through fines and fees entrenches poverty and racial disparities. The 2017 Congressionally-mandated U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that some municipalities target poor communities of color, jailing those who are unable to pay fines and fees and undermining public confidence in thejudicial system?” In 2012, the 50 U.S. cities with the highest percentage of revenue coming from fines and fees had African American populations five times greater than the national average.“ Moreover, it is not just those who are charged and convicted friends are frequently impacted by this system. women were the most The Louisiana likely legislature who suffer. Family members and For example, midd e—aged African American to contribute to paying other people's court debts.” addressed these problems when it passed Act 260 in 2017, which sought "to ensure that criminal justice fines and fees do not become a barrier to successful reentry by determining a person's ability to pay. .” and evidenced widespread political support for change. Specifically, Act 260 of 2017 requires the judge to consider, prior to ordering the imposition or enforcement of any financial obligations ”whether payment in full of the aggregate amount of all . the financial obligations to be imposed upon the defendant would cause substantial financial hardship to the defendant or his dependents.23” g. The current system jeopardizes public safety Relying on fines and fees as a funding source fundamentally compromises the criminal justice system's ability to deliver on its primary mandate: to protect the public. A 2018 study revealed For example. in Fenton, LA. the legislative auditor found that thousands of dollars in cash payments for traffic citations had never been deposited into the Village's back account, and that this failure went unnoticed because the Village “did not have adequate written policies and procedures for the collection of traffic citation fines.” Louisiana Legislative Auditor. Village of Fenton. July 5. 2018. available at: https://www.llu. a.go\v/PublicReports.nsIYSSEECOBA3()F(w4D3-l8(i2582BE()O78DF()3/$FlLE/U00l99C6.pdf. The New Orleans Inspector General similarly discovered that the traffic court had directed $1.3 million from traffic tickets to its judicial expense fund that should have been payable to other agencies. including the public defender. E.R. QLlLlll'L‘\'E1LlX. ()1Ticc of lnspcctor Gcn.. City of New Orleans. Assessment of New Orleans’ System of City Courts And Pctfortnancc Review of New Orleans Traffic Court 22 (201 ). 2" U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Targeted Fines and Fees Against Communities of Color. Sept. 2017. Available https://www.usccr.g<_w/pubs/20l 7/Statutory Enforcement Reportlf) 7.r.>df. 3‘ Jessica Brand. The Appeal. How Fines and Fees Criminalize Poverty: Explained, July 16. 2018. Available 19 l at l at https://tlieappeal.org/llnes—and-fces—cxplaincd-hf4c05d188bl7. 33 Alabama Appleseed. Under Pressure: How fines and fees hurt people. undermine public safety. and drive Alabama’s racial wealth divide. 2. Available at http://www.alabamuapplcsced.org/wp-content/uploucls/20l8/10/AA 2-H’)-Fincs;1ndFccs« 0- (ll FlNAL.pdI' “Act 260 of 2017. pg. 3 line l l l. 011 an inverse relationship between municipal reliance on fee revenue and the rates at which police departments solve violent and property crimes; cities with a relatively larger reliance on fee revenue had a significantly lower clearance rate.“ Another 2018 study in Alabama found that 38% of people polled admitted to committing a new crime to pay off unaffordable court debt. selling drugs, stealing, and sex work. In 30% ofthese cases, the These crimes commonly included person's only previous offense had been traffic or Ronal Serpas, a former chief of police fines and fees makes police ”The police end up losing the connectivity the community/'25 In other words, a user-funded system in state less safe. The h. Not only Louisiana, has stated that emphasizing the collection of less effective at theirjobs: to get information to solve problems makes the in misdemeanor violations.” is end to the current system U.S. Constitution requires an Louisiana's user-funded justice system bad public policy, unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit in two recent has also been found it decisions affirmed that the funding structure in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court violates Due Process because it creates a temptation for judges to forego their duty to adjudicate cases impartially. Ca/iste v. Cantrell, 937 F.3d 525, 532 (5th Cir. 2019); Cain v. White, 937 F.3d 446, 449 (5th Cir. 2019). The court generates ”essentia court funds” necessary to pay for court personnel, insurance, expenses only when a defendant is found (or pleads) guilty or F.3d at 532. This funding structure, the court found, ”pushes purchases a and everyday bail bond. office Ca/iste, 937 beyond what due process allows.” Id. New Orleans e.g., La. the not alone. Courts across Louisiana similarly rely on bail and conviction fees. See, Stat. Ann. § 222822 (authorizing a 2 percent fee on bond premiums allocated, in part, to is "judicial court fund or its equivalent’’); La. Stat. Ann. § T. 13, Ch. 4, Pt. VI (creating judicial expense funds through Louisiana's criminal district courts). And jurisdictions across the State have already been subject to costly litigation over court funding and the assessment of fines and costs on indigent defendants. See, e.g., Roberts v. Black, No. 2:16—cv—11024(E.D. La., filed June 21, 2016); Snow v. Lambert, No. 3:15—cv—0O567 (M.D. La., filed April 20, 2016). More litigation is unless the Legislature addresses the constitutional violations built into the criminal justice system's funding structure. likely i. Other states are moving towards state appropriations to fund their court systems 3‘ Rebecca Goldstsein. Michael W. Sances, and Hye Young You. Exploitative Revenues, Law Enforcement. and the Quality of Govemmcnt Urban Aj_7‘iu'rs Review, available at https2//iournttlssaveptih.uom/tloi/abs/lU.I I77/lO78tl874l879l775 Alabama Appleseed. Under Pressure: How fines and fees hurt people. undermine public safety, and drive Alabama’s racial wealth divide, 31. Available at liup://www.ulabzunztztpplest-edorg/wp—content/uploatls/20 8/ 0/AA 2—l()—Fincs-mid Fee» 10- 10+‘ lN AL. ptl f 3“ Governing: The States and Localities, Addicted to Fines — Small towns in much of the country are dangerous dependent on punitive fines and fees, September 2019, available at littpsz//www.govcminzcmn/Ionics/tinance/gov-atl(lictetl—to—lines.html. Service, 35 l I l 012 Knowledge and Information Specialist for the National Center for Commission presentation that the best practice for court funding is to Dr. William Raftery, a Senior State Courts, stated in a use general tax revenues to pay for core court functions, rather than user fees.” Since the 19705 the trend from local court funding by the states forthe state courts has been to transition in funding to complete or near-complete state funding. This trend was the issues that arose from local funding practices: need for local fiscal relief, local unpredictability or revenue, and a sense of unequal justice across the state. trend, Dr. Raftery noted that in 1975 there Louisiana; today, Louisiana is were 18 response to in inadequacy or To illustrate the states that funded their courts similarly to one of only eight states that still do so. the experiences other states, including Alabama, Florida, Michigan, and Dr. Raftery discussed Kentucky that have shifted toward increased general fund spending for the court system. He also noted that before changing the court funding system, basic terms such as ”court,” ”judicial,” and ”core court functions” must be defined, as the decision on which agencies to include in the funding system determines the amount of funding needed. III. Commission Recommendations for the 2020 Legislative Session The Commission should be reconstituted with an expanded mandate to examine criminal fines, fees, and costs assessed in all courts, and should develop recommendations relative to: a. i. ii. Developing definitions for the various types of system, and core/essential court functions; legal financial obligations, the court Determining the amount needed from state general revenue funds that would enable courts to substantially reduce reliance on self—generated revenue; and costs that can be eliminated, beginning with self—generated iii. Identifying fees iv. funds assessed by the courts; Creating a system for collecting, disbursing, and tracking collected amounts, including partial payments; and v. Proposing statutory safeguards that ensure adequate court funding and limit the use of self—generated funds to cover essential court functions. 27 See also the National Task Force on Fines. Fees. and Bail Practices, Principles on Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices, hups://www.ncsc.ore/~/media/FiIts/PDF/Topics/Fines‘% 2()antl‘% 2OFccs/Principlcs%2Ul‘/{>2017’}£;2()l9,ashX: Conference of State Court Administrators. 201 1-2012 Policy Paper: Courts Are Not Revenue Centers. available at litips://coscancsc.o1'2/~/media/Micrositcs/Files/COSCA/Policv%2l')Papers/CourtsArcNotRcvcnucCenlcrs-Final.ash\; Principles of Judicial Administration, National Center for State Courts. Principle 25 (Commentary). available at htlps://www.ncsc,oi'e/~/mecliu/Filcs/PDF/lnformationC?.20and%2OResources/BuducL%2()Res0urcc‘}é:2()Ccnler/.ludicial%2()Admin istration%2ORcport‘}2:209-20- lashx. l 013 The legislature should require uniform reporting by all those that assess, collect, or receive revenue from pre or post-adjudication costs, fines, and fees, what costs, fines, and fees are assessed, how they are collected and disbursed, and how much is spent on collecting. b. Additionally, the legislation should an immediate reporting requirement to allow for Include i. a reconstituted Commission to determine the amount of funding needed to replace user fees; Create an ongoing annual reporting requirement to ensure transparency and ii. accountability around the assessment and use of fines and fees; Include enforcement iii. mechanisms to IV. It is incentivize compliance. Summary evident to the Commission that Louisiana's judicial system funding must be addressed by the legislature mandated to remove the financial handcuffs from the constitutional issues that legislature is in is fraught with the current term. The district and municipal court judges that has forced them into conflicts of interest. Further, the legislature must rework the current system that is overly reliant on fines and fees. The current system unfairly incentivizes local jurisdictions to focus on debt collection instead of focusing on recidivism reduction and restitution to victims. Finally, the current system is void of basic notions of transparency and ripe for potential fraud from bad actors. The legislature must make strides to establish accountability metrics so the general money is spent throughout the entire judicial system. public can inform itself of how 014 EXHIBIT A: HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 87 OF 2019 015 ENROLLED 2019 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 87 BY REPRESENTATIVE MAGEE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION To authorize and direct the creation of the Louisiana Funding to study Commission on Justice System and determine optimal methods of supporting and funding the Louisiana court system in a way that would allow for the implementation of changes made in Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular WHEREAS, Session of the Legislature. the purpose of imposing financial obligations convicted of a criminal offense on a person who is to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to compensate victims for any pecuniary loss or costs incurred in connection with a criminal prosecution, to defiay the is cost of court operations, and to provide services to offenders and victims; and WHEREAS, restitution, and court imposition of these financial obligations, including fines, fees, costs, in excess of what a person can reasonably pay undermine the primary purpose of the criminal justice system which is to deter criminal behavior and encourage compliance with the law; and WHEREAS, persons released from incarceration or on community supervision often can'y thousands of dollars in financial obligations related to their conviction including fines, fees, court costs, and restitution; and the current structure these financial obligations has left for imposition and collection of thousands of individuals in significant debt, has created an insurmountable barrier to the individual's successful reentry into society, and threatens the goals of the criminal justice system to enhance public safety and support victims; and WHEREAS, large financial obligations for individuals who are attempting to successfully reenter society create problems, not only for the individual, but also for victims of crime and society in general; and WHEREAS, studies have shown that, on average, persons who are sentenced to probation will end their period of supervision owing large amounts of restitution to victims, Page 1 of 6 016 ENROLLED HCR NO. 87 and the person's ability to pay this paying other court-related fines, restitution suffers, fees, due in large part and costs that are not directed to the obligation to victims; of and WHEREAS, studies have shown large govemment-ordered financial obligations such as fines, fees, and other costs can create instability with housing, food, and child support payments, and can also lead individuals back to obtaining resources by illegal means, creating more crime and less public safety; and WHEREAS, in 2017, the Louisiana Legislature took a significant step in reforming current financial obligations with the passage of Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the Legislature; and WHEREAS, with regard to the financial obligations of criminal offenders, Act No. 260 does all ( 1) of the following: Requires a court to determine if the aggregate amount of all financial obligations imposed upon a defendant would cause those substantial financial hardship to the defendant or who depend upon the defendant. (2) Authorizes the court to waive financial obligations or order a payment plan if financial hardship (3) (4) is found, creating an incentive to pay financial obligations. Requires half of any monthly payment to go toward victim Disallows the use of jail restitution. or revocation of a person's driver's license as punishment unless it is determined that the individual is able but has willfully refused to pay; and WHEREAS, the changes made by Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session help to ensure that criminal justice financial obligations do not become a significant barrier to successful reentry while ensuring victims of crime are a focus of repayment; and WHEREAS, in 2018, Act Nos. 137 and 668 delayed the effective date of these changes due to concerns regarding the impact of the implementation of Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session on the Louisiana criminal justice system; and WHEREAS, through fines, fees, a significant portion of Louisiana's criminal justice system restitution, and other court costs, to is funded be paid by defendants and those convicted of criminal offenses; and Page 2 of 6 017 ENROLLED HCR NO. 87 WHEREAS, relying on the financial obligations of persons convicted of criminal offenses to significantly fund Louisiana's criminal justice system creates an urmecessary and perverse incentive; and WHEREAS, the criminal justice system is a core function of government and should be appropriately funded by the WHEREAS, systematically track legislature; and Louisiana does not currently have a means to uniformly or where criminal fines, fees, and court costs are directed, nor does Louisiana track the extent to which the criminal justice system in each parish is funded by financial obligations of criminal defendants; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to the people of this state to have more openness and transparency when to it comes to the sources of funding of Louisiana court systems and have a court system funded through a means that provides THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the authorize and direct the creation of the Louisiana to study current financial obligations stability and fairness. Legislature of Louisiana does hereby Commission on Justice System Funding of criminal defendants and how those financial obligations are used to fund and subsidize core functions of the Louisiana court system, and to study and determine optimal methods of supporting and fimding the Louisiana court system in a way that would allow for the implementation of changes made in Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the Legislature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the commission shall be composed of the following members: (1) The author of Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the Legislature, who shall serve as co-chair of the commission. (2) The governor or his designee. (3) The chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court or her designee. (4) The speaker of the House of Representatives or his (5) The president of the Senate or his (6) The chair of the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice. (7) The chair of the House Committee on Judiciary. (8) The chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary B. (9) The chair of the Senate designee. designee. Committee on Judiciary C. Page 3 of 6 018 HCR NO. 87 (10) (11) ENROLLED The attorney general or his designee. The secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or his designee. (12) A representative from the division of administration appointed by the commissioner of administration. This representative shall serve as co-chair of the commission. (13) The president of the Louisiana ( 14) A probation and parole officer appointed by the Louisiana Probation and Parole Sheriffs‘ Association or his designee. Association. (15) Two district attorneys appointed by the president of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association. (16) A public defender appointed by the State Public Defender Board. (17) Two district court judges, one appointed by the chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court and one appointed by the Louisiana District Judges Association. (18) The president of the Louisiana Clerks of Court Association (19) Two representatives from Louisianans for Prison Alternatives. (20) Two representatives from the Louisiana or his designee. Smart on Crime Coalition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a majority of the membership of the commission shall constitute a quorum and shall meet at the call of the chairperson, or upon an affirmative Vote of a majority of the commission members. All all meetings at least five days before the date members shall be notified in writing of on which a meeting of the commission is scheduled. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that meetings of the commission shall take place at the Louisiana State Capitol and the first meeting of the than September 1, commission shall take place no later 2019. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the duties of the commission shall include but not be limited to (1) all of the following: Track the history of methods of funding the Louisiana court system. (2) Estimate the extent to which the Louisiana court system is funded through funds received from the collection of fines, fees, restitution, and other court costs. Page 4 of 6 019 HCR NO. 87 ENROLLED Estimate the cost of a court system that (3) is fully funded by state and local governments. (4) Research, study, and recommend alternative methods of funding the Louisiana court system. Recommend (5) a comprehensive plan for the implementation of the changes provided in Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the Legislature. Determine the resources and training court systems will need in implementing (6) and complying with Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the Legislature. Determine the appropriate (7) entity, to entity, or recommend the establishment of a new provide oversight and track budget impacts of the implementation of Act No. 260 of the 2017 Regular Session of the Legislature and to recommend changes as needed. Collect necessary data to accomplish these purposes as set forth in this (8) Resolution. BE IT FURTHERRESOLVED that the commission may request and collect relevant and necessary data and information to accomplish its purposes from state and local government entities including at least five judicial district court systems throughout the state that, to the extent possible, represent the geographic diversity of this state and diversity in population of the parishes served by the judicial district court system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the entities and court systems from which such information and data is requested may, to the extent feasible, provide such information and data to the commission at no cost. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the commission shall request and secure qualified technical assistance and support through the establishment of an academic partnership or from public or private stakeholders and entities with qualified expertise in the commission's focus areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the division of administration and the office of the judicial administrator of the Louisiana Supreme Court shall provide administrative assistance and staffing as may be necessary in order to enable the meetings and accomplish BE initial IT its commission to conduct its duties. FURTHER RESOLVED that the commission findings and recommendations to the shall provide a report of its governor and the Legislature of Louisiana no Page 5 of 6 020 HCR NO. 87 later than February ENROLLED 1, 2020, and any further reports or recommendations thereafter as requested by the governor, the legislature, or advised by the commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to each of the commission members and the appointing entities provided in this Resolution. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE Page 6 of 6 021 EXHIBIT B: COMMISSION ON LOUISIANAJUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING MEETING MINUTES 022 LOUISIANA COMMISSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING MINUTES August 29, 2019 Louisiana State Capitol 900 North Third Street Baton Rouge, LA Representative Commission. Members Magee called the meeting to order and gave background information on the 0 were present introduced themselves. They were: Richard Berger- Louisiana Probation and Parole Association Bo Duhey- District Attorney, 16”‘ J DC Loren Lampert- Executive Director, Louisiana District Attorneys Association 0 Ivy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 that Wang- Louisianans for Prison Alternatives Glenn Ansardi- Louisiana Judges Association Bernette Johnson- Louisiana Supreme Court Rick McGimsey- Commissioner of Administration designee Leslie Chambers— Governer’s Office designee Renee Amar- Louisiana Smart on Crime Coalition Scott Peyton- Louisiana Smart on Crime Coalition Senator Rick Ward- Senate President designee Molly Lancaster— Attorney General designee District Chairman Magee suggested that the commission meet once a month. Judge Ansardi made a motion that the commission meet once a month. It was seconded. There were no objections and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Magee moved that the commission adopt the same rules that the House and the Senate It was seconded. There were no objections and the use to conduct their committee meetings. motion passed unanimously. Chairman Magee moved to meet the second Thursday of every month. were no objections and the motion passed unanimously. It was seconded. There Justice Johnson moved to have Julia Spear and her staff with the Supreme Court provide staffing needs to the Commission. There were no objections and the motion passed unanimously. Julia Spear of Justice. and Rose Wilson with the Louisiana Supreme Court gave a presentation on The Price Representative Blake Miguez arrived during the presentation and introduced himself as the representative for the Speaker of the House. Chairman Magee asked for any public comment. There was none. A motion to adjourn was made. Hearing no objections the meeting was adjourned. 023 LOUISIANA COMMISSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING MINUTES October 10, 2019 11:00 a.m. Louisiana State Capitol 900 North Third Street Baton Rouge, LA I. Call to Order Representative Joe Marino acted as Chairman in Representative Magee’s absence. He asked the members to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. introduce themselves. They were: Scott Peyton- Louisiana Smart on Crime Coalition Renee Amar- Louisiana Smart on Crime Coalition Glenn Ansardi- Louisiana District Judges Association Rick McGimsey- Commissioner of Administration designee Leslie Chambers- Governer’s Office designee Jimmy Leblanc— Department of Public Safety Richard Berger- Louisiana Probation and Parole Association Lindsay Blouin- Public Defender Board Bo Duhey- District Attorney, 16"‘ JDC Loren Lampert- Executive Director, Louisiana District Attorneys Association Will Harrell- Louisianans for Prison Alternatives Dayna Andry- Vera and Ending Money Debbie Hudnell- Louisiana Clerks of Court Association Approval of Minutes Chairman Marino noted III. Injustice that there were no written minutes from the first meeting. Presentation by Louisiana Legislative Auditors Office Bradley Cryer and Judy Detweller gave a presentation on audits that were conducted to court funding. in regards IV. Approval of Outside Staffing Organization Chairman Marino moved to address the approval of outside staffing at the next meeting. ViceChairman McGimsey seconded the motion. There were no objections and the motion passed unanimously. V. Public Comments Chairman Marino opened the floor for public comment. 024 LOUISIANA COMMISSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING MINUTES Richard Pitman, Interim State Public Defender for the Louisiana Public Defender Board addressed questions that were asked during the presentation by the Legislative Auditor’s office. Judge Ansardi made a motion that the Public Defender°s Office and other entities that rely on fines, fees and costs be notified of the next meeting and invited to make a presentation. Chairman Marino seconded the motion. There were no objections and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Marino asked update in Julia Spear to speak on behalf ofthe Supreme Court. She provided an regards to actions occurring within her office that are pertinent to the Commission. Mr. Harrell suggested that the Commission hear from individuals that have consistently paid fines and fees. Chairman Marino said that he would pass the request along to Representative Magee. Ms. Andry suggested that money could be saved elsewhere by changes made due to people being arrested andjailed for failure to pay court fees. Chairman Marino stated that the next meeting will be November to court funding 14. VI. Adjournment. Vice-Chairman McGimsey moved to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Marino seconded. Hearing no objection Chairman Marino adjourned the meeting. 025 LOUISIANA COMMISSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING MINUTES November 14, 2019 11:00 a.m. Louisiana State Capitol 900 North Third Street Baton Rouge, LA I. Call to Order Chairman Tanner Magee Roll was called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. called. Members Present: Chairman Tanner Magee, Representative Joseph Marino, Senator Dan Claitor, Mr. Pete Freeman, Mr. Rick McGimsey, Mr. Richard Berger, Mr. Bo Duhe, Mr. Loren Lampert, Ms. Lindsay Bouin, Judge Glen Ansardi, Ms. Debbie Hudnall, Ms. Dayna Andry, Mr. Will Harrell, Mr. Daniel Erspamer, Mr. Scott Peyton. II. Approval of Minutes Mr. McGimsey made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 29, 2019 and October 2019 meetings. There were no objections and the motion passed unanimously. III. 10, Presentation by Joe Marino Representative Marino and Ms. Julia Spear of the Louisiana Supreme Court gave a presentation and answered questions on information they obtained while attending the National Conference of State Legislators Consortium on Fines and Fees. IV. Louisiana Public Defender Board Presentation by Lindsay Blouin Lindsay Blouin of the Louisiana Public Defender Board gave a presentation on and court costs impact the public defense funding system. how fines, fees Representative Blake Migues arrived during the presentation. V. Louisiana Legislative Auditors Office Update Ms. Spear and Rose Wilson of the Louisiana Supreme Court provided an update on the information their office provided the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. Ms. Spear also acknowledged and thanked Yolaine Menyard with the Center Innovation for attending the meeting. for Court 026 LOUISIANA COMMISSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM FUNDING MINUTES V. Public Comments Chairman Magee opened the Judge Roy Cascio spoke misdemeanors. floor for public in regards to comment. Act 260 and whether it applies to traffic citations and Reverend Alexis Anderson, a member of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Reform Coalition, spoke on behalf of the Coalition on issues they believe should be brought to the attention of the commission. Justice and Accountability Center of Louisiana discussed how fines, fees and court costs affect their clients. Mr. Troy Morgan, a client of theirs, spoke about his experience with criminal fines and fees. Ms. Sarah Whittington with the Mr. Derwyn Bunton, Chief Public Defender for Orleans Parish, spoke by request of Mr. Harrell. VI. Adjournment. Mr. McGimsey moved to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objection Chairman Magee adjourned the meeting at 12:53 p.m. 027 EXHIBIT C: PRESENTATIONS BY THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, DIVISION OF PROBATION AND PAROLE THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 028 PRESENTATION BY THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF PROBATION AND PAROLE 029 1/31/2020 l IIHIHMIH nunsIunHill”-fllllllllllillllIHIIlllliilllHHHIIIHHHII Supreme Court Ruling Louisiana Probation and Parole Article 900 - ~ 0 Failure to pay fees is not a violation that is addressed on the Probation and Parole Sanctioning Matrix and cannot solely be the bases for revocation. it may be added to the list of violations should the offender appear before the governing authority for other violations. Article Code of Criminal Procedure (6) (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subparagraph (5) of this Paragraph. any defendant who has been placed on probation by the court for the conviction of an offense other than a crime of violence as defined in FLS. 1412(8) or of a sex offense as defined by FLS. 15541, and who has been determined by the court to have committed a technical violation of his probation, shall be required to serve. without diminution of sentence, as follows: (i) For a first technical violation. not more than fifteen days. (ii) For a second technical violation, not more than thirty days. (iii) For a third or subsequent technical violation, not more than forty-five days. (iv) For a fourth or subsequent violation, the court may order that the probation be revoked. in accordance with Subparagraph (5) of this Paragraph. (v) For custodial substance abuse treatment programs. not more than ninety days. in 1983, The United States Supreme Court ruled in Bearden Georgia that the Court cannot imprison a person for not paying a fee or fine. The person in question could have paid it but "willfully" chose not to do so. vs. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 900 Code of Criminal Procedure (6)(d) A "technical violation", as used in this Paragraph. means any violation except it shall not include any of the following: (i) An allegation of a criminal act that is subsequently proven to be a felony. (ii) An allegation of a criminal act that is subsequently proven to be an intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person. (iii) An allegation of a criminal act that is subsequently proven to be a violation of a protective order, pursuant to FLS. 14:79, issued against the offender to protect a family member or household member as defined by FLS. 14:35.3, or dating partner as defined by Fl.S. 462151. (iv) Being in possession of a firearm or other prohibited weapon. v) Absconding from the jurisdiction of the court. ' ‘ ‘ " ‘ ‘t 030 1/31/2020 IHIlllllI"IllllllYHIHIHHIHNIIHIHIIIIHIIIIHIIIIHHIHIIIIIIIHIIHIHIIII - Troy Morgan - Sentenced on 10/11/2016 — 10 Years DOC, Suspended 5 Years Probation - - Arrested 1/23/2017 - Appeared 2/17/2017 — Ordered defendant complete Day Reporting Center — Dismissed Ftuie Fievocation Hearing 7/27/2017 — Completed 90 days - Returned ’IllIlllIHHI"IIllHIIIIINIH"llIIHHIIllIIllIHIIHHHHHHIHHH"! Community Service Work to - ~ ~ to Probation - Theft. participate ~ in Other violations included failure to report, failure Day Reporting Center as ordered by the Court. IHIUHIIIIIH Type ~ aiiow the offender to complete in lieu of paying monthly fees to Probation to Of 7 Illll - ‘ . ‘ ¢P,oc955lng Fee 4'C0mP0Ci T'0n5'9' ¢-Clement: V ¢Distr ct Attorney Fees 010% K559557097" F99 Drug Abuse Fund ¢Fi ng Fees Supervision Fee ~~~~~ Investi ° cztion Fee osex offender Technology Fee °T'°"5P°"°“°" Fwd 4-Infectious Disease Offense: Possession with Intent to Distribute Mariluane Probation: 3 years supervision Period: 6/10/19 — 6/10/22 Monlhiy Amount Processing Fee F99 "F‘"°‘ Defender Fund " ~~~ Account Type ¢Pre-Sentence Investigation Fee -I-LCLE nHHIIHIIIHlHIHIIIIHIIIIIIllIIllIllIllIIIHIIIHIIUHUHIIHINIH" DOC 744504 u COHQCTIOD ACCOUI1 'S scoun cosy or.-‘urgent u . osupervision Fees finesmuflon ~~~ may the ~~~-bLCLE Victim Repcrrotion Fund ~~~ authority Committed new charges 6/14/2017 — Illegal Possession of Burglary Tools, Contributin to the Delinquency oi a Juvenile and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit ~~ The governing community service work and Parole. ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ total Due $65.00 $3.07 10% Assessment $396.05 Parish so Fine De DA $2510.00 CW Ponce 520030 indigent Defender 5450700 JDC Expense $100.00 Total 50 $60.00 570050 $4,421.05 .~u ~ so some 51635 ~ ~ ~ 56152 $20.32 $7.16 $122.00 031 1/31/2020 . I Questions? 032 PRESENTATION BY THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD O33 1/27/2020 LOUISIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD Lindsay Blouin, JD First Assistant District Defender 19”‘ Judicial District Public Defenders’ Office Presentation to the Louisiana Commission on Justice System Funding November 14, 2019 Baton Rouge District Revenue‘Sources Statewide FY19 Total Revenues by Revenue Source Total State 22,597,202 034 1/27/2020 State Appropriated Funding Statutory Authority R.S. R.S. Statutory Dedication FY 19 LPDB EOB 152167 Public Defender Fund $35,068,794 15:185.5 Indigent Parent Representation Program $979,680 Fund CCrP 926.1 DNA Testing Post— $28,500 Conviction Relief for lndigents Fund Note: Statutory dedlcatlons can not be commingled. Judicial District Indigent Defender Fund R.S. 15:168(B) Special Costs ($45) R.S. 33:441 Mayor's Court R.S. 15:175 Application Fee R.S.15:176 Partial R.S.15:571.11 Bond R.S. 15:85.1 R.S. 22:822 Reimbursement Forfeiture Bond Commercial Surety Bonds Posting of Criminal 035 1/27/2020 District Revenue‘Sources Statewide FY19 Total Revenues by Revenue Source +ot‘a' Ot '1er: " 11,655,863 Total State 22,597,202 41% Detail: "Other" Sources of Revenue in FY19 Grants, Gov't, Private & Non-Profit Organizations 688,554 Partial Attorney Fees [as per 15:176] 905,787 6‘V0 Reimbursements 9% Other Reimbursements, State, and Other ~ $40 Indigent Defense Application Fees 15:175 A ~~~ 949,755 9% 1,479,243 Local Appropriations . General 14% Interest (1)(f) - & Special 8: Other 2,478,062 23% & Investment Income 106,558 ,.Gond tion_of Probation ‘ R ‘DOC ~~ ~ ~ & 036 1/27/2020 CY13 vs CY18 Funding1Comparison CY13 CY18 State, State, 17,229,646, 22,799,986, 34% 43% Local, Local, 33,716,461, 30,567,814, 66% LASC ANNUAL 57% REPORTS SINCE .2009 COURT TRAFFIC DISTRICT PDO District 38 CV09 1,260,558 Percentage Change from 2009 to 2018 1,260,558 1,194,317 & City Court Filings CY11 CY12 CY13 1,164,551 1,074,147 1,011,500 CY14 905,059 CY15 CY15 863,263 CY17 820,793 CY18 800,638 698,024 45% 11941317 1.-’l‘v‘-W00 L.30 FILING IN Traffic CV10 Combined 1-4000“ SHOW A 45% DECREASE Traffic Filings CY09-CY18 1,104,551 1,074,147 mm 1,011,500 905,059 ' . 853,26: 800,000 glam; 800,638 600 000 400 000 200,000 crux: cur: ~ cm cm C113 cm cm 0'15 C 1 C110 037 1/27/2020 241,919 2012-2013 Post-Arrest LA Criminal Justice System Expenditures (5-’JLlfCt-3’L.1.lflalilpalfmftll E[‘,LlJl lwsticez-, fmm 20122013 Fisual Or tislmciar Your Ir*.r.ll‘-/icliial Asjimcies‘ Annual Au<1i?sc'la.fs.) Defense Programs: "“diCiarV Appellate/Capital/Juvenile $111,751,270 17% , District Attorneys (not $11,459,210 , counting Parish Support“) $121,712,477 1% Clerks of Court 10% $147,665,199 12% Public 7 , Defender Offices $52,228,530 4% Corrections $703,633,685 56% ** Does not include in~kln ~rent utltlltes, support staff, provided by law to DA offices by local governments. Non-Reimbursed Non-Reimbursed Offlce 8:. Rent Utilities & Support Personnel $3'558'64o $3'834,934 0% _ etc., 1% 038 1/27/2020 LOUISIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD O39 PRESENTATIONS BY THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT O40 1/27/2020 THE PRICE OF GRANT JUSTICE LOUISIANA Flu-M “h‘i .nm.uiLiiI- "Ferguson has allowed ils [ncus un n-venue .1 municipal .1rl1IlL'i' Ci‘ ('ti\ Hllll1i.l\\'i\ ipl ii\‘4'CIV[1Lill .'i.il1Nil'xILi, ul Hu- the court lhv n1:~.imlumi11pvl mlv.ii1-v [Iii-('il\"~ {ii'i.im’i.il pI‘iv1i.ii'1i_\-‘mi--x iifiiluiitidi4Il ii1I Tli)'.]‘~ [V.I)l1M'ni IififlI‘\ and Ion". Hm! 11.15 iL'Ci In cnurl Pl'iI('il\'t‘\ Ilml \‘ (>i.lix‘ UM‘ i‘U\l 'i<‘L' \ii1 .A\nIL~m1im‘r1t’~‘ L'il1(‘["l'U\(‘~«-u amlmliml pmtmhuiiri-n1uix'viiu-iir» 'l‘hr L‘Hlll'[“1pl‘.M'i’il‘\"~.1i*wI\iI11[“l"«‘l iH1\‘l'l“~Ml '\' uverwhulminglyon L'uiIntci' tu piilwlir harm, /\Il‘i(..H1~/\l‘IN'I’l\'.lI1H11il\iAil . i‘--,iII1Li run The Price of justice Initiative thi- intui'i-~.i.-.. 11115 NM ;,-,cn::r.ilinn lu fundamt-nl.il _v cuniprnniisc the rule of licrgii.-;un’s court. 'hc IT\lll1lL‘ipdi L'U I'i dnvx not at! .i~v .1 iiuillml klw ur ( Dear Collc.i;;uv lcllur RC‘F§OLll'CL‘ S11 }mrt guidv fur Naliorial Taslx l5oi‘cc $2.5 million ;_;r.ml prugram i.Iil‘i\ I..«..mx.,;..i..m.,sxh.;r-.».-.m-mimm i‘#p-Hlillllvl P.‘ \ 041 1/27/2020 Supreme Court Judicial C05fS and fees study Council . I\aeSem.d.l Cmlrt -0 Reviews _ arm cost‘ of the Supreme Increased 0 Questions from the courts about . cost requests authority for costs and which costs applied to each court requests prior to _ legislative action as per La. 13:62. number ot 0 ' l\'.S. I Concerns over the use of l...l"Os for court funding Itemvmmendations from l.egi_slalive /\L1dilor's report Study act1v1t1es SH Gram 0 Met with 0 Collected 0 Developed recommendations stakeholder..~: LFO schedules Md‘ C‘“"‘t from for Court‘ 0 D J L7fl.‘~iL’ (7 C05 5 0 “'0 i“‘Cl' pructici-s rointoci to How can technology improve outcomes for accurately? Creation of a statevvide court cost Stéi-lutory and rc~g.Ircling a>:a‘essn1L' 1t, collection, 'i'Icl‘us'iis ilgL‘ 1L'iL‘.*‘u ri-iiwleizmtioii, Are the courts 6' policies ‘ ,i’t‘Ini'ii,ilL-am! incn-.i.wco .1bur.\tion.1ndda1ms1i.irinp_ , Price of justice, Louisiana ‘ continemenlx Support the use uf clam -et'fecti\'i- confinement. 0 corrections costs saved or avoided by rediiriniz unnuci-~a.~.nr_v ' - for judicial admiiiislralors court costs for criminal - Pilot efforts in city courts 0 in-xl noliI‘ic.Iiion~; W (S’('.1.w V ..Pi10i' izi ‘ m.m.1 )1venwnt iur effort in 23'“ \'Ul1l 7iidl' <‘L‘ oftiuwrw‘ JDC i Arrest on w.n'mntnoti!ic.ltioI1 u .I\iilom.itud .I"() Iorm 043 1/27/2020 Price of Iustice, Louisiana Price of Justice, Louisiana What are the best practices that will protect the cnnstitulimml ri;_',hts of defendants, support UM‘ work court 0 of tho courts, _fL1miin<,; and provide ncudcd access Amended and approved rvvsommundalions to bu prvsented to to inf(n'nmti<‘m? ' Advismy mmmitlvc 0" 'J'i‘Ull ‘ ~.lliJClll11l11iNL‘t‘~'u ‘ ' pnynwnl - B.IrI' \~r-: ' C< .'I vj l«1icin Justicv.-4 in October; incluclinp,: l‘r0lo(‘li<'ms fm‘dufuno.im1l.~; LASC guidance and ovursiglil ~ Development Stafdtttry rcv icw of an inter-bmncli committee to Study tho mLIrt’s 1'oli.mcuon L.F0.~‘, to the fIT1}3aCi(>f(‘i1;lI\1l,t‘S lo the uxistiiig model, and to recommend alturnnti\'u funding Inuduls ..\s.~‘c.~‘.s' S).‘4i4'l1l Price of Justice, Louisiana 'I‘akeaways 0 (1 ' model is um-qual and cun1bvr.~;mm[F0 a.~.~L-.-«'~I1\uI1t and cnllarctiun dim-1‘~' acrms courts; Existing Reliance on LFOs is Lm>;u.~‘tuinubIc U ".\n‘n1a r[1.Ingu-.~‘ ran .IHu‘thII1dim;stn-.1I1\x A Legal clmllunp,«-s In the turn-nt svsli-n1. 044 Snapshot of Louisiana Funding State-appropriated funds for the judicial branch in 2018-2019 was $173,164,713; equal to .51% of the state budget.1 Louisiana ranks 36th out of 42 states in the amount of state appropriation for the judicial system. The average judicial appropriation is equal to 1.4% of the state budget?‘ Louisiana has a tiered funding system in which state appropriations vary by court Court Level: level. State Appropriations Cover: Most court operations including and travel employees security, technology, salaries for all court and some office and expense for judges only Salaries travel Partial salaries for judges As a result of the state’s tiered funding structure, district and city courts rely heavily on a combination of self-generated court costs and local government support to finance court operations. Since each court has a unique arrangement with local governance and reports revenue and expenditures differently, determining the total amount spent on the courts is difficult; however, court audits submitted to the Legislative Auditor in 2018 provide information on the amounts received and managed by the courts. A review of these audits by Louisiana Supreme Court staff indicate that district, city, and parish courts rely heavily on self- generated funds to cover court operations not currently covered by state appropriation.3 Self—generated Funds District Courts City and Parish Courts Totals 1 $28,200,000 $17,000,000 $45,200,000 Court Expenditures $55,400,000 $24,000,000 $79,400,000 Percentage of Expenditures 50.9% 70.8% 56.9% Budget 2018 .»\R.pdl‘ most data was submitted in 2016 so may be outdated. In 2016, the Louisianajudiciary received .63% ofthe state budget. At .63%, Louisiana was 36"‘ out of 42 states. Eight states did not submit data. 3 Review of audits included all district courts and 47 city and parish courts. Inclusion oflocal, state, and grant contributions differ 2 http:/'./'www.Iziscora/about the court/bud2ets.r'2t)18-19 htt Z.//Cll1l1'1.I1CSC.0T£’_; ~ across courts. Additionally, some courts include civil fees in their se1f—generated totals. 045 PRESENTATION BY RAFTERY, NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS O46 1/27/2020 Overview - Court Budgeting in the United States William St E. Raftery, W5 Analvst pho National Cfenter for State Courts wra tery@nCSc'°rg QJCSC Principles for Judicial Administration Definitional: Developed based on best practices 0b5e 'Ved 0V€r the l335t 50 Years _5oVemance principles —Decision-Making and Case Administration Principles —Court Funding "Courts"? - State vs. Local Responsibility - Source: General Revenue vs. Other ' Roles of The Other Branches . Roies Within The Branch - Audit and Financial What Are Principles for Judicial Administration - What Are - Management ”Courts"? Alabama Amendment 328 (1973) —Adequate and reasonable appropriations shall be made by the legislature for the entire unified judicial system, exclusive of probate courts and municipal courts. _ . Principles 047 1/27/2020 What Are - ° Florida Revision 7 (1998) —Funding What Are ”Courts”? for the state courts system, —Examp e: Probation is within the A abama judiciai branch/court employees but Fiorida executive defenders’ offices, and court-appointed counsel, except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), shall be provided from state revenues appropriated by general -—Example: . Do ”Courts”? ”courts” include limited jurisdiction local courts for Is the Clerk of the Court an employee of the Court, or elected? law. - to define "Courts", "Judicial”, and "C0f€~COU 't FUnC'Ei0nS" state attorneys’ offices, public What Are Need “Courts”? State vs. Local Responsibility - some Local justice administered and funded locally purposes, but not others? - - Do Reform efforts in 1920-19705 "courts" include prosecutors and pubuc defenders? - 19705 forward: transition to complete or near—comp ete state funding 048 1/27/2020 State vs. Local Responsibility State vs. Local Responsibility - Barr (1975) ° -Mixed General - State Funding —Generai State Funding 1975 "Limited State Funding”: 18 states —Limited State Funding (appellate + AOC) —ltemized State Funding Barr's Today: 8 (Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Washington, West Virginia) —Other 10: Mixed General State Funding or General State Funding State vs. Local Responsibility - ° Why the shift? Carlson (2008) local fiscal relief, local inadequacy or unpredictability of revenue, sense of unequal justice across the state et. al. Adequate + Stable + Equitable State vs. Local Responsibility How? -—Restructuring of the entire judiciary — Phase—in (Arkansas = 20+ years, Kentucky 3-4 years, Michigan considering) —-Constitutional Amendment (Alabama, Florida) —Higher vs. Lower ”Courts” (Alabama vs. Arkansas) 049 1/27/2020 Source: General Revenue vs. Other - Best Practice: General Revenue Fund ° (commentary) "Courts are a core function of government and as such should be primarily funded by Source: General Revenue - Other Creation of "Trial Court” Funds have had mixed results —Alabama: expected $25 Principle 25 vs. million, received $5 —F orida: decline general tax revenues.” in foreclosure filings —Michigan: considering, but with cautions —Fund Source: General Revenue ° - vs. Other ”Court” fees/surcharges that have nothing to do with the courts Accounting Failures is controlled at the state level Source: General Revenue - vs. Other Percent of State-Funding Derived From State General Revenue Funding —Alabama — 78% —Florida — 83% —Kentucky - 88% —North Carolina — 99% 050 1/27/2020 Roles of The Other Branches ° Judiciary As Bragency - Role of Executive Branch - Treatment By Legislature Constitutional Language - Roles of The Other Branches - Inherent Powers Lawsuits Principle 24: Courts should be funded at a level that allows their core dispute resolution functions to be resolved by applying the appropriate dispositional alternative. funded so that cases can be resolved in accordance with recognized time standards byjudicial officers and court staff functioning in accordance with adopted workload standards. Roles of The Other Branches - Principle 21: Courts should be Roles of The Other Branches - Principle 19: Judicial Branch leadership should have the authority to allocate resources with a minimum of legislative and executive branch controls including budgets that have a minimal number of line items. 051 1/27/2020 Roles of The Other Branches - KentuckyJudiciary’s Operating Budget Roles of The Other Branches . Rett'_remefnt Styhste? Court Operations, Administrative Drug Court, Juvenile Probation Officer Services, and the Alabama Services, _ Sentencmg C0mm'SS'°n' I . Roles of The Other Branches Audit And 0Ver5i3ht5 P””CiF"e 20 —Judicia Branch leadership should administer funds in accordance with sound, accepted financial management practices. -To ensure transparency and accountability in financial operations, the courts should undergo regular internal and external fiscal audits in accordance with state or local court budget lines -4 lines: ion 0 au on y, d enia o f intrusion by the executive branch once appropriated, and the ability to move funds between the line items. ' tr;a ("Unified lU<=“°ia' 5vStem”l 'i.l'%?§}s$Ell$§f‘l%’§§l‘E2§llll'es Fund, Local Facilities Use Allowance C°”_ti_”3e”CV_F“”dr 3”d the State's — gudmglaril/l roa a oca Nabama . . Roles of The Other Branches - budget requests Should be Considered by legislative bodies as submitted by the Principle 18: Judicial Branch judicia Branch requirements. 052 1/27/2020 Roles Within The Branch Roles Within The Branch - Principle 16: Judicial Branch leadership should make budget requests based solely upon demonstrated need supported by appropriate business justification, including the use of workload assessment models and the application of appropriate Trial - Centralized Budgeting - Budget Requests and/or Trial Court Funds Based on Workload Assessments - Accounting Practices performance measures. Roles Within The Branch - "Who Speaks For The Judiciary?” —Supreme Court -Chief Justice —Judicial Council Court Budget Commission - Audit and Financial - Management The court system should be transparent and accountable through the use of performance measures and evaluation at all levels Principle 15: of the organization. 053 1/27/2020 Audit and Financial - Management Oversight: Principle 20 —Judicial Branch leadership should administer funds in accordance with sound, accepted financial management practices. Audit And Audit and Financial - accountability in financial operations, should undergo regular internaland externalfiscalaudflsin accordance with state or local requirements. Court Budgeting in Sr. E. Expend On Its ~ How Is The Money Spent/Controlled? - Minimum Accounting Standards ~ Standardized Accounting and/or Reporting the United States William How Much Does A State Courts? — State Appropriation (easy) — Local Appropriation (hard-to—unknown) —To ensure transparency and -the courts Management Raftery, PhD KlS Analyst National Center for State Courts wraftery@ncsc.org WCSC »§{s\.iir§E.hr_: 054 EXHIBIT D: OTHER DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION 055 DRAFT COURT RULE REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTIAL PAYMENTS OF COSTS, FINES, AND FEES 056 DRAFT COURT RULE - DISBURSEMENT OF PARTIAL PAYMENTS When person has been convicted, pleaded guilty or no contest, or forfeited bond in a criminal matter and has been assessed fines, costs, fees, and/or restitution; and that person makes less than full payment of the assessed fees, fines, costs, and/or restitution; and when no other agency is collecting restitution separately, each payment should be distributed as follows: 1. 2. a The collecting agency should disburse not less than one-half of each payment by any other assessed fine, forfeiture, cost, or other fee. a defendant to restitution before paying any portion of The other one-half of each payment should be divided among the other assessed costs fee to the total amount assessed, in the proportion of each fine, forfeiture, cost, or excluding restitution. Funds collected for all costs, fines, and fees should be distributed no later than the 10"‘ ofthe month following the month they are received. Should the funds collected for a payee in a partial payment be less than $5.00, the funds may be held until the amount owed to the payee is more than $5.00 or for a maximum of three months, whichever comes first. After three months the funds should be disbursed to the payee, regardless of the amount ofthe funds collected. Distribution example. This AMOUNT PAYEE ASSESSED is only an example; the payees and fine amounts are not based on actual statutes % OF TOTAL RESTITUTION Restitution of each - ~ A payment 5 until fully paid Judicial Expense 16.67% $50 Fund DARE Attorney Spinal Cord Fund Costs of Prosecution TOTAL PAYMENT ($100) ($50) $50 $25 ($150 ($125 PAYMENT 5TH PARTIAL TOTAL PAYMENT PARTIAL ($70) ($200) ($80) PAYEE so $200 PARTIAL PAYMENT PAID TO EACH to pay) to pay) to pay) $90 (RESTITUTION FULLY PAID) $8.33 $4.17 $5.83 $18.33 $13.33 $50.00 $7.50 $3.33 $8.33 $5.83 $16.67 $3.75 $1.67 $4.17 $2.92 $8.33 $5.25 $2.33 $5.83 $4.08 $11.67 $16.50 $7.33 $18.33 $12.83 $36.67 $12.00 $5.33 $13.33 $9.33 $26.67 $45.00 $20.00 $50.00 $35.00 $100.00 $100.00 $50.00 $70.00 $200.00 $80.00 $500.00 left $35 left ($90 left . ' Indigent Defense ~District 4TH PARTIAL IS ALWAYS 50%) 50% $200 3RD PAYMENT EXCLUDING (WHICH 2ND 1ST PARTIAL PAYMENT ASSESSED/PAID $45 $20 $50 $35 $100 $500 * ’ 15.00% 6.67% 16.67% 11.67% 33.33% 100.00% H 057