Title
Title
Juvenile Dependency: Court-Appointed Dependency Counsel Workload and Funding Methodology (Action Required)
body
Summary
Summary
The joint working group of the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee reviewed a workload model approved by the Judicial Council in the DRAFT Pilot Program and Court-Appointed Counsel report of 2007 for possible updates and revisions. After extensive review and public comment, the subcommittee recommended several adjustments to the workload model.
body
Recommendation
Recommendation
The subcommittee was charged with reviewing the workload model for court-appointed dependency counsel and including eight specific issues in its review. In addition the subcommittee determined that to update the workload model, one additional issue needed to be reviewed.
Issues in Judicial Council Charge
1. Whether attorney salaries should continue to be based on an average salary by region, or whether another method should be used such as an individual county index of salaries. (7.a. in Judicial Council report of April 17, 2015).
Recommendation:
That attorney salaries used in workload model estimates be based on two factors: (1) the median salary for the first-tier range for county counsel in all counties; and (2) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Category 92 index that is used in the Workload Allocation Funding Model (WAFM).
2. Whether the attorney salaries used in the model should be updated (7.b.).
Recommendation:
That attorney salaries used in the model be updated for each county using the statewide median county counsel salary and the BLS Category 92 index.
3. Whether the calculation for benefits costs in the model is accurate or if it should be changed (7.c.).
Recommendation:
That benefits costs not be calculated directly by any formula, but that the costs be estimated as 15 percent of total costs or 33 percent of salary costs.
4. Whether the calculation f...
Click here for full text