The Judiciary FY

Transcription

1 Discussion Points 1. P.L. 2014, c.31 implements a constitutional amendment providing for pretrial detention of certain criminal defendants; establishes non-monetary bail alternatives for release; and authorizes the Judiciary to revise fees. These fee increases are to be deposited in the newly created 21st Century Justice Improvement Fund, to provide for (1) the development, maintenance and administration of a Statewide Pretrial Services Program ($22 million); (2) the development, maintenance and administration of a Statewide digital e-court information system ($10 million); and (3) the provision to the poor of legal assistance in civil matters by Legal Services of New Jersey and its affiliates ($10.1 million). While authority to increase fees became effective immediately, other provisions become effective January 1, The FY 2017 budget provides for an additional judicial branch 400 positions to implement comprehensive bail reform (Budget page p. H-13, H-14). Question: Please provide an update on the status of the bail reform preparations, including the pretrial services and speedy trial programs. Will the Judiciary be prepared to commence with these programs by January 1, 2017? Has the Judiciary collaborated with other agencies in the development of the new programs? How will these partnerships affect the program? What actions are being taken by the Judiciary in terms of educating and involving these other agencies in the process? Response: The Judiciary will be ready to begin all aspects of criminal justice reform, including pretrial services and speedy trial, by January 1, 2017, the effective date of P.L. 2014, c.31. As of April 13, 2016, the Judiciary is well on its way to ensuring timely implementation of criminal justice reform. It has automated the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), the risk assessment tool that it will use to determine the risk levels of eligible defendants. It has also automated the decision-making framework that will guide the Judiciary s Pretrial Services Unit in its recommendations to judges regarding the appropriate form and conditions, if any, of pretrial release. The Judiciary has created three pilot programs in the Passaic, Morris/Sussex and Camden Vicinages to test and preview these tools. The Judiciary will also test its computer interfaces with the State Police and the enhancements to its ecdr and ecourts applications, which will allow it to meet the 48-hour deadline in which courts must issue a release decision, and to track its success in implementing P.L. 2014, c.31. The pilot programs will begin in May, July, and August, respectively. In addition, while it will not be part of the pilot program testing, the Judiciary has created ecourts enhancements that will allow it to track the 48-hour time frame, following a defendant s commitment to the county jail, in which the judge must issue a release decision. It has also created enhancements that will track the 90 and 180 day pre-and post-indictment speedy trial time frames, and the overall 2-year speedy trial time frame in which the defendant must be brought to trial. The Judiciary will also be able to track excludable time and the party to whom it is to be attributed. 1

2 In November 2015, the Judiciary hired the Central Office Chief of its Pretrial Services Unit, which is housed in the AOC Criminal Division. Since that time, hiring for the Central Office Pretrial Services Unit has been completed. In addition, several vicinages, including each of the pilot vicinages, have hired Assistant Division Managers to lead the local pretrial services units. It is anticipated that each vicinage will have hired an Assistant Division Manager by the end of June The pilot vicinages are in the process of hiring supervisors and investigators to complete their respective staffs. Shortly after the Judiciary began planning for its implementation of P.L. 2014, c.31, it began collaborating with other agencies, including the Offices of the Attorney General and Public Defender, county and municipal prosecutors, and the private bar. Over the past year, these stakeholders have participated in a number of Supreme Court Committees and working groups to revise the Rules of Court to implement the law. In September 2015, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Judge Glenn A. Grant, the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, met with these and other stakeholders, including the leadership of various bar associations, the Governor s Counsel s office, the New Jersey State Police, the chiefs of police, and the county sheriffs and jail wardens, to stress the importance of collaboration and to field their questions regarding Criminal Justice Reform. The Judiciary continues to stress the importance of collaboration, especially with the Offices of the Attorney General and the Public Defender. Judiciary leadership has met with both the Attorney General and the Public Defender on several occasions to discuss Criminal Justice Reform, and Judiciary staff has conducted multiple presentations on the law and its implementation with, and for, both agencies. The Judiciary has conducted dozens of presentations on Criminal Justice Reform for internal audiences and for various statewide and local stakeholders. The Judiciary has stressed that Criminal Justice Reform is a joint effort among all three branches of government, and it will not succeed without support and buy-in from all stakeholders. Question: What is the organizational affinity, e.g., Trial Court Services, Management and Administration, Probation Services, of the additional positions funded in FY 2017? What are the projected FY 2017 costs, in salaries, fringe benefits and non-salary expenses, for these additional positions? What are the projected costs for FY 2018? How will additional positions be allocated among vicinages and central offices? What are the job titles and duties of these employees? How many existing employees will be reassigned to new duties to implement comprehensive bail reform? Response: The positions funded through Criminal Justice Reform will be assigned primarily to the vicinages in new pre-trial services units within their Criminal Divisions, with the exception of a handful of positions assigned to the Central Office Criminal and Municipal Divisions to coordinate the program. Initial allocations among the vicinages have been 2

3 developed based on the projected caseloads for each level of risk. The allocations will continue to be assessed as the Judiciary gains experience with the program and based on the data from the caseloads as they develop. The titles of the positions in the vicinages will be Assistant Criminal Division Manager, Court Services Supervisor 2, Court Services Officer 2, Court Services Officer 1, and Investigator. The positions in the Central Office will consist of Court Executives, an Attorney, and Administrative Specialists. The duties of the vicinage staff will consist of a combination of performing risk assessments and monitoring of defendants released pre-trial. Monitoring conditions will depend on the defendants level of risk, with limited conditions at the lowest risk level, increasing to closer and more frequent monitoring with each higher risk level. At this juncture, the Judiciary cannot predict how many existing employees will be reassigned to the program. Current employees will be able to apply for the positions as they are filled, so the number of reassignments will largely depend on how many current employees are interested in moving into this new function. Question: Has the risk assessment tool authorized under the law been developed? Please provide an explanation of how the risk assessment tool will work. Response: The Judiciary has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, a national leader in criminal justice reform, to use the foundation s risk assessment tool, the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The PSA was created using a database of over 1.5 million cases drawn from more than 300 jurisdictions throughout the United States. It has been validated for use nationally and in New Jersey. In addition to New Jersey, the PSA is currently used throughout Arizona and Kentucky, as well as in some of the largest cities in the United States, including Chicago, Illinois; San Francisco, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Charlotte, North Carolina; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Phoenix, Arizona. The PSA factors are used to determine the defendant s risk level across three different spectrums: (1) his/her likelihood of engaging in new criminal activity; (2) his/her likelihood of failing to appear in court when required; and (3) his/her likelihood of engaging in new violent criminal activity. Each factor is weighted based on the strength of its relationship with these measures. The risk of both new criminal activity and failure to appear are determined using a 6-point scale, with one being the lowest and six being the highest. Consequently, a defendant with the lowest possible risk of new criminal activity and failure to appear is indicated by a score of 1-1, while a defendant with the highest possible risk of new criminal activity and 3

4 failure to appear is indicated by a score of 6-6. New violent criminal activity is designated by a flag, which indicates that the defendant has an elevated risk of violence. The PSA will be automated. In a matter of seconds, the automated system will pull data regarding the factors above from a variety of databases that contain the defendant s adult criminal history. A preliminary risk assessment will be available to a Municipal Court Judge or Court Administrator, providing a preliminary risk score that will inform the warrant/summons decision. That decision will determine whether the defendant is to be temporarily detained in the county jail for up to 48 hours. Once the defendant is detained, pretrial services will be able to access the PSA application to confirm and complete a full risk assessment and make recommendations to the court regarding the appropriate form and conditions, if any, of release. Risk assessment recommendations can be modified, accepted or rejected by a trial court judge. The 2014 constitutional amendment, providing for pretrial detention, requires a prosecutor to make a motion to the judge. Question: How is the Judiciary preparing to implement the speedy trial aspects of this new law? What obstacles have been encountered thus far? Have issues arisen that can be resolved only by changes to statute? Response: The Judiciary, through the Supreme Court Criminal Practice Committee, has drafted rules to implement the speedy trial aspects of the new law. It is anticipated they will be completed in April. Subsequently, they will go to the Court, be published for comment and ultimate approval by the Court. Additional rules to implement the recommendations of the Supreme Court Joint Committee on Criminal Justice will be issued shortly. These rules modify certain case processing standards to assist the courts in moving cases more quickly. A number of technological enhancements are under development to track defendants and their cases that are subject to speedy trial. The new computer application will include a countdown clock to the date when a defendant must be released should a prosecutor not meet their burden of indicting the case within 90 days; disposing of the case within 180 days of indictment; or in two years not being ready to proceed to voir dire, opening argument, or the hearing of any motions reserved for the time of trial. Thirteen specific categories of excludable time are identified in the law. When one of the categories of excludable time becomes applicable, the court will issue an order clearly identifying which category of excludable time is at issue, and the specific time frame for the excludable time. These orders will be electronically signed with automatic notification sent to the prosecutor and public defender or private attorney, and saved to the electronic case file. 4

5 Thus far, no obstacles have been encountered. However, it is anticipated that speedy trial will result in an increase in the number and frequency of trials, and there is a serious concern as to whether the Judiciary has enough judges to meet that demand. Consequently, judges in the Civil and Family Divisions may need to be reassigned to the Criminal Division. At this time, there are no issues that can be resolved by changes to the statute. Question: Please provide a list of fees increased under the law, noting the amount each fee was increased and the amount of revenue generated by each fee per fiscal year. How much revenue from the fee increases is anticipated to be collected per fee in FY 2017? Does the Judiciary anticipate that the current fee collections are sufficient to support the operations of the program? If not, what would be the shortfall and when will it occur? Response: Attached please find a list of the fees increased as a result of P.L. 2014, c31. Based on these increases, revenue of $26 million was generated in fiscal year 2015 during the period of November 17, 2014 through June 30, Through February of fiscal year 2016, revenue is $29.1 million. How much revenue from the fee increases is anticipated to be collected per fee in FY 2017? It is difficult to anticipate FY 2017 collections with no history to base an estimate on and variable case filings. Based on fiscal year-to-date collections of $29.1 million, the Judiciary anticipates it will meet the $42.1 million level proposed in the legislation. Does the Judiciary anticipate that the current fee collections are sufficient to support the operations of the program? Once the program is fully operational, the revenue generated by the fee increases will not be sufficient to support the operations of the program. If not, what would be the shortfall and when will it occur? Currently, the Judiciary estimates that the program will run into deficit sometime during FY The shortfall is likely to be generated by having to pay fringe benefits from the dedicated fund, and the annual escalation in employee s salaries. 5

6 2. P.L.2014, c.31 provided $10 million in increased fee revenue for the development, maintenance and administration of a State-wide digital e-court information system. Question: What actions have the Judiciary taken to develop and maintain a State-wide digital e-court information system? How will these actions affect New Jersey s legal community and other court users? Response: The Judiciary has been successful in developing statewide information systems during the last thirty years. The ecourts initiative is the next step in modernizing the Judiciary s information system through an overall digital transformation. By imaging documents and electronically capturing events and decision points, the Judiciary can build intelligent applications that provide next-best-event processing and achieve greater resource efficiency. The building blocks for ecourts have been developed during the last few years, with each project adding another layer of statewide capabilities. In 1999, the Judiciary developed the first court efiling system in the country. JEFIS was initially developed to accept filings in the Special Civil Part area for cases under $15,000. JEFIS was later expanded to include foreclosure filings. In 2016, the JEFIS system will be moved to the ecourts framework. An electronic case jacket for Special Civil cases (under $3,000) will be completed by July 2016, and this framework is currently being enhanced to accept efiled Civil cases by December The initial ecourts project was an application allowing attorneys to complete their annual registration online. The Supreme Court recognized the success of this initiative and in 2016 made online annual registration mandatory. The registration process provides the courts with contact information needed to communicate notices and alerts from ecourts. The first electronic filing project for ecourts occurred in the Criminal Division. Registered attorneys began filing motions in criminal matters in The application was quickly expanded to include the efiling of other documents. The Judiciary built electronic case jackets to store these documents, allow real time access by attorneys to filed documents, provide necessary case management information online, and notifications of case status and filed documents to attorneys. The ecourts case jackets have recently been expanded to accept electronically filed complaint images from law enforcement, orders from judges, and risk assessment documents for the Criminal Justice Reform project. In 2015, ecourts was again expanded to accept pleadings on Tax appeals. The success of the 2015 project led the Supreme Court to order that all Tax filings be done through ecourts in

7 Finally, the Judiciary s retention schedules dictate long term preservation of necessary case documents. To alleviate some of the strain on the space needed to save case files, the Judiciary expanded the ecourts case jackets in Family cases. 3. While bail reform and speedy trial programs authorized under P.L. 2014, c.31 are scheduled to begin in January, 2017, the OLS has learned that Union Vicinage is currently operating a pilot bail reform program. Morris/Sussex Vicinage is scheduled to enter a program in March, 2016 and Camden Vicinage is scheduled to begin a program in July, Question: Are these programs a precursor or a part of the bail reform package authorized under P.L. 2014, c.31? How are they funded? What are the expenditures for the Union Vicinage program to date and through the remainder of the program? What is the amount to be allocated to each of the other vicinages? What is the cost to each of the counties that are involved in the programs? How will these programs interact with the bail reform and speedy trial program to be implemented by the Judiciary in 2017? Response: In part, yes. The ecourt criminal system provides the technological platform for the criminal justice reform efforts. The Judiciary has created three pilot programs to test and preview the PSA and the technological and systems improvements that will track the Judiciary s success in implementing P.L. 2014, c.31. Those pilot programs are in the Passaic, Morris/Sussex, and Camden Vicinages. There is no pilot program in the Union Vicinage. The Judiciary is funding the pilot programs. As of April 13, 2016, the Passaic and Camden Vicinages have received $22, in salary and fringe benefit transfers, while the Morris/Sussex Vicinage has received $17, The additional amounts requested from each pilot vicinage to fund their respective pilot programs differ widely. Passaic has requested an additional $72,409.71, Camden has requested an additional $241,122.95, and Morris/Sussex has requested an additional $140, Thus, to date, Passaic will receive a total of $94,491.06, Camden will receive a total of $263,204.30, and Morris/Sussex will receive a total of $158, The Judiciary's "Guardianship Monitoring Program" was announced in January Formerly, court-appointed guardians for incapacitated persons would file an initial inventory of the incapacitated person's property, and afterwards would file periodic accountings of the property. Under the new program, volunteers are recruited to review these inventories and accountings, which have been entered into a State-wide database. 7

8 Question: What is the status of this volunteer program? Has it been successful, and how is success measured? How many volunteers participate in the program? How many guardianship cases are there at any one time? Are there enough volunteers to provide appropriate oversight? What other kinds of oversight are there, other than by volunteers? Do all court-appointed guardians enter their inventories and accountings into the database, or only some of them? Has the database been effective in improving oversight of guardians? Has it reduced the incidence of theft and fraud? Response: The Guardianship Monitoring Program (GMP) was implemented statewide as of July 1, On average, approximately 2,500 new guardianship cases have been filed annually since 2010, with approximately 2,750 filed in Since the launch of the GMP in 2013, volunteers and court staff have entered data related to over 8,100 active guardianship cases into the GMP database, and have reviewed over 4,300 periodic reports and inventories submitted by guardians. The program has been successful in creating a statewide database of current guardianships, which has never previously existed. It has also been successful in cataloguing reports filed by guardians and identifying cases in which required reports have not been filed. The program has also been successful in identifying and escalating for further review, including by the Superior Court, cases in which abuse or exploitation is suspected. Following volunteer review, cases may be elevated for review by court staff and, if appropriate, by the Probate Part judge. Inventories and periodic reports which are submitted by guardians are filed on paper with the appropriate County Surrogate in his/her role as Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part. Guardians do not file inventories and periodic reports electronically. Inventories and accountings are inputted into the database for all courtappointed guardians ordered by the court to file reports. The database has improved oversight of guardians by enabling quick discovery of cases in which, for example, a guardian has refused to continue service. Additionally, new guardians appointed since establishment of the GMP are aware from the outset that their actions will be subject to monitoring, which may reduce the risk of misconduct. In specific cases, the GMP has identified cases in which financial mismanagement was ongoing. These cases have been brought to the attention of the Superior Court for further action. Guardian awareness of GMP oversight, along with training initiatives for guardians, judges and attorneys, is reducing fraud and theft. 5. Other states use hired staff to administer their guardianship mentoring programs and do not rely on volunteers. Some programs, such as Minnesota s CAMPER ("Conservator Account Monitoring Preparation and Electronic Reporting"), have been widely praised by experts in the field of elder law. 8

9 Question: Please compare and contrast New Jersey s program to CAMPER. What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of New Jersey s program? Response: Minnesota s CAMPER system and its successor, My MN Conservator ( MMC ), are online account reporting applications that allow conservators to file their inventories and annual accountings electronically. Annual accounts filed through MMC are subject to examination and/or audit. An audit is a detailed review of the account by an auditor with the Minnesota Conservator Account Auditing Program (CAAP), a statewide grant-funded program with four full-time and four part-time staff that conducts professional level audits on all first annual accounts with an asset balance greater than $3,000 and every four years on such accounts thereafter. In New Jersey, staff can manually examine reviews of reports by guardians conducted using the Guardianship Monitoring System (GMS) application over time. Unlike in Minnesota, New Jersey does not conduct a detailed, formal audit on all reports and inventories submitted by guardians. The GMP s goal is to ensure the timely submission and review of all required reports and inventories, and to uncover possible indicia of abuse, neglect, financial exploitation or other problems. Cases in which a review reveals concerns are referred to the Probate Part judge, who has the discretion to refer a case to Adult Protective Services or order formal accountings of guardianship estates, which are audited, pursuant to statute, by County Surrogates Offices. 6. According to a State Auditor s report covering the period July 1, 2012 through August 31, 2015 on the Administrative Office of the Courts Information Technology Funds: The AOC did not consistently follow its documentation process when expenditures were made from information technology dedicated funds. Implementation of a strong system of internal controls is the responsibility of management and is necessary to decrease the risk that errors will occur and not be detected. The AOC has established adequate internal controls but is not consistently abiding by its own rules. The report recommended that The AOC should comply with its procedures when processing expenditures from dedicated funds to ensure that only justified purchases are made and that documentation is maintained supporting the receipt of goods. Question: What steps has the Judiciary made in order to comply with this recommendation? Response: The Judiciary respectfully disagrees with the audit findings. The Judiciary has provided clear evidence that all standard and appropriate business practices are followed when procuring and paying for all goods and services, including those related to the Information Technology Funds. The two unit's within the Judiciary that are involved in the 9

10 acquisition process for and payment from the Information Technology Funds have redoubled their vigilance in light of the State Auditor's report. The internal controls used by the Judiciary s accounting unit consistently include a three-way match when processing payments against purchases made from the funds and will continue to do so. The Judiciary's procurement unit takes every action necessary to ensure that all required information is included on purchasing requests and will continue to do so. 7. The FY 2017 budget recommends an additional $650,000 for Drug Court Operations. No additional funding is recommended for Drug Court Treatment/Aftercare or for Drug Court Judgeships. P.L.2012, c.23 modified the criteria for admission into the drug court program to allow more persons to be eligible and have access to the program, and authorized a phased-in mandatory drug court program. Currently, nine vicinages are participating in the program: Ocean, Hudson, Somerset/Warren/Hunterdon, Passaic, Mercer, Atlantic/Cape May, Bergen, Burlington, and Monmouth. Question: What is the status of the implementation of mandatory drug court? To which vicinages/counties will the program be expanded next, and on what timetable? Response: Mandatory drug court continues with its incremental statewide rollout this year with an additional three vicinages. Starting July , Essex, Middlesex, and Gloucester/Salem/Cumberland Vicinages will implement mandatory drug court. The final phase of the rollout will be completed in July 2017 with Camden, Union, and Morris/Sussex Vicinages. 8. In its response to an OLS FY 2016 discussion point on the expanded drug court program, the Judiciary stated: Because the mandatory drug court program is under two years old, the impact, if any, on the program s successful completion, which is typically 24 months from sentencing to graduation, it not ascertainable. Question: Does the Judiciary now have enough operating data with which to determine the impact on the program s retention and completion rate? How has the new program affected the number of participants who become re-offenders upon completion? Response: Because it is a relatively new program, the Judiciary can report on retention for mandatory versus non-mandatory drug court cases only for the last year. The defendants who have entered the program voluntarily currently have a retention rate of 79.8% for the last 12 months. Defendants who have entered the program through the mandatory process currently have a retention rate of 85.9% for this same time period. However, it is too early to determine completion rate and recidivism in the pool of mandatory drug court participants. 10

11 9. According to the AOC, there are currently 42 Superior Court vacancies with another 20 anticipated by the end of of the current vacancies are located in Essex County. Question: What steps has the Judiciary taken to compensate for the number of Superior Court vacancies? What is the impact of these vacancies on court backlogs in the affected vicinages? Is there a concern that these vacancy numbers will affect the implementation of P.L. 2014, c.31? Response: The number of Superior Court vacancies as of April 14, 2016 is 44 with 22 more anticipated by the end of Essex County currently has 11 vacancies, with an additional 5 expected by the end of the year. In managing the number of Superior Court vacancies, the Judiciary significantly relies upon the hard work and dedication of its judges who work long hours and carry substantial caseloads. In addition, the Judiciary utilizes recall judges, who provide additional and vital assistance in hearing and moving cases to help ensure the timely resolution of matters. There are no monetary costs associated with the Judiciary s reliance on the diligence and commitment of its current judicial officers. Costs incurred taking steps to compensate for the number of vacancies have not exceeded the total salary amount of the open judgeships. Backlog refers to cases that remain open beyond the self-imposed time goals that the Judiciary has established for each case type. The Judiciary has implemented backlog standards for virtually every case type and strives to resolve as many cases as possible within these time frames. When multicounty litigation cases (formerly called mass tort ) are excluded, the overall backlog had a 1 percent reduction from 29,364 cases in February 2015 to 28,972 cases in February Five vicinages carried at least three judicial vacancies for the first eight months of the court year and had some difficulty keeping up with the criminal caseload volume. Those five vicinages had a criminal backlog increase of 3.9 percent from 4,922 cases in February 2015 to 5,115 cases in February The other ten vicinages had a criminal backlog decrease of 3.2 percent from 6,427 cases in February 2015 to 6,224 cases in February The Judiciary believes that the successful implementation of criminal justice reform, including new speedy trial mandates, will depend in part on consistently low judicial vacancy rates and stands ready to provide whatever support it can to the Executive and Legislative Branches to ensure prompt and steady judicial nominations. It has already become necessary to shift additional judges to the Criminal Division in connection with current criminal justice reform efforts, and we expect that trend to continue as we approach January 1,

12 10. Effective January 1, 2015, the Judiciary began accepting cases into its new Complex Business Litigation program, which was established as a result of the recommendations of the Chief Justice s Working Group on Business Litigation. According to the news reports, the AOC has stated that 195 cases have been heard in the 15 vicinages and about 25 percent have been resolved. Question: Please provide an update on the operation of this program. Why was the program established? How many judges participate in the program and what training do they receive? Are higher fees charged to litigants that enter this program? Please describe the differentials, if any. Response: In November 2014, the Supreme Court established the Complex Business Litigation Program to meet the needs of New Jersey s business community and to continue to develop a body of authoritative case law that will aid all parties in business litigation. The Program, which became effective on January 1, 2015, features individualized management of complex commercial, business and construction cases by designated Complex Business Litigation judges in each of the 15 vicinages. The Assignment Judge in each vicinage has designated a judge to handle all cases in the Program. The designated judges receive specialized training in all areas related to business litigation. Litigants in the Program are assessed the same fees that are assessed to litigants in any other Civil case. Since its effective date, there have been 240 cases in the Program. As of April 1, 2016, there are 162 active cases in the Program. 11. Last year, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Domestic Violence. According to the AOC, the committee would bring together representatives from all three branches of government to consider the issue of domestic violence from multiple perspectives and make recommendations to improve the current system. Question: Please provide an update on the status of this committee and its activities to date. What is the membership of the committee? Are all three branches of government represented? Response: The Ad Hoc committee and the three subcommittees actively met throughout 2015 and early The three subcommittees formed were: Education and Training, Resources for Victims and Batterers, and Interaction of Municipal and Superior Courts/Level and Degree of Offenses. In February 2016, the subcommittees submitted their recommendations to the full committee, which vetted them and made final recommendations. The report is being prepared. 12

13 The full committee was comprised of members from all three branches of government, and included judges, legislators, law enforcement, representatives from the Governor s Office, public defenders, and court personnel. In addition, there was representation from the private bar, domestic violence advocates, academia, and legal services. 12. Over recent years the Judiciary has implemented certain technology-based services to assist jurors and attorneys, including a mobile app for smart phones and text alerts. Question: Please provide a summary of these initiatives. Is the Judiciary planning any other initiatives? If so, please describe them and provide a potential implementation date. Does the Judiciary use social media to disseminate information to the public? If so, please describe. Response: The NJJuror application keeps jurors up-to-date with Judiciary news, gives turnby-turn directions to the juror s assigned courthouse, and is designed to make the juror experience simple and convenient. Other features include: jury information and FAQs, access to the Juror Online Questionnaire, one touch placement of a call to an assigned court house, public transit directions, one touch checking of your reporting schedule, communicate with your assigned jury managers easily, see any unscheduled court closings with one touch, watch the "You, the Juror" video, and find places to eat near your court house. It also allows the public to opt-in to receive text messages. With the texting option, potential jurors will receive messages alerting them when to appear or not to appear for jury service. To date, the system has sent over 3 million reminders to jurors. In the future, the Judiciary plans to allow potential jurors to submit medical and excuse documentation via the internet, and allow the jury managers to upload and view the excuses online during the qualification process. The NJAttorney application keeps attorneys up-to-date with Notices to the Bar and provides turn-by-turn directions to courthouses and administrative offices. Other features include: search for Court Rules, Judiciary News, Supreme Court News, Notice to the Bar RSS feed, access to attorney registration and payment, access to the approved CLE course catalog and attorney index, call a court house or an office with one touch, public transit directions, see any unscheduled court or office closings with one touch, and find places to eat near a court house or office. In addition, attorney registration is a yearly Supreme Court requirement for all attorneys authorized to practice in New Jersey. This year the Judiciary provided attorneys the ability to pay via ACH (echeck). 13. Pending legislation would increase court fees and establish the Court Security Enhancement Fund which would provide a continuous source of funding to assist counties and municipalities in providing and maintaining safe and secure court facilities. 13

14 Question: What type and amount of additional expenditures has the Judiciary incurred in each of the past three completed fiscal years to assure adequate security at State court facilities? By what amount are security concerns increasing costs in FY 2016 and FY 2017? What cost impact have initiatives to assure adequate court security had on county governments? What type of security assistance to municipalities is offered to assure adequate security at municipal court facilities? What efforts has the Judiciary made in its attempt to coordinate with other State and local entities on the issue of court security? Response: The Judiciary does not have a security budget. The County Sheriffs with some assistance from the State Police are tasked with providing court security at the Superior Court level throughout the state. When the Probation Division needs items or manpower that are related to security, that expense has been covered by the Probation Division s overall operating budget. The Tax Court, established statutorily, has no provision for security like that provided to the Superior Court by the County Sheriff. In 2015, the Supreme Court promulgated an update to the Model Court Security Plan. This directive highlights the Judiciary s commitment to court security and has required certain expenditures be made by the counties. The Court has required that the Sheriff provide armed uniforms officers for security in all civil courtrooms. This requirement has proved challenging for some Sheriff s Offices, and some are not able to meet this standard to date. In addition, the Sheriff is to supply an armed uniformed offer to secure the judge assigned at any civil commitment hearing in a state, county, public or private hospital setting. This requirement has also stretched the resources of the Sheriffs. The Judiciary remains committed to working with the Sheriffs about these important safety initiatives. Criminal Justice Reform will likely have a fiscal impact on the counties due to increased court hours of operation. The extent of that impact is not yet known. Like county courts, the Judiciary does not maintain municipal court facilities. Municipal Court security is provided by the municipality. The Judiciary continues, however, to educate Municipal Judges, Administrators, staff and local Police on the requirements associated with court security. The Judiciary provides on-going education to Judiciary personnel about security and promotes the best practices outlined in the Model Court Security Plan. The Judicial Security Management Response Team (JSMART) is a partnership comprised of all 21 County Sheriffs, State Police, the United States Marshals Service, and the Judiciary s Court & Judicial Security Unit. JSMART focuses on the cooperative promotion of Court Security throughout the state. JSMART is currently working on a video to help educate municipal police officers about court security and its requirements. JSMART hosts regular regional meetings and regularly conducts outreach to municipalities and other stakeholders. In addition, JSMART employs a newly created database, Suspicious Activity Monitoring System (SAMS), to assist in the collection and analysis of intelligence specific to court security. The Somerset 14

15 County Sheriff currently administers the database and is attempting to secure funding to pay for the database as well as its ongoing training and program initiatives. 14. Foreclosures have been a continuing problem in New Jersey in recent years. Question: What is the current status of foreclosures in New Jersey? Are foreclosure filings still increasing at this time, have they leveled off, or have they begun to decrease? How many foreclosures are pending? What is the typical length of the foreclosure process? Response: The judicial process of foreclosure continues to see an increase in the number of cases disposed of, a decrease in the amount of time to disposition, and a decrease in the number of new complaints filed. It is reported that there is significant delay in the time to sale by the Sheriff after the writ is issued, which continues to increase the time to foreclosure. Are foreclosure filings still increasing at this time, have they leveled off, or have they begun to decrease? New foreclosure filings are decreasing. There are approximately 3,000 new complaints filed each month. It is estimated that there will be 35,000 new foreclosure actions filed in calendar year This estimate is a marked decreased from 2015, when 41,925 complaints were filed in the calendar year. How many foreclosures are pending? There are currently 63,726 active, pending foreclosure matters, which represents a 20% reduction from 2015, when there were 80,261 pending foreclosure matters. What is the typical length of the foreclosure process? The Judiciary is responsible only for the portion of time required to move the foreclosure matter from complaint to judgment. Typically, plaintiffs are required to wait a minimum of 90 days from the first date of default before filing the foreclosure complaint and notice of lis pendens. Many plaintiffs choose to wait a longer period of time before filing the formal action, thus avoiding the maintenance and costs associated with the upkeep of the property. Once a complaint is filed and served on all defendants (including homeowners and any existing judgment creditors), a plaintiff in an uncontested matter may minimally obtain judgment in 126 days after serving the complaint on all defendants. This time frame does not account for the time to Sheriff sale, which can be upwards of ten months from the date the writ issued. 15

16 A statistical review of foreclosures filed in 2015 shows that the majority of cases are disposed of within 7 to 13 months from the date the complaint is filed. This time frame can be attributed to the assignment and reassignment of mortgages between lenders and servicers; the transfer of assets between lenders and numerous defendants to be served; additional motion practice; and noticing to the defendant homeowners. In those instances where cases are not being resolved within 13 months, plaintiffs most often have submitted insufficient proofs or have failed to respond to a filing deficiency notice issued by the Superior Court Clerk s Office, requiring the motion for judgment to be re-filed and re-served. There are currently 11,659 cases pending for longer than two years. These cases continue to have issues related to service, the certification of diligent inquiry, notices of intent to foreclosure, and may have been dismissed multiple times for lack of prosecution. The Clerk of the Superior Court has required firms to provide updates on these cases, including the projected time frame to disposition. These cases also negatively affect the foreclosure timeline as presented by corporations such as CoreLogic or RealtyTrac. How many properties are currently in foreclosure? Below, please find the breakdown of the ages and number of properties pending in foreclosure as of March 31, 2016: Under 6 months 16,805 6 months to 12 months 14, months to 18 months 12, to 24 months 8, to 36 months 6, to 48 months 1, to 60 months 590 Over 60 months 3,466 Of the 63,726 pending foreclosure matters, 55,932 are residential foreclosures. The remaining 7,794 are commercial foreclosures, tax foreclosures, condominium foreclosures, and timeshares. 15. Currently, when the court is faced with child custody conflicts, Family Court judges conduct in camera interviews with the child involved to determine that child s preference for placement if that child exhibits suitable maturity. Question: How many appeals are filed annually in child custody cases? What type of training is provided to Family Court judges on effective child interviewing? What portion of the judicial training budget is devoted to training in the area of child custody determination? 16

17 Response: The Judiciary does not maintain statistics by individual relief sought. Rather statistics are maintained by case type, such as Dissolution (divorce) or Non-Dissolution. Family Division judges attend both Judicial College and the Family Division Education conference annually. In addition, new judges attend the Comprehensive Judicial Orientation Program prior to taking the bench. In total, approximately 40% of the training time allocated for Family Division judges is in the area of custody determinations. 16. The State has issued a series of Motor Vehicle Surcharge Revenue bonds payable from the revenues realized from surcharges imposed on drivers for various motor vehicle related violations. Historically, the MVC has not been able to collect all surcharges assessed due to non-payment by individuals. In order to compel higher rates of repayment the MVC has been granted the ability to engage in more aggressive collection techniques than is commonly used by the MVC for other types of unpaid charges, including the hiring of outside agencies to pursue past due surcharge penalties. Documentation in bond statements has laid out the annual surcharge penalties imposed per year and the annual revenue resulting from the collection of surcharge penalties. What is not included is the breakdown of that revenue between the payment of surcharges imposed in that current year, and the repayment of past due surcharge balances from prior years. Question: What is the total amount of revenue collected in each of the last five fiscal years through MVC surcharges and unsafe driver surcharges? Please distinguish between revenue collected from violations occurring in that fiscal year, collections of unpaid surcharge balances from prior years, and note the amount of total outstanding unpaid surcharge balances at the end of each fiscal year. What amount of increased surcharge revenue is attributable to collections activities, and does that amount justify the cost of hiring outside collection agencies? Response: Information regarding MVC surcharges is not maintained by the Judiciary. Rather, this data is maintained by the Motor Vehicles Commission. The Administrative Office of the Courts, however, does maintain information on revenue yield from the Unsafe Driver Surcharge, which is a $250 surcharge assessed against defendants found guilty of N.J.S.A. 39: (Unsafe Driving). The five-year assessed and collected revenue totals are below: 17

18 Year Amount Collected Amount Assessed 2011 $27,536, $28,097, $25,120, $25,816, $22,787, $23,296, $21,070, $21,578, $20,606, $21,118, Due to the totaling of fines, fees, and penalties within a defendant's case as well as the extensive utilization in our Municipal Courts of time payments, which often results in outstanding balances from several different cases being commingled, these totals can not be broken down to show amounts collected on penalties assessed during the fiscal year as compared to totals collected on penalties assessed during a previous year, nor can it be determined how much is collected through the use of private collection agencies. 17. The AOC oversees and regulates the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program, which provides trained volunteers to advocate for children who have been removed from their families due to abuse or mistreatment. The FY 2016 Appropriations Act included $2.0 million for Court Appointed Special Advocates within the Department of Children and Families (DCF), of which $1.15 million was originally recommended by the Governor and $850,000 was added by a Legislative budget resolution (FY 2016 Appropriations Handbook page B-16). The Governor s recommended funding level for FY 2017, $1.15 million, does not renew the legislative addition (Governor s FY 2017 Budget, page D-40). In testimony before the Assembly Budget Committee on March 9, 2016, representatives of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of New Jersey claimed that the additional funding allowed them to provide volunteer advocacy for 650 additional children, and helped the State save $3.5 million in costs associated with placing children with families. In response to FY 2017 OLS discussion point #13, the DCF indicated that CASA serves at the behest of the AOC, and that any questions regarding CASA s performance or utility to the State should be directed to the AOC. Question: How much, if any, State funding does CASA receive through the Judiciary? What role does the AOC play in recommending the appropriation level for CASA in the DCF budget? What role does the AOC play in the operation of the program? If DCF is ill-equipped to evaluate the performance of CASA or recommend funding, would it be more appropriate for the Judiciary to fund the program? Response: CASA provides an extremely valuable service to the State. CASA volunteers assist the courts and the child welfare system by advocating for children removed from their families because of abuse or neglect. The volunteers help these children get the services they need 18

19 and ensure that they find safe, permanent homes quickly, reducing the state s cost of caring for children in placement. The AOC does not oversee or regulate CASA. The Judiciary has promulgated standards and Court Rules governing all volunteers in the courts, including CASA. CASA s contract with the State is administered by DCF. CASA does not receive any State funding through the Judiciary. The AOC does not play any role in recommending CASA's appropriation level in the DCF budget. The Judiciary is a neutral arbiter. Placement of CASA funding in the Judiciary budget would not be appropriate. 19

20 New Jersey Court Filing Fees All Courts Current Fee 1 Prior Fee 2 Increase 3 Affixing the seal of the court to any document (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-20; Rule 1:43) $10.00 $5.00 $5.00 Certified Copy (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-19; Rule 1:43) $15.00 $5.00 $10.00 Copies, Letter Size, per page (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b)) $0.05 $0.05 $0.00 Copies, Legal Size, per page (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b)) $0.07 $0.07 $0.00 Exemplification (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-20; Rule 1:43) $50.00 $5.00 $45.00 Triple Exemplification (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-20; Rule 1:43) $60.00 $10.00 $50.00 Non-Party Notice of Appearance (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-37.1; Rule 1:43) Civil Part and Superior Court Clerk s Office $50.00 No Fee $50.00 Special Civil Part $30.00 $15.00 $15.00 Family- Dissolution and Non-Dissolution (effective 1/16/15) $50.00 No Fee $50.00 Notice of Appeal (Trial Court Copy) (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-20; Rule 1:43) $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 Signing and Issuing Subpoena (Trial Courts) (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-7; Rule 1:43) $50.00 $5.00 $45.00 Subpoena with Seal of the Court (Trial Courts) (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-7; Rule 1:43) $60.00 $10.00 $50.00 Recording Instruments not otherwise provided for (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-7; Rule 1:43) $35.00 $5.00 $30.00 Substitutions of Attorney Civil Part and Superior Court Clerk s Office $35.00 No Fee $35.00 Special Civil Part (effective 1/16/15) $35.00 No Fee $35.00 Family- Dissolution and Non-Dissolution (effective 1/16/15) $35.00 No Fee $35.00 Filing by a State of New Jersey Agency (N.J.S.A. 22A:2-22) No Fee No Fee $ Throughout this document Current Fee reflects Court Rule 1:43 ( Filing and Other Fees Established Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2B:1-7 ) schedule of filing fees and other fees payable to the court that were revised or established as authorized by N.J.S.A. 2B:1-7 (L. 2014, c. 31, 12), effective November 17, The New Jersey Court filing fees are available at 2 Throughout this document Prior Fee reflects the filing fees and other fees payable to the court that were in effect prior to November 17, 2014, and can be found in the New Jersey statutes. N.J.S.A. 22A:2-1, -5,-6,-7, -12,-13, -19,-20,-22, -27,-29,-37.1, -37.2; N.J.S.A. 22A:5-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1D; N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12, -13; N.J.S.A. 19: Throughout this document Increase reflects the difference between the Current Fee and the Prior Fee. 1