Administrative Office of the Courts and court councils

Special Examination Report No. 14-04

December 2014

Why we did this review
This review of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and staff supporting the trial court councils was conducted at the request of the House Appropriations Committee. We were asked to evaluate the organizational structure of the AOC and court councils as well as the operations of AOC. In order to evaluate staffing, we also reviewed the court system's governance structure.
About AOC and the court
councils
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was created in 1973 to serve as the staff of the Judicial Council, a statewide policymaking body for the court system. At the end of fiscal year 2014, AOC had 68 employees who provide a variety of administrative and program services. Its expenditures in fiscal year 2014 totaled $12.2 million.
Each of Georgia's six trial courts (superior, state, juvenile, magistrate, probate, and municipal) has a council comprised of member judges and led by an executive committee. Broadly, statute charges these councils with improving their class of court. Four of the councils have executive directors, with two having additional full-time staff. The remaining two councils are supported by AOC. In fiscal year 2014, councils' expenditures ranged from $15,000 to $1.3 million, for a total of $3.3 million.

Administrative Office of the Courts
and Court Councils
System governance impedes efficient
and effective staffing model
What we found The governance structure of Georgia's court system makes it difficult to create a staffing model that is efficient, responds to the needs of each court class, and promotes a system approach to court administration.
Our review of staffing for Georgia's six trial court councils and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) did not result in the identification of a single, clearly superior staffing model. AOC's program work is generally related to multiple court classes, and its administrative support cannot be more efficiently placed in another judicial agency. Staffing for the councils could be allocated differently, but judges reported being largely satisfied with the work and responsiveness of their staff and skeptical of relying on staff not accountable to council officers. The benefits of a different staffing model depend on whether one values efficiency, accountability to judges, or a system perspective.
Potential staffing models for court council support are described below.
Self-Sufficient Councils: Councils would employ dedicated program and administrative staff and would not rely on AOC for support. However, this model is impractical for the majority of councils since only the Council of Superior Court Judges has a workload to justify its own administrative staff.
Shared Administrative Services: Councils would employ program staff but have administrative support (e.g., accounting, information technology) provided by AOC. Currently, five councils already receive administrative support from AOC. Two

270 Washington Street, SW, Suite 1-156

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Phone: (404)657-5220

www.audits.ga.gov

of these councils (probate and municipal), however, have no dedicated program staff. Since councils would retain (or obtain) program staff, they would still be able to independently address issues to improve their court class, though this could be contrary to a system commitment.
AOC Support: Councils would have no direct staff; rather, all services would be provided by AOC employees. This would result in a cost savings, but, since few positions are likely to be eliminated, a large portion of the savings would occur only if existing staff salaries were reduced after council positions were transferred to AOC. Though more collaboration among the councils and AOC would be likely, this model results in limited control for the court councils, which are statutorily charged with improving their class of court.
If staffing arrangements were uniform across all councils, only the shared administrative services and AOC support models could be implemented. Alternatively, varying models may be implemented for each council based on workload and statutory requirements.
The complex governance structure of Georgia's court system contributes to the difficulty in designing an efficient and effective staffing model. Contrary to national best practice standards and other states, Georgia's court system has at least 20 governing entities that do not always have clearly delineated responsibilities. These entities include the Supreme Court, Judicial Council, trial court councils, and various other independent commissions and councils.
During the special examination, we noted issues with the number of and relationships between the various governing bodies. For example, initiatives such as case management and electronic filing have been hampered due to a lack of authority and multiple groups exercising their own solutions. Additionally, when entities do not collaborate, the full impact of initiatives may not be realized or work may be duplicative. Finally, a significant number of judges we interviewed and surveyed expressed skepticism of AOC and a belief that the work they do at the state level is not relevant to their day-to-day duties.
We also noted that judicial leaders have generally not utilized data to evaluate performance or guide operations at the system level. Impact and effectiveness of many AOC programs were also not assessed on a regular basis.
What we recommend To improve governance in Georgia's judicial system, we recommend that judicial leaders and the General Assembly consider simplifying the governance structure of the court system. This could entail designating greater responsibility to a single entity and/or more clearly defining the duties and authority of multiple governing entities, as well as reducing the number of governing authorities whenever possible. As previously mentioned, several staffing models may be considered to support the court councils; however, our review did not identify a single, clearly superior staffing model. Additionally, Judicial Council, AOC, and individual judges should work to incorporate performance measures to assess their work. See a full list of recommendations in Appendix A.
Summary of Responses: A draft copy of the report was provided to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the six trial court councils, eight other court system councils and commissions, and AOC. Generally, the trial court councils opposed losing their independence and becoming committees of a broader governing body. Court councils with dedicated staff also opposed losing the accountability and responsiveness of staff they can hire and fire. The Chief Justice declined to respond, and AOC provided technical corrections that were incorporated in the final report. Responses to specific issues are included at the end of each finding.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

i

Table of Contents

Purpose of the Special Examination

1

Background

1

Georgia's Courts

1

State Governance and Administration

3

Financial Information

6

Requested Information

7

Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial

administration related to governance?

7

How can staffing be allocated among AOC and the court councils to ensure

the most efficient and effective service delivery to the courts?

15

What does AOC do to support the courts?

23

What do court councils' staffs do to support the courts?

31

Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial

administration related to the use of performance measures?

36

Appendices

42

Appendix A: Table of Recommendations

42

Appendix B: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

43

Appendix C: Authority and Duties of Governing Entities

45

Appendix D: AOC Organization Chart

48

Appendix E: Council Organization Charts

49

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results

50

Appendix G: AOC Statutory Duties

61

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

ii

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

1

Purpose of the Special Examination
This review of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the state's court councils was conducted at the request of the House Appropriations Committee. Based on the request and subsequent interviews with the House Budget and Research Office, we developed the objectives that guided our work. This report answers the following questions:
1. Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial administration related to governance?
2. How can staffing be allocated among AOC and the court councils to ensure the most efficient and effective service delivery to the courts?
3. What does AOC do to support the courts?
4. What do court councils' staffs do to support the courts?
5. Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial administration related to the use of performance measures?
A description of the objectives, scope, and methodology used in this review is included in Appendix B. A draft of the report was provided to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, leadership of trial court councils and other court system commissions and councils, and AOC management for review. Pertinent responses from each were incorporated into the report.
Background
Georgia's Courts Article VI of Georgia's 1983 Constitution vests judicial power in eight classes of courts, and, along with statute, defines the jurisdictions of each class. As shown in Exhibit 1 on the following page, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are appellate courts that hear appeals from other courts and do not have trials. The remaining six classes are trial courts. Superior courts have jurisdiction over any type of criminal or civil case, while the other classes have jurisdiction limited by various factors, such as age of the accused, the criminal charge or amount of a civil claim, or the location of an alleged violation.
A summary of the trial court classes, which are the primary court types included in the report, is below and in Exhibit 1.
Superior Courts There is one superior court for each of the 159 counties, which are divided into circuits that range from one to eight counties depending on factors such as size, caseload, geography, and demographics. The number of superior court judges for each circuit (ranging from two to 20) is outlined in statute and currently totals 209. Superior court judges are elected by their judicial circuit. Salaries of judges and their staff (such as clerks, court administrators, and secretaries) are primarily paid with state funds. Local governments may also provide a supplement.
Georgia is divided into 10 superior court judicial administration districts. Superior court judges elect from their district an administrative judge who is

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

2

statutorily responsible for receiving information from the courts within the district, assigning senior superior court judges to sit on cases, and handling other matters within the district. Each district employs a district court administrator (DCA) to assist the administrative judge. Depending on local resources, the DCA may also assist local courts with any issues that arise in preparing for cases (such as information technology and finding court interpreters), manage local initiatives such as accountability courts or alternative dispute resolution programs, and assist the chief judges of the circuit with budget and personnel matters.
Juvenile Court Every county has a juvenile court, though there are only 130 judges and associate judges (some judges serve in multiple counties and some superior court judges may handle juvenile cases). Juvenile court judges are appointed by superior court judges (unless local law requires an election) for four-year terms. Superior or juvenile judges may also appoint associate juvenile court judges. Counties receive a grant from the state to subsidize the salaries of juvenile court judges.
Exhibit 1 Georgia Has Eight Types of Courts, Including Six Courts of Original Jurisdiction1

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

3

State Court There are 123 state court judges in 70 state courts, which are generally created in counties with relatively high superior court caseloads. Though state court judges' salaries are paid locally, their retirement funding rests with the state.
Magistrate Court Each county has a magistrate court led by a chief magistrate, who may appoint other magistrates.1 There are 46 appointed chief magistrates, and the remainder is elected. In addition to the 159 chief magistrates, there are 333 associate magistrates. A magistrate is not statutorily required to be a licensed attorney, though local legislation may require more stringent qualifications. Magistrate courts do not receive state funding.
Probate Court Each county has a probate court and an elected probate judge. If serving in a county with less than 90,000 people, the probate judge does not have to be admitted to practice law. Probate courts do not receive state funding.
Municipal Court Three hundred seventy (370) municipalities have chosen to create a municipal court. City governing authorities may appoint the municipal court judges, unless the local charter states differently. Some municipal judges work in multiple jurisdictions, resulting in a total of 352 municipal court judges. Municipal courts do not receive state funding.
Court Clerks The clerks of court play a role in the administration of justice as record-keepers for courts. Every county has an elected superior court clerk who may also have authority over the county's state, juvenile, and/or magistrate courts. Probate and municipal courts generally have their own clerks, usually appointed by the judge or hired by the governing authority. In some counties, the judge may serve as the lower courts' clerk. Clerks' offices are supported by local funds.
State Governance and Administration The National Center for State Courts defines governance as the means by which activities are controlled or directed to ensure an acceptable range of outcomes is delivered. Governance structures of state court systems may allow for strong local rule for court classes or designate varying levels of power to a central authority. The most centralized governance structure is generally associated with a unified court system, which also consolidates courts and relies primarily on statewide funding.
Due to the number of trial courts and the reliance on local funding, Georgia does not have the characteristics of a unified court system. Additionally, numerous entities have responsibility over the governance of Georgia's court system, as described below. A list of their statutory charges can be found in Appendix C.

1 According to statute, the number of magistrates is determined by the superior court.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

4

Supreme Court Georgia's Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to publish and issue uniform rules with the advice and consent of the affected judges.2 Statute provides the Supreme Court the authority to assign to the Judicial Council specific powers, duties, and responsibilities, as well as determine the membership and their terms. Statute also assigns the Supreme Court with responsibility over court interpreters and alternative dispute resolution, which are addressed by separate commissions.
Judicial Council The Judicial Council of Georgia was created in 1945 to develop policies for administering and improving the courts. Judicial Council members meet as a whole three times each year and in several committees devoted to specific aspects of court administration and improvement, including administration, budget, court reporting, workload assessment, domestic violence, accountability courts, and policy.
The Judicial Council is made up of 26 members who represent every class of court: the Chief Justice and the Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court (chair and vicechair); two judges from the Court of Appeals; the presidents and presidents-elect of the superior, juvenile, state, probate, magistrate, and municipal councils; and the 10 administrative judges over the superior court judicial administrative districts.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was created in 1973 to serve as the staff for the Judicial Council. O.C.G.A. 15-5-24 charges AOC with providing services related to court administration, recommending improved administrative methods in offices serving the courts, compiling data, examining dockets and making recommendations for the expedition of litigation, acting as fiscal officer for the Judicial Council, making recommendations for improving the judicial system, preparing an annual report, and performing additional duties as requested by the Judicial Council. At the end of fiscal year 2014, AOC had 68 employees who provide a variety of program and administrative services, as discussed in the finding on page 23 (see Appendix D for an organizational chart.)
Court Councils Each of the six trial court classes has a statutorily created, state funded council composed of member judges and led by an elected council president and executive committee. The Council of Juvenile Court Judges was created in 1971, while the other five court councils were created between 1985 and 1994. Four of the councils have an executive director; the councils for superior and juvenile courts have additional fulltime staff (see Appendix E for organizational charts).
Broadly, councils have statutory responsibility to improve their respective class and develop training curricula for judges. Additionally, in conjunction with the Supreme Court, councils are responsible for the adoption of uniform rules for their class. Each council is described below.
Council of Superior Court Judges The Council of Superior Court Judges is statutorily responsible for adopting uniform rules, policies and regulations
2 Uniform rules are promulgated to provide for the speedy, efficient, and inexpensive resolution of disputes and prosecutions. These rules cover topics such as civil action discovery, telephone and video conferencing, defendant pleadings, and motions in civil actions or criminal matters. Courts are currently allowed local autonomy on internal procedures such as case management and security.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

5

related to state personnel serving the judges; paying the salaries of superior court judges; and conducting the financial functions related to salaries, benefits, and expenses. Standing committees address these administrative matters, in addition to accountability courts, uniform rules, pattern jury instructions, and legislation. The Council of Superior Court Judges employs 11 staff members that include an executive director, a general counsel, an attorney for death penalty habeas cases, an information technology manager, a budget manager, and accounting staff that handle payroll and other human resources support functions.
Council of Juvenile Court Judges The Council of Juvenile Court Judges' statutory duties include establishing policies for the conduct of juvenile courts and promulgating uniform rules and forms. Its committees include uniform rules, delinquency, permanency planning, training, and technology. Statute permits the Council of Juvenile Court Judges to appoint a director responsible for making recommendations for improving court service, preparing annual reports, and promulgating standard procedures for coordinating with the Department of Juvenile Justice and county juvenile probation services. The council employs 13 additional staff, including an attorney, a director of budget and finance, a program administrator, and a training coordinator who oversees nine field staff.
Council of State Court Judges The Council of State Court Judges was statutorily created to further the improvement of the state courts, the quality and expertise of the judges thereof, and the administration of justice. Its committees focus on topics such as statewide planning, probation, uniform rules, case counts, and legislation. The Council of State Court Judges employs an executive director and a part-time administrative assistant.
Council of Magistrate Court Judges The Council of Magistrate Court Judges was statutorily created to further the improvement of the magistrate courts and the administration of justice, to assist magistrates in the execution of their duties, and to promote and assist the training of magistrates. The Council of Magistrate Court Judges' committees are responsible for rules, legislation, judicial handbook, and the budget. The Council of Magistrate Court Judges employs an executive director.
Council of Probate Court Judges The Council of Probate Court Judges was statutorily created to improve probate courts and the administration of justice. Statute also assigned the council the duty of creating specifications for uniform weapons carry licenses. Its committees focus on topics such as automation, caseload reporting, firearm licensing, mental health, records retention, elections, vital records, and traffic and criminal jurisdiction. It does not employ its own staff but instead relies on AOC staff.
Council of Municipal Court Judges The Council of Municipal Court Judges was statutorily created to improve municipal courts and the administration of justice. Its committees focus on legislation, caseloads, court operations, and the bench book. The council does not employ its own staff but instead relies on AOC staff.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

6

Other Governing Entities
Over the years, other governing entities have been created to address specific court matters, such as child support, family violence, and probation. These entities typically have members selected by executive, legislative, and judicial members and include judges and other stakeholders. All have their own staff, though most are considered AOC employees. In addition, there is a Council of Superior Court Clerks, which has a similar statutory charge as the court councils.

Financial Information
As shown in Exhibit 2, AOC and court council expenditures decreased approximately 11% over the past four fiscal years--from $17.5 million in fiscal year 2011 to $15.5 million in fiscal year 2014. AOC and the Council of Juvenile Court Judges had the most significant decreases over the time period. AOC's budget diminished by approximately $2 million when funds for accountability court grants were transferred to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council beginning in fiscal year 2013. Until fiscal year 2014, the Council of Juvenile Court Judges distributed grants to counties for community-based services that provide alternatives to institutional treatment. This funding has since been moved to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. In fiscal year 2014, $9 million (74%) of AOC's expenditures were state funds, compared to court councils' expenditures, which consisted of 98% state funds.
Fiscal year 2015 budgets for the entities total $16 million. AOC's budget increase was associated with enhancements to the grants that provide civil legal services for victims of domestic violence and an additional position for the County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council and accountability courts. Council budgets remained fairly stable.

Exhibit 2 AOC and Court Council Expenditures Have Fluctuated in Recent Fiscal Years

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015 (Budgeted)

Judicial Council Administrative Office of the Courts1

$13,450,024 $13,904,418 $11,805,291 $12,169,259

$12,664,332

Court Councils

Council of Superior Court Judges

$1,192,263 $1,235,226 $1,280,238 $1,341,485 $1,392,238

Council of Juvenile Court Judges Council of State Court Judges2

2,337,978 206,633

2,338,597 207,272

1,780,842 217,933

1,464,196 262,769

1,493,806 204,366

Council of Magistrate Court Judges

165,748

163,677

163,960

166,177

170,355

Council of Probate Court Judges

91,283

69,561

68,905

61,394

62,216

Council of Municipal Court Judges

15,497

16,426

16,263

15,095

16,185

Court Council Total

$4,009,402 $4,030,758 $3,528,432 $3,311,116 $3,339,166

Total

$17,459,427 $17,935,176 $15,333,432 $15,480,375 $16,003,498

1This includes expenditures for AOC work for the Judicial Council, as well as other governing entities supported by AOC employees. 2 The amounts do not include state judges' retirement funds.
Source: TeamWorks Financials

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

7

Requested Information

Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial administration related to governance?
Georgia's complex governance structure has led to fragmented administrative authority over the state's court system.
Georgia has not defined the governance structure over court system policy and administration in a manner consistent with national best practice standards. Current system governance has been assembled in a piecemeal manner, with legislation creating separate entities that either have vague responsibilities or focus on a particular function. These entities do not always effectively collaborate to accomplish judicial branch initiatives.
States should have a well-defined governance structure for policy formulation and administration of the court system, according to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). This structure:
Can be a single, unambiguous governing authority3 or multiple governing authorities with clearly delineated responsibilities;
Must allow for meaningful input from all court levels and system stakeholders;
Requires governing bodies, staffs, and judges with a shared commitment to the system mission, which includes a common organizational vision, mutual respect, and open communication.
This type of governance structure allows the development of policies that lead to consistency for court users and enables reasonably uniform practices that provide the greatest access and quality at the least cost. It also helps the court system accomplish strategic goals and present a unified message to the public and the other branches of government.
NCSC staff noted that a well-defined governance structure frequently means a state constitution that explicitly designates a single entity over court system administration. In five of seven states reviewed4 (Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas), we found that authority is given to the Supreme Court, which is typically advised by committees or councils comprised of judges, clerks, attorneys, and/or members of public. It should be noted that although states often choose the Supreme Court as the governing authority over their systems, a representative body such as the Judicial Council could also fulfill that role.

3 A single, unambiguous governing authority is common in, but not limited to, unified court systems that have also consolidated the trial courts and centralized financing. States may centralize policymaking authority without eliminating court classes or relying more on state funding. 4 We reviewed the five contiguous states and two states (Texas and Ohio) with court systems similar to Georgia, according to NCSC and AOC staff. The Ohio Supreme Court has authority over broad "rules of superintendence," but control over a court or court division was designated to multiple administrative judges. Tennessee does not include any constitutional language designating administrative authority.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

8

Exhibit 3
Numerous Governing Entities Have Been Created since the Last Revision of the Constitution1

1845 1945
1971 1974

Supreme Court
Council of Juvenile
Court Judges

Judicial Council
Board of Court
Reporting

Judicial Council Entity2 Supreme Court Entity Independent Governing Entity

1982 1983 1985
1988
1990 1991 1992
1994 1996

Probate Court Judges Training
Council
Council of Superior Court Judges

Magistrate Court Judges Training
Council

Constitution of 1983

Council of State Court
Judges

Council of

Council of

Probate

Magistrate

Court Judges Court Judges

County & Municipal Probation Advisory
Council

Municipal Court Council of

Judges Training Superior Court

Council

Clerks

Georgia Commission on Family Violence

Commission on Dispute Resolution

Council of Municipal Court Judges

Justice for Children

2003 2005

Commission on Interpreters

Child Support Commission

Accountability Courts Standards
Committee

2012

Accountability Court Funding
Committee

1 This is not an exhaustive list of every governance body that has been created. Rather it is a list of active entities that currently receive state funds related to improving court administration. The Georgia Courts Automation Commission, for example, was created in 1991, but the state stopped funding it in fiscal year 2011. In addition, it does not include entities such as the Prosecuting Attorneys Council or the Public Defender Standards Council. 2The Board of Court Reporting and the Accountability Courts Standards Committee are entities that operate under the Judicial Council. Their decisions are not official until they are voted on by Judicial Council members. Source: Review of statute, Supreme Court orders, and Executive orders

Georgia's governance generally does not align with the best practice standards recommended by NCSC or what we found in other states, as described below.
No single entity responsible for court system policymaking Neither Georgia Constitution nor statute has assigned a single, unambiguous governing authority over the court system. Instead, at least 20 entities have responsibility over administrative aspects of the court. Most are independent bodies rather than committees attached to a larger responsible entity, such as the Supreme Court or the Judicial Council (see Exhibit 3).
It should be noted that though it is not given explicit authority over the system, the Supreme Court is often viewed as playing a lead role in court system policymaking. The priorities and opinion of the Chief Justice are considered significant factors in determining what issues will be addressed. For example, recommendations resulting from a Supreme Court study group may compel further action from the judiciary or inform future legislation. Judges also noted that the Supreme Court's statutory authority over the Judicial Council's powers, duties, and membership gives it further influence.
Responsibilities not always clearly delineated Some councils and commissions have a clear legislative mandate, while others have more vague responsibilities. (See Appendix C for a description). The Judicial Council's enabling legislation is particularly vague, allowing powers, duties, and responsibilities to be set by statute or Supreme Court rule. Because neither statute nor the Supreme Court has further designated a significant number

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

9

of responsibilities to the Judicial Council5 and other governing bodies exist, the role of the Judicial Council and its expected impact on the court system is unclear. One former Judicial Council member described the meetings as unproductive because input is limited and members may not have knowledge about particular subjects. Over the past two years, membership has established standards for accountability courts and court reporting (over which the General Assembly granted it statutory authority), but decisionmaking is primarily related to budget requests, proposed legislation, and recommendations for additional superior court judges rather than significant court administration policy. Likewise, court and clerk councils have broad charges to improve their respective courts and assist their members. This ambiguity can lead to issues with system initiatives, as described below.
Judicial leadership has acknowledged the Judicial Council could be strengthened as a policymaking body, and efforts have been underway to better define its role in the system. Two proposed changes to the Judicial Council are intended to allow members to develop more knowledge of and make better decisions about court system administration. Beginning in 2015, the Judicial Council will hold six meetings rather than the current three. In addition, the Judicial Council's Strategic Planning Committee has proposed reducing the frequency of member rotation.

Perceived limitations for meaningful input Some trial courts do not feel the Judicial Council adequately represents their interests due to the larger proportion of superior court judges (12 versus two from other classes of court). Though the superior court judges do not hold a majority of votes, other trial courts believe their input holds more influence than other classes, particularly in determining how budget and legislative priorities are set.6

Lack of system perspective Interviews of judges and judicial branch staffs revealed that Georgia's governance structure does not result in a common vision, mutual respect, or open communication. We found that Judicial Council members may give little consideration to concerns of other court classes, statewide initiatives are met with skepticism, and communication across entities does not always occur.
The current method for selecting Judicial Council members does not necessarily ensure a system perspective. All Judicial Council members are included due to their position as leaders in their respective court class. This includes the executive leadership of trial court councils, elected by member judges to serve as president, presidents-elect, and (for superior court) administrative judges, as well as selected leaders of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Selection by their peers may not always mean the Judicial Council members are committed to considering the interests and needs of other classes of court or the system. For example, one current

5 A 1978 Supreme Court order designated the Judicial Council as the "administrative arm" of the Supreme Court; however, it has not specified further duties and responsibilities. Other Supreme Court orders have been related to membership and term lengths. Statute assigned the Judicial Council authority over court reporting and accountability courts standards in 1974 and 2005, respectively. 6 All budgets within the Judicial Council's appropriation (which includes state, magistrate, probate, and municipal councils) are voted on by the full membership. Superior and juvenile councils do not have to present their budgets to Judicial Council because they have their own appropriation.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

10

Judicial Council member questioned whether locally funded courts should provide input on state matters or have councils supported by state funds.
Additionally, based on interviews and survey comments, it appears that many judges are skeptical of AOC and statewide initiatives. For example, numerous judges indicated their belief that AOC works for the Supreme Court, not the Judicial Council or trial court judges, and that AOC does not understand the needs of local courts. Other judges expressed concern that statewide policies may not consider the varying needs and resources of the court. In many cases, judges who responded to our survey believe matters should be handled by the chief judge or individual judges in the local court-- not a central governing authority such as the Supreme Court or the Judicial Council (see Appendix F for all survey questions and results).
Finally, AOC staff noted difficulties in communicating with the court councils, particularly those less reliant on AOC for support. For example, AOC staff are not always invited to or welcome at council leadership meetings, which inhibits their knowledge of the councils' agendas. Court councils indicated they communicate with each other, though this is generally surrounding Judicial Council meetings.
We noted a number of issues that are at least partly attributed to the number of and relationships between governing bodies as well as their vague and overlapping authorities. Staff and representatives from different entities regularly identified other governing entities as blocking efforts to improve court administration. In addition, the audit team identified duplicative or overlapping work performed by staff supporting the entities. Examples of issues identified include:
Inability to address case management The state's previous efforts to create a statewide case management system largely failed due to a lack of authority to compel participation,7 an unwillingness of judges and court clerks to voluntarily participate in such a system, and a lack of funding to ensure local courts had the infrastructure to support such a system. As a result, the state created a system that, while available for free, is used by approximately 5% (59) of all courts. Courts that do not utilize this or other free systems offered by AOC likely purchase individual systems from private vendors with local funds. It should be noted that O.C.G.A. 15-6-61(a)(4) charges superior court clerks with keeping an electronic case management system, but judges and court administrators are also responsible for the operation of the court system and have their own data requirement needs.
No lead on electronic filing (e-filing) Currently, there is no statute designating an entity with authority over implementing a statewide e-filing system. As a result, multiple entities and individual courts have worked to develop their own solutions. Most recently, the Council of Superior Court Clerks and the Council of Magistrate Court Judges have each signed contracts with private vendors that individual courts can select. The Judicial Council also has an efiling committee, which requested but did not receive funding for a
7 The Georgia Courts Automation Commission was created in 1991 to "define, implement, and administer a state-wide courts automation system," which included incorporating county and local governments into the system. According to judicial and AOC leaders, the Commission did not have the authority to compel courts to utilize the system.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

11

statewide civil e-filing portal for all court classes. Finally, individual courts have entered into contracts with private vendors. AOC noted that not having a state-funded system may limit access to justice because private contracts are generally sustained by filing fees.
Multiple voices representing the judiciary Though a 2001 resolution states that every class of court should report its proposed legislation to Judicial Council, court councils do pursue their own legislative agendas. According to AOC staff, even when legislation is approved by the Judicial Council (comprised of court council officials), court councils and individual judges may not support the bills during the legislative session. Council representatives noted that the Judicial Council is not always able to manage the competing interests of the councils, particularly concerning jurisdiction issues. The Chief Justice has worked to increase communication among the councils by holding meetings to specifically discuss jurisdiction.
Conflict due to overlapping authority AOC's broad charge to examine administrative and business methods related to the courts can create conflict with other governing bodies with more targeted authority. For example, AOC staff took the lead in studying language access issues across the state and creating a language access plan. Commission on Interpreters leadership felt since the Supreme Court is statutorily responsible for court interpreters, the work should remain under its purview rather than jointly with the Judicial Council.
Duplicative work by staff Nearly every council and commission has at least one staff person supporting programmatic work at the direction of the entity's leadership. Without coordination, this can result in duplicative efforts. For example, AOC staff recently attempted to create an electronic messaging board for judges, though Council of Superior Court Judges staff already manages a similar product. Additionally, AOC staff and council staff compile separate reports for judges during the legislative session, which often track the status of the same bills.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Judicial leaders and the General Assembly should consider simplifying the governance structure of the court system. This could entail designating greater responsibility to a single entity and/or more clearly defining the duties and authority of multiple governing entities. In addition, judicial leaders and the General Assembly should reduce the number of governing authorities whenever possible. This could include making some existing entities committees of the Judicial Council. It would also include ensuring future legislation assigns responsibilities to an existing entity, such as the Judicial Council, rather than creating a new commission or council.
2. Regardless of any changes to the governance structure, the Judicial Council should continue its efforts to strengthen its policymaking ability by meeting more often, creating a stable, representative membership, and adhering to other best practice standards presented by NCSC.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

12

Council of Juvenile Court Judges' (CJCJ) Response: The council stated it was created in 1971 to coincide with a new juvenile code, and its statute "creates a unique framework for the structure and work of the Council." It further stated, "The CJCJ has been an integral part of the work of Juvenile Courts of Georgia as they strive to address the unique needs and concerns of families struggling with allegations of child abuse and neglect or with allegations of delinquency and other behaviors of concern."
Council of Magistrate Court Judges' Response: Regarding the system perspective, the council stated, "it is concerning that any Judge, much less a member of the Judicial Council, could question why local courts are included on the Council and have a voice in State matters. Looking at caseload data alone, the locally funded courts are the busiest courts in Georgia and have the most contact with and impact on the lives of the people served." The council also noted that "As the Council with the largest number of judges, we feel we have endeavored to not only fulfill our constitutional and statutory duties, but to also take the `next steps' in providing the courts and the public with enhanced access to justice, especially for Georgia's low-income citizens."
Council of Municipal Court Judges' Response: The council stated it appreciates the "growing relationship with the other courts" and the opportunity to serve as a policy-making body. The council also stated its "pursuit of higher professional standards and more efficient courts benefitted from our collaborative efforts with the other courts."
Council of Probate Court Judges' Response: "The Council does not support an effort to incorporate trial court councils as committees of the Judicial Council."
Council of State Court Judges' Response: The council stated, "The current governance structure of the judicial branch has proven itself to be effective." Any changes to the governance model would not result in cost savings or improve effectiveness.
The council also stated, "The amount of time allotted to collect data limited the ability of the auditors to gather relevant facts and did not allow time to fully understand several of the concepts of judicial branch governance much less distinguish Georgia from other states." It further stated that the "report appears to rely heavily on states where a centralized and unified judicial branch exists where the state allocates funding to all courts and court personnel."
Finally, the council said, "The courts are entrusted with...preserving the rule of law and to be impartial in their decisions and treatment of our citizens so that due process and fairness are perceived. Therefore, when examining the judicial branch and comparing efficiency and effectiveness of governance structures and programs and adding `inexpensive' as a factor, one cannot utilize the same measurements used in the other two branches of government."
Auditor's Response: NCSC's Principles of Judicial Administration, which the audit team used, state that the governing principles "can be employed in all existing court organization models and all funding models." A governance structure, whether led by a single entity or multiple entities with welldefined and delineated responsibilities, is necessary for the efficient and effective management of resources.
Regarding the other states reviewed, we did not only include those with a unified court system. Our sample included surrounding states a practice

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

13

commonly used in our audits as well as other states that were identified as having a similar structure to Georgia. For example, Texas also has multiple court types and significant local funding, but it does designate a central administrative authority. Identifying states exactly like Georgia proved difficult, with NCSC experts familiar with other states describing Georgia as "atypical" and "robustly decentralized" in comparison.
Finally, we do not believe that assessing the organization of state-level entities and the potential for duplication of effort among these entities (i.e., considering efficiency) should impact the courts' impartiality or their ability to ensure due process and fairness. Other states with different governing and staffing models are also responsible for these same qualities.
Council of Superior Court Judges' (CSCJ) Response: CSCJ is opposed to a more centralized governing model, stating that the "current role of the Judicial Council in addressing issues that cross the boundaries of classes of court is appropriate." It said that the "auditors relied on a theory of the National Center for State Courts," which "is not the defining authority on what is best for Georgia." It said a centralized model "does not apply to Georgia where extremely diverse governing environments exist and the state shoulders only a portion of the costs of the court system" and that the model is best for those states where all court systems costs are paid by the state. CSCJ further stated that a unified model "stifles creativity in favor of a lockstep mentality that allows national judicial policy to be centrally developed and more easily pushed down through the states." CSCJ added that "the Harvard Executive Sessions, which led to NCSC principles, state in the Case for Court Governance Principles: `There is no longer a consensus that full unification is desired for all state court systems to reach.'"
CSCJ stated that "the conclusion that independence among court councils inhibits system improvements is not supported by the evidence. In fact, evidence shows the opposite: independence, especially in superior courts, has yielded such dramatic and creative solutions as accountability courts, which now save taxpayers $23 million per year. Reducing CSCJ from an independent council to an advisory committee with no authority would greatly inhibit future cost-saving innovations."
Regarding the lack of a system perspective within Georgia, CSCJ said that "a specific definition for this term is not provided, and its supposed detrimental impacts are rather loosely connected and might be more definitively attributed to other issues and other entities." CSCJ added that of the auditors' examples, only the "potential lack of consideration of other classes of court" would be reflective of a lack of system perspective, but the audit provides no examples. CSCJ stated that "A true system perspective can only come from each class working together freely, without coercion, balancing their internal conflicts and challenges."
Regarding Judicial Council composition, the CSCJ said that "It would not be appropriate for countypaid judges to have greater authority in making policies and approving budgets of the higher classes of court. Superior court judges are the trial court of general jurisdiction and deal more broadly with all issues affecting the judiciary. The support of superior court judges often provides the political leverage needed to push issues forward. In spite of how they may feel, superior court judges do not block initiatives of other classes of court."

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

14

Regarding the effects of the governance structure, CSCJ wrote that "the audit is silent on how the current structure adversely affects parties, attorneys, and the public" and on how changes would assist these groups. CSCJ also stated:
Case management and e-filing problems are not caused by conflicts between classes of court but are impacted by elected clerks of court, "who were not included in this audit." It added that a Senate study committee, which included two superior court judges, will issue recommendations to address this issue, and they "do not include consolidation of judicial staff, designating a single entity in charge of the Judicial Branch, or other suggestions of this audit team to develop a greater `system perspective.'"
Multiple voices representing the judiciary is similar to multiple voices representing various departments of state government, which "is not a weakness." CSCJ primarily responds to legislation proposed by others, rather than proposing its own legislation.
CSCJ noted that its electronic messaging board described in the finding (SideBar) provides more functioning than implied by the audit. The private website stores necessary documents (including sample orders, pattern jury instructions, and suggested changes to uniform rules) and includes a calendar and directory for judges and their staff.
It added that "If having independent governance of classes of court is truly a problem ... then superior court should be designated as the governing entity over the other trial courts," because superior courts have jurisdiction "to exercise a general supervision over all inferior tribunals." [O.C.G.A. 156-8(4)]
Auditor's Response: A unified court system consists of more than a central governing authority. It consists of a reduced number of trial court classes, state funding of the court system, centralized governance, and centralized control of all court personnel. Our report simply states that a better-defined governance structure is warranted. (And the following finding has no mention of courthouse personnel.) Because our review of other states found that the majority use a single governing authority, that information is included in the report. We stated that the NCSC governance principles call for a single, unambiguous governing authority or multiple governing authorities with clearly delineated responsibilities (page 7). Georgia has neither.
It is correct that A Case for Court Governance Principles notes that there is not a consensus that full unification is desired for all states. The same document also includes the principle of a well-defined governance structure for policy decision-making and administration for the entire court system (used as our criteria) and notes that "the absence of such clarity can significantly undermine the ability to make decisions."
Regarding creativity allowed by the current structure, it is true a decentralized structure provides more freedom to each entity (though not necessarily the resources to pursue desired initiatives). However, there is little basis for the contention that an initiative such as accountability courts would not have happened under a centralized governing authority. Accountability courts are used throughout the nation, in states with varying

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

15

governing structures. Furthermore, we did not identify research citing Georgia's courts as particularly innovative in relation to other states.
Regarding the effects of the governance structure:
We did not specifically discuss the parties, attorneys, and the public. However, the state's inability to address court technology issues is at least partly attributable to governance and does affect the groups listed above. CSCJ is correct that these issues are impacted by court clerks, but the Council of Superior Court Clerks was included in the scope of our court governance review.
We were not commenting specifically about the functionality of CSCJ's SideBar program, but the potential for a duplication of effort across judicial branch entities. CSCJ has developed a useful program, though it is the very type of program that could be beneficial to other court classes as well. Given the current governance structure, taxpayers could fund the development of six separate systems.
Council of Superior Court Clerks' Response: The council stated, "Any system of effective governance in a democratic society is dependent upon each participant's willingness to share authority, cede some autonomous control, and share a common vision. We are clearly not there in Georgia. There is distrust of a central authority figure and it appears to cut across all court classes. There is distrust between classes of court. There is not a clear understanding of function and purpose."
Regarding case management and e-filing, the council stated that these are "clerk functions." It further stated that clerks have "taken the lead on case management systems by passing O.C.G.A. 15-661(a)(4) and taking the lead on e-filing for both real property records and civil court filing." The council also stated that "if the state wants a unified court technology system, they simply need to make the clerk of superior court the clerk of all classes of court." The council noted that it has offered this legislation, but judges oppose the bill because they "want to continue their control over the nonjudicial operations of the court."

How can staffing be allocated among AOC and the court councils to ensure the most efficient and effective service delivery to the courts?
Georgia's court governance inhibits the creation of a staffing model that efficiently and effectively serves both the system and individual court classes.
Given Georgia's current governance structure, it is difficult to create a staffing model that efficiently and effectively serves both individual courts and the court system as a whole. Any changes to the current staffing distribution may favor one desired outcome over another (a more efficient staffing model, for example, may not be as responsive to judges' needs).
Statute has created separate councils responsible for improving their respective court class, and state funding has been allocated to provide all but two with their

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

16

own dedicated staff to achieve that purpose.8 Statute has also created AOC to support the Judicial Council and, among other things, "formulate and submit recommendations for the improvement of the judicial system." The number of governing bodies and staffs has contributed to conflicting priorities and occasional duplication of effort.

Within the current governance structure, we considered three potential staffing models (Exhibit 4 on page 17) that vary by the degree of centralization: (1) councils with their own program and administrative staff, (2) councils with program staff but administrative services provided by AOC, (3) or councils with no staff (all services provided by AOC). Given the councils' statutory charge, each model includes at least one designated staff person who is responsive to council leadership and capable of managing the needs of their court class. Our review of the models found:

No staffing model is clearly advantageous. All three models have strengths and weaknesses.
Some models may not be appropriate for all councils.
Different models may be implemented for different councils, based on the workload and needs of each council (described in the finding on page 31).
No model is likely to produce significant cost savings.

The criteria used to evaluate each staffing model are described below.
Cost to the State Costs are likely to be higher when multiple entities have employees with similar duties. Merging staff in one entity generally results in the need for fewer staff, including higher paid management positions.

Accountability to Judges Accountability to judges increases when the council employs its own staff. When a council has its own staff, it has the ability to direct staff to work on initiatives that meet its statutory responsibility to improve the class of court. When a council has no staff, it is dependent on AOC management to provide staff assistance. Additionally, the more control council leadership has in personnel actions (hiring and firing), the more likely they are to ensure responsiveness.

Commitment to System Perspective A system perspective is enhanced when staff serving different court classes regularly communicate and collaborate on issues that affect multiple classes. Staff within an agency are more likely to communicate and collaborate than staff across multiple agencies. Increased collaboration would help ensure that best practices are shared across court classes and would limit duplicative efforts.

8 The remaining councils are supported by AOC employees who have additional duties related to the AOC's system-wide activities.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

17

Exhibit 4 Various Staffing Models Could Exist within the Current Governance Structure

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

18

Each staffing model is discussed below. It should be noted that statutory changes may be required to implement different staffing models.
Self-Sufficient Councils The most decentralized staffing model would provide each council the dedicated staff needed to fulfill functions currently provided by AOC. In addition to an executive director, each council would be provided staff to perform all fiscal, information technology, and programmatic/policy functions.
This model offers the most accountability to judges and increases all councils' ability to make targeted improvement to their court class; however, it would require significantly more staff and make collaboration less likely. Council workloads do not always warrant the cost of new, separate administrative positions. For example, fiscal work for any one council (with the exception of the Council of Superior Court Judges) is relatively small and is already largely performed by AOC administrative staff. State, magistrate, and juvenile staff (which have program staff) acknowledged they did not need their own staff for budgeting and accounting. In addition, larger council staffs are more likely to result in greater difficulty in achieving system-wide improvement. AOC staff stated that they are less aware of the work of the superior and juvenile councils, which have large staffs.
Currently, only the Council of Superior Court Judges is self-sufficient. A selfsufficient staff is not unreasonable given the workload associated with serving as the administrative office of the state-funded superior court judges.
Shared Administrative Services In this model, each council employs policy and programmatic staff to address council initiatives, while administrative support (fiscal and information technology) is provided by AOC. This model would still provide accountability to judges for program staff, allowing councils to make targeted improvement to their court class and address individual judges' needs. It would likely result in limited cost savings due to slightly reduced administrative staffing.
Under a shared administrative services model, the probate and municipal councils would each acquire executive directors, while AOC would begin providing administrative services to the Council of Superior Court Judges and information technology services to the Council of Juvenile Court Judges.9 Based on their workload, four employees with the superior court council--three accounting and one information technology--would be transferred to AOC. The model requires a relationship between the councils and AOC that is similar to administrative attachments common in state government.
Centralizing administrative functions that are common across councils should provide cost savings to the state, but providing new program staff to probate and municipal councils would offset much of the savings. Savings would result from the elimination of an AOC position that provides support to the probate and municipal councils ($70,000 including benefits), as well as a management position over the

9 AOC currently provides all administrative services to the municipal, probate, state, and magistrate councils and accounting services for the juvenile council. The Council of Juvenile Court Judges pays approximately $4,200 annually for information technology support from a private contractor.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

19

superior council's financial staff ($150,000 including benefits). However, executive directors for probate and municipal would likely cost about $100,000 each.10
Since councils would retain (or obtain) an executive director and other program staff, the councils would be able to independently address issues to improve their court class. The councils would not be dependent on AOC management providing the staff resources to assist with council initiatives. However, the ability to independently pursue their agendas can be contrary to a system commitment if, for example, resources are not coordinated when work crosses classes of court or competing positions are presented before the legislature.
Officers and staff of the Council of Superior Court Judges noted the importance of having employees that are accountable and responsive to the judges, even in administrative work. Council staff noted that when some accounting services were provided by the Department of Administrative Services, judges were not satisfied with the service level. To improve customer service, previously outsourced staff became council employees in 2008.
While this model is feasible for all councils, it is difficult to assess whether the workload associated with probate and municipal councils would warrant two fulltime executive directors. AOC has recently begun transitioning two employees to serve as a primary contact for these councils. Under this arrangement, AOC should consult with council leadership to assess the staff's performance and responsiveness to determine whether the services provided are sufficient.
Council Staff within AOC The most centralized staffing model would place the responsibility of supporting the councils with AOC (which currently serves probate and municipal councils and previously served other councils before they received their own staff). Staff serving all councils would become AOC employees, though judges should be consulted on the performance of their assigned staff support. This model would produce the most (though not significant) cost savings and increase collaboration among staff supporting the councils. However, it would be the most disruptive to the councils that currently have staff and limit the ability of councils to independently improve their class of court.
Costs and savings associated with this model are described below. It should be noted that much of the savings depends on a willingness to reduce the salaries of council staff transferred to AOC.
Eliminated positions We identified three positions that are likely duplicative between the councils and AOC: an accounting manager, a program administrator, and an administrative assistant. Eliminating the positions would result in savings of approximately $300,000 in salaries and benefits.
Salary Adjustments For some positions transferred to AOC, it may be appropriate to adjust salaries to make them commensurate with reduced responsibilities. For example, council executive directors make between

10 Based on the Council of Probate Court Judges' recent budget request for an executive director ($66,000 salary plus 60% benefits equaling $40,000).

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

20

Staffing with Restructured Governance

The options presented within the finding presume the current governing structure does not change. Under a more comprehensive restructuring of court system administration, councils (as well as Supreme Court committees and other independent commissions) would become committees of a broader governing authority such as the Judicial Council, and (like other states) AOC would house all state-funded staff with system-wide and individual court administration roles.

Separate Judicial Council committees dedicated to each class of court would still allow for specialized, targeted initiatives when appropriate while also fostering collaboration on issues that cross classes of court. If a strong, representative Judicial Council were the defined governing body of the court system, the work of the committees would be in accordance with the shared vision and mission for the statewide court system. Additionally, any Judicial Council decision that would impact a class of court would be fully vetted with that committee prior to finalizing the policy (as recommended by NCSC).

To increase direct service to individual judges, savings resulting from decreased management salaries and eliminated positions could be utilized to increase the number of state field staff who provide technology support to local courts, which judges mentioned as being particularly helpful before they were eliminated with AOC budget cuts. Additional funding could be provided to increase the number of district court administrators who, according the superior court judges they serve, provide needed support.

$73,000 and $123,000 compared to an average of $78,000 among directors supporting independent entities and Judicial Council committees. Other positions could be analyzed as well. Total savings depend on the salary adjustments that are deemed appropriate.
Director Costs As noted above, two new director positions for probate and municipal councils would cost approximately $100,000 each; however, these councils' workload may not warrant a full-time employee. These positions should not be created if the additional support AOC intends to provide proves sufficient.
Additionally, this model would facilitate an increase in system collaboration and communication. If council staff were employees of AOC and housed in the same building, they would likely collaborate more with each other and with AOC on initiatives that may cross classes of court or benefit the system as a whole. However, absent any increase in the Judicial Council's policymaking authority, it is doubtful significant gains would be made in improving the system as a whole (a model that addresses staffing under a new governance structure is described in the box above).
Though at least one staff person would assist each council with its courts' initiatives, it is possible that because the judges do not have the same direct control over staff, some initiatives may not be pursued if they are contrary to what AOC or Judicial Council leadership wants. The Council of Magistrate Court Judges, for example, may not have been able to pursue an e-filing contract because the Judicial Council had a similar--though largely inactive--committee. Other conflicts may emerge if the staff member receives conflicting direction from AOC management and the judges they serve.
This model is feasible for all councils, particularly probate and municipal given their workload may not warrant a full-time position, as well as state and magistrate who currently have only one staff person. A transition to AOC would be more complicated for the larger superior and juvenile council staffs.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

21

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. If the General Assembly wishes to consider an alternative staffing model for council support, decision makers will need to consider the impact on the state budget, the ability of councils to fulfill their statutory mission, and whether the change will encourage a system-wide (non- siloed) approach to court administration matters.
Council of Juvenile Court Judges' (CJCJ) Response: The council stated, "The specific statutory structure of CJCJ creates a level of responsiveness, trust, and accountability that cannot be matched by any other set-up or structure. Moreover, the long history of [CJCJ] has created in the judges a reliance on the institutional memory of its long-serving staff...that could never be truly replicated." The council further stated, "The value of the current structure of CJCJ is such that even during periods of budget cuts and other financial issues, excellent service to judges continued unabated," which has included working on juvenile code reform, creating a data repository of juvenile court case dispositions, and assisting with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.
Council of Magistrate Court Judges' Response: As previously discussed, the council emphasized its efforts to fulfill its constitutional and statutory duties as well as enhance access to justice. The council stated, "We have only been able to accomplish these initiatives with the support and guidance of our Executive Director." The council noted that "without the ability to manage our own staff, we fear that any initiatives in the improvement of our class of court could be lost in the proverbial shuffle. This would not best serve our courts and it would certainly be detrimental to the citizens we serve across Georgia."
The council further stated that the cost savings described in the report are "actually a cost shift from the Councils to the AOC. As we already have shared administrative support from AOC and our staff salary is below the average of AOC staff, there appears to be no savings in [consolidating staff under AOC] as it relates to the Council of Magistrate Court Judges. The model of moving council staff to the AOC only creates another level of bureaucracy and creates an environment that does not best serve the Judges and the citizens of this State."
Council of Municipal Court Judges' Response: The council noted that "our Council and its judges determine our initiatives and will continue to do so under any administrative model."
Council of Probate Court Judges' Response: The council stated that it "should obtain an Executive Director to function independent of [AOC]." The council further stated it would benefit from "an independent, dedicated staff member who can accomplish both administrative support and advocate on behalf of the Council separate from the Judicial Council/AOC." While the 20 hours AOC will dedicate to the council "will provide much needed administrative support...this staff member will be restricted from participating in an advocacy role, especially when that would result in conflict between our Council and another trial court Council."
Council of State Court Judges' Response: The council stated that "it is vital to the effective operation of our Council of State Court Judges that we be able to have the continued benefit and expertise of our Executive Director who directly serves our council."
It further stated councils "rely heavily" on executive directors to keep them informed of state and national initiatives that improve existing programs or offer new programs that may impact the

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

22

courts. The council further said, "Each director is focused on the needs of that particular class of court and is able to weigh the advantages, disadvantages, and associated costs and expenses....Transferring these responsibilities to the [AOC] would only create confusion by blurring which items are substantially important for which class."
The council also noted that consolidating council staff under AOC "in reality and all practicality, would not result in any cost savings and would, in all likelihood, shift these tasks which would require more employees over different areas trying to coordinate technical skills, yet still require knowledge expertise from special individuals. The effectiveness would naturally diminish by the longer periods of time to coordinate meaningful responses, and may be lost altogether."
Council of Superior Court Judges' (CSCJ) Response: The council emphasized that superior court judges are state-paid elected judges similar to other judicial branch entities such as the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Prosecuting Attorneys Council. "As an entity, superior courts are larger than the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals combined, both of which also maintain their own administrative staff of accountants, budget managers, and IT professionals completely separate from the AOC. If the smaller judicial entities of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are not considered duplicative in having their own administrative staff, then superior courts should certainly be justified in maintaining their own independent staff as well."
CSCJ noted that council office funding was small and additional cost savings are unlikely. It noted that the council office is 2% of the superior court budget, which is less than one-third of 1% of the state budget, and that it strategically eliminated positions in the last few years due to budget reductions. It said that a 2010 House Budget Office analysis showed AOC would need five positions to perform the work of CSCJ's four accounting positions. Finally, CSCJ said that its accounting manager performs duties, beyond managing the three staff, making the elimination of the position impractical, and that its staff's salaries are appropriate given their duties and expertise.
Regarding staff accountability, CSCJ noted that "No good cause will be served by removing accountability for that staff from direct judge supervision and transferring it to the AOC. The best customer service and most accountability to the taxpayers comes when staff can be hired and fired by the officials they serve, not by a large bureaucracy over whom those officials have no hire and fire authority. The further the service provider is removed from the customer, the weaker the customer service will be."
CSCJ said that "the theory that a `system perspective' in Georgia would be enhanced by consolidation is unproven" and that the audit was incorrect to assume that housing all staff in AOC is the only way to increase a system perspective. CSCJ stated that this belief is "based on a theory of the audit team and a lack of understanding of the fundamental character of the Judicial Branch." CSCJ said that AOC "would have no incentive to consult judges about staff, as its focus would be on advancing their `system perspective.'" CSCJ noted that "superior court judges are constitutional officers whose responsibilities dwarf the desired `system perspective' so strongly advocated by the audit team."
Regarding redirecting savings cited to additional IT and district court administrator support, "the miniscule cost savings would never provide enough funds for such staff increases. Superior court judges would certainly welcome the restoration of IT field staff and additional DCA support, but not at the expense of their independence or their council office staff."

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

23

CSCJ said that "collaboration among the court classes is important; it can still be achieved through communication." CSCJ attests that it regularly collaborates with the Court of Appeals on technology issues, and with the juvenile and state court councils on legislative issues. CSCJ suggests that AOC again implement weekly meetings during the session to increase collaboration. It added that "regular collaboration will occur among judicial staff who can communicate in a setting of trust and security. Threats to independence lead to lack of trust and result in diminished communication. The unfortunate result of this audit is ultimately to create the dynamic it claims to wish to thwart."
Auditor's Response: We made no determination about the administrative staffing needs of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Based on the special examination request, we reviewed the staffing of the trial court councils and AOC.
Numerous governing entities and staffs can effectively work together to improve the court system. A single governing body and a single agency is not a requirement. However, when presenting the benefits and drawbacks of the staffing models, we believe that it is true that employees within the same organization are more likely to coordinate and communicate their activities than staff in different organizations. As the number of organizations increase and organizational leadership changes, the potential for conflict and/or duplication of effort between organizations and their staff increases.
Regarding the audit creating a lack of trust and diminished communication, the audit revealed a distrust that was already present among the entities reviewed.

What does AOC do to support the courts?
Due to the court system structure and limited resources, AOC has limited ability to impact the system or support individual courts.
Fragmented court governance and limited resources for policy work has led to an AOC that is responsible for only a portion of statewide court administration activities and provides little direct support to the courts. As a result, the agency can have only a limited impact on the court system and is not seen by some judges as relevant to daily court operations.
AOC's Role AOC houses programs that affect multiple court classes and performs administrative services for several judicial branch entities, roles that appear appropriate for a statewide (or central) court administration entity. Statute designates AOC as staff of the Judicial Council and outlines other responsibilities (see Appendix G). AOC management stated that its role includes improving cohesiveness among the governing bodies by identifying overlapping interests, coordinating communication, and providing assistance in certain areas such as policy and information technology.
While providing some comparable services, Georgia's AOC is unlike similarly named agencies in other states. In many states, the AOC implements court system policies

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

24

at the direction of the system's governing authority and may provide significant support to individual courts.
Court System Policies AOC's ability to impact the court system is largely tied to the authority of the Judicial Council, for which AOC is the designated staff. As noted previously, the Judicial Council has limited statutory authority in court system governance and has not adopted a significant number of policies requiring AOC implementation. Georgia courts have significant freedom to operate as they choose, resulting in an AOC that can offer services to courts (e.g., case management systems, legislative support) or recommend that courts adopt certain practices (e.g., performance measures). AOC is more likely to influence practices in policy areas addressed by the Judicial Council, such as accountability court and court reporting standards.
AOC also employs staff for other governing bodies responsible for specific aspects of the court system (e.g., interpreters, misdemeanor probation). However, AOC leadership has limited management responsibilities and authority over these AOC employees, because the employees are performing work at the direction of independent governing bodies that may be only administratively attached to AOC.
Direct Support to Courts AOC does not provide significant support to individual courts. With the exception of supporting case management and other information technology systems used by some courts, AOC does not view its role as one of providing day-to-day support of courts. AOC management stated that given current governing roles and resources, district court administrators and council staff are better positioned to provide direct support to judges.
In the last several years, AOC has reduced staff likely to provide direct support to courts. Prior to 2008, AOC employed field staff to support courts using AOC's case management systems. Judges and other court officials reported that these personnel could also address other information technology problems encountered by courts, which they indicated fulfilled a great need, particularly in the rural areas where local support was lacking. Currently, AOC employs three field staff to fulfill this role in South Georgia, an area it has identified as having the most need. AOC also previously provided additional staff to support the court councils, but AOC management stated that funding cuts reduced those services.
Judges' Views of AOC
While a significant number of judges we interviewed and surveyed questioned the relevance of AOC, most judges who contacted AOC in the past year were satisfied with the response.
As previously discussed, some judges we surveyed and interviewed are skeptical of AOC's work. Georgia's court system operates primarily at the local level, with individual judges and chief judges given flexibility in the operation of their courts (within the parameters of statute and uniform rules). AOC represents a centralized court administration approach, which some judges perceive as a "one-size-fits-all"

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

25

approach. Judges also stated a belief that AOC works for the Supreme Court rather than the Judicial Council or the state's judges.
Additionally, at least partly due to its limited authority over courts, decreased direct support of courts, and statewide scope of work, multiple court officials we interviewed generally do not consider AOC's work as relevant to their court operations. Many judges described AOC as a "big picture entity" and reported that they rely on local staff, district court administrators (who primarily serve superior judges), or their council staff to meet their immediate needs on the bench.
While some judges expressed concerns about AOC's role, many have contacted AOC and been largely satisfied with the response (see Exhibit 5). Approximately 44% of the judges who responded to our survey indicated they had contacted AOC in the past year, most commonly to support their council work and/or to obtain caseload counts or other data. Depending on the service requested, the percent of judges fully satisfied with AOC's response ranged from 40% to 55%.
Exhibit 5 Approximately Half of Judges who Contacted AOC in the Past Year Were Fully Satisfied with the Response

AOC's Activities
As shown in Exhibit 6, 36 of AOC's 68 employees work in program or policy-related units, with responsibilities such as regulation of court professionals, court research, legislative support, and support of Judicial Council committees. As noted above, only a portion of those staff support Judicial Council or AOC initiatives, while the remainder works for other governing entities. AOC's remaining 32 staff work in units that are primarily administrative in nature, such as budget, accounting, human resources, communications, information technology, and similar services to internal

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

26

and external judicial branch entities. However, some of these staff may also assist in program activities.
Exhibit 6 AOC Staff is Directed by Judicial Council and Other Governing Bodies1

The major activities performed by AOC are described below (see also Exhibit 7). During the special examination, it was apparent that in many cases, effectiveness of court administration work was not assessed on a regular basis. With the exception of work funded by federal grants or through contracts, performance reports showing basic information (e.g., number and location of certified professionals) or more meaningful assessments of progress and impact were not readily available. Where possible, we describe the effectiveness and impact on the system, primarily based on judges' responses to our survey.
Judicial Council Committee Support As Judicial Council staff, AOC supports the work of its various committees. These include: the Policy and Legislation Committee, which presents legislation to the General Assembly each year; the Judicial Workload Assessment Committee, which oversees the annual collection of case counts for all classes of court and recommends which circuits need additional superior court judges; the Accountability Courts Committee, which certifies courts and conducts performance peer reviews; and the Domestic Violence Committee, which distributes approximately $1.7 million grants to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to domestic violence victims across the state. AOC also recently assisted the committee charged with developing standards for court reporters and is currently involved in the Judicial Council's Strategic Planning Implementation Committee.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

27

Exhibit 7 AOC Staff Perform a Variety of Activities to Address Statewide Issues1

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

28

Judges' perceptions of AOC's support of Judicial Council committees are described below.
o Approximately 55% of judges who had contacted AOC for Judicial Council committee support were fully satisfied with the response (see Exhibit 5).
o Approximately 62% of judges surveyed indicated they use AOC's legislative reports but often in conjunction with reports from their council staff or lobbyist. They noted that AOC reports were not always sufficient for their needs.
o Approximately 40% of judges indicated they were fully satisfied with the certification process for accountability courts.
Office of Children and Families All activities within this division are directed by entities other than the Judicial Council. The Georgia Commission on Family Violence and the Child Support Commission are administratively attached to executive branch agencies (Georgia Department of Corrections and Department of Human Services, respectively), but staff are housed at AOC through a memorandum of understanding and a contract. Justice for Children is directed by a Supreme Court committee and is primarily funded through a federal grant.
These entities appear to be assisting judges with managing domestic violence, foster care, and child support cases in their courts.
o The number of programs certified by the Georgia Commission on Family Violence to rehabilitate family violence offenders has increased from 130 in 2006 to 179 in 2014. These programs served approximately 4,800 participants in 2013. However, large areas of the state, particularly in South Georgia, remain underserved.
o Approximately 71% of juvenile judges surveyed indicated they used data provided by Justice for Children, and Council of Juvenile Court Judges leadership described its work as vital to moving courts toward improved processes.
o The most recent study to assess the effectiveness of the Child Support Commission's calculator found that judges' orders deviated from the calculation in 11% of the cases reviewed, compared to 31% in 2010. According to the current chair, the form used to calculate child support is considered a model for other states.

Office of Certification and Licensing This division houses entities that license court professionals, including interpreters, neutrals, probation providers, and court reporters. AOC manages the staff licensing court reporters, but employees licensing other professionals are under the direction of Supreme Court commissions and an executive council. Staff work is primarily focused on registrations and renewals, which have remained fairly stable

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

29

over the past five years, with the exception of neutrals registered by the Commission on Dispute Resolution.11
Effectiveness of the work within this office varied, as described below.
o According to judges, court-based alternative dispute resolution programs provide mediation services at a relatively low cost, which is particularly beneficial for domestic relations cases, but attorneys noted that they use private firms for complex cases.
o Judges indicated AOC's probation work is also important, with 71% indicating uniform contract standards improved their contracts or governmental agreements, and 78% indicating that AOC's compliance audits resulted in better services. AOC conducted approximately 70 compliance audits in 2012 and 2013.
o Approximately 60% of applicable judges use interpreters certified by the Commission on Interpreters; other judges said there were no certified interpreters in their area or interpreters were not certified in the language needed.12 Only 44% of judges indicated that certified interpreters provide better services than non-certified interpreters.
o Approximately 90% (35) of the 39 judges who had filed a grievance with the Board of Court Reporting were not satisfied with how their concerns were handled. It should be noted that according to AOC documents, only one judge has filed formal complaint with the Board of Court Reporting since 2009.
Additional Work AOC also has units that provide other programmatic and administrative services.
o Information Technology Division For more than 20 years, AOC has offered an electronic case management system that was originally intended as a statewide solution for all courts. AOC also offers other free systems that meet narrowly tailored needs of specific court types. The number of courts using at least one of AOC's five systems has decreased from 297 in 2009 to 220 courts in 2014 (which represents about 20% of the total number of courts).13 Courts using these systems are generally in smaller, rural counties unlikely to be able to afford a private vendor system. AOC also receives a federal grant to implement its child support electronic filing system, used by 103 (65%) of superior courts as of June 2014.

11 Over the past five years, AOC has annually certified approximately 100 interpreters, 90 probation providers, and 1,100 court reporters. The number of new and renewal applications for neutrals decreased from nearly 2,400 in 2009 to approximately 1,900 in 2013. 12 According to a Supreme Court order, courts should make a "diligent effort" to appoint certified interpreters. Ninety-five of the 100 certified interpreters speak Spanish, and approximately half are located in the metro Atlanta area. Though these interpreters are available to serve in any court across the state, large areas of the state remain underserved. Only five of the 23 interpreters for other languages are fully certified (the rest are conditionally certified or registered with AOC, which are recommended if certified interpreters are not available). 13 In March 2014 (the most recent data available), 59 courts used Sustain, 89 courts used the Traffic Information Processing System, nine superior courts used Georgia Jury, 45 magistrate courts used the Magistrate Court Information System, and 18 probate courts used the Probate Court Information System.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

30

The remaining staff provide administrative support to AOC and various judicial entities, which includes maintaining the internal network, desktop software and equipment, e-mail, and listserv capabilities.
o Court Services Division AOC leadership has also pursued initiatives not at the direction of the Judicial Council or another governing entity. Primarily conducted by the Court Services Division, this work is based on national recommendations and best practices or is expected to achieve efficiencies in operations. The director of the Court Services Division also supervises staff in the Office of Research, Planning, and Data Analysis, Office of Accountability Courts, Office of Certification and Licensing, and the Office of Children and Families.
o Financial Administration The staff within this division manage the payroll, accounts receivable, and the accounts payable for the 29 judicial branch organizations within the Judicial Council's budget, which include AOC, most of the court councils, the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education, the Appellate Resource Center, and the Judicial Qualifications Commission. In fiscal year 2015, the Judicial Council's budget totaled approximately $17.3 million in federal, state, and other funds.
o Director's Division The director's division is comprised of the director and two administrative support staff, two staff in the Office of Communications and Outreach, two in the Office of the General Counsel, two human resource specialists, and one budget analyst.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. AOC should develop measures to assess the impact of its work. This could include surveying judges and other court staff as well as obtaining additional data related to its programs.

Council of Superior Court Judges' (CSCJ) Response: The council "generally believes the tasks currently assigned to the AOC are appropriate. These include all issues crossing the boundaries of classes of court, such as court reporters, private probation providers, and administrative services for the smaller councils of county-paid judges that do not require significant state staffing levels. CSCJ would not support an expanded role for the AOC in matters solely impacting superior courts." The council also emphasized that, as noted by auditors in their interviews with AOC, AOC did not view its role as providing day-to-day support of the courts and that DCAs and council staff are better positioned to provide direct support.
Child Support Commission's Response: The commission stated its "appointees constitute a well-balanced group of individuals who have a vital interest in the achievement of fair and appropriate child support awards for the many thousands of children we serve in our State." The commission emphasized the breadth of the duties performed by staff, which includes gathering court orders and other information to assist with the federally mandated guidelines study, which "is a huge task and one with significant implications." The commission also highlighted staff responsibilities to

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

31

work with legislative counsel to craft appropriate language, study case law, collaborate with the Division of Child Support Services, and educate the public on relevant laws.
County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council's Response: CMPAC noted that to promote transparency and accountability, it has instituted a policy of providing the chief judge of the contracting courts with a copy of the compliance review reports of probation providers, which document any violations of rule or statute. Additionally, CMPAC staff have pursued opportunities to bridge communication gaps and share information with the courts.

What do court councils' staffs do to support the courts?
Court councils employ varying levels of staff to fulfill their constitutional and statutory duties.
Each of Georgia's six trial courts has a statutorily created, state-funded council responsible for improving its class of court, as well as assisting the judges. Councils fulfill these responsibilities with assistance from varying levels of staff, including two with multiple employees, two with executive directors, and two with no employees (reliant upon AOC employees). While we could not measure the extent to which staff work improves their respective courts, judges report that they rely heavily on council staff and are overwhelmingly satisfied with their work.
NCSC recommends that judges focus on policy issues while delegating administrative duties to staff. While NCSC noted that staff are generally located within an AOC,14 four Georgia councils have acquired their own staff over the years (two rely entirely on AOC). The primary duties of council staff are shown in Exhibit 8 and described below. At a minimum, all councils receive assistance with planning judicial conferences and leadership meetings, managing their budgets, and documenting meeting minutes. AOC also provides information technology services for four councils and accounting services for all except the Council of Superior Court Judges.
Councils with their own staff also receive support in policy or programmatic areas. The general statutory authority to improve a class of court provides council leadership with significant discretion to determine what actions are needed. Across classes, staffs assist judges during the legislative session, research issues and draft documents to support council committees (e.g., revisions to uniform rules), and respond to individual judges with needs that do not pertain to council business. Staff may also manage particular initiatives targeted toward the unique needs and jurisdiction of their particular class of court.
Council staff work that is unique to each court class is described below. For superior and juvenile councils in particular, some of these duties are outlined in statute. As mentioned above, other duties can be directed by council leaders. Organizational charts for superior and juvenile council can be found in Appendix E.
14 One state we reviewed, Tennessee, has an independent governing body similar to trial court councils. However, the staff for this juvenile and family court judges' entity became part of Tennessee's AOC in 2005 to achieve efficiencies.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

32

Exhibit 8 Staffs Perform a Range of Services for their Councils1

Council of Superior Court Judges Unlike other classes of court, superior court judges, secretaries, and clerks are state-funded employees. As such, many of the 11 council employees are devoted primarily to fulfilling the statutory duties related to administrative support necessary for any state entity. This includes creating personnel policies and procedures, as well as performing the budgeting and accounting functions (payroll and accounts payable) related to the superior court's $65 million appropriation.

Also, in accordance with O.C.G.A. 15-628(b), the Council of Superior Court Judges employs an attorney who assists judges who preside over habeas cases in which a person sentenced to death asserts his or her constitutional rights were violated during the trial.

Work at the direction of council leadership primarily includes assisting the judges with managing revisions to uniform rules and pattern jury instructions,15 which help improve superior courts' processes. While all councils are responsible for creating and updating their uniform rules, the superior council is the most active, making extensive changes at each of the biannual judicial meetings as a result of new legislation or case law, or at the request of outside parties.

The council also employs an information technology manager who, in addition to providing desktop and networking support for the 11 staff, maintains a webbased communication portal. Judges, their staff, and council staff utilize the portal to post commonly used forms and documents, distribute updates and information, and facilitate discussions on various topics.

15 Pattern jury instructions consist of recommended language for the judge to use when instructing jurors of their duties.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

33

Council of Juvenile Court Judges Nine of the 14 juvenile council staff are devoted to the Judicial Citizen Review Panel program at the direction of O.C.G.A. 15-11-216 & 217. Council staff train civilian volunteers and assist them in reviewing permanency plans for children in foster care. Juvenile judges in approximately 70 counties utilize these panels, which cover approximately 80% of the state's foster children.
Staff also manage the $5.5 million in state grants to assist the counties with paying judges' salaries. While AOC assists with the accounting portion of the work, council staff must, on a quarterly basis, determine how much funding should be allocated depending on the number of full-time and parttime juvenile judges appointed.
Like superior council, juvenile council has a dedicated staff attorney who, in addition to providing research for individual judges when local resources are not available, has most recently helped the council adjust uniform rules and court procedures to adhere to the updated juvenile code. Also at the direction of council leadership, juvenile council staff manages a $75,000 contract to provide juvenile courts with a free specialized case management system. Currently, 29 (18%) of the 159 juvenile courts use this free system.16
Council of State Court Judges The executive director is statutorily obligated to manage the $1.5 million state retirement appropriation for judges, which is done with the help of a part-time assistant. Additionally, the executive director conducts feasibility studies for counties seeking information about creating a new state court, changing the number of judges for an existing court, or converting existing part-time state court judges to full-time. The director also assists new judges, conducts legal research on issues facing the state courts, and coordinates with county commissioners and other local groups.
Council of Magistrate Court Judges In addition to performing duties common to all councils, the executive director has managed two recent initiatives under the direction of magistrate council leadership. One is a free webbased program that helps self-representing litigants (most common in cases under magistrate courts' jurisdiction) fill out the forms necessary for court. The executive director also helped coordinate a master contract that would allow any class of court to begin offering electronic filing locally.
Council of Probate Court Judges and Council of Municipal Court Judges These two councils do not employ staff and thus depend on AOC employees who report to AOC management and have additional duties. When AOC staff does not provide the needed service, the council must rely on judges. In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the probate council has requested state funds for an executive director to manage and modify the probate courts' 44 uniform forms, manage vendor contracts (such as for weapons licensing), and implement the strategic plan. Municipal council leadership stated they have not assessed whether the needs of their council warrant a full-time director.

16 Four additional counties pay for a customized version through their own separate contracts.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

34

According to AOC, two employees are transitioning to provide additional dedicated support to these councils. Each will serve as a primary contact for any needs of their respective council. AOC estimates that the employee serving the probate council will spend an average of 20 hours per week in support of the council.
Council leadership noted that having the power to hire and fire staff ensures control over the level of responsiveness that councils and individual judges need--for both the necessary and discretionary functions. Judicial leaders stated that relying on AOC staff means council needs or initiatives may not be given priority because AOC is more concerned about "big picture" issues. AOC staff noted that, in addition to the lack of resources to dedicate staff solely to each council, it is currently not their job to spearhead a targeted goal for a class of court, particularly when it has not been presented before the Judicial Council.
As shown in Exhibit 9 below, judges contacted their staff for council support at a higher rate than AOC. Between 75% and 80% of the judges contacted their dedicated council staff, with the exception of magistrate judges (because their population is so much larger). A smaller percent of probate and municipal judges contacted AOC for council matters, even though AOC is the sole support. Contact was not only limited to judges with leadership roles within the council; between 62% and 68% of responding superior, state, and juvenile judges contacted their respective dedicated staff with individual needs as well.17 In addition, satisfaction with court council staff was more than 50% higher across all classes of court, and nearly three times higher among superior court judges.
Exhibit 9 Judges Were More Likely to Contact Council Staff in the Past Year and Were More Satisfied with Their Response

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Superior

Juvenile

State

Magistrate Probate Municipal

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Superior

Juvenile

State Magistrate Probate Municipal

While councils' flexibility and discretion over their class of court may yield initiatives that would otherwise not occur, councils' independence may inhibit
17 Approximately 31% of magistrate judges contacted their director for individual needs.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

35

system improvements. According to AOC staff, councils may ignore the Judicial Council's legislative priorities and pursue their own agendas, which can create conflict during the legislative session. In addition, councils may create initiatives that would benefit other classes of court as well, such as the magistrate electronic filing contract or the state court council's best practices handbook for managing misdemeanor probation. However, without regular collaboration, the full impact of such initiatives may not be realized or work may even be duplicative.
Council of Juvenile Court Judges' Response: The council reiterated the duties its staff provides on a daily basis, including committee support, legislative support, legal assistance not available locally, and training and observing Judicial Citizen Review Panels. As previously discussed, the council emphasized the value of its staff in addressing issues related to the juvenile courts.
Council of Magistrate Court Judges' Response: The council noted that the recent initiatives (web-based forms creator and e-filing master contract) managed by its executive director have "significant long-term impact on access to justice" and "further the statutory mission of the Council." As previously discussed, the council also noted it is able to accomplish these initiatives with the support and guidance of its executive director. Finally, the council emphasized the breadth of duties performed by the executive director, which include managing contracts, responding to public inquiries, and managing the development and maintenance of the council website.
Council of Probate Court Judges' Response: As previously discussed, the council emphasized the need for an independent executive director, since the AOC staff member transitioning to the council will help with administrative needs but will be restricted from advocating on behalf of the council.
Council of State Court Judges' Response: The council stated that the executive director's work "requires specialized technical knowledge and experience and is as comprehensive and extensive as other Councils, if not more in special areas. It is a credit to our Director that our satisfaction of his efforts was reported as the highest among the Councils, considering his vast responsibilities with no supporting staff." The council also emphasized the "significant duties and responsibilities" and the "unique variety of tasks" performed by the executive director, which include managing uniform rules revisions, performing lobbyist functions on the council's behalf, managing action items on the strategic plan, performing duties similar to superior courts' district court administrators, and conducting part-time to full-time state court studies.
Council of Superior Court Judges' (CSCJ) Response: As previously noted, the council emphasized its staff's unique duties in serving as the independent professional staff of the state-paid superior court judges, similar to those supporting the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Prosecuting Attorneys Council. The council further stated that the report's conclusion that court council independence inhibits system improvements "is not supported by evidence," citing the success of accountability courts, which began in superior courts.
Additionally, the council stated, "Councils do not ignore the Judicial Council's legislative priorities; they support and pursue both their own agendas and the Judicial Council agendas simultaneously." It cited instances in which superior court judges have assisted AOC and municipal court judges with their legislation. The council noted the "Judicial Council aptly serves to mitigate conflicts," generally

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

36

without requiring legislative intervention, though "there will never be a legislative session without conflicts."
Finally, the council noted that "when one council develops an idea that benefits other councils, other councils adopt and modify it to suit their needs." As previously discussed, regular collaboration is inhibited when threats to independence lead to a lack of trust and results in reduced communication.
Auditor's Response: Each of the councils stated the importance of the work performed by their executive directors and staff. We do not question the need for program staff to enable the councils to improve the operations of their courts, as required by law. The finding on page 15 includes three staffing models, each of which has program staff designated to serve the trial court councils.

Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial administration related to the use of performance measures?
Judicial leaders do not routinely use performance measures to manage individual courts or the court system as a whole.
Georgia judges have generally not utilized data to evaluate performance or guide operations at the system level or within individual courts. Information that AOC and individual judges currently collect is mostly limited to activity data that measure outputs rather than efficiency or effectiveness. However, the Judicial Council and AOC are working to incorporate performance measurement into court management.
According to NCSC, "the court system should be transparent and accountable through the use of performance measures and evaluation." Performance assessments provide a means for internal evaluation, self-improvement, and increased accountability to governing bodies and the public. They also provide judges and court administrators with objective data to present when discussing the need for additional resources. Finally, comparing performance across courts can identify best practices that can be shared throughout the state.
We found that AOC collects limited information about the performance of the state's court system, while most judges collect limited or no performance information. Performance measurement by AOC and individual judges is discussed below.
Measures of court system performance Though AOC is statutorily charged with collecting data on the judicial work of the courts, the information it reports is limited to caseload data, which measures outputs rather than effectiveness. AOC's annual reports present the current number of cases filed and disposed for the entire court class by case type, along with historic trends for the overall system. Case counts are most commonly used by the Judicial Council to assess the need for additional superior court judges in certain circuits and are often requested by local judges.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

37

Like Georgia, the seven states we reviewed track the number of cases by class of court. However, five report additional measures. South Carolina has established benchmarks for the number and age of pending cases and reports the extent to which circuits are meeting those benchmarks. Alabama tracks data related to jury trials, as well as case disposition rate and the rate at which court costs are waived. North Carolina reports a statewide summary of time to disposition by case type, while Texas reports courts' clearance rates, age of cases disposed, and the number of self-represented litigants.18 Finally, Ohio tracks the number of cases pending beyond an established guideline along with clearance rates.

Measures of individual court performance Approximately 31% of the judges who responded to our survey indicated they currently track some type of performance measures. As shown on Exhibit 10, superior and state court judges were more likely to collect data than the other court classes. Of the judges who track performance measures, approximately 82% indicated they were reported externally--most commonly to the local governing authority or the public via websites or annual reports.

Exhibit 10 Majority of Judges in Each Class Do Not Track Performance

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

State

Superior

Juvenile

Magistrate

Probate

Municipal

Most judges who track performance measures indicated that the measures were of activity only (such as case counts), though some stated that measures of performance (such as clearance rates and time to disposition) were reviewed. Other measures judges reported tracking were specific to a court type. Juvenile judges reported tracking the number of children placed on probation or found to be dependent, as well as court-ordered class
18 Clearance rates (ratio of outgoing and incoming cases) measure how effectively a court is keeping up with its incoming caseloads, while time to disposition measures how long it takes a court to process cases.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

38

attendance. Some superior and state courts track jury cases, while probate and municipal courts assess the amount of fee payments collected and magistrate courts track the number of warrants. An example of a more rigorous performance measurement system is described on page 39.

To assist courts with performance management, NCSC developed 10 measures known as CourTools. The measures can be tracked at the court, circuit, region, or statewide level. These measures allow courts to assess how well they meet the expectations of court users, how efficiently they are able to dispose cases (through clearance rates and time to disposition), how effectively they collect monetary penalties and utilize jurors, and how much they spend, on average, per case. These measures may be useful in comparing performance across courts of the same type, by area of the state, and with historic performance.

Judges who responded to our survey indicated that most of NCSC's CourTools measures would provide useful information in the management of their court. As shown in Exhibit 11, the majority of judges in all classes of court found that data showing how efficient judges move their cases (age of active pending caseload, time to disposition, and clearance rates) would be most useful. Other measures would be more useful for particular classes of court; for example, measures related to jurors would be most applicable to superior and state courts, while the rate at which monetary penalties are collected appears to be most helpful for municipal courts.

Exhibit 11
Judges Indicated Most Measures Suggested by NCSC Would Provide Valuable Information1

Performance Measure Superior State Juvenile Magistrate Probate Municipal

Age of Active Pending Caseload

85%

81%

76%

67%

59%

74%

Time to Disposition

77%

78%

76%

60%

55%

67%

Clearance Rate

84%

82%

71%

58%

48%

68%

Cost Per Case

59%

68%

59%

56%

60%

71%

Court Employee Satisfaction

63%

72%

60%

57%

55%

64%

Trial Date Certainty

63%

63%

57%

57%

43%

61%

Court User Satisfaction

52%

63%

57%

59%

47%

65%

Collection of Monetary Penalties

41%

60%

53%

55%

47%

73%

Complete and Accurate Files

49%

49%

53%

47%

47%

52%

Juror Yield2

84%

65%

13%

21%

19%

23%

Juror Utilization2

66%

55%

7%

20%

18%

19%

1 Percent of judges who responded to the survey question 2 Separate measures that relate to the effective use of jurors. Juror yield is the number of citizens selected for jury duty who are qualified and report to serve, expressed as a percentage of the total number of prospective jurors available. Juror utilization is the rate at which prospective jurors are used at least once in trial or voir dire.

Source: DOAA survey

There are a number of reasons that performance measures do not play a more prominent role in Georgia's judicial branch. These include the lack of a common case management system and limited staffing resources, no entity with the authority to compel the collection or reporting of data, and concerns that performance measures are not appropriate for a court system.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

39

Fulton County Superior Court Performance Measurement System
The Fulton County Superior Court has established a performance measurement system in part to comply with House Bill 437, which requires the court administrator of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit to provide judges monthly case activity data, which includes the number of civil and criminal cases assigned, disposed of, and pending. The court has also required its court administrator to provide judges with monthly data related to pretrial caseloads and accountability courts. Clearance rates for the court are calculated and published, while rates for individual judges are provided upon request. All new assignments, dispositions, and pending cases are compiled in year-end caseload summaries.
In addition to the reports prepared by the court administrator, the court has contracted with a vendor to provide an electronic dashboard that displays customized data for each judge that shows graphs, charts, and documents related to case flow. While the court is a relatively large court in metro-Atlanta with resources other courts may not have, elements of their performance measurement system and the type of information collected could be used by other courts regardless of size to better manage their resources and caseloads.

Case management and staffing AOC staff noted that their ability to collect more than aggregate case counts from the courts is limited primarily due to infrastructure. AOC does not have the resources (infrastructure or staffing) to collect the additional data elements necessary from the hundreds of courts in the state. Additionally, courts utilize various case management systems, which may collect, manage, and report data differently across counties, if at all. By contrast, courts in other states such as Alabama and North Carolina use the same state-funded case management system, so their AOCs can retrieve uniform data themselves.
Authority to require data collection No broad governing authority exists to compel Georgia courts to report data to AOC, and neither the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, nor the court councils has emphasized the importance of using data to manage the courts or the system. Even when judges do wish to obtain data on their court activity and performance, they may not be able to compel the independently elected clerks (who preside over the records of superior courts and, in some cases, other classes as well) to provide the information.
Judges' concerns about measures Judges we interviewed had concerns about participating in a performance measurement system that establishes "one size fits all" benchmarks for judges without considering varying circumstances across the state. For example, not meeting a time to disposition benchmark may indicate scheduling problems with the district attorney or public defender. Likewise, superior court judges who preside over court in multiple counties within their circuit would likely have more difficulty meeting standards than judges who do not. As previously discussed, however, using standard performance measures provides courts with a common starting point for determining why results vary across courts of similar sizes or within the same court over a period of time.
Though performance measurement has not historically been a priority within the Judicial Council, its strategic plan includes a number of related initiatives. For example, AOC has begun working to educate judges on the importance of performance measurement and how to incorporate the CourTools measures into the

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

40

management of their courts. The Judicial Council has also begun conducting user surveys within a sample of courts to establish a baseline related to access and fairness for future assessment.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Judicial Council should work toward developing a system-wide performance measurement program.
2. Judges should consider utilizing objective measures--including clearance rates and time to disposition--to assess the performance of their court compared to historic trends and similar courts.
3. Judges and clerks at all levels of court should work to ensure current data submitted to AOC is complete and accurate to provide a valid picture of court activity.
Council of Magistrate Court Judges' Response: "The Magistrate Courts are committed to the implementation of statewide data collection and performance measures. Our Council was the first to send Judges to the CourTools certification program in hopes of providing statewide leadership in the implementation of the program. We recognize that without valid data and an understanding of the system dynamics, there can be no meaningful positive change."
Council of Probate Court Judges' Response: The council stated, "more education is needed to properly capture the complexities of cases filed in probate courts and the varying types of probate courts in the state," noting the varying roles probate judges may play. This includes serving as magistrates and custodians of vital records, handling civil cases with multiple beneficiaries and heirs that complicate the time to completion, and monitoring guardianship and conservatorship cases.
Council of Superior Court Judges' (CSCJ) Response: CSCJ stated, "Superior courts agree there is value in developing a system-wide performance measurement program." It noted that the Judicial Council's Judicial Workload Assessment Committee has been exploring the value of system-wide performance measures. Superior courts requesting additional judicial resources were asked to include CourTools measures "to help provide a broader picture of needed judicial resources," though local staff were generally unsuccessful at reporting the measures due to incomplete caseload data. Additionally, the Committee has asked AOC to begin collecting cases disposed in additional to cases filed. CSCJ noted that "it has only been in recent years that even the reporting of filing data has been near 100% statewide. At the moment, there is no system for the automated collection of these items and it is subject to voluntary, manual reporting by the clerks throughout the state. Enhancing this process would likely require additional funding to the AOC."
CSCJ further stated that superior courts support AOC and court administrators being trained in the administration of CourTools and that some courts have already begun collecting clearance rates and time disposition. It noted that "additional training on court performance measurement for judges, clerks, and court staff is essential for this process to continue" and "sufficient buy-in is needed from all players in the system, including, but not limited to, the State Bar and attorneys throughout the state, prosecutors and public defenders, clerks of court, court staff, and judges."
CSCJ stated that "the collection of data for the state's court system must take into consideration the diverse nature of the state," citing differences in the metro Atlanta courts, which have large caseloads

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

41

and more staff and infrastructure, and courts that may not hold court daily and have fewer or no managerial staff to assist the judges.
Finally, CSCJ noted "the importance of setting [data] definitions and standards, training on those standards, and then assessing the validity of that data. Until those efforts are done consistently, any statewide data must be reviewed with caution."
Council of Superior Court Clerks' Response: Regarding the authority to require data submission, the council stated, "While the AOC is unable to compel clerks to provide data, the chief judge of each circuit certainly has that authority." The council further noted the importance of having consistent data definitions and suggested the process would benefit from "minimal funding to assist in compiling the information into a single database."

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

42

Appendix A: Table of Recommendations

Georgia's complex governance structure has led to fragmented administrative authority over the state's court system. (p. 7)
1. Judicial leaders and the General Assembly should consider simplifying the governance structure of the court system. This could entail designating greater responsibility to a single entity and/or more clearly defining the duties and authority of multiple governing entities. In addition, judicial leaders and the General Assembly should reduce the number of governing authorities whenever possible. This could include making some existing entities committees of the Judicial Council. It would also include ensuring future legislation assigns responsibilities to an existing entity, such as the Judicial Council, rather than creating a new commission or council.
2. Regardless of any changes to the governance structure, the Judicial Council should continue its efforts to strengthen its policymaking ability by meeting more often, creating a stable, representative membership, and adhering to other best practice standards presented by the National Center for State Courts.
Georgia's court governance inhibits the creation of a staffing model that efficiently and effectively serves both the system and individual court classes. (p. 15)
3. If the General Assembly wishes to consider an alternative staffing model for council support, decision makers will need to consider the impact on the state budget, the ability of councils to fulfill their statutory mission, and whether the change will encourage a system-wide (non- siloed) approach to court administration matters.
Due to the court system structure and limited resources, AOC has limited ability to impact the system or support individual courts. (p. 23)
4. AOC should develop measures to assess the impact of its work. This could include surveying judges and other court staff as well as obtaining additional data related to its programs.
Judicial leaders do not routinely use performance measures to manage individual courts or the court system as a whole. (p. 36)
5. The Judicial Council should work toward developing a system-wide performance measurement program.
6. Judges should consider utilizing objective measures--including clearance rates and time to disposition--to assess the performance of their court compared to historic trends and similar courts.
7. Judges and clerks at all levels of court should work to ensure current data submitted to AOC is complete and accurate to provide a valid picture of court activity.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

43

Appendix B: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives This report examines the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the six trial court councils. Specifically, our examination set out to report the following:
1. Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial administration related to governance?
2. How can staffing be allocated among AOC and the court councils to ensure the most efficient and effective service delivery to the courts?
3. What does AOC do to support the courts?
4. What do court councils' staffs do to support the courts?
5. Does Georgia's court system adhere to the best practice principle of judicial administration related to the use of performance measures?
Scope This audit primarily covered staffing and activity related to the AOC and the six trial court councils during fiscal year 2014, with consideration of earlier or later periods when relevant.
Information used in this report was obtained by reviewing relevant laws, rules, and regulations, interviewing agency officials and staff from AOC and the court councils as well as other judicial stakeholders, reviewing executive meeting minutes from the Judicial Council and court councils for calendar years 2012 through 2014, and reviewing activity reports.
Interviews with various courts system stakeholders informed all of the objectives. These stakeholders included the Chief and Presiding Justices of the Supreme Court, the current presidents of each of the six trial court councils, former officers of the Judicial Council and trial court councils, the 10 superior court administrative judges, AOC staff supporting the Judicial Council, AOC staff serving governing bodies other than the Judicial Council, and all court council staff. We also conducted a focus group with attorneys selected by the State Bar of Georgia.
We also conducted a survey of judges that informed multiple objectives. This survey was distributed to 1,237 active superior, state, juvenile, magistrate, probate, and municipal judges for whom we had a valid email address (approximately 83% of the 1,485 total judges). We distributed the survey electronically and received 638 completed responses, a response rate of 52%. The respondents represent approximately 43% of the total number of judges (60% of superior, 65% of state, 43% of juvenile, 37% of magistrate, 48% of probate, and 31% of municipal). Questions covered various aspects of judicial system administration.
Finally, our interviews with representatives from other states' AOCs also informed multiple objectives. We reviewed the states contiguous to Georgia, as well as Texas and Ohio, which have court systems similar to Georgia. Discussions focused on the governance structure, duties of the AOC, and court system initiatives.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

44

Methodology
To obtain information of the work AOC and council staff do to support the courts, we reviewed organizational charts and job descriptions. We also interviewed staff regarding the major work they do and judicial officers regarding their level of satisfaction with council and AOC staff. We also utilized information obtained from the survey of all judges. When available, we reviewed reports and data obtained from AOC to assess the impact and effectiveness of the work.
To determine how staff can be allocated among AOC and the court councils to ensure the most efficient and effective service delivery to the courts, we interviewed judicial leaders and AOC and council staff. In our review of the work performed by AOC and council staff, we identified positions and work performed by employees with a transferrable skill set (e.g., accounting and information technology), those who perform programmatic work that requires knowledge and expertise in the particular court class (e.g., executive director and general counsel), and employees performing both administrative and programmatic functions.
Costs and savings were primarily limited to salaries and benefits of positions created, eliminated or transferred depending on the staffing model. We identified positions that could be potentially eliminated by identifying duplicative and overlapping work and determining whether that work could be absorbed by another entity based on interviews and, for accounting functions, a review of the number of vouchers processed in fiscal years 2010-2014 (obtained from TeamWorks Financials). We identified salary savings for council positions transferred to AOC by calculating an average of similar positions within AOC using fiscal year 2014 payroll data obtained from TeamWorks Financials.
To determine whether Georgia's court system adheres to best practice principles of judicial administration, we reviewed Georgia's Constitution and statute, interviewed AOC and council staff as well as judicial leaders, and other system stakeholders, and representatives from other states. Our criteria was based on the Principles for Judicial Administration, published in 2012 by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), an independent, nonprofit court clearinghouse for research information and comparative data to support improvement in judicial administration. Principles we used included: (1) Effective court governance requires a welldefined governance structure for policy formulation and administration for the entire system and (2) The court system should be transparent and accountable through the use of performance measures and evaluation at all levels of the organization. We interviewed NCSC staff to obtain further information on the principles as well as observed national trends.
In addition to the work described above, we observed two Judicial Council meetings as well as executive and other committee meetings held by each of the trial court councils.
This special examination was not conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) given the timeframe in which the report was needed. However, it was conducted in accordance with Performance Audit Division policies and procedures for non-GAGAS engagements. These policies and procedures require that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for the information reported and that data limitations be identified for the reader.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

45

Appendix C: Authority and Duties of Governing Entities

Supreme Court

Constitution of 1983, VI.IX.I

With the advice and consent of the affected court council, adopt or publish uniform court rules and record-keeping rules for speedy, efficient and inexpensive resolution of disputes and prosecutions

O.C.G.A. 15-5-20

Provide powers, duties and responsibilities to the Judicial Council and provide membership and terms of Judicial Council

O.C.G.A. 15-1-14

Establish rules and requirements for foreign language interpreters and interpreters for the hearing impaired used in the courts. May also establish fees to be paid by interpreters desiring certification. Supreme Court designated this responsibility to Commission on Interpreters (see below).

Supreme Court Commission on Dispute Resolution

Supreme Court Rule

Administer a statewide alternative dispute resolution program, develop guidelines and certify court programs, establish standards of conduct and develop training criteria for neutrals

O.C.G.A. 15-23-11

Set guidelines for the hourly rate for compensation of non-volunteer neutrals and for the user's fees courts may set for alternative dispute resolution programs

Supreme Court Commission on Interpreters

Supreme Court Order (based on O.C.G.A. 15-1-14)

Administer comprehensive interpreter program, oversee the development of interpreters, develop guidelines for and approve court interpreter programs, designate languages for certification programs, develop training criteria, and establish standards of conduct

Judicial Council

O.C.G.A. 15-5-20 O.C.G.A. 15-5-21 O.C.G.A. 15-5-23 & 24 O.C.G.A. 15-5-26 O.C.G.A. 9-11-4.1 O.C.G.A. 15-1-15, 15-1-16, 15-1-17 O.C.G.A. 15-14-23

Have powers, duties, and responsibilities as may be provided by law or Supreme Court Rule
Promulgate rules and regulations to provide for the fees charged by court reporters for attending court and furnishing transcripts, a minimum per diem fee, and the uniform form and style of transcripts
Appoint AOC director and supervise AOC in the performance of its duties
Adopt policies and procedures regarding the submission and evaluation of non-uniform courts and provide evaluation of proposals to General Assembly
Promulgate rules and regulations related to certified process servers
Establish and update standards and practices, manage a certification and review process, identify elements for measuring performance, and conduct peer reviews of drug courts and mental health courts; establish standards for veterans courts
Define and regulate the practice of court reporting

O.C.G.A. 15-14-24

Appoint members of the Board of Court Reporting

Judicial Council Board of Court Reporting

O.C.G.A. 15-14-26

Make necessary rules and regulations to define and regulate court reporting, subject to review by Judicial Council

O.C.G.A. 15-14-29 15-14-31

Conduct application and testing of court reporters, determine and collect application fees, grant certification, renew certifications, and determine and collect renewal certification fees

O.C.G.A. 15-14-33

Authority to refuse to grant certificate or to revoke certification, or to discipline a licensed court reporter

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

46

Appendix C: Authority and Duties of Governing Entities (continued)

Accountability Court Funding Committee

Executive Order 05.24.12.03

Determine funding priorities for alternative courts based on court divisions' compliance with and/or agreement to comply with the standards and procedures adopted by the Judicial Council. Determine the allocation of funds distributed by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

Commission on Family Violence

O.C.G.A. 19-13-31 & 32

Develop a comprehensive state plan for ending family violence, including oversight of implementation of family violence laws and community task forces. Members appointed by governor, president of senate, and speaker of the house.

Child Support Commission

O.C.G.A. 19-6-50 & 51

Study and collect information related to child support and create and revise the child support obligation table. This includes conducting a comprehensive review of child support guidelines, economic conditions, and other matters that relate to maintaining effective and efficient child support guidelines and modifying child support orders that will serve the best interest of Georgia's children and account for changing family dynamics. Members appointed by the governor.

County & Municipal Probation Advisory Council

O.C.G.A. 42-8-101

Review uniform professional standards for private and public probation officers. Members selected by court councils and governor.

Council of Superior Court Judges

O.C.G.A. 15-6-34(b)

Effectuate constitutional and statutory responsibilities and further the improvement of superior courts and the administration of justice

O.C.G.A. 15-6-31

Perform ministerial functions related to the payment of salaries, benefits, and expenses of superior court judges and their staff

O.C.G.A. 15-6-27

Adopt and amend uniform policies, rules, and regulations applying the state-paid personnel employed by superior court judges

Pay salaries of superior court judges, judicial secretaries, law clerks, O.C.G.A. 15-6-25, 15-6-28, 15-6-29
and state-paid court administrators

O.C.G.A. 15-6-32

Pay the expenses for superior court judges' continuing judicial education

O.C.G.A. 15-6-30

Pay the travel expenses of active and senior judges

O.C.G.A. 15-1-9.1, 15-1-9.2

Pay senior judges and other officials for their work in superior court

O.C.G.A. 9-14-47.1

Assign judges to preside over death penalty habeas corpus cases and establish uniform rules for time periods and schedules applicable to related petitions

O.C.G.A. 9-14-53

Reimburse counties for costs associated with habeas corpus cases

O.C.G.A. 15-6-28(b)

Provides attorney services to judges assigned to preside over death penalty habeas corpus cases

O.C.G.A. 15-14-6

Pays contingent expenses and travel allowances to court reporters operating in superior court

O.C.G.A. 45-18-14 & 47-23-25

Pay appropriated funds to the retirement systems for judges and staff

Council of Juvenile Court Judges

O.C.G.A. 15-11-58

Establish general policies for conduct of juvenile courts; promulgate uniform rules and forms governing court practice and procedures; publish annual reports of the work of juvenile courts

O.C.G.A. 15-11-59

Establish seminars for juvenile judges in coordination with the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

47

Appendix C: Authority and Duties of Governing Entities (continued)

Council of Juvenile Court Judges (continued)

O.C.G.A. 15-11-216

Provide advice and consent to the Supreme Court with regard to the standards and procedures related to periodic court reviews of the cases of children in custody of the state

O.C.G.A. 15-11-605

Coordinate with Department of Juvenile Justice regarding the exclusion of a child from a secure probation sanctions program

O.C.G.A. 47-23-25 & 47-23-82

Pay appropriated funds into the judicial retirement system

O.C.G.A. 49-4A-2

Consult with Department of Juvenile Justice in the development of assessment instruments used by intake personnel and courts

Council of State Court Judges

O.C.G.A. 15-7-26

Effectuate constitutional and statutory responsibilities and further the improvement of the state courts, the quality and expertise of the judges, and the administration of justice

O.C.G.A. 47-2-290 & 47-23-25 & 81 Manage state funds related to state courts' retirement system

Council of Magistrate Court Judges

O.C.G.A. 15-10-7

Effectuate constitutional and statutory responsibilities, further the improvement of magistrate courts and the administration of justice, assist magistrates in the execution of their duties, and promote and assist in the training of magistrates

Council of Probate Court Judges

O.C.G.A. 15-9-15

Effectuate constitutional and statutory responsibilities and further the improvement of the probate courts and the administration of justice

O.C.G.A. 16-11-129

Create specifications for uniform weapons carry licenses

Council of Municipal Court Judges

O.C.G.A. 36-32-40

Effectuate constitutional and statutory responsibilities, further the improvement of the municipal courts and the administration of justice, assist municipal courts in the execution of their duties, and promote and assist in the training of municipal judges

Magistrate Court Judges Training Council

O.C.G.A. 15-10-136

Prescribe minimum training hours for magistrates, approve schools and provide minimum qualifications for instructors, issue certifications

Probate Court Judges Training Council

O.C.G.A. 15-9-100

Advise and coordinate with Institute of Continuing Judicial Education concerning programs for probate judges, assist probate judges in improving the operations of the courts

Municipal Court Judges Training Council

O.C.G.A. 36-32-26

Approve schools and provide minimum qualifications for instructors, issue certifications to municipal judges, prescribe minimum requirements for curricula and standards for certification training

Council of Superior Court Clerks

O.C.G.A. 15-6-50.2

Effectuate constitutional and statutory responsibilities, further the improvement of the superior courts and the administration of justice, assist the superior court clerks throughout the state in the execution of their duties, and promote and assist in the training of superior court clerks

Source: Statute; Supreme Court orders

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

48

Appendix D: AOC Organization Chart

Judicial Council

AOC Director

Administration

Office of Governmental and Trial Court
Liaison

Office of Human Resources

Office of Communication
& Outreach

Office of General Counsel

Financial Administration
Division

Court Services Division

Administration

Information Technology
Division

Georgia Commission
on Family Violence
Justice for Children

Office of Research, Planning & Data Analysis
Office of Children, Families, & the
Courts

Child Support Collaborative

1 Includes support to the Commission on Interpreters Source: AOC

Office of Accountability
Courts & Grants Maangement
Office of Certification &
Licensing

Board of Court Reporting
Language Access Program1

County & Municipal Probation Advisory Council

Office of Dispute Resolution

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

49

Appendix E: Council Organization Charts

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

50

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results

The Department of Audits and Accounts distributed an electronic survey to 1,237 active superior, state, juvenile, magistrate, probate, and municipal judges for whom we had valid email addresses. We received 638 responses, a 52% response rate. Not all respondents answered every question. The percentages presented coincide with the number of respondents for each question, indicted in parentheses. Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.

1. Class of Court (638)

Juvenile

Magistrate

9%

29%

Municipal 17%

Probate 13%

State 13%

Superior 20%

2. How would you describe the county in which your court operates? (624)

Rural

Suburban

46%

31%

Urban 23%

3. Number of years as a judge in current court class (631)

4 or fewer years

5-8 years

9-12 years

26%

19%

14%

More than 12 years 41%

4. In the last 2 years, have you served on any of the following entities? (622) Judicial Council Judicial Council Committees Trial Court Council Executive Committee Trial Court Council Legislative Committee Other Trial Court Council Committee(s) None of the above
1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

12% 18% 11% 12% 20% 61%

Court Management and Administration

5. Is your court served by a court administrator? (613) I do not have a court administrator. I have a court administrator who serves courts in multiple counties (e.g., district court administrators). I have a court administrator who serves multiple classes of courts in my county. I have a local court administrator who serves only my court.

48% 16% 13% 23%

6. Please note your agreements or disagreement with the following statements

Strongly Agree

I have the authority to operate my court as I choose (626)
20%

Uniform rules provide appropriate guidance and do not interfere with my
authority to operate my court (631) 21%

Agree

38%

57%

Neither Agree nor Disagree

20%

12%

Disagree

14%

5%

Strongly Disagree

7%

4%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

51

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

7. Which person/entity SHOULD have primary authority to determine the following? Chief Judicial Trial Court Chief Individual AOC Justice Council Council Judge Judge(s)

When uniform rule

should be amended

10%

47%

28%

9%

4%

2%

(623)

To implement e-filing

4%

25%

12%

30%

8%

6%

(623)

Court Administrator
<1%
5%

Court Clerk <1%
11%

What e-filing system to 3%
use (624)

To implement a case

management system

1%

(627)

Which case

management system to

1%

use (625)

What data is used to

measure court

1%

performance (624)

What performance data

is shared with the public

5%

(622)

Forms required and their 2%
content (624)

20% 11% 9% 33% 36% 24%

11% 7% 6% 17% 14% 15%

31% 40% 40% 18% 19% 30%

9% 17% 18% 6% 9% 20%

7%

7%

13%

4%

9%

10%

4%

11%

10%

16%

7%

3%

10%

4%

3%

4%

2%

3%

Training needed by each

3%

51%

26%

7%

6%

6%

<1%

<1%

judge (623)

Which court reporter to 1%
appoint (613)

How court reporters will

be managed and paid

2%

(611)

Which court interpreter 1%
to use (620)

3% 17% 4%

2%

27%

55%

2%

7%

2%

7%

30%

21%

5%

15%

3%

2%

28%

44%

2%

16%

3%

Measures to ensure court security (620)

3%

8%

4%

50%

21%

3%

11%

1%

Case Management and E-Filing

8. Does your court use an electronic case management system? (573)

Yes

No

71%

25%

Don't Know 4%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

52

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

9. Who was involved in the selection of the electronic case management system? (558)
Judges Court Clerk Court Administrator Local Government Don't Know I do not have an electronic case management system Other 1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

46% 43% 17% 18% 13% 21%
4%

10. Who was the final authority in selecting the electronic case management system? (559)

Judges Court Clerk Court Administrator Local Government Don't Know I do not have an electronic case management system Other 1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

35% 14%
2% 9% 17% 20% 3%

11. For superior court judges who preside over courts in multiple counties, please select the statement that best describes your courts' case management systems. (108)

All of my counties use the same type of case management system.

29%

I am not a superior court judge who presides over courts in multiple counties.

33%

My counties use different case management systems.

29%

None of my counties have a case management system.

9%

12. Please note your agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

Strongly

Neither Agree

Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

All courts should use the same type of case management or e-filing system. (569)
All courts within a class should use the same type of case management or e-filing system. (566)
All courts within a county should use the same type of case management or e-filing system. (565)
Each court should be able to choose its own case management or e-filing system as long as the system meets statewide standards. (569)
Each court should be able to choose its own case management or e-filing system. (564)

9% 14% 18% 18% 15%

21% 30% 32% 43% 36%

30% 26% 24% 16% 21%

30% 22% 19% 15% 20%

10% 9% 7% 7% 9%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

53

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

13. Does your court use a case management or e-filing system provided by AOC? (581)

Yes

No

Don't Know

15%

64%

20%

14. Which AOC-provided system? (449) Sustain Probate Court Info System Magistrate Court Info System Traffic Info Processing System Georgia Judicial Exchange (Child Support E-filing) Georgia Jury I do not use a system provided by AOC
1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

13% 2% 6% 2% 1%
<1% 76%

15. How satisfied are you with the AOC system? (357)

Fully Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Not Satisfied

9%

14%

4%

Don't Know/No Opinion
15%

I do not use a system provided
by AOC
58%

16. If you do not use an AOC system, why not? (470) AOC system does not meet my court's needs Other court classes in my jurisdiction were already using a different AOC system The court does not have the infrastructure to support an AOC system. I was not involved in determining the court's system Not Applicable Other
1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

16% 7% 3%
39% 31%
8%

17. Does your court utilize JCATS provided through the Council of Juvenile Court Judges (Juvenile Court judges only)? (57)

Yes

No

Don't Know

47%

46%

7%

18. How satisfied are you with JCATS (Juvenile Court judges only)? (52)

Fully Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Don't Know/No Opinion

13%

31%

10%

19%

I do not use JCATS
27%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

54

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

19. If you do not use JCATS, why not (Juvenile Court judges only)? (44) JCATS did not meet my court's needs Other court classes in my jurisdiction were already using a different system The court does not have the infrastructure to support JCATS I was not involved in determining the court's system Not Applicable Other
1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

11% 9% 9%
32% 36%
9%

20. If you have additional comments regarding case management or e-filing, please include them below. (81) Respondents argued both for and against a state-wide or uniform system with each side arguing their preferred approach would reduce the "politics" involved in choosing a system. Other comments differentiated between case management and e-filing, with most in favor of individual courts picking a case management system with more standardized e-filing. Several comments also proposed using the federal e-filing system as a model for Georgia.

Performance Measures

21. Would the following performance measures provide useful information for the management

of your court?

Don't

Yes No Know

Court user satisfaction - Court access and fairness of case handling (609)

57% 20% 22%

Clearance rate - Number of outgoing cases as a % of incoming cases (618)

68% 17% 16%

Time to disposition - Percent of cases disposed within a timeframe (616)

68% 19% 13%

Age of active pending caseload (615)

73% 16% 11%

Average number of times a trial scheduled prior to disposition (613)

58% 27% 15%

Percent of complete/accurate files retrieved within a time standard (612)

49% 24% 27%

Payments collected in established time standard (608)

54% 26% 19%

Number of citizens selected who are qualified and report to serve (574)

40% 28% 33%

Rate prospective jurors are used at least once in trial or voir dire (573)

33% 32% 35%

Court employee satisfaction (597)

61% 21% 17%

Average cost of processing a single case, by case type (605)

61% 21% 17%

22. Do you currently track any performance measures? (606)

Yes

No

31%

49%

23. If yes, which ones? (160) Commonly tracked performance measures included:
Case counts; Case disposition; and Case filing.

Don't Know 19%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

55

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

24. Is performance in the areas listed above routinely provided to any of the following groups? (560)

Local Governing Authority

22%

Public (via website or annual report)

7%

None

24%

I do not collect any of the performance measures

48%

Other

8%

1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

25. If you have additional comments regarding performance measures, please include them below (48) Most responses could be summarized as:
Performance measures are good in theory, but are difficult to standardize; Judges who use performance measures feel they are important for court management; or Judges who do not use performance measures feel they could be misused by the public, would be used to
grade or rate judges, and would not be reliable.

Families and Children

26. Does your court utilize foster care data provided by the Supreme Court Committee on Justice for Children? (175)

Yes

No

Don't Know

25%

52%

23%

27. Please select the statement that best describes your experience with programs that serve those convicted of family violence offenses. (420)

I do not handle family violence cases.
I prefer certified Family Violence Intervention Programs (FVIPs) to programs run by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles (SBPP) or the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) I prefer programs run by SBPP or GDC to FVIPs

47% 14%
1%

I only have FVIPs in my area

20%

I only have programs run by GDC or SBPP in my area

1%

I have neither a FVIP nor a program run by GDC or SBPP in my area 1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

16%

28. Has the family violence task force in your circuit effectively connected the various parties involved in family violence cases (law enforcement, courts, service providers, etc.)? (388)

Yes

No

Don't Know My circuit does not have a family violence task force

35%

9%

45%

11%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

56

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

Board of Court Reporting

29. Does your certified court reporter have the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their job to your satisfaction? (539)

Yes

No Don't Know I don't use certified court reporters for the majority of my cases

57%

2%

5%

36%

30. If you have filed a grievance with the Board of Court Reporting in the last two years, were you satisfied with how your concerns were handled? (443)

Yes No I have not filed a grievance with the Board of Court Reporting in the last two years

1% 8%

91%

County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council

31. Is your contract or governmental agreement with the misdemeanor probation providers

improved through the use of CMPAC's uniform contract standards? (529)

Yes

No Don't Know

I don't have a contract or governmental agreement with a

probation provider

19%

8%

47%

26%

32. Do misdemeanor probation officers have the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their

job to your satisfaction? (512)

Yes

No Don't Know

I don't have a contract or governmental agreement with a

probation provider

64%

8%

9%

19%

33. Do CMPAC compliance audits result in better services delivered by probation providers?

(511)

Yes

No Don't Know

I don't have a contract or governmental agreement with a

probation provider

18%

5%

56%

21%

Commission on Interpreters

34. In the last year, how often have cases in your court required the use of a court interpreter? (604)

None

Once a month Once a week

Once a Day More than Once a Day

27%

42%

18%

7%

7%

35. Are the court interpreters used in your court certified by the Georgia Commission on

Interpreters? (585)

Yes

No

Sometimes Don't Know

Not Applicable

I do not use interpreters

55%

6%

20%

11%

8%

36. How satisfied are you with the Commission's online registry of certified interpreters? (573)

Very Satisfied
16%

Somewhat Satisfied
21%

Not Satisfied 7%

I have not used the Commission registry
50%

Not Applicable I do not use interpreters
5%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

57

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

37. How satisfied are you with the Commission's assistance in locating an interpreter? (559)

Fully Somewhat Not

I have not requested Commission Not Applicable I do

Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied assistance in locating an interpreter not use interpreters

12%

15%

6%

61%

6%

38. Why are non-certified interpreters used in your court? (535) Certified interpreters are not available in my area. Interpreters are not certified in the languages commonly needed in my court. Not Applicable I use certified interpreters. Not Applicable I do not use interpreters. Other
1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

20% 10% 53% 13% 11%

39. Please select the statement that best describes your experience with certified and noncertified interpreters. (571)

Certified interpreters provide better services.

40%

There is no difference between the interpreters.

19%

Non-certified interpreters provide better services.

1%

I don't know.

31%

Not Applicable I do not use interpreters.

9%

1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

Commission on Dispute Resolution

40. How often are you involved in cases that use alternative dispute resolution? (605)

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

29%

28%

43%

41. How often do you use mediators certified by the Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution? (584) Frequently Sometimes Never Don't Know My cases do not use alternative dispute resolution

29%

19%

25%

9%

18%

42. Please select the statement that best describes your experience with certified and noncertified mediators (574)

Certified mediators provide better services.

32%

There is no difference between the two groups.

10%

Non-certified mediators provide better services.

0%

I don't know.

28%

My cases do not use alternative dispute resolution.

30%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

58

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

Accountability Courts Committee

43. How satisfied are you with the accountability court standards created by the Judicial Council Accountability Courts Committee? (542)

Fully Somewhat Not I have an accountability court, but I am not involved in an

Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

was not aware of standards

accountability court

16%

16%

3%

4%

61%

44. How satisfied are you with the process of certifying accountability courts (including the application and the review process) based on the Judicial Council standards? (486)

Fully Somewhat Not

My accountability court has not

Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

been certified

I am not involved in an accountability court

13%

16%

4%

4%

63%

45. Have you attended the Georgia Accountability Courts Conference in the past two years? (514)

Yes

No

I am not involved in an accountability court

18%

35%

47%

46. How satisfied were you with the information and resources provided at Georgia Accountability Courts Conference? (493)

Fully Somewhat Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

I am involved in an accountability court but have not attended the conference

I am not involved in an accountability court

10%

10%

1%

9%

69%

General Assembly/Legislation

47. Who best represents the views of your court class before the General Assembly?

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Chief Justice (494) Judicial Council (552)

14% 36%

15% 18%

28% 20%

22% 14%

Trial Court Council (508)

39%

16%

16%

12%

Individual Judges (522)

32%

27%

17%

12%

AOC (513)

18%

17%

24%

15%

1Percentages correspond to the row. Some respondents voted for more than one entity as the 1st rank.

5th 21% 11% 17% 12% 26%

48. Please indicate if another entity represents the views of your court class before the General Assembly. (45) The most common answers were either a lobbyist or the court council. Other entities mentioned include the AOC, the Georgia Municipal Association, and the State Bar.

49. During the legislative sessions, do you track the status of legislation that may affect your

court? (599)

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

58%

38%

3%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

59

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

50. Do you use legislative reports complied by any of the following? (592)

AOC

Court Council Staff/lobbyists

I do not use a report from either group

I do not track legislation

62%

59%

10%

5%

1Multiple answers possible per respondent, so percentages will not equal 100%

Other 4%

Support by AOC and Court Council Staff

51. Have you contacted your court council's staff within the past year? (607)

Yes

No

My council does not have dedicated staff

50%

46%

3%

52. If yes, for what reason? (237) Common answers included: training, legal questions, appointment of judges, council and committee business, accountability courts, tracking legislation, retirement, and information technology. Additionally, judges from each court class mentioned specific reasons:
Juvenile grants Superior administrative issues, death penalty, budget, and human resources State case counts, mentor programs, and feasibility study in traffic violations bureau Magistrate status on rules Municipal coordination on issues

53. How satisfied were you with the staff's response? (495)

Fully Somewhat Not Satisfied
Satisfied Satisfied

I have not contacted court council staff within the past year

55%

6%

1%

37%

54. Have you contacted AOC staff within the past year? (557)

Yes

No

44%

56%

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

60

Appendix F: DOAA Judicial Survey and Results (continued)

55. Please indicate the reason and your

Fully Somewhat

level of satisfaction

Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Applicable

Information technology assistance for my court

26%

17%

6%

(471)

AOC support of a Judicial Council Committee

29%

19%

4%

(459)

AOC support of the council representing my

31%

20%

8%

court class(455)

Assistance with legislation (458)

25%

21%

8%

Certification standards for my accountability

13%

13%

4%

court (446)

State funding for my accountability court (442)

11%

11%

6%

51% 48% 41% 45% 70% 72%

Caseload counts of other data (454)

26%

25%

6%

Other (please enter reason in the space below)

13%

6%

4%

(294)

43% 77%

56. Other reason (40) Other common reasons for contacting AOC included: issues with court reporting or interpreters, immigration rules, judicial training and education, and court administration in rural counties.
57. If you have additional comments regarding support from AOC or court council staff, please include them below (85) Comments regarding the court councils were overwhelmingly positive. Comments regarding AOC were a larger mix of positive and negative. The most common negative responses were:
AOC answers to the Supreme Court and/or the Chief Justice; AOC does not help judges do their day-to-day job of operating a court; Poor customer service/response and failure to deliver services; and AOC is an administrative bureaucracy. The most common positive responses were: AOC provides good support of statewide issues and initiatives; AOC provides good customer service and prompt responses; and AOC staff provide good service considering their limited resources.

Administrative Office of the Courts & Court Councils

61

Appendix G: AOC Statutory Duties

O.C.G.A. 15-5-24
O.C.G.A. 15-7-26 O.C.G.A. 15-9-15 O.C.G.A. 15-10-132 & 134 O.C.G.A. 36-32-24 O.C.G.A. 36-32-40 O.C.G.A. 42-8-101, 50-4-3 O.C.G.A. 15-14-27 O.C.G.A. 9-11-4.1 O.C.G.A. 15-1-15,16 O.C.G.A. 9-10-14 O.C.G.A. 15-12-40.1 O.C.G.A. 19-13-32 O.C.G.A. 16-12-141.1 O.C.G.A. 50-18-92, 100 O.C.G.A. 15-1-14 Source: Statutory review

Consult with and assist judges, administrators, clerks of court, and other employees of the court on matters related to court administration
Examine administrative and business methods and system employed in offices related to the courts and make recommendations for improvement
Compile statistical and financial data on judicial work of the courts and on the work of offices serving the courts, which shall be provided by the courts
Analyze data related to civil cases
Examine the state of dockets, practices, and procedures of the courts and make recommendations on the expedition of litigation
Act as fiscal officer and submit budgets for the maintenance and operations of the judicial system
Formulate and submit recommendations for the improvement of the judicial system Perform other duties as assigned by the Judicial Council Prepare and publish an annual report on the work of the courts and AOC activities
Provide technical services to the Council of State Court Judges and assist in complying with its legal requirements
Provide staff and related administrative and clerical functions upon request
Provide technical services to the Council of Probate Court Judges and, upon request, serve as agent for supervising and implementing contracts
Serve as a nonvoting member of and secretary to the Magistrate Courts Training Council
Serve as a nonvoting member of and secretary to the Municipal Courts Training Council
Provide technical services to the Council of Municipal Court Judges and, upon request, serve as agent for supervising and implementing contracts
Provide staff and record keeping, reporting, and related administrative and clerical functions to the County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council
Provide administrative services to the Judicial Council Board of Court Reporting and serve as secretary of the Board
Develop tests and other criteria for the certification of process servers
Develop and manage electronic information system for performance measurement and accept data from drug and mental health courts
Promulgate and publish forms for use by inmates of state and local penal and corrections institutions in actions against the state and local governments and government agencies and officers
Receive driver's license information and a list of registered voters for the purpose of jury lists
Serve as a representative on the Commission on Family Violence
Provide statistics to the Department of Community Health
Establish retention and microform standards for the courts with the State Records Committee
Administer foreign language and hearing-impaired interpreters' rules, requirements, and enforcement

The Performance Audit Division was established in 1971 to conduct in-depth reviews of state-funded programs. Our reviews determine if programs are meeting goals and objectives; measure program results and effectiveness; identify alternate methods to meet goals; evaluate efficiency of resource allocation; assess compliance with laws and regulations; and provide credible management information to decision-makers. For more information, contact
us at (404)657-5220 or visit our website at www.audits.ga.gov.