Report 2014-107 Recommendation 21 Responses

Report 2014-107: Judicial Branch of California: Because of Questionable Fiscal and Operational Decisions, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts Have Not Maximized the Funds Available for the Courts (Release Date: January 2015)

Recommendation #21 To: Judicial Council of California

To ensure that it provides services to the trial courts as efficiently as possible, the Judicial Council should explore implementing a fee-for-service model for selected services. These services could include those that are little used or of lesser value to the trial courts, as identified in our survey that we discuss in Chapter 3.

Agency Response*

As part of its review of workforce capacity planning, the Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) will be looking at business process improvements using the recently adopted methodology for operational planning and alignment (see current status for recommendation 20) to determine if there are more cost effective means for providing services. Application of the methodology throughout the organization will support streamlining of services and activities. This, in turn, will assist with determining whether a fee-for-service model is applicable to the various services provided by the Judicial Council. A fee-for-service model will be a consideration when evaluating alternative, more cost-effective service delivery models. We anticipate reporting back on the evaluation of a fee-for-service model in the fourth quarter of 2017.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented


Agency Response*

The approach and timeframe outlined in the six-month response are on track.

  • Response Type†: 1-Year
  • Estimated Completion Date: Second quarter of 2017
  • Response Date: January 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

In response to our inquiry of when it would complete its actions, the AOC provided us with the following timeline:

2015: 3rd—4th Quarter

- Operational planning and alignment—planning and initiation

- Customer Input: 4 in-person listening sessions convened with trial and appellate leadership of small, medium, and large courts on current services and future needs

- Analysis initiated to inform planned survey

2016: 1st—2nd Quarter

- Customer input

o Listening sessions with Supreme Court and Judicial Council members

o Follow-up with statewide survey to customers/clients

- Survey analysis on customer and staff operations needs

- Operational plan and performance measures development building on Judicial Council strategic plan foundation

2016: 3rd Quarter—2017: 2nd Quarter

- Develop structure for obtaining ongoing customer input

- Develop methodology to implement organization-wide workload analysis and evaluate future staffing needs

2017: 2nd Quarter/Ongoing

- Organizational effectiveness evaluation using performance measures


Agency Response*

The Judicial Council has reevaluated the previously submitted timeline for this and related expansive recommendations and reduced it by six months. We now anticipate completing all tasks associated with the recommendations in Chapters 3 and 4 of the audit report by the second quarter of 2017.

  • Response Type†: 6-Month
  • Estimated Completion Date: Second quarter of 2017
  • Response Date: July 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending


Agency Response*

Once the customer service survey of the courts has been completed and a strategic plan finalized, we will then evaluate the potential of implementing a fee-for-service model. We anticipate that this will be completed in the second quarter of 2017.

  • Response Type†: 60-Day
  • Estimated Completion Date: Second quarter of 2017
  • Response Date: March 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending


All Recommendations in 2014-107

†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.

*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader