| |
Court-Related Offices Cost County Money
Posted 7-19-2004
You may have read some recent
news that a certain county-elected official claimed that the commissioners
were trying to balance the budget on the backs of offices like his. That
court-related row officer brought to light the question: just what do the
courts and the court-related offices cost the county, or are they somehow a
"cash cow" for the commissioners when we develop the county's overall
budget. Overall, the courts and court-related offices brought in $19.2
million in 2003 and had expenses of $49.7 million. So, the cost to the
county was $30.5 million.
First, I would like to
explain that offices or departments are not individual entities, but are
part of the larger entity of county government. Some may bring in more money
than they spend in a particular year, but when that does not happen, the
commissioners do not have the option of eliminating that function. Being a
large non-profit organization, most county offices do not bring in more than
they spend. That is why taxes are necessary to pay for those functions.
But to better define this
issue, let me describe all of the offices involved in the broader term of
"the courts". There are the actual courts themselves and the court
administrator's office. The judges and several members of the court
administrator's office are employees of the commonwealth, and the rest of
the employees are the county. The courts brought in $991,915 of revenue in
2003 and had expenses of $4.5 million. The district justices, who are also
employees of the commonwealth (although their staffs are not), brought in
$1.1 million of revenue and had expenses of $3.3 million.
The story is similar with the
court-related row offices. The district attorney's office brought in $58,000
of revenue last year but had expenses of $3.3 million. The sheriff's office
brought in $1.1 million of revenue and had $3.4 million of expenses. The
clerk of courts office, the keeper of criminal court records, had revenues
of $650,000 and expenses of $1.1 million. The coroner had revenues of
$15,000 and expenses of $598,000. The two exceptions were the register of
wills office, with revenues of $649,000 and expenses of $592,000 and the
prothonotary's office, with revenues of $959,000 and expenses of $791,000.
So while the latter two
offices did bring in more revenue than expenses in 2003, they were not out
on the street marketing their services. The fact that the other row offices
had such sizable differences between revenues and expenses is more a
reflection that the criminal side of the court system is not profitable, but
a consistent draw from the county's resources. The prothonotary's revenues
reflect the litigious nature of our society, and the register of wills
revenues come primarily from fees filed for wills and marriage licenses.
Those offices do not market their services. Either people need those
services, or they do not.
Other significant offices
that are part of the court system that deal with criminal offenders also
cost the county more than they bring in. The public defender's office had
virtually no revenue, but expenses of $1.1 million. Adult probation brought
in $2.7 million of revenue in 2003, but had expenses of $4.7 million.
Juvenile probation brought in $325, 000 and had expenses of $2.3 million.
Juvenile detention brought in $1.61 million and had expenses of $1.77
million. The placement of juveniles at non-county facilities resulted in
$8.1 million in revenue, against $10.2 million in expenses.
The biggest individual
function in the court system is the operation of the Westmoreland County
Prison. In 2003, we saw revenues of $393,000 and expenses of $10.97 million.
We are working diligently to drive down costs. Costs per meal for inmates
are down to $0.93 per meal. And by charging rent to inmates (though much
goes uncollected), we have realized annual revenue of $60,000. But until the
commonwealth allows county prisons to serve the function they were created
to do, hold inmates until trial and their sentencing rather than allowing
sentences to be served in county prisons, we are not likely to see a
dramatic change in the prison's bottom line.
The statistics that I have
shared show that the courts, and the greater criminal justice system, are
not "profitable" -- at least for county governments. We are always looking
for ways to increase efficiency and minimize expenses. For example, the
courts are on the verge of implementing video arraignments for the district
justices. The impact on the transportation of prisoners should help reduce
expenses, not only for the county, but also for local police. Once the
criminal division of the Common Pleas Court utilizes video conferencing, we
should see a reduction in the expenses of the sheriff's office, as it will
be able to lessen the number of trips between the prison and the courthouse.
The underlying message is
that county government is not a bunch of separate competing entities, but
the sum of all departments and elected offices. While individual managers
and elected officials are responsible for their piece of the county's
budget, the overall responsibility rests with the commissioners. We expect
and need the cooperation of others within county government so that we can
serve you in the most cost-effective manner possible. |
