Financial picture worsens for Marion County courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

shortfall-factbox.jpgIndianapolis’ court system is used to making do with less, chipping away so far this year at a deficit of more than $2.6 million. Next year, money is expected to be substantially tighter.

“Ballpark … we’re looking at about $4.6 million in terms of shortfall” in the 2015 budget, said Sue Patterson, director of finance for Marion Superior Courts.

Some of the factors that will impact court funding in Marion County next year are likely to be felt in court systems around the state. An additional payroll period falls next year, health care costs are projected to rise, and probation officers are scheduled to receive a 2.2 percent salary increase.

Patterson and Marion Superior judges have been outspoken about needs they say that aren’t being met. The county’s probation department, for instance, addressed being shortchanged about $700,000 this year by simply not filling a couple dozen open positions in the department staff of roughly 200.

The courts also routinely deal with persistent shortfalls to support guardians ad litem appointed to represent juveniles in child in need of services cases.

“We’re seeing an increase in CHINS cases and an increase in criminal filings,” said Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch. At the same time, “Revenues in general are decreasing.”

welch-heather-2014mug Welch

Welch chairs the Marion Superior budget committee formed last year as the courts sought to find ways to save money and make their case amid chronic underfunding from state and local sources. The panel consists of eight judges and Patterson to ensure input from those with experience across all areas of court operations.

“One of the most important reasons we (formed the committee) is to develop a process that identifies the high priorities to be funded,” Welch said. “That’s our responsibility to taxpayers as elected officials.”

The courts received some good news June 23 from the City-County Council of Indianapolis and Marion County, which appropriated $900,000 to close the funding gap for guardians ad litem. But the money is only projected to last until September, when the courts will likely have to return to seek another appropriation.

Patterson had warned judges during prior meetings of the Marion Superior Executive Committee that budgeted funding for guardians ad litem would be exhausted in the summer without some relief.

“This funding crisis has been around for a while and they have been spending down their reserves,” said Democratic City-County Councilman Joe Simpson, who sits on the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. “Now they’re at the point where they won’t have any reserves.”

Simpson said the county needs to find a dedicated source of funding to support a worthy program.

Republican City-County Councilwoman Marilyn Pfisterer co-sponsored the increase for guardians ad litem. A former court-appointed special advocate, she said “there needs to be a stable source of funding and something that the system can depend on year to year.

“It has been a chronic situation that the guardian ad litem (program) does have a shortfall just about every year that I can remember,” Pfisterer said.

Guardian ad litem boost?

The cost of paying for guardians ad litem in CHINS cases is supposed to be shared between the state and county, but counties complain they’re picking up a greater share of the cost.

Leslie Dunn, director of the Indiana Office of Guardian Ad Litem/Court Appointed Special Advocates, said the office is performing a statewide needs assessment with the intent to go to the Legislature next year and seek an increase in the roughly $2.9 million in state funding budgeted annually for GALs.

“We want to make sure we’re not asking for too much or asking for too little,” Dunn said.

Marion County typically receives about 20 to 25 percent of the state funding for services, proportional to the number of children served. But Patterson said the state’s share only covers about 16 percent of the total cost to serve children in abuse and neglect cases, leaving the county to pick up the remainder.

Counties have little choice after the Court of Appeals’ 2009 ruling, In the Matters of N.S. & J.M. v. T.S. and S.B., and C.L. and B.M., 908 N.E. 2d 1176. There, the court concluded that under state law, “It is clear that the burden of paying for services rendered by GALs or CASAs should be attributed to and paid for by the county.”

But I.C. 33-24-6-4 spells out a funding role for the Legislature if it so chooses, along with a local match from counties receiving the funding.

While the Court of Appeals decision put the onus for funding on counties, it also established the right of every child to representation in a CHINS case, said Cindy Booth, executive director of Child Advocates Inc., which provides GAL/CASA services in Marion County courts.

“Even though we use volunteers, we have to have staff to manage the volunteers, recruit them, provide office space and so on,” Booth said. “If there is such a gap, the county must fund.”

The average cost per GAL case is about $628, Booth said, and the state hasn’t increased funding since 2007. That’s resulted in rising costs for Marion County.

While court officials must return to the City-County Council periodically for additional sums to make sure children in abuse and neglect cases have a voice in court, Booth said the money has always been approved. “For some reason the controller for the county has not appropriated enough money from the beginning,” she said, even though costs could likely be estimated to within about $50,000.

Still, she said, “Marion County has been very responsive and very responsible to make sure every child has an advocate in every case.”

But some counties have significant waiting lists, Dunn said – Madison, St. Joseph and Vanderburgh among the largest. That’s why she’s asking program directors around the state who operate on shoestring budgets to assess their needs to make the case for more state funding. That would alleviate the pressure on counties feeling the strain while making sure children are represented.

“We are looking at, right now, what would it take to serve all the children across the state,” Dunn said.•


  • Child Advocates do not help the children!
    Child Advocates profited over 6 million last year alone. They are bullies & do not act in children's best interests but rather their own. They placed my children full time with their unlicensed alcoholic father despite recommendations for over 5 yrs. Meanwhile my children have medical conditions left untreated living with their father and their education has suffered greatly. Get these people terminated!!!
  • Ask
    Ask Spicoli over at SmackedForum. He should know the situation really well. Then when you see what he has to say about citizens of Indiana you might think twice about who you elect in the Superior Courts.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

    2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

    3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

    4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

    5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues