|
Measure
2.2.1: Prompt Payment of Moneys
This
measure is designed to evaluate whether a court promptly disburses moneys,
including those held in trust and those due in payment for services
rendered, once a determination has been made that the money should be
disbursed. Courts operate in different financial environments. Some courts
maintain direct control over all moneys coming into the court, while others
work with a local government agency that handles disbursements for the
courts. In taking this measure, the lines of authority and degree of control
the court has over the actual disbursement of funds must be considered. The
measure may have to be adapted to distinguish a court’s responsibility in
initiating a payment from another agency’s responsibility for making the
payment. Regardless of who is ultimately responsible for disbursement, it is
important that this task be performed promptly.
Planning/Preparation.
The first step is to review court policies and procedures for disbursements
of funds. Interview the court manager or the person directly responsible for
the relevant court policies and procedures. Potential areas for
investigation include policies governing the following activities:
-
Forwarding
collected child support payments or restitution moneys.
-
Returning
moneys held in trust by the court (e.g., bond).
-
Disbursing
fines and fees to government agencies.
-
Paying
moneys to vendors or jurors.
The
needed information covers the timeframes required for these payments, the
basis for each (e.g., court rule, policy, statute, or local procedure) and
the mechanisms utilized to monitor compliance with the schedules. A
determination also should be made whether annual financial audits are
performed in the court and whether their results are available. A review of
these reports will indicate if any deficiencies in the disbursement system
were recorded.
Data
Collection.
Examine records for each selected payment type for the 6 months prior to the
time of the evaluation. If more than 100 of the given payment types were
made during the period, take a random or interval (e.g., every third case)
sample of 100 or 20 percent, whichever is larger. (See also the
planning/preparation section for Measure 2.1.1,
Time to Disposition.) Record the date payments were ordered/approved
and the date payments were actually made. In addition, consider collecting
data on interim events between the date a payment was approved and the date
payment was made. This data may help to identify where the greatest delay
(if any) occurs in the process.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
The objective is to determine the percentage of disbursements that are made
within established timeframes, once disbursement has been ordered. To
accomplish this objective, construct a table that displays the amount of
time required for disbursement. The table can be constructed with weekly or
monthly intervals depending upon the maximum length of time allowed for
disbursement. If no timeframe has been specified, the average time for
disbursement of each type of payment should be computed. For example, child
support disbursements can be compared to the timeframes established under
the Family Support Act of 1988. In addition, the child support and other
payment data to other jurisdictions or those suggested in the literature can
be compared.
Compare
the information gathered from disbursement records with the applicable
statutory or procedural timeframe. The percentage of payments for each
category that are made within the allowable timeframe should also be
charted. The higher the percentage of payments within the timeframe, the
better the court’s performance is on the measure. Courts that have used
this methodology have found it relatively easy to implement; they have also
found the data to be valid and useful.
Go
to Measure 2.1.1
Go
to Standard 2.2
Go
to Table of Contents |
