Skip to content
Quick Start for:


Article IV:
Judiciary

Total expenditures for programs in Article IV rose from $78.9 million in fiscal 1990 to $186.6 million in 2002, an increase of 136.6 percent. In real (1990) dollars, the total grew to $131.1 million, a 66.3 percent increase. In 2002, Article IV represented 0.35 percent of all spending used in the statewide index calculation.

The review team created 44 separate expenditure indices for Article IV agencies, all of them based either on salary and wage expenditures per FTE or expenditures per 10,000 Texans.

The combined Article IV expenditure index rose to 1.78 during the 1990-2002 period, representing a 78 percent increase in expenditures per workload unit.

The largest individual Article IV indices for 2002 include:

10.70, for “All Other” (non-salary) Supreme Court spending. Expenditures under this index rose from $328,000 in fiscal 1990 to $6 million in 2002, or by 1,742 percent; in real terms, the rise was 1,240 percent. Most of this dramatic growth was attributable to the 1997 Legislature’s creation of the Basic Civil Legal Services program, as well as Metropolitan Court Backlog Reduction, a 1999 initiative intended to equalize workloads among various courts of appeals. This index accounted for 3.2 percent of all Article IV expenditures in fiscal 2002.

4.97, for “All Other” (non-salary) Office of Court Administration (OCA) spending. Expenditures within this index rose from $1.6 million in fiscal 1990 to $13.6 million in 2002, a 756.2 percent increase; real (1990 dollars) expenditures rose by 523.1 percent. “All Other” real expenditures per 10,000 Texans rose by 397.3 percent over the study period. This growth reflected the addition of new OCA responsibilities, including the addition of court masters to hear child support enforcement cases in fiscal 1994; the Judicial Committee on Information Technology’s effort to enhance information technology in state courts; and the 2001 addition of eight foster care courts. In addition, the 2001 Legislature authorized OCA to make grants to counties for indigent defense services. In fiscal 2002, grant expenditures totaled $7.9 million. Fiscal 2002 expenditures for the index accounted for 7.3 percent of all Article IV expenditures.

Only two other Article IV indices exceeded 2.0:

2.90, for “All Other” (non-salary) Tenth Court of Appeals District spending. Expenditures for this index rose from $66,000 in fiscal 1990 to $328,000 in 2002 (400.5 percent); the real increase was 263.9 percent. Real expenditures per 10,000 Texans rose by 190.4 percent. Fiscal 2002 expenditures for the index accounted for 0.2 percent of all Article IV expenditures.

2.30, for “All Other” (non-salary) Comptroller Judiciary Section spending. This index covers state spending related to judicial salaries and other payments distributed by the Comptroller’s office. Expenditures in this index rose from $9.8 million in 1990 to $39 million in 2002 (296.5 percent); in real terms, the growth was 188.5 percent, and was largely attributable to a variety of new payments, including salary supplements to county judges and county attorneys and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Prison Prosecution Unit. The county salary supplements are distributed as grants to counties, which then use the funding to pay eligible persons. “All Other” real expenditures per 10,000 Texans rose by 130.3 percent from 1990 to 2002. Fiscal 2002 expenditures for this index accounted for 20.9 percent of all Article IV expenditures.

The index with the largest share of 2002 Article IV spending was Comptroller Judiciary Section payments for salary and wages, at $68.9 million or 36.9 percent of all Article IV spending. Expenditures for this index rose by 72.1 percent, from $40 million in 1990. In real (1990) dollars, expenditures rose by 18 percent. The number of FTEs for this index rose from 525 to 570.7 over the study period, producing a cumulative increase in salary and wage real expenditures per FTE of 8.5 percent and an index of 1.09. (FTEs under this index represent visiting and district court judges eligible to receive funding.)