Staffing study finds widespread turnover and pay gaps; recommends wages at living standard and a statewide time study

The Office of Court Administration (OCA) presented results of a statewide staffing and salary study for court support personnel on Dec. 13, 2024, telling the Texas Judicial Council that turnover, recruitment difficulties and wage gaps affect operations in many counties and court types. Jeffrey Suvakawa, OCA staff, said the study used surveys, interviews, FOIA requests and contractor analysis from the Texas A&M Public Policy Research Institute (PPRI).

"The staffing study was…to develop a database of the number of staff in 2023 working across the courts," Suvakawa said, summarizing the project’s scope and objectives. The study surveyed roughly 1,300 people and received 335 completed responses (about a 27% response rate). PPRI submitted FOIA requests to all 254 counties for personnel records; OCA received usable data from 181 counties. The study team also conducted interviews and two Delphi panels to refine findings and tools.

Key findings the council heard: - Recruitment and retention pressures: About 72% of survey respondents described workloads as heavy, and roughly 45% said retaining staff is somewhat or very difficult. Clerk’s offices reported higher retention difficulty than court staff. - Court reporter shortage and pay disparity: Court reporters were repeatedly identified as the hardest role to hire and retain. Reported pay varied widely across jurisdictions — OCA reported ranges that the study found from roughly $50,000 in some areas to six-figure averages in urban centers, with some urban reporters earning substantially more when paid for transcript work. - Living-wage gap: Using a federal living-wage formula, the contractor estimated that about 35% of court and clerk personnel statewide earn below a county-level living-wage benchmark; that share was roughly 18% for court staff and 43% for clerk’s office staff in the submitted data. - Data completeness: PPRI noted county-to-county variation in record formats; several counties did not supply FOIA data in a usable form.

The contractor’s recommendations presented to the council included increasing salaries to at least a living-wage standard, creating a standardized pay scale, conducting a statewide time study to better estimate staffing needs, improving technology and training, and exploring retention incentives such as bonuses or other nonmonetary supports. Suvakawa said a final report was expected to be delivered to OCA by the end of the day and is due to the legislature by Jan. 1.

Council members discussed possible legislative and non-legislative responses, including whether a Senate Bill 22–style funding approach could be adapted for court staff and whether counties could implement retention bonuses or training and recognition programs. Several members urged attention to morale, leadership development, and low-cost non‑monetary incentives in addition to pay.

The study team said PPRI will provide a staffing-tool prototype for local use that estimates staffing needs based on tasks; OCA said the tool will be refined and distributed to courts and clerk offices.

Ending: The council accepted the presentation and offered feedback; no formal council vote on the study recommendations was taken during the meeting.