Prioritizing Courthouse Projects Even During a Spending Freeze

Imagine a statewide courthouse portfolio spanning dozens of facilities including urban courthouses operating at or beyond capacity, smaller rural buildings with aging security infrastructure, and historic facilities carrying years of deferred maintenance. Each courthouse has a legitimate need, yet funding is limited and often unpredictable. 

When capital dollars tighten or disappear altogether, it can be tempting to pause planning and wait for better conditions. In reality, this is precisely the moment when planning must continue, because the court still needs a clear understanding of which projects pose the greatest risks and which can safely wait.

Without an objective framework in place, funding gaps often lead to reactive and subjective decisions. A highly visible renovation may advance because it feels easier to justify, while a less visible but higher-risk project such as a failing building system or a security deficiency is deferred. When that overlooked issue later disrupts court operations or creates a safety incident, the court is forced into emergency spending with fewer options and higher costs. 

Continuing to plan and prioritize during funding droughts does not commit a court to immediate spending; it ensures that when dollars do become available, they are directed to the projects that matter most.

As a court consultant who specializes in prioritization scoring, my work focuses on helping judicial systems make defensible, data-driven decisions about which projects move forward when resources are both in abundance and, more importantly, when they are limited. Spending freezes place intense pressure on courts to pause capital investments, but they also make it clear that not all courthouse projects carry the same level of risk or value.

Spending Freezes Demand Precision, Not Blanket Pauses

Not all courthouse projects are created equal. Treating all projects the same during a freeze can unintentionally create greater costs, liabilities, and operational failures in the future. Some courthouse projects address immediate life-safety, security, or structural risks, while others are driven by long-term capacity or efficiency goals. A blanket pause ignores this distinction. Precision allows courts to identify which risks will escalate quickly if left unaddressed and which can safely wait.

Operational Impact Is Quantifiable and Significant

Courthouse projects are frequently initiated because existing facilities cannot support current or projected caseloads. Through prioritization scoring, we measure operational impact by analyzing metrics such as courtroom utilization, staff inefficiencies, and reliance on leased or temporary space.

Projects with high operational impact scores tend to worsen quickly when delayed. Caseload growth does not pause during a spending freeze, and inefficiencies compound over time. Prioritization models consistently show that delaying these projects creates downstream costs that outweigh short-term savings.

Prioritization Scoring Creates Transparency and Trust

Perhaps most importantly, prioritization scoring provides transparency. During a spending freeze, courts must explain why some projects move forward while others do not. A clear, defensible scoring methodology allows leadership to communicate decisions based on objective criteria rather than perceived preference.

From a consultant’s perspective, this transparency builds trust with judges, staff, funding authorities, and the public, especially in times of fiscal constraint.

Conclusion

Prioritization is not about choosing to spend more; it is about choosing to spend wisely. When courts rely on structured, data-driven scoring, they can navigate spending freezes while still protecting public safety, access to justice, and the long-term integrity of the judicial system.

When funding is unavailable, it can be easy to view courthouse projects as stalled and prioritization as unnecessary. In reality, the opposite is true. Prioritization is not about spending money, but rather understanding risk, maintaining accountability, and protecting the core functions of the justice system. Even without funding, courts must continue to identify which facility needs pose the greatest threats to safety, access to justice, and operational continuity.

Ongoing courthouse project prioritization ensures that risks do not fade into the background simply because budgets are constrained. It creates clarity, discipline, and readiness, allowing courts to respond quickly and defensibly when conditions change or funding opportunities emerge. Most importantly, it reinforces the principle that fiscal restraint does not eliminate responsibility. By continuing to prioritize projects even during funding gaps, courts safeguard public trust, manage long-term costs, and ensure the justice system remains resilient.