Sunday, July 01, 2012

Harris County indigent defense costs up 142% over last decade, but case filings starting to drop

An email from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition last week alerted Grits to an interesting memo (pdf) from Jim Bethke of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission to a legislative staffer regarding the Harris County Public Defender Office (PDO). Bethke emphasized that there's a more formal and in-depth evaluation of the PDO coming from the Council of State Governments' Justice Center, but offered a preliminary analysis in response to the staffer's questions.

Perhaps most startling, check out the numbers on cost increases for indigent defense spending over the last decade in Harris County:



That's a whopping 142% total increase in indigent defense costs over the last decade, though it's interesting that the total declined slightly in 2011. Bethke suggests that decline "may be the result of greater emphasis placed on the functionality of the criminal justice system," including "alternative dispositions" and "taking greater care in case filings." But the more likely cause is a recent reduction in the total number of new cases filed:



Curtailing costs was a big reason why Harris County created its public defender office, though it's probably too early to judge its impact on that front. Importantly, though, the memo emphasized that cost isn't the only factor to consider regarding the value of indigent defense but also quality, portraying the new PDO as an alternative to "a meet-and-plead style of practice":
Realizing that attorneys’ high workloads can impede delivery of quality representation, the PDO has implemented workload standards that are consistent with national recommendations in an effort to safeguard defendants’ constitutional rights. Under these workload standards, attorneys are expected to meet promptly with clients and keep them informed of the case, conduct an investigation into the facts of a case, file appropriate motions, and ensure that defendants are informed and aware of the collateral effects of any plea. These performance guidelines were adopted by the State Bar of Texas and are now published as the Performance Guidelines for Non­Capital Criminal Defense Representation (State Bar of Texas 2011), which was adopted by the PDO as part of its own employee evaluation.

If attorneys carry a heavy caseload – perhaps one that allows only two hours per client – they may not be able to meet the guidelines established by the State Bar which prevent a meet-and-plead style of practice. Instead, tangible time and effort must be put into each case. Attorneys must meet with the client to conduct an interview regarding the facts of the case. They must also prepare a defense strategy, file appropriate motions, and conduct necessary discovery. Further, attorneys must inquire about the mental health needs of the defendant and determine if any mitigating factors are present. They may also need to have investigators go to the scene of the alleged crime and contact witnesses. Finally, if the defendant chooses to plead to the case, it must be done knowingly, with the defendant informed about the collateral consequences of the plea.
Go here for a discussion of the performance guidelines mentioned by Bethke. Anyone with a particular interest in the Harris PDO will want to read the full memo (pdf).

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The office is more about increasing quality than reducing costs in a conventional, obvious way. The office does reduce costs in a myriad of ways that aren't readily apparent: getting mental-health cases out of the criminal system because those are the most expensive people in the jail; aggressive use of motions for new trial in the appellate division to find trial error early (i.e. before the case goes up on direct appeal and then on a writ to ultimately reveal the same issue); and use of investigators early (i.e. without having to get the judge to sign a funding order) in trial cases to secure early dismissals that get the wrongly accused out of the jail.

Anonymous said...

The office is about political control of defense lawyers, which pols can't do under the present system.

Anonymous said...

Ooh, how interesting, Anonymous 2:44! I can't wait to hear your examples of political control of the office. I'm sure it's much worse than the current apointment system, which is completely free of political influence, especially in juvenile court!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

2:44, you're a joke! The contract attorney systems run by the judges are about "political control of defense lawyers." The PDO reduces politicization by any and every measure. Silly rabbit.

Anonymous said...

Political advocates spin statistics to support their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

The lead on this post is a bit misleading -- it seems to tie the Harris County PDO to the decade of increasing expenditures for indigent defense in Harris County that you are reporting. Whatever the causes of that 142% increase, the PDO cannot be included among them. The office did not come into existence until 2011, when, as the chart shows, expenditures actually declined when compared to the previous year. As you go on to explain, it probably is too early to judge the impact of the Public Defender's Office on indigent defense costs in the county.

Anonymous said...

The Harris County Public Defender is a good idea. Some of the lawyers are great ,but some unfortunately hired on because they could not cut it in private practice. The director needs to keep an eye on them to make sure they are doing the job they were hired to do.They can become a water cooler bunch very fast if not careful.

Anonymous said...

Any idea how much the DAs budget has increased in the same period?

Anonymous said...

Scott, here's a good read about corrupt defense attorneys in Harris county: http://www.chron.com/news/kilday-hart/article/Hart-A-public-defender-needs-no-cronies-3518838.php

Anonymous said...

A few caveats should have been noted: 1) The expenditures are not adjusted for inflation, so its comparing today's dollars with 2001 dollars. 2) Harris County per capita spending on indigent defense in 2011 was $6.53, which is below the statewide average of $7.89. Texas is near the bottom among state spending on indigent defense. Harris County would have to spend $5.44 million per year on indigent defense to meet the statewide average, assuming 4 million people in the county. Millions more than that to meet the national average. 3) Indigent defense spending has gone up since 2001 across all counties in Texas -- not just Harris County -- thanks in part to the increased quality controls required by the Fair Defense Act. If you think indigent defense is bad in Texas today, you should have seen what it was like before the Fair Defense Act passed.

Anonymous said...

Based on some vary lax numbers (Harris County doesn't have budgets before 2005 online), the DA's budget increased 87% to $56 million currently from $30 million in 2001/2000. The $30 million follows a 260% increase during Johnny Holmes's 23 year run, which I mention to note - the DA's office was nicely funded at the point when SB7 was signed where, as mentioned earlier, indigent defense was not.
Now: http://app.dao.hctx.net/OurOffice/JudgeLykos.aspx
2001: http://www.chron.com/news/article/County-has-budget-to-prosecute-with-a-vengeance-2009544.php

Thomas R. Griffith said...

Hey Grits, regarding the "Performance Guidelines for Non­Capital Criminal Defense Representation" - I can't believe my eyes, I just checked and found no signs of pink pigs overhead and yes it's 2012.

Despite this, could you verify if these guidelines are only meant for Public Defenders or are they intended for all that pose as criminal defense attorneys? Thanks.