Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06261990 - 2.3 -003 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR ��,. Contra County Administrator f Costa rn st O: DATE: June 26, 1990 County C iY SUBJECT: CONFLICT DEFENSE SERVICES Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept report from the County Administrator on the status of the Contra Costa County Bar Association's Conflict Defense Program and on other alternatives for handling conflict defense cases. 2. Request that the Contra Costa County Bar Association review its current conflict defense program, explore the feasibility of more cost effective options, and report back to the Board of Supervisors through the County Administrator's Office by July 16, 1990. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Financial impact is unknown at this time. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing cost associated with County conflict defense services and the ever tightening of the County budget, the Board .of Supervisors requested that the County Administrator review current operations and explore alternatives. Current Status of Conflict Defense Services The purpose of the Conflict Defense Services budget is to provide for the legal defense of indigents in criminal and related cases that the Public Defender cannot represent because of a conflict of interest. This defense is required by state statute and case law. Legal representation of indigents in conflict cases is provided with appointed private attorneys. Prior to fiscal year 1983-84, such counsel had been appointed directly by a judge. Since July 1, 1984, appointment of counsel has been made by the Contra Costa County Bar Association under contract with the County. In addition selected cases require the appointment of counsel directly by the judges which also represents a mandated County cost. Projected total caseload for 1989-90 is 2,800, an increase of approximately 500 cases over last year. In fiscal year 1988-89 the Bar Association completed 2,313 cases, which included 1 Class I/Capital case and 9 Class II/Homicide cases. In 11 months of 1989-90 the Bar has completed 2,617 cases. This represents an increase of 21% in new caseload over the same period last fiscal year. This growth in caseload is due to total growth in , the number of multiple co-defendant cases handled by the Public Defender's Office. Because the Public Defender has experienced an increase in dependency cases and drug cases in Bay Court, the number of defendants requiring conflict attorneys has increased. This increase is due to he fact that the Public Defender can only represent one defendant per case and the n er of defendants per case is increasing. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s)- Action of Board on: June 26, 1990 Approved as Recommended X & Other X REQUESTED the County Administrator to further review the alternative methods to provide conflict defense services. Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN X Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent- Abstain: Attested: .74, /990 cc: County Administrator's Office All Batchelor, Clerk of Justice System Programs the.Board of Supervisors Public Defender's Office and County Administrator Bar Association By: DEPUTY Page Two r Historically this budget has been underfunded due to increases in number and magnitude of cases. The cost of this budget unit is based not only on the number of conflict and court appointed counsel cases, but also on the type and complexity of a case. The average cost per month has been $202,000. The estimated cost for fiscal year 1989-90 is $2,400,000. Alternatives There are three options available which would provide county-wide conflict defense services. Three of these options, which other California counties are using, are 1) Private Court Appointed Attorneys, as used in Sacramento County; 2) Conflicts Public Defender, as used in San Diego County; and 3) Conflicts Administrator, as used in Santa Clara County. Private Court Appointed Attorneys Sacramento County currently has an Indigent Criminal Defense Panel (ICDP) of private attorneys. These attorneys work on an individual basis with no contract, they are appointed and paid directly by the court. This program is similar to the program Contra Costa County employed prior to July 1, 1984 when we opted into a contract with the Bar Association. Recently a request for a County Conflicts Defense Office went to the Sacramento Board of Supervisors. The Municipal and Superior Courts were split on the issue of a Conflicts Defense Office for non-monetary reasons. The local Bar Association lobbied heavily against the proposal. The Sacramento Board of Supervisors rejected staff's proposal. Staff was directed to, "facilitate a dialogue with the judges and Sacramento County Bar Association to look at cost containment and quality control which could be applied to the present program and report back on July 24, 1990". Staff was directed to look at alternatives which did not include a Conflict Defense Office. Conflicts Public Defender On June 5, 1990 San Diego County's Board of Supervisors established a County Department of Conflict Public Defender. At the same time the Board of Supervisors voted to expand their Public Defender's staff to represent minors in dependency matters. This action should reduce their dependency cases conflicted due to too high attorney caseloads. Annualized cost savings beginning in fiscal year 1991-92 from implementation of the new office is estimated to be $.7 million. Prior to the decision to establish a Conflict Public Defender, appointments were coordinated through the Department of Alternate Defense Counsel (ADC), which assigned private attorneys to cases. Conflicts Administrator In February, 1990 the Santa Clara conflicts panel became a, private non-profit organization titled Conflicts Administration Program, Incorporated (CAPI) . Santa Clara County is currently negotiating a contract agreement with CAPI. Although all contract arrangements have not been completed, it looks as if this program will be very similar to our current contract with the Contra Costa County Bar Association. Prior to the establishment of CAPI, private attorneys were assigned and payed directly by the courts. Conclusion We 'suggest that your Board consider these options and provide further direction to the County Administrator. At this point it cannot be determined whether or not another conflict program would be more cost effective. California Counties are currently reviewing and revising their methods of handling conflict defense. At this point no one program seems to be seen as the "best" way of handling conflict defense services. Further analysis and review is required in order to make a determination for this county. Unfortunately due to the many elements involved in this program, any change in our current system will not be guaranteed to provide cost savings, but is expected to have a positive impact on the rate of increase. It is also important to point out that decision-making regarding alternative handling of conflict defense is constrained by the fact that this program is on-going. Any change in our current system will require a parallel program. for many months, which unfortunately will increase costs significantly for the transition period. The current Bar contract expires 6/30/92 and it would take approximately 9 months to implement alternatives to the contract.