HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02081994 - 2.2 ..... o}.: Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR n°'r�'c'un `ry County
County Administrator
DATE: February 8, 1994
SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING MEETING TO DISCUSS PROPOSAL FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE
FOR PRIVATE REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS
Specific Request( s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Accept report from the County Administrator on the proposal submitted by
the Ad Hoc Committee for Private Representation of Indigents ( 11/9/93
agenda, determination item 2 . 3) .
2 . Acknowledge meeting held to discuss aforesaid proposal with members of
the Ad Hoc Committee, representatives of the County Administrator's
Office and Supervisor Gayle Bishop.
3 . Reconfirm that the County' s current method of providing the defense of
indigents in criminal cases through the Public Defender's Office,
including the Alternate Defense Office, represents the most cost
efficient manner of handling such cases .
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 1993 the Board of Supervisors received a report from the
County Administrator regarding a proposal for the Representation of Indigents
which had been received from the Ad Hoc Committee for the Private
Representation of Indigents (see attached report) . At the November 9 meeting
the Board of Supervisors requested that a meeting be held with the Ad Hoc
Committee representatives to discuss the proposal . This meeting was held on
January 26 , 1994 and included the following people: Supervisor Gayle Bishop;
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator; Charles James and Susan Chapot, Public
Defender' s Office; George Roemer and Lisa Driscoll, County Administrator's
Office; Mel Hing, Peter Dodd and Allen Williams; Ad Hoc Committee.
Continued on Attachment:—X— YES Signature:
Recommendation of County. Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other
Signature(s) :
Action of Board on: "Pphriigry A, 1994 Approved as Recommended X Other-x-
The Board APPROVED the above recommendations, and in addition, REQUESTED staff to
communicate with ABAG, Marin County and Solano County relative to sharing information
and a possible joint project.
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.
Contact: George Roemer (646-4855) Attested: Fohn,ary 8,99+
cc: CAO-Justice System Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
Public Defender the Board of Supervisors
Ad Hoc Committee for Private and County Administrator
Representation of Indigents via Roemer QL-Q�
By: , DEPUTY
Page 2
February 8, 1994
A representative of the Ad Hoc Committee indicated that the proposal was
based upon FY 1991/92 data and expenditure information. Rather than pursue
the proposal in the form submitted, the group would now prefer to develop a
proposal utilizing fiscal year 1993-94 and 1994-1995 actual and estimated
expenditures . The group believes that a better proposal would be the result
of using more current data.
In order for the group to prepare a further proposal, representatives of the
Ad Hoc Committee requested the County Administrator to supply the following
information: 1) Actual expenditures of the Public Defender' s Office,
including the Alternate Defense Office, for the first six months of the
current fiscal year; 2) Estimated expenditures for the last six months of
the current fiscal year; and 3) Estimated expenditures for FY 1994/95 .
This Office has received no additional information which would cause any
change in our report to you on November 9, 1993 which concluded that the
Indigent Defense :Proposal from the Ad Hoc Committee would be significantly
more costly to the County than our current method of providing such services .
In view of the continuing high workload and challenges facing this Office and
the Public Defender's Office, we do not believe it is a valuable use of our
scarce resources Ito continue to analyze and evaluate a continuing number of
proposals .
'• To BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11/9/93 AGENDA
Determination 2.3
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR
County Administrator
DATE: November 9, 1993
SUBJECT:PROPOSAL FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR PRIVATE REPRESENTATION OF
INDIGE=NTS
Specific Requests or Recommendations(s) & Background usti ication
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Accept report from the County Administrator on the proposal submitted by the Ad
Hoc Committee for Private Representation of Indigents.
2. Acknowledge excellent work of the Public Defender in creating and implementing the
Alternate Defender's Office, thus avoiding the cost of conflicting out over 2,000
cases per year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The County Administrator's Office is not recommending that the San Mateo model be
implemented as it would not be cost effective for this County.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 1993 the Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of a proposal for the
representation of indigents in criminal and dependency cases from the Ad Hoc Committee
for Private Representation of Indigents. (This is a group of private attorneys that has
objected to the establishment of the Alternate Defender's Office.) The item was referred to
the County Administrator and Public Defender to review and report to the Board of
Supervisors.
The Ad Hoc Committee proposes that the Board of Supervisors reorganize the method of
representation of indigents in criminal and dependency cases by utilizing the San Mateo
County model. °Z�3
San Mateo County, which has never had a Public Defender's Office, utilizes a Private
Defender Program, sponsored by the Bar Association, to represent all indigent defense
cases. Attorneys on the private panel govern themselves and serve through invitation only.
Each is free to pursue other aspects of private practice. The statute does not require the
courts to use the program as is required in a Public Defender model. The contract is fee
based (plus trial time, plus 21 .5% overhead, plus special case costs). Because San Mateo
counts and pays for their felony cases in Municipal and again in Superior Court, the actual
number of felony cases are double counted. There is no cap on cost but the contract may
not be renewed if fees exceed contracted amounts. Any contract monies not spent by year
end are split among the participating attorneys; expenses over the contracted amount are
the responsibility of the County. An investigation was recently completed on billing
procedures in a '"Special Fee" case which criticizes control and review proc dures.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES Signature:
X Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
X Approve Other Signature(s):-Action of Board on: Approved as Recommended Other
Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THA S IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT C OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absen ) AND ENT ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOAF3;W SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
A d:
cc: CAO-Justice System-Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
Ad Hoc Committee for Private Repres. t oard of Supervisors
Public Defender and Cou dministrator
Contact: George Roemer 646-4855 By: TY
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
The Ad Hoc Committee proposal claims that utilizing San Mateo as a model would have
saved Contra Costa County more than four million dollars in FY 1991-92 and would
mobilize a system which would be better equipped to handle a larger number of cases with
greater expertise than our Public Defender system. The anticipated cost savings was
presented in a comprehensive and objective comparative study prepared under contract
with the Ad Hoc Committee by Mel Hing, former Alameda County Administrator. The heart
of the cost savings argument is summarized on Attachment A which is copied directly from
the report, Attachment B consists of the same summary corrected by the County
Administrator's Office for Contra Costa County, and Attachment C is a summary of Contra
Costa County's '1991-92 caseload.
In reviewing the cost comparison in Section A of Attachment A, it immediately became
apparent that the number of cases assumed to be opened in the Contra Costa County
columns was incorrect (see Attachment C). The 1,266 cases listed for Superior Court are
not felony Informations filed, but rather, calendar cases consisting of probation revocations,
bench warrants, PC 1026, PC 1388, etc. (It should be noted that all of these 1,266 cases
are generally handled by a single attorney in Contra Costa County. The San Mateo model
would cost 5600,084 for these cases.) The actual count of felony Informations filed in
Contra Costa County is approximately 2,646. Utilizing the same assumptions and
correcting the Superior Court number to 2,646 would mean a cost of $1,254,204 not
$600,084 (see Attachment B). The approximate cost of administrative expenses is
corrected in Attachment B also. In addition, the "Special Fees" section uses San Mateo's
twenty-one P.C. 187 (murder) cases for the base. Contra Costa county had forty-seven
such cases in 1991-92. Recalculating for this correction increases the Special Fees from
$2,190,196 to $4,901 ,865. In the summary of section A, the San Mateo model would
have cost Contra Costa County $2,203,369 more, even without factoring in the savings
from the Alternate Defender's Office.
Section B of Attachment A breaks-down the cost of conflicted costs. The San Mateo
system, by design, does not have any conflicts; however, the conflict costs of Contra
Costa County have been greatly reduced since the base year of 1991-92 due to the advent
of the Alternate Defender's Office. The Alternate Defender's Office handles approximately
2,460 cases per year, which were conflicted in the past, at a cost of $1 .1 million.
Additionally, approximately 50 cases per month are still being referred to the Bar
Association at a cost of approximately $600,000. Correcting the Conflict Defense cost
section for the reduced number of cases being referred to the Bar Association reduces the
cost from $3,250,731 to approximately $1,700,000.
Correcting the summation throughout Attachment A shows that an additional $3,754,100
would have been spent in FY 1991-92 had the San Mateo program been in effect in this
County and recognizing the cost savings this County would have realized if the Alternate
Defender's Office had been in operation during that time.
Based upon .this; analysis of the cost savings model utilized in the Ad Hoc Committee's
Report, it is clear that the San Mateo Bar Association's model is more expensive than our
Public Defender's Office, without an Alternate Defender's Office. It is even more expensive
when compared to our current system of a Public Defender's Office which handles the
majority of conflict cases through an Alternate Defender's Office:
ATTACHMENT A
(Copied from proposal of
Ad Hoc Committee for
Private Representation of
.1991-92 COST ESTIMATE AND COMPARISON Indigents)
1 OF PRIVATE v. PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
A. SAN MATEO COUNTY PRIVATE DEFENSE PROGRAM
San Mateo Co. Contra Costa Co.
------------------ ------------------
Case Types Rates Cases Costs Cases Costs
Opened Estd.
Superior Court $474 1,296 $ 614,304 1,266 $ 600,084
Municipal Court $207 16, 469 3 ,409,083 18,233a 3 ,774,231
Mental Health $235 898 211,030 924 217,140
Juvenile Welfare $347 596 206, 812 976 338, 672
Juvenile Court $102 3,056 311,712 2 ,748 280,296
Sub-totals 22 ,315 $4 ,752, 941 24,147 $5 , 210,423
21 .5% Administrative Expenses 1,021 , 882. 1,120,241
Special Fees 2 , 190 , 196b 2 , 190 ,196c
Total Costs $7 , 965,019,• $8 ,520,860
B. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM
1991-92 Actual Costs :
Public Defender $7 , 3021*287
Conflict Defense 3 ,250,731
Less: Total Costs -10 ,553,018
Estimated Savings -$2 ,032,158
Footnotes :
a-Includes 108 cases classified as "Other" in Contra Costa Co.
b-San Mateo Co. said this was high because of the Hunt Case.
c-Assumed same cost as San Mateo Co. , although there is no basis
to believe special fees were that high. No figures were avail-
able from Contra Costa Co.
• A'1"1'Al;t1Mr;N'1' li
1991-92 COST ESTIMATE AND COMPARISON (Attachment A as
OF PRIVATE v. PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY corrected by County
Administrator's Office)
A. SAN MATEO COUNTY PRIVATE DEFENSE PROGRAM
San Mateo Co. Contra Costa Co.
Cases costs
Case Types Rates Cases Costs Opened Estd.
Superior Court $474 1,296 $614 ,304 1,266 $6991984
(Felony Cases)
Superior Ct.Prob- $474 1,266 $600,084
Revoc. , 1368, etc.
Municipal Court $207 16,469 $3,409,083 18,233 $3,774,231
Mental Health $235 898 $211,030 924 $217, 140
Juvenile Welfare $347 596 $206,812 976 $338, 672
Juvenile Court $102 3, 056 $311,712 2,748 $280,296
Sub-totals ;- $5,210, 4
26 ,793:]2
5, 10, "-2 $6,464 ,627 12
21.5% Administrative Expenses $1,021,882
r3
Special Fees $2, 190, 196 42 , 199 - 1 _
4
Total Costs $7 ,965, 019
B. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM
1991-92 Actual Costs :
Public Defender $7, 302,287
Conflict Defense ,
5
Less : Total. Costs
Estimated Savings ,
by not adopting San Mateo system in Contra Costa Co. ,
1 This number is in error. Mr. Hing apparently misread the data column heading. The 1,266 cases labeled SUPERIOR
COURT on the Contra Costa data form are not,in fact, felony Informations filed, but rather,calendar cases consisting of
probation revocations, bench warrants, PC 1026,PC 1388,etc. All 1,266 of these cases are handled by a single deputy in
Contra Costa Co. In San Mateo,these cases are counted as individual cases and billed at$474 per case. Calculated in this
method, they are represented in the row below. The felony case count does not appear in the data sheet because Contra Costa
Co. does not count felony cases twice, but can be reconstructed from DA&PD statistics as 2,646. This corrected number,
utilizing the same assumptions Mr. Hing utilized, nearly doubles the cost of representing Superior Court felonies utilizing the
San Mateo system.
2 The corrected summation.
3 The recalculation of the administrative cost formula used in San Mateo.
4 Special fees are directly applicable to 187 cases. As these cases increase,so too does this cost. Contra Costa County had
47 187's vs.San Mateo's 21 187's for FY 91-92.
5 Any system that has expensive private bar conflict costs will compare unfavorably to the San Mateo system since they do
not have conflicts. The conflict cost in Contra Costa Co.,however,has been greatly reduced with the advent of the ADO.
Current costs are$1.1 million for 2,460 cases representing all but 50 cases per month,which continue to go to the private bar.
The bar panel estimates these cases will cost the County an additional$600,000. The current total cost of conflict defense is
therefore$1.7 million, not$3.2 million as Mr. Hing assumes. This,in combination with the clerical error in felony
calculations, dramatically changes the final numbers while utilizing all of the same assumptions—resulting in savings of over
$3 million by not adopting the San Mateo method in Contra Costa County.
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC-DEFENDER
County ot Contraos "
07/10/92 Fiscal Year 1991-1992
CASES OPENED
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL
BAY COURT
vYlful Homicides 2 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 29
Felonies 174 155 164 182 154 202 193 251 209 198 204 219 2,305
Misdemeanors 506 244 257 276 214 302 325 464 411 319 484 436 4,238
Other 1 4 1 1 0 1 2 1 3 2 5 2 23
TOTAL 683 409 426 461 370 507 522 718 624 521 695 659 6,595
DELTA COURT
Wilful Homicides 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7
Felonies 78 83 122 129 77 94 114 85 93 116 102 103 1,196
Misdemeanors 389 401 331 434 278 338 353 279 384 293 225 278 3,983
TOTAL 469 485 453 564 355 433 4681 365 477 409 327 381 5,186
MT.DIABLO COURT
Wilful Homicides 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 10
Felonies 62 72 47 77 58 66 68 65 77 67 86 53 798
Misdemeanors 335 304 236 322 224 302 257 316 257 244 275 294 3,366
Other 1 1 2 8 2 0 3 2 4 5 4 6 38
TOTAL 400 380 285 407 284 369 328 365 ' 338 317 366 353 4,212
WALNUT CREEK CT
Wilful Homicides 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 01 0 0 0 0 1
Felonies 18 15 19 21 27 25 30 24 `. 36 20 23 21 279
Misdemeanors 174 141 145 224 162 179 166 123 171 151 126 151 1,913
TOTAL 192 156 164 245 189 205 1961 147 207 171 149 172 2,193
JW/LPS/SUP CT.
Juvenile-East/Cen 160 165 171 191 167 151 2081 187 176 163 135 213 2,087
Juvenile-West 148 143 108 148 117 140 127 168 153 115 145 125 1,637
LPS&Prob.Guard. 88 78 110 83 78 77 73 60 90 49 . 59 79 924
Superior Court 114 95 72 139 87 102 109 106 125 105 111 101 1,266
Other"` 1 2 4 2 9 3 0 6 5 6 4 5 47
TOTAL 511 483 465 5631 458 473 517 527 549 438 454 523 5,961
DEPARTMENT
Wilful Homicides 6 10 4 31 2 5 3 5 1 3 3 2 47
Felonies 332 325 352 409 316 387 405 425 415 401 415 396 4,578
Misdemeanors 1,404 1,090 969 1,256 878 1,121 1,101 1,182 1,223 1,007 1,110 1,159 13,500
Juvenile(602/300) 308 308 279 339 284 291 335 355 329 278 280 338 3,724
LPS&Prob.Guard. 88 78 110 83 78 77 73 60 90 49 59 79 924
Superior Court 114 95 72 139 87 102 109 106 125 105 111 101 1,266 www
Other 3 7 7 11 11 4 5 9 12 13 13 13 108
TOTAL 2,255 1,913 1,793 2,240 1,656 1,987 2,031 2,142 2,195 1,856 1,991 2,088 24,147
"* 2,646 reached Superior Court "" Includes only Sup. Ct. prob. revoc., 1368'x, BW,etc.