HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03141995 - I.O-05 1 .0.-5 s ` Contra
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,�,E....;.. ...,o„
-, +
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE i�J' Cost
�; Iz
x�q�.-.-' . :.•. .o� County
March 6, 1995rT. *"
DATE: + i`d'UK
SUBJECT: REPORT ON MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER REGARDING THE
PERFORMANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF HIS
DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT this report from the Internal Operations Committee on its
meeting with the Public Defender.
BACKGROUND:
On June 28, 1994 , the Board of Supervisors, at the request of
Supervisor DeSaulnier, referred to the Internal Operations
Committee a request to develop a procedure which would allow the
Internal Operations Committee to meet with each Department Head
during the year and report on the Department 's activities . A
number of Department Heads were heard in 1994 . On December 13,
1994 , the Board of Supervisors referred this item to the 1995
Internal Operations Committee for the purpose of hearing from the
remaining Department Heads .
On March 6, 1995, we had the opportunity to meet with the Public
Defender, Charles H. James . Mr. James presented the attached .
report- to us and reviewed it with our Committee. Mr. James noted
particularly the high quality of his staff, which is why his office
is able to function at the high professional level it .does . Mr.
James noted the cost savings which have been achieved through the
formation of the Alternate Defender Office, which has avoided much
of the previous cost of contracting with the private bar for
conflict representation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
�n /A��P�
UV"�1&
SIGNATURE(S): MARK T1oC71TTT.TTTT+'U
ACTION OF BOARD ON Ma—r—ch 147-1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _�X_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED PEAR 14 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Defender
BY n.J .� _,DEPUTY
I.O.-5
-2-
Mr. James noted that the .multiple pieces of office space assigned
to the Public Defender create inefficiencies for the Department.
He is seeking more consolidated office space which would bring
together staff from multiple locations . He also noted the changes
in the seriousness of the cases which his staff are handling
because of the "three strikes" law. Prior to "three strikes" a
defendant generally faced the possibility of 25 years to life only
for homicide. Now with all third strike cases also facing similar
punishment, the number of clients who face 25 years to life
exposure has jumped from fewer than 50 in the 1992-93 fiscal year
to nearly 250 in the 1993-94 fiscal year. Cases with this level of
potential punishment are professionally and emotionally taxing for
the felony attorney who handles them.
We appreciate the difficult and often unpopular job the Public
Defender has and the professional manner in which he and his staff
carry out this responsibility.
PERFORMANCE REVIEW
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
January 6, 1995
Overview
The Office of Public Defender provides legal representation for persons
accused of crimes in Municipal and Superior courts in Contra Costa County when
the accused is financially unable to retain private counsel. In fiscal year 1993-94,
the Department provided representation in over 20,000 criminal cases.
Competent legal representation for each client in a case is a mandated
service for local government. The mandate is rooted (1) in the United States
Constitution's Sixth Amendment and (2) in Government Code section 27707. Thus,
any accused person who faces imprisonment for a misdemeanor or felony charge,
and who cannot afford to hire counsel, is entitled to the services the Department
provides.
The Department divides its legal work between a "main office and the
Alternate Defender Office (ADO). Both the main office and the ADO provide the
same types of services to clients with similarly configured staffs. Administrative.
matters having to do with personnel, training, recruitment and provision of fixed
assets and supplies are handled within the Department's main office. However, for
ethical reasons mandated by constitutional and statutory rules regarding the
provision of conflict free representation by attorneys, client representation by the
ADO is screened off by an ethical wall which prohibits and prevents professional
interaction between the staff of the main office and the staff of the ADO.
Approximately 17% of the Department's budget supports the services provided by
the ADO.
The attached organization charts (Exhibits A & B) set out the Department's
pertinent groupings of staff by geographical assignment and by the type of cases
handled.
Geographical
Two branches of the Department are located in Richmond and Concord which
house 40% and 25% of the Department's staff respectively. The Department's
Martinez Branch is physically situated in the downtown justice complex near the
courthouses and the Main Detention Facility. The ADO Branch Office is located in
a separate building at 1333 Pine Street in Martinez.
1 _.
Case Time
A major division in the organization of the Department's work is based on the
severity of the charges against a client. Misdemeanor cases are punishable by up to
one year in the county jail. Our Department, in the past fiscal year, provided
representation in over 9,000 misdemeanor cases. Felony cases are punishable by a
possible commitment to state prison. In the past fiscal year, the Department
provided representation in over 4,800 felony cases. Finally, our juvenile division
provided representation in moire than 3,500 cases involving both criminal
allegations and allegations of child abuse.
Resources
Current Funding Allocations
Virtually all the funding for the Department's services comes from the
General Fund. AB 90 (Juvenile:Subvention Funding) accounted for approximately
$35,000 in the Department's budget.
The budget for the Department for the fiscal year 1994-95 is $8,391,725.
Within the Department, the budget allocated for the Alternate Defender Office
(ADO) is $1,386,266 (17% of the total) while the main office is allocated $7,005,459
(83%).
Current Oepartmertt Budget
ADO
($1,386,266) 17% i
Main Office
83% ($7.005,459)
The Department's budget is comprised primarily of salary costs for staff.
$7,820,031 (93%) of the budget is for salaries and benefits for the Department's
personnel; while only $571,694 (7%) is budgeted for services and supplies. All the
classifications of staff within the office, with the exception of management
personnel, are represented by various labor organizations and bargaining units.
Compensation levels for employees are set through collective bargaining with the
various bargaining units.
2
i
Department Salaries vs.Othe(Expenses
Services&Supplies
7% ($571,894)
Salaries
93% ($7,820,031)
Of the monies budgeted for personnel, $6,050,686 (77%),is allocated to pay
the salaries and benefits for approximately 65 attorneys who comprise the
Department's professional staff. The remaining 23% of the budget for salaries is
divided among the clerical support staff(9%), paralegals and law clerks (7%), and
technical employees (7%) such as investigators.
Department Salaries
Paralegals&Law
aerks
Clerical 7% (5533,592)
($723,500) 9% -
A
Techrdcal
7%
($512,254)
Attorneys
77%
($6,05,686)
Total costs for indigent defense incurred by the county have declined in the
past fiscal year (1993-94) largely as a result of creation of the.Alternate Defender
Office within our Department. In 1991-92, the total indigent defense costs were
$10,550,287, comprised of the budget for the Office of Public Defender and.the
budget for the County Bar Association's Criminal Conflicts Panel. In 1992-93, total
costs for indigent defense were $11,632,399, including costs for the Office of Public
Defender's start up of the Alternate Defender Office. During the fiscal year
1993-94, total costs for indigent defense declined for the first year in history to
$10,260,315. The Bar Association's Conflict Panel budget diminished by more than
the costs grew for the ADO within the Public Defender budget. A further decline in
total indigent defense costs is expected during the current fiscal year as a result of
the savings achieved from replacing the more costly Bar Association program with
3
the ADO as a branch of the Department. These annual budgetary trends reflecting
the relationship between indigent defense costs for the Department and the costs
for conflict cases handled through the Bar Association are illustrated below.
Additionally, the number of cases handled by each entity (Public Defender Main
Office, the ADO and the Bar Association Conflicts Panel) is set out below.
Public Defender Cost vs.Conflict Budget
Last Ten Fiscal Years
$9,000,000 _
$8,000,000
$7,000,000 _.
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
M v
ado � crn rn
co �i orn �
N M
® Public Defender Cost ❑ Bar Association Payments
Department Case Costs and Conflict Costs
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0 -
V) � ti co rn rn 91 CPrn
°� 9
rn rn �i rn 0) rn rn M rn M
® Public Defender Cost ❑ Bar Association Payments Total Cost
4
Expenditures Per Capita for Public Defender Services
The State Controller's office compiled statistics for the budgets of Public
Defenders in California's ten largest counties during Fiscal Year 1992.1993. These
expenditures were then broken out on a per capita basis. They are set forth in the
tables below.
County Population Expend. per capita Rank
Los Angeles 9,158,425 $8.68 5
San Diego 2,648,597 $13.86 2
Orange 2;557;346 $7.00 8
San Bernardino 1,556,251 $5.62 10
Santa Clara 1,531,796 $9.01 4
Riverside 1,328,320 $7.31 7
Alameda 1,337,126 $13.26 3
Sacramento 1,121,239 $16.46 1
Contra Costa 855,109 $8.40 6
Fresno 733,287 $627 9
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
a $10.00
a
$8.00
$6.00
C $4.00
X $2.00
LU $0.00
C ;a '3 h
C Q U7 C } U U L%
m � 4 3
N <
Affirmative Action
The staff of the Department is diverse. The Department continues to strive
to increase staff diversity despite budgetary challenges which work counter to
greater work force diversification. The number of newly hired staff or newly
promoted staff has been so low that our efforts to increase diversification have not
been as productive as we would like.
5
Ethnically, staff of African-American descent constitutes 12% of the work
force (compared with parity of 7.6% in the county's population). The percentages
for Hispanics (3%) and Asians (2%) are regrettably below the county's parity figures
of 7.7% and 5.4% respectively. In terms of a gender breakdown, 71% of the
Departmental staff is female, including attorney staff that is 57.6% female and
investigative staff that is 78% female.
Automation
The Department's work has undergone significant reorientation through the
increased use of computers. Five years ago, the calendaring functions (periodic lists
of scheduled court appearances, broken out by attorney and court location) for the
Department were tracked by physically logging in each client's file and typing daily
calendars. Now, by using the Law and Justice Information System accessed
through the county's mainframe computers, this function is automated. Clerical
personnel all have terminals at.their desks to input and retrieve the information
needed for scheduling attorney appearances.
Word processing—an integral part of any law office setting where extensive
typewritten briefs in cases must be prepared—is extensively utilized in our clerical
support system for attorneys. All briefs are prepared for filing with the court, and a
large proportion are drafted initially, on computers shared by attorneys and legal
research clerks in our Branch libraries. Databases containing copies of briefs
indexed by subject are also maintained so that work need not be replicated for.each
and every motion filed.
The Department has.been expanding its use of CD-ROM technology for
cheaper and more easily accessed legal research, traditionally available only in
hundreds of volumes of books housed in the Department's libraries where the
attorneys do legal research. Additionally, the Department subscribes to commercial
on-line database services, like Westlaw and Lexis, but strives to use the cheaper
CD-ROM technology where it can.
All attorney staff utilize the voice mail system provided and maintained
through the county's telecommunications department. Both management and
clerical employees utilize payroll and personnel tracking systems provided to
departments through the mainframe maintained by Data Processing. Finally, the
Department has many staff members trained in using both the Law and Justice
System and the county's e-mail system; but full utilization of these communication
and information systems is severely constrained by a lack of sufficient resources to
acquire needed hardware. This subject will be addressed below with regard to
challenges facing the Department
6
Sick Leave Usage
The Department's employees utilize sick leave at an above average level in
comparison with other county employees. This high level of sick leave usage is
partially due to the large proportion of female staff(approximately 61%) of
childbearing age, who utilize sick leave in conjunction with their maternity leaves,
as mandated by county policy.
Client Profile
The Office of Public Defender's clientele consists of persons who are charged
with crimes in the courts of Contra Costa County and who cannot afford to retain
private counsel. Every client is screened for financial eligibility. Occasionally, a
court will order our Department to provide representation for a client when, for
some reason, the person has been initially denied eligibility by our Department. In
fiscal year 1993-94, the Department provided representation in 20,657 cases
Client financial eligibility must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. No rigid
guidelines can be established as each case has its own degree of complexity based
on the nature of the charges, the possible defenses and a range of other factors that
are quite case specific. Those complexities complicate the difficult task of
determining what financial resources may be currently available to the client, given
the infinitely variable financial profile for each client (family size, indebtedness,
sources of income, etc.).
At the conclusion of the case, each client of the Department is subject to
referral by the court to the Office of Revenue Collection, a division of the
Administrator's Office. Each client's ability to pay over a period of time is then
assessed by the Office of Revenue Collection in conjunction with the court's order
that the county be reimbursed by the client for the costs of Departmental services.
Department staff play no role in making these assessments or in the collection of
reimbursement.
Challenmes Facing the Department
1. Office Space
The foremost challenge facing the Department is obtaining office space which
fits its needs so that the staff can increase current levels of productivity. Available
office space in the major branches (Martinez and Richmond) is practically the same
as 20 years ago, when the Department had half as many clients and half as many
staff members. Currently, small portions of office space are rented "down the block"
from both the Richmond and Martinez offices. Such arrangements for housing staff
are quite inefficient (for staff communication), costly (additional rents and overhead
for equipment), and even unsafe (staff transiting along downtown streets after dusk
7
carrying large numbers of files; female staff in small offices with no security during
work and after work hours).
Within existing office space, attorneys often must share offices designed for
one person or utilize "bullpen" office space with several desks in carrels. Such
arrangements are contrary to standards prescribed by Bar Association guidelines
which stress the need to retain confidentiality in communications between clients
and an attorney. They also adversely impact the morale of the staff with respect to
self-image and call into question the ability of the Department, as an employer, to
provide a habitable and professional workplace for them to carry out their duties as
attorneys and employees of the county.
Major changes in the county's Court Coordination Program have aggravated
the problems faced by the Department in providing efficient work sites for its
attorneys and employees. For the past two years, every felony case (in excess of
4,000 cases-per year) has had two additional appearances scheduled in the
Martinez courthouses before a Superior Court criminal calendar judge. This
program has added a minimum of 8,000 attorney appearances for our felony clients
in Martinez, notwithstanding the fact that over half of the Department's attorneys
assigned to provide representation in felony cases have their offices in Richmond.
Consequently, many attorneys are forced to spend an inordinate amount of the
working day traveling by car between Richmond (where their offices are located)
and Martinez where the courthouse is located.
Additionally, increased pretrial incarceration rates for felony offenders has
resulted in most felony clients of the Department being housed at either the
Martinez Detention Facility or the West County Detention Facility of the Sheriffs
Department. Itis difficult for the attorneys based in Richmond to regularly see and
consult with clients who are incarcerated in Martinez. The West County Detention
Facility is situated almost halfway between our Martinez Branch and our
Richmond Branch and is equally inconvenient for all our attorney and paralegal
staff.
2. Modern Computer and Communications Equipment
Intraoffice communication (for better client services and more efficient
utilization of staff) is retarded by budgetary constraints on the purchase of
computer and communications hardware. Less than 10% of our attorney staff can
be linked for computer communication because of constraints on the purchase of
sufficient computer terminals and controllers to link those terminals to the
mainframe. We need to increase the number of personal computers available to
staff. Only one quarter of our attorney staff have computers available for use in
their offices. Furthermore, networking personal computers within and between our
branch offices would increase the efficiency of the Department in utilizing software
and in producing legal motions, documents, and other data available to all staff.
8
3. Chances in Caseload Seriousness
While the overall number of cases has remained somewhat constant over the
past two years, the challenges facing attorney staff in felony cases have risen
dramatically. Two words familiar to every Californian best exemplify this
challenge: "Three Strikes."
The Office of Public Defender, as of January 1, 1995, is representing
approximately 175 clients charged with "strikes" under the Legislation recently
enacted as Proposition 184. Fifty-three of these clients are charged'with a "third".
strike, meaning that the potential sentence in those cases is 25 years to life. For
the Department's staff, the significance of representation for such clients charged
under these new laws might best be seen in this comparison. Over the past two
fiscal years, the Department provided representation in approximately 55
homicides each year. While a homicide is the most serious charge a client can face
and a criminal defense attorney can be called upon to handle, fewer than five to ten
of such cases each year resulted in a client of the Department being sentenced to
prison for a minimum of 25 years. Thus, in terms of potential consequences for the
client and the attendant complexity of providing representation to a client facing
such lengthy prison terms, the staff of our Department faces an unparalleled
situation: a many-fold increase in the number of professionally and emotionally
taxing cases for each felony attorney since the institution of the "Three Strikes".
sentencing scheme for recidivist offenders.
Cases with 25-to-Life Sentence
Exposure,
250
2001
150 0 3 Strikes
1001
Homicides
50
1992-93 1993-94
...........
Yet, while "Three Strikes" is a well known symbol of the increased penalties
at stake in certain criminal cases, it is only the tip of the iceberg. This Department
performs its mandated function in a time when some criminal conduct (and the
cases that result therefrom) is becoming increasingly more violent and the public's
toleration for humane treatment of persons convicted of crime is growing noticeably
short- As a Department whose mandate is to provide competent and effective
representation for the accused in the criminal justice system, the services rendered,
and the job done by the Department's staff, has been made more difficult by these
9
daunting political and public reactions. Thus, the greatest challenge for the
Department is to continue to provide resources and a supportive work environment
for a dedicated staff called upon to do an unpopular job.
Charles James
Public Defend
Attachments
10 \FILES\PERFORM.REV rev.01/09/95
-EXHIBIT A -___� ----� c
CL
Zrn 1 p~
4wt1
a. =a- Oo C14dU
�
� La a
mIl. W O
U Qp
p ------------------
U
O N U � a •C)
O Z> d
Q
of
m '
00.. ° 8
a ss c r- c aUi •-�
U p N¢w N {Q, Cy
,d 3 tY O
Lo
l
CO
b
Q Co
Gl
Lu !j co y r 1 2 co
0 N � r- 7rD a '112 c
s Nr I0) 0 1 02
0 a.'*- y
� o co
cm
4) 1 a� M{
Z v to co ca
ca 1 1
[ a ca a i i i t
F. c
oG
4
a
w
t p r V 1
C] fA
d tl 1 >• tl 1 2 `Ov
UV rm i `
0 '-j C.o N 'cr 10)' � �1 N O t � {
N o 0 0 a as !0) 0- i U U { 1
t
LU
Z Z .... -6 !� Tr GU'1
to 0.
G w r 1 O r { aJ G
W p0. qy {0) 1 U
0
i 1 _
J d G �
a " 'c
CL Q o m LL
G 1 - c
w -0 � 1 N i O v
U a G (D U
O N
OS
G 3 G O) t E
U- v N d .� ! N cn t O to
Ui to 4 od 0 i 1 mE
m
v
U.
0
EXHIBIT—B
co
ul C) 0 CD <« us en E
Lu
o--;
0 C 0
z ft =co
= t > CII 4 0 0 CD "0
Ir LLI je
= 0 co 0 -r, < 0
U) U)
cc 0 a) m CD 0 INmgra 3: IOU.
z m co 0
—J w w m w Q E
_j tm E 'm
< U. < E CL ci = - = -
- — ' Co-
Lu 0
ul 0 E W
. . . . . C� = m o
> Z C-4 vi 4 U-) CD I-. co "0
Cb
X" -r .0
cu
CA CC{
C)
Z 410
Z U7
LLC w
< V) CD
< E c,
Cl) 0 gn cu
w CL. mmCZ.) U.L=L Xo-W) 0: co t':-, m
-i <
LLJ 0 = . C; C-li ri 4 ui a7 H
ZV Q ......
LO r_
E
E c
cp
CD
W
L) Cd
CO
Cl) >
z w M ca ca 6.
W 28 a)
ttl
U- 0
co
-E
%lb- 0 CO 20 m Cu M Cc 0 CD -= a0 as
Z m 0 0 C/5 w L) U.-j 2 0
<
ci C13 0 LL1 rCV ri 4 Le; C6 P.: cci M* Oki vi ui C6 r Cd
D
CL
LU
LL
LU
C-)
to
E
LL ZE x
CD
w
ci vi 4
C)
.0
E
C)
0) Cb 0
CD W
_Q >.
0 cu
Lo
z
0 Ch
�w Ch
W E
LLI 0) cu 0 0 cis w 0 cu -IF 2
< m C) rr M L) Z to
0 ci C*i ri LLJ
Contra Costa Times — January 7, 1995
Law nabs
10 felons,
more cases _
piling" u people and more crime.
By MICHAEL HYTHA Between 1$ and 20 three-
Stan wcita strikes cases have been filed in
Solan County, said Public De- '
Contra Costa and Alameda i fender Marvin Brookner. "in
County juries have convicted 10 j this county, we really haven't
defendants of "third strikes" felt the full brunt of it. Some ;
under the state's new last
other counties are really f
passed last year. scrambling."
They include eight in Contra Unlike Contra Costa, Solano
Costa and two in Alameda and Alameda counties prosecu-
County. Solano County's only tors have not invoked the three-
"three strikes and you're out" strikes law against defendants
trial ended with a hung jury. accused of relatively minor of-
Dozens more cases are pil- fenses such as petty theft with a
ing up in court because defen- prior conviction. f
dants who might otherwise With two prior serious felo- ;
plead guilty are holding out for I ny convictions, any felony can
a Mal, ! qualify as a third strike under
"People are fighting rather i the law. Conviction on a third
than pleading," said Suzanne strike requires a sentence of 25
Chapot, an assistant public de- years to life.
fenderin Contra Costa.— - "We recognize the courts
Contra Costa District Attor- only have so many resources,
ney Gary Yancey said he has and we only have so many re-
reassigned four prosecutors to sources, and these things are
handle three-strikes uses. He --tike capital cases practically,"
said he expects six months to a said Alameda County Assistant
year to pass before the number District Attorney William
of cases levels off. Baldwin.
Yancey has been far more
aggressive in prosecuting de-
fendants under the three-
strikes law than his counter-
parts
ounterparts in Alameda and Solano
counties.
At least 99 three-strikes
cases are pending in Contra
Costa, compared with 36 in Al-
ameda County,which has more