ILNews

Economic woes hitting state's public defense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Years ago, those working in the Porter County Public Defender Office reported seeing a bright blue Post-it note tagged to their caseload reports that said, “HELP!” in huge hand-written print. That was a common occurrence at a time when the local public defender’s office faced a critical overload point because of skyrocketing caseloads and too few attorneys.

Hiring enough people to prevent those handwritten notes from appearing in the files was a task in itself, and the county’s limited resources wouldn’t allow for the staff increase that would be necessary to qualify for state reimbursement for some of its local indigent defense costs.

Porter County remains one of the largest of about three dozen Indiana counties that has not yet taken advantage of a state system that reimburses counties for up to 40 percent of regular, non-capital case defense costs. That budget-strained storyline is a trend playing out throughout Indiana, where counties are being hit by economic woes that limit their ability to provide the best possible public defense to indigent citizens.

Many report that the quality of public defense has progressed through the years as counties are able to receive money from the state, but the latest annual report released Aug. 9 shows that new counties still battle with cost restrictions to enter the system while those participating struggle to meet the standards necessary to do what’s required.

Essentially, the economy and limited local resources are impacting public defense in both large and small counties throughout Indiana.

“Our opinion is that the economy and lack of full reimbursement has influenced counties’ decisions not to join, and we’ve been told the economy has been the reason they don’t ask for money because they know they can’t comply,” said Indianapolis attorney Mark Rutherford, chair of the Indiana Public Defender Commission. “This is a hybrid system that tries to make sure counties can provide good or better public defense services, but it’s opt in and we have a long way to go.”

Established in 1989, the Indiana Public Defender Commission recommends certain standards for determining who can access indigent defense, how many cases a public defender handles, and the qualifications of those attorneys practicing in that area. That can mean attorneys having enough support staff for no more than 120 felony cases in a calendar year, or 60 cases if they work part-time. Attorneys using paralegals and investigators can handle more cases, and the IPDC rules require certain pay standards in order to be eligible for state reimbursement.

Participating counties have risen from just a handful back in the 1990s to dozens today, though the number fluctuates based on how the jurisdictions comply with the requirements and what money might be available. The Indiana General Assembly has increased the amount of state money given to the commission gradually during the past decade, beginning in the early 2000s when the number of participating counties and amount of claims for reimbursement grew so much that the commission couldn’t meet the demand. For 2010-2011, an annual report shows that more than $16 million was given back to Indiana counties – but some say the reimbursement isn’t worth the extra resources devoted to public defense at the local levels.

Since reimbursement began in 1995, $116 million has been returned to counties, according to the commission.

But even those 60 counties that have submitted plans to participate struggle to meet the minimum standards required for state reimbursement, and economic woes in recent years have led more counties to stop participating because they’ve been unable to comply. In the past year, 52 of the 60 participating counties are eligible for reimbursement because they comply with state standards – representing 67 percent of the state’s caseloads.

Scott and Henry counties refused to pass a budget that would support the county public defender agency’s compliance with state standards and they’ve yet to beef up their local defense adequately. Whitley County refused to hire more attorneys to handle the public defense caseload, and the IPDC says it was a local decision to have one attorney handle the caseload rather than hiring more lawyers and dividing it up between four in order to meet the standards.

IPDC staff attorney Deborah Neal says those counties dropped out specifically because of the economy, finding that it was cheaper to overwork and underpay a smaller number of local attorneys rather than hire more and try to comply with the state requirements. Crawford, Newton, and Wells counties are examples of DefenseChart.gifcounties that have submitted comprehensive plans but have never asked for the money because they know they couldn’t meet the caseload standards, Neal said.

“That’s a problem with smaller counties, and it may get worse because it’s usually attorneys in private practice taking these issues up on a case-by-case basis,” said Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council and a member of the public defense commission. “More are grappling with this issue, and it looks like more are going to be struggling with this as they try to figure out budgets locally.”

For example, larger areas like Lake and Marion counties have been discussing local budget-cutting moves across the board that might impact the ability to meet standards, he said.

“It’s politically safe to cut public defense rather than a prosecutor or police and fire, but you might be slashing a few hundred thousand dollars at the expense of a larger amount in reimbursement,” he said. “All chief public defenders say budgets are being cut, but so far none of those cuts in larger counties are throwing out of compliance. Yet is the operative word, and they’re struggling just to comply without having money left for training.”

As more counties face economic challenges and see their local resources drying up for public defense, Rutherford says the state might need to more seriously look at the idea of centralized indigent defense funding or even making the standards mandatory. The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform issued a report in 2007 – known as the Kernan-Shepard Report because former Gov. Joe Kernan and Chief Justice Randall Shepard served as chairs – that outlined the need for state-funded defense, and Rutherford said that might be an option.

“That’s the big debate about how to make this system better,” Rutherford said. “A centralized system might take some of the inequities out of this process, and that would lead to more reasonable responses from counties and give them the ability to spend more time on cases. I think our indigent defense is getting better, not because the lawyers are any better but because caseloads are better managed and the resources are available. The challenge is making sure that continues happening and we don’t step too far back.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT