Key Findings: Improve Funding for Effective Indigent Defense Delivery Methods
-
The 77th Texas State Legislature passed the Fair Defense Act of 2001 (S.B. 7) to improve indigent defense services. This legislation established the State Task Force on Indigent Defense (Task Force) and set basic standards for the provision of indigent defense, while allowing for flexibility among Texas’ 254 counties.
-
In 2008, Texas ranked 45th in per capita indigent defense spending.[i] Although spending levels have increased dramatically in Texas over the past few years, they remain far below what other states spend on indigent defense.[ii]
-
Individual counties shoulder just under 88% of the costs related to meeting the constitutional requirement to provide indigent defense services. In FY 2008, individual Texas counties spent nearly $174.2 million on indigent defense, while the State of Texas provided just over $21 million to defray some of these costs to counties.[iii] In contrast, 25 other states provide 100% of funding for indigent defense, ensuring that counties are not forced to comply with an unfunded mandate.
-
Currently, the majority of Texas counties provide defense services through a rotational system of court-assigned private attorneys. However, 15 counties have established public defender offices serving clients with certain cases (capital, appellate, juvenile, mental health, etc.) in approximately 134 counties .[iv]
-
Nationwide, 90 of the 100 most populous counties incorporate public defender programs.[v] In Texas, 6 of the 15 most populous counties (Bexar, Cameron, Dallas, El Paso, Hidalgo, and Travis) have public defender offices.[vi]
-
A recent Task Force study demonstrates that Texas’ public defender offices provide a more cost-effective model than the assigned-counsel delivery model, projecting a cost savings of $13.7 million if mature public defender offices were available in all Texas counties.[vii]
-
The Task Force study also shows that public defender offices in Texas have demonstrated a higher degree of control over case quality to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of legal services to indigent clients.
[i] “A Race to the Bottom Speed & Savings over Due Process: A Constitutional Crisis,” National Legal Aid & Defender Association, June 2008, 7, www.mynlada.org/michigan/michigan_report.pdf.
[ii] “State and County Expenditures for Indigent Defense Services in Fiscal Year 2005,” American Bar Association, December 2006, 35-37, www.abanet.org/legalservices/sclaid/defender/downloads/
FINAL_REPORT_FY_2005_Expenditure_Report.pdf.
[iii] “Upholding the Constitution: 2008 Annual and Expenditure Report,” Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, 29, www.courts.state.tx.us/tfid/pdf/FY08AnnualReportTFID.pdf.
[iv].“Blueprint for Creating a Public Defender Office in Texas,” Second Edition, Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense and The Spangenberg Group, June 2008, iii, http://www.courts.state.tx.us/tfid/pdf/2008revisedblueprintfinal.pdf.
[v] U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999, by Carol J. DeFrances and Marika F.X. Litras. November 2000.
[vi] “Upholding,” 39.
[vii] “Evidence,” 5.