TEXAS SMART DEFENSE DATA PORTAL smart defense Public Policy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TEXAS SMART DEFENSE DATA PORTAL smart defense

Public Policy Research Institute

Evid vidence-Based Ju Justic ice

Who We Are What We Do

Our Mission Our Grant Program Our Fiscal and Policy Monitoring Program Strategic Goals

Is to provide financial and technical support to counties to develop and maintain quality, cost-effective indigent defense systems that meet the needs of local communities and the requirements of the Constitution and state law. In FY 2016 $31.5 million was disbursed toT exas counties. Formula grant awards totaled $25.1 million to all 254

• counties. Discretionary grants totaled just over $6.4 million.

The Commission monitors each county that receives a grant to ensure state money is being properly spent and accounted for and to enforce compliance by the county with the conditions of the grant, as well as with state and local rules and regulations.

1. Improve indigent defense th/ standards development 2. Promote local compliance and accountability through evidence-based practices 3. Develop effective funding strategies

Thirteen-member governing board administratively attached to the Office of Court

• Administration. Jim Bethke is the Executive Director. The Commission has eleven

full-time staff.

Chair:

Honorable Sharon Keller Chair – Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals

Ex Officio Members:

Honorable Sharon Keller Austin, Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Austin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of T exas Honorable John Whitmire Houston, State Senator Honorable Brandon Creighton Conroe, State Senator Honorable Joseph “Joe” Moody El Paso, State Representative Junction Honorable Andrew Murr Junction, State Representative Honorable Sherry Radack Houston, Chief Justice, First Court of Appeals Honorable Linda Rodriguez Hays County

Members Appointed by the Governor:

• Mr. Alex Bunin

Houston, Chief Public Defender, Harris County Public Defender Office Honorable Jon Burrows T emple, Bell County Judge Honorable Richard Evans Bandera County Judge

• Mr. Don Hase

Arlington, Attorney, Ball & Hase Honorable Missy Medary Corpus Christi, Presiding Judge, 5th Administrative Judicial Region of T exas

2

Historical Context

part one HISTORICAL CONTEXT

3

Gideon vs. Wainwright SB 7 – Texas Fair Defense Act 1963 2001/2002 2017 16 Years of Implementation Struggle to translate at state level the “right to counsel” into a meaningful indigent defense system

The Long Road to Make Indigent Defense Meaningful

4

Prior to 2002 Present

No state funding or oversight No reporting requirements on spending or caseloads No uniformity in local indigent defense appointment practices No consistent standards regarding attorney training and experience Judges’ discretion to select counsel, pay fees and determine who is indigent fueled appearance of cronyism Inconsistent quality of death penalty representation Key process standards implemented State provides some funding to support indigent defense Commission created to provide oversight Counties now report indigent defense plan and expense information to Commission Attorney caseload and practice-time reporting pursuant to HB 1318 (83rd Legislature) Attorney training and qualification standards adopted Death penalty appellate attorney qualifications established

Pre-Fair Defense Act through Present

5

Historical Context

part two OPEN & TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT

6

Historical Context

Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

• Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

7

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data tidc.texas.gov

8

Shining “Sunlight” on Texas’s 254 Counties Indigent Defense Practices by Publicizing….

• County Indigent Defense Plans
• County Expenditure & Case Data
• Attorney Caseload Data
• Results of Fiscal and Policy Audits

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data tidc.texas.gov

9

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data tidc.texas.gov

10

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data

11

Tarrant County Data Sheet

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data

12

Tarrant County Attorney Caseload Report- All Counties Sorted by T

• tal Cases

(2016)

CURRENTLY: DATA IS AVALUED RESOURCE

COUNTIES identify attorneys with excessive caseloads POLICYMAKERS make policy and resource decisions ADVOCATES seek to understand and improve jurisdiction practices

EVERY DAY…

TIDC monitors jurisdiction practices TIDC builds the case for system improvements

FUTURE: ACT SMART FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE

How do we MEASURE it? How do we ACHIEVE it? How do we DESCRIBE it? How do we DISSEMINATE it?

What is QUALITY PUBLIC DEFENSE?

Historical Context

part three QUALITY INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

15

PROGRESS TO DATE

DATE MILESTONES

February 2016 National Advisory Group Webinar April 2016 State Advisory Group Meeting April 2016 Urban Criminal Justice Planners Meeting May 2016 Finalized “ACT Smart” Quality Indicators July 2016 Engaged Pilot Counties October 2016 Disseminated Data Extraction Instructions November 2016 National Advisory Group Webinar In Progress 2017 Website Design/Programming In Progress 2017 Pilot Data Collection

LEGAL STANDARDS AND PROFESSIONAL GUIDELINES

LOCAL DATA STANDARDS

 Advancing from statewide requirements to local self- monitoring capacity.  50 basic indicators set standards for county-level indigent defense information systems.

NATIONAL ADVISORY PANEL

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS National Association for Public Defense National Legal Aid and Defenders Association American Bar Association, Standing Committee

• n Legal Aid and Indigent Defense

PUBLIC DEFENDERS Boston Public Counsel Services New York State Indigent Defense Services Louisville Metro Public Defender’s Office Oregon Public Defender System UNIVERSITY / ACADEMIC Georgia State University College of Law Tulane University School of Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Cincinnati College of Law COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATION Travis County Criminal Courts

MAJOR TEXAS URBAN TEST SITES

Austin, TX Dallas, TX Houston, TX San Antonio, TX El Paso, TX

ACT SMART

for Public Defense

ACCESS: Legal Right to Counsel Magistration Eligibility Screening Appointment Uncounseled Pleas COMPETENCE: Quality of Representation Workload Training & Supervision Continuity Client Contact Outcomes Counsel Type TRUST: System Reliability, Efficiency, Cost Effectiveness Independence Funding Attorney Selection Attorney Compensation

Historical Context

part four OVERVIEW OF ACT SMART WEB PORTAL

22

JURISDICTION INCENTIVES

RECOGNITION of Early Adopters Pride of LEADERSHIP Discretionary GRANT FUNDING Role as MENTOR COUNTIES Technical ASSISTANCE Next Generation IT INTEGRATION USEFUL Data Reports

NEXT STEPS

• Continued website construction
• Dashboard
• Graphics
• Upload data
• Download data
• Statewide marketing
• Jurisdictions
• Policymakers
• Advocates
• Other Stakeholders
• Recognition of contributors

James Bethke Executive Director Texas Indigent Defense Commission Scott Ehlers Policy Analyst Texas Indigent Defense Commission Dottie Carmichael Public Policy Research Institute Texas A&M University