CLINTON COUNTY (IA) - PUBLIC DEFENDER PROGRAM PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

• NCJ Number: 45704
• Author(s): M COHAN
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 19 pages
• Grant Number(s): 702-76-06-2300-31-01
• Sponsoring Agency: Iowa Crime Cmssn; US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Iowa Crime Cmssn
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

ESCALATING COSTS FOR THE PROVISION OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS RESULTED IN THE FUNDING OF A PUBLIC DEFENDER PROGRAM FOR CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA, AIMED AT PROVIDING COST-EFFECTIVE, QUALITY INDIGENT DEFENSE.

Abstract

THE MAJOR OBJECTIVE OF THIS PROGRAM INCLUDED PROVISION OF AN ALTERNATIVE BUT COMPATIBLE SYSTEM OF APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR INDIGENTS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, ASSUMPTION OF 55 TO 60 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL INDIGENT CASELOAD, AND REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME FROM ARRAIGNMENT TO DISPOSITION. CLIENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND PERFORMANCE DATA WERE COLLECTED FROM JULY 1, 1976 TO APRIL 30, 1977. WHILE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO COLLECT COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPARATIVE DATA FOR BOTH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS, FAILURE BY THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DATA MADE THIS LARGELY IMPOSSIBLE. IN GENERAL, CLIENTS REPRESENTED UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS WERE BETWEEN 18 AND 24 YEARS OLD, UNEMPLOYED, AND FACED FELONY OR INDICTABLE MISDEMEANOR CHARGES. CONVICTION RATE FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS COMPUTED AT 65 PERCENT, AND OF THOSE CASES CLOSED, 38 PERCENT WERE EITHER SUSPENDED OR DEFERRED. OF 149 CASES HANDLED, 76 (51 PERCENT) WERE CLOSED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AS COMPARED TO 73 (49 PERCENT) CLOSED BY ATTORNEYS. CASES ASSIGNED TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DURING THE PERIOD UNDER STUDY INCLUDED 55 FELONIES, 58 INDICTABLE MISDEMEANORS, 40 MISDEMEANORS, AND 18 OTHER. THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME FROM ARREST TO AJUDICATION UNDER THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM, RANGED 32.6 TO 66.88 DAYS, WITH AN OVERALL AVERAGE OF 52.74 DAYS. BASED UPON FIGURES REFLECTING EXPENDITURES OF BOTH DEFENSE SYSTEMS, THE AVERAGE COST PER CASE WAS LOWER FOR THOSE HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER THAN FOR THOSE HANDLED BY COURTAPPOINTED ATTORNEYS. WHERE COMPARATIVE DATA ARE AVAILABLE, IT APPEARS THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER PROGRAM IS MEETING GRANT OBJECTIVES SATISFACTORILY: IT IS HANDLING AT LEAST HALF THE TOTAL CASELOAD IN AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MANNER. DUE TO A LACK OF COMPARATIVE DATA, A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION IS DIFFICULT. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING IS RECOMMENDED. A SUMMARY OF EVALUATION DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION FORMS, AND TABULAR DATA ARE ALSO PROVIDED. (JAP)