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

What We Do Who We Are Thirteen-member governing board administratively attached to the Office of Court Our Mission Administration. Jim Bethke is the Executive Director. The Commission has eleven Is to provide financial and technical support to counties to full-time staff. develop and maintain quality, cost-effective indigent defense systems that meet the needs of local communities and the Chair: requirements of the Constitution and state law. Honorable Sharon Keller Chair – Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Our Grant Program Ex Officio Members: Honorable Sharon Keller Austin, Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals In FY 2016 $31.5 million was disbursed toT exas counties. Formula grant awards totaled $25.1 million to all 254 Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Austin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of T exas Honorable John Whitmire Houston, State Senator counties. Discretionary grants totaled just over $6.4 million . Honorable Brandon Creighton Conroe, State Senator Honorable Joseph “Joe” Moody El Paso, State Representative Junction Our Fiscal and Policy Monitoring Program Honorable Andrew Murr Junction, State Representative The Commission monitors each county that receives a grant Honorable Sherry Radack Houston, Chief Justice, First Court of Appeals to ensure state money is being properly spent and Honorable Linda Rodriguez Hays County accounted for and to enforce compliance by the county with the conditions of the grant, as well as with state and local Members Appointed by the Governor: rules and regulations. Mr. Alex Bunin Houston, Chief Public Defender, Harris County Public Defender Office Strategic Goals Honorable Jon Burrows T emple, Bell County Judge 1. Improve indigent defense th/ standards Honorable Richard Evans Bandera County Judge Mr. Don Hase Arlington, Attorney, Ball & Hase development Corpus Christi, Presiding Judge, 5 th Administrative Judicial Honorable Missy Medary Region of T exas 2. Promote local compliance and accountability through evidence-based practices 3. Develop effective funding strategies 2

Historical Context part one H ISTORICAL C ONTEXT 3

The Long Road to Make Indigent Defense Meaningful SB 7 – Texas Fair Gideon vs. Wainwright Defense Act 2001/2002 1963 2017 16 Years of Implementation Struggle to translate at state level the “right to counsel” into a meaningful indigent defense system 4

Pre-Fair Defense Act through Present Prior to 2002 Present Key process standards implemented No state funding or oversight State provides some funding to support indigent No reporting requirements on spending or defense caseloads Commission created to provide oversight No uniformity in local indigent defense Counties now report indigent defense plan and appointment practices expense information to Commission No consistent standards regarding attorney training Attorney caseload and practice-time reporting and experience pursuant to HB 1318 (83 rd Legislature) Judges’ discretion to select counsel, pay fees and Attorney training and qualification determine who is indigent fueled appearance of standards adopted cronyism Death penalty appellate attorney 5 qualifications established Inconsistent quality of death penalty representation

Historical Context part two O PEN & T RANSPARENT G OVERNMENT 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 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 8

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data tidc.texas.gov 9

TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data tidc.texas.gov 10

Tarrant TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data County Data Sheet 11

Tarrant TIDC Website and Local Indigent Defense Data County Attorney Caseload Report- All Counties Sorted by T otal Cases (2016) 12

CURRENTLY: D ATA I S A V ALUED R ESOURCE EVERY DAY… TIDC builds the case for system improvements COUNTIES identify attorneys with excessive caseloads POLICYMAKERS make policy and resource decisions TIDC monitors jurisdiction practices ADVOCATES seek to understand and improve jurisdiction practices

FUTURE: ACT S MART FOR P UBLIC D EFENSE What is QUALITY PUBLIC DEFENSE? How do we MEASURE it? How do we DESCRIBE it? How do we ACHIEVE it? How do we DISSEMINATE it?

Historical Context part three Q UALITY I NDICATOR F RAMEWORK 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 Indicator s 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  50 basic indicators set standards for county-level indigent defense information systems.  Advancing from statewide requirements to local self- monitoring capacity.

NATIONAL ADVISORY PANEL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS UNIVERSITY / ACADEMIC National Association for Public Defense Georgia State University College of Law National Legal Aid and Defenders Association Tulane University School of Law American Bar Association, Standing Committee University of Nebraska-Lincoln on Legal Aid and Indigent Defense University of Cincinnati College of Law PUBLIC DEFENDERS COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATION Boston Public Counsel Services Travis County Criminal Courts New York State Indigent Defense Services Louisville Metro Public Defender’s Office Oregon Public Defender System

MAJOR TEXAS URBAN TEST SITES El Paso, TX San Antonio, TX Houston, TX Austin, TX Dallas, TX

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

Historical Context part four O VERVIEW OF ACT SMART W EB P ORTAL 22

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

NEXT STEPS • Continued website construction o Dashboard o Graphics o Upload data o Download data • Statewide marketing o Jurisdictions o Policymakers o Advocates o 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