6
Commission
The Rising Cost of Indigent Defense in Arizona
High Level Overview/Fact Sheet
Methodology:
The initial data for this report was obtained from county budgets reviewed from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2002 for the Public Defender's Office, the Legal Defender's Office and the Contract Attorney's Office -- when appropriate. Each office was asked to provide the actual amount spent by their office to deliver indigent defense services. The survey also requested that each of these agencies review the budget data for accuracy and completeness. Additionally, the survey requested feedback regarding events that have significantly impacted their budgets and/or their ability to provide and maintain services.
Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Arizona
Report Purpose:
T h e purpose of this study was to ascertain the f i n a n c i a l costs associated with indigent defense in Arizona.
Results:
All 15 counties responded to the survey, although in some instances complete data for some years were not available. Several agencies experienced difficulties in breaking out data between the Public Defender's and Legal Defender's Office.
All respondents were requested to report actual amounts spent in providing indigent defense services as opposed to approved budgets. amount and the actual amount spent. The request to focus on actual vs. approved was made because there may be a remarkable difference between the budgeted The indigent defense
Actual Expenses $29,027,351 $29,142,609 $37,538,632 $40,650,038 $43,947,968 $12,897,192 $15,542,359 $15,495,791 $15,893,154 $18,231,615 Approved vs. Actual Difference ($2,023,655) $1,342,146 $897,613 ($335,308) ($2,858,322) ($1,411,225) ($2,732,766) ($1,920,763) ($2,099,457) ($3,868,038)
Maricopa County
Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Adopted $27,003,696 $30,484,755 $38,436,245 $40,314,730 $41,089,646 $11,485,967 $12,809,593 $13,575,028 $13,793,697 $14,363,577
i n Maricopa County consists of the Public Defender, Legal D e f e n s e , Contract C o u n s e l and Legal A d v o c a t e . Over this period, expenditures were greater than budgeted funding i n FY1998, FY2001 and FY2002.
Pima County
For each of the past five years, actual expenditures have been greater than the adopted budget in Pima County. In FY2002 there was a 21 percent difference between the actual and budgeted dollars in the amount of $3.8 million.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 1110 West Washington, Suite 230 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Toll Free 877.668.2252 (P) 602.364.1146 (F) 602.364.1175
May 2003
Review full report at: www.acjc.state.az.us
2
The total state expenditure for Indigent Defense rose from $55,353,470 in FY1998 to $80,343,726 in FY2002, reflecting a 45.1 percent increase over the five year period and 9.4 percent increase over the past year. In the previous study conducted in 1994, there was an increase of 50 percent over the five year time span from FY1989 to FY1993. County
Apache Cochise
Defense Type
1998
290,000 691,464 458,774 537,429 1,192,823 ***504,001 717,392 230,000 *83,555 235,396 ** 29,027,351 1,123,215 486,703 506,020 226,345 12,897,192 816,764 1,530,200 250,275 1,676,686 1,053,016 818,869 ** $55,353,470
1999
290,000 718,467 469,240 565,039 1,355,120 461,949 788,584 300,000 83,555 289,751 ** 29,142,609 1,227,087 537,007 548,115 248,470 15,542,359 974,396 1,802,619 263,910 1,859,927 859,671 753,939 ** $59,081,814
2000
314,000 700,528 506,188 567,531 1,397,226 572,685 932,000 300,000 79,412 317,859 66,750 37,538,632 1,238,504 555,441 549,340 262,825 15,495,791 1,067,982 1,845,543 321,039 1,874,450 847,652 482,874 607,500 $68,441,752
2001
314,000 778,080 529,177 639,281 1,442,287 590,211 936,043 350,000 107,906 342,443 81,400 40,650,038 1,336,280 516,982 578,655 244,870 15,893,154 1,121,433 2,225,300 300,113 2,035,163 948,941 490,590 959,501 $73,411,848
2002
314,000 843,408 598,194 752,522 1,516,056 620,361 979,507 350,000 140,386 336,349 61,500 43,947,968 1,440,266 502,894 639,670 263,835 18,231,615 1,192,151 2,425,908 314,421 2,280,000 1,144,615 586,990 861,110 $80,343,726
Public Defender Public Defender Legal Defender Indigent Defense Coconino Public Defender Legal Defender Gila Public Defender Graham Public Defender Greenlee Public Defender La Paz Public Defender Court Appointed Maricopa Indigent Defense Mohave Public Defender Legal Defender Navajo Public Defender Legal Defender Pima Indigent Defense Pinal Public Defender Other Santa Cruz Public Defender Yavapai Public Defender Yuma Public Defender Legal Defender Contract State Total
*
Estimate taken from FY1999 as data not available for this period. ** Program or agency did not begin until year 2000. ***Estimate for 1998 costs for appointed attorneys prior to start of Legal Defender's Office.
I n Arizona, indigent defense is funded predominantly at t h e county level and in 2002 $ 8 0 , 3 4 3 , 7 2 6 was expended on indigent defense in A r i z o n a . In that same year, State Aid for Indigent Defense Funding contributed $615,900 in appropriated funds and $631,282 in fine reven u e for a total of $1,247,182. Proponents of state funde d indigent defense systems p o i n t out that in states such a s Arizona, that rely heavily on county funding, the heaviest stress is placed on rural counties, which do not have the tax base to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of indigent defense.
Commentaries/Survey Quotes: "Cases are filed as felonies, which are subsequently pled as misdemeanors. Therefore, increased funds are required for the payment of a felony attorney at felony prices for cases, which could have been filed at the Justice Court level." "Increased caseloads are due to: 1) changes in laws and public policy towards mandatory and lengthier sentences; and 2) loss of residential, behavioral health treatment centers." "The new Ring legislation will leave many small counties with additional financial burdens." "The fiscal and practical impact of legislation on all sides of the criminal justice system needs to be emphasized when considering adoption or support of new legislation." "Increasing caseloads necessitated increases in employees and equipment. Additionally, recent technological advances were needed to keep pace with the demands of our judicial system. Those advances resulted in large expenditures for upgrades to antiquated equipment."
Arizona State Government Publications
