1999 Annual Report #3

Caseload/Workload With the exception of the Misdemeanor cases, the rate of growth for the other major categories of cases, Felony and Juvenile, slowed in 1999 when compared with the previous three years. In 1999, Misdemeanor cases grew by 9%. This compares to an average annual growth of 11% for the past three years and 4% for the past nine years. Felony cases grew by only 1% in 1999, with a 9% average annual growth rate for the past three years and 4% per year for the past nine years. Juvenile cases showed an 8% increase in 1999. However, Juvenile cases have had an average annual growth rate of 24% for the past three years and 21% for the past nine years.

Given the slowing in the growth rate, we anticipate that new open felonies in 2000 will remain relatively steady. The same will probably hold true for Juvenile cases after years of increases in the 20% range. Misdemeanors appear to be on an upward spiral and we expect a growth rate in the 10% range for the upcoming year. Serious consideration will have to be given to making the part time attorney position in the Misdemeanor Division a full time position if the trend continues.

Technology Changes
During the past year, the Lancaster County Public Defender's Office has been working with the Lancaster County Attorney's Office, in looking at possible upgrading of the two offices' Case Management Information Systems. Discussions have included the Public Defender and county attorney in Douglas County and a presentation was made to a joint meeting of the Lancaster, Douglas, and Sarpy County Commissioners. Following that meeting, a joint resolution was agreed upon which supports the investigation of a system that would accommodate all agencies' needs. We will be exploring funding at the local, state and federal levels.

With the advent of the new high tech courtrooms in the remodeled Hall of Justice, there has been an increased interest in how to use that technology to better represent the clients of the Public Defender's Office. Courtroom demonstrations will surely be a part of the future of defense work and we must plan in order to keep up.

Managing the Growth of Lancaster County's Indigent Defense System
Last year, Lancaster County spent over $1million on indigent defense services beyond the cost of operating the Public Defender's Office. This represents virtually one-third of the total cost of indigent defense. While some of these funds were contract funds placed in the Public Defender's budget, the model of representation was different from the Public Defender staff attorney model. A significant portion of the $1million was spent on hourly fees for assigned counsel in all three court systems in Lancaster County.

Given the size of the expenditure and the nature of the work, perhaps it is time to look at the possibility of a professional manager for this portion of the system. Such an individual could not only manage the contracts, assign attorneys and arrange for payment, but he/she could also recruit qualified attorneys to serve on panels, provide support for the contractors and assigned counsel, and serve as a training director for all attorneys in the indigent defense system, including the Public Defender's Office. The discussion must begin with the judges, whose responsibility it is to appoint and order payment of counsel, and it must include the Lancaster County Commissioners' who must pay the bills for these services.

During 1999, the various courts of Lancaster County, and the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners collaborated on a system to determine indigence. The Board agreed to fund a screener position for a three year pilot project. At the end of 1999, the project was still in its planning phase. This project could be the beginning of future collaborations focusing on other management issues for the assigned counsel and the contracts.

T of C   Page 2 Page 4