Grant Survey Results

Grant Survey Results
		Questions / Responses	Overall	less than 25,000	25,000-49,999	50,000-250,000	greater than 250,000
Part I

1.	The statute states “that a county may not reduce expenditures as a result of receiving grant funds.” The Task Force’s current method of establishing minimum spending by counties uses a baseline period to compare against. Can you suggest another method to calculate or establish the minimum spending requirement that is fair to all counties? Please specify:

2.	Which of the following potential formulas would you like to see the Task Force use? Note: you may indicate that one or more of the potential formulas should be used in combination with one another by checking multiple boxes below corresponding to each type of formula that should be used.
	2a.	Continue county population based formula	58	26	3	11	18
	2b.	Base the formula on poverty population in counties	33	17	6	3	7
	2c.	Base the formula on total amount expenditure increase of counties	23	10	1	9	3
	2d.	Base the formula on the percent of increased county expenditures	22	11	2	4	5
	2e.	Base the formula on new cases added of counties	9	5	1	2	1
	2f.	Base the formula on the percent of increased court case filings with appointed counsel in counties	16	7	4	2	3
	2g.	Base the formula on a cost per appointed case	22	11	4	2	4
	2h.	Base the formula on a combination of counties’ population, poverty population, case filings and expenditures	34	15	9	4	6
	2i.	Base the formula on other method. Please specify	6	1	0	2	3

3.	Please describe why you believe the Task Force should adopt the funding formula above.

4.	What action do you think the Task Force should take concerning the minimum grant allowed or “floor”?
	a	continue the $5,000 floor	67	35	11	11	9
	b	increase the floor. Amount recommended:	22	13	3	3	3
	d	remove the floor and make distribution based on the formula only	44	11	5	13	15
	e	other method. Please specify	4	1	1	0	2
	Increased Floor: $7,000.00		1	1	0	0	0
	Increased Floor: $7,500.00		4	4	0	0	0
	Increased Floor: $8,000.00		1	1	0	0	0
	Increased Floor: $10,000.00		11	6	2	2	1
	Increased Floor: $20,000.00		2	0	1	0	1

5.	Please provide any other comments related to the way the Task Force distributes funds.

Part II

1.	If expenditures on indigent defense services have NOT been impacted by the implementation of the Fair Defense Act, please identify what you believe the reasons are by checking the appropriate boxes to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each reason given. If costs have increased skip to question 2.

1a.	State funding by the Task Force has off-set increased costs.
	1	Strongly Agree	4	4	0	0	0
	2	Somewhat Agree	23	10	10	2	1
	3	Neutral/Unsure	18	6	4	1	6
	4	Somewhat Disagree	19	10	1	5	3
	5	Strongly Disagree	22	8	2	4	8

1b.	County crime has decreased and hence fewer appointments were made.
	2	Somewhat Agree	4	4	0	0	0
	3	Neutral/Unsure	9	6	0	1	2
	4	Somewhat Disagree	18	7	7	2	2
	5	Strongly Disagree	53	22	11	7	12

1c.	Improved overall efficiency in the county criminal justice system.
	1	Strongly Agree	5	2	2	1	0
	2	Somewhat Agree	15	9	4	2	0
	3	Neutral/Unsure	29	17	4	4	4
	4	Somewhat Disagree	18	7	5	1	5
	5	Strongly Disagree	19	5	2	4	7

2.	If expenditures on indigent defense services have increased in your county since implementation of the Fair Defense Act please identify what you believe the reasons are by checking the appropriate boxes to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each reason given.

2a.	Costs have increased because the rate attorneys are paid on the fee schedule was increased.
	1	Strongly Agree	31	12	3	7	9
	2	Somewhat Agree	36	16	6	5	9
	3	Neutral/Unsure	21	15	3	1	2
	4	Somewhat Disagree	34	10	7	6	10
	5	Strongly Disagree	25	6	2	6	11

2b.	If costs have increased because attorney fee schedules were increased, by approximately what percentage have the costs increased?
	1	0-10%	33	13	4	4	11
	2	11-20%	28	13	7	4	4
	3	21-30%	14	5	3	2	4
	4	31-40%	10	6	0	0	4
	5	41-50%	8	2	0	3	3
	6	Over 50%	4	1	1	1	1

2c.	Costs have increased because more defendants are now determined to be indigent.
	1	Strongly Agree	69	27	6	12	23
	2	Somewhat Agree	48	21	11	8	8
	3	Neutral/Unsure	13	6	0	1	6
	4	Somewhat Disagree	11	3	2	2	4
	5	Strongly Disagree	2	1	1	0	0

2d.	Costs have increased because we are required to appoint attorneys earlier than we appointed previously.
	1	Strongly Agree	77	29	8	16	24
	2	Somewhat Agree	31	16	5	0	9
	3	Neutral/Unsure	18	10	2	3	3
	4	Somewhat Disagree	11	3	3	3	2
	5	Strongly Disagree	9	0	2	3	4

2e.	Costs have increased because more attorney appointments are made to defendants charged with misdemeanors.
	1	Strongly Agree	63	22	5	12	24
	2	Somewhat Agree	40	21	6	7	6
	3	Neutral/Unsure	30	14	5	3	8
	4	Somewhat Disagree	5	0	0	3	2
	5	Strongly Disagree	6	0	3	0	2

2f.	Costs have increased because of increased case filings.
	1	Strongly Agree	33	14	4	8	7
	2	Somewhat Agree	59	25	9	10	15
	3	Neutral/Unsure	32	11	4	6	11
	4	Somewhat Disagree	16	6	1	1	7
	5	Strongly Disagree	4	1	1	0	2

2g.	Costs have increased because more expert and investigator fees are paid by county.
	1	Strongly Agree	18	5	2	5	6
	2	Somewhat Agree	47	17	8	8	14
	3	Neutral/Unsure	40	23	3	6	8
	4	Somewhat Disagree	28	10	5	4	9
	5	Strongly Disagree	11	3	1	2	4

2h.	Costs have increased because of increased personnel costs to implement the FDA (e.g. indigent defense coordinator hired)
	1	Strongly Agree	22	2	0	8	12
	2	Somewhat Agree	24	6	2	4	12
	3	Neutral/Unsure	41	27	4	1	9
	4	Somewhat Disagree	27	10	8	3	5
	5	Strongly Disagree	29	13	5	8	3

2i.	Please describe any other factors that have led to increased indigent defense expenditures in your county

3.	Have the following expenses gone down as a result of the Texas FDA?

3a.	As a result of the Texas FDA, expenses have gone down because of fewer pre-disposition jail days served by defendants
	1	Yes	11	5	2	2	2
	2	No	136	56	18	24	37

3b.	As a result of the Texas FDA, expenses have gone down because of decreased health care costs in jail
	1	Yes	8	2	1	2	3
	2	No	138	59	19	24	35

3c.	As a result of the Texas FDA, expenses have gone down because of decreased court costs associated with resetting cases of unrepresented defendants
	1	Yes	10	4	3	1	2
	2	No	133	55	17	24	36

4.	In your opinion, what is working concerning the FDA? (Check all that apply)
	4a.	Quicker appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants	100	47	16	15	22
	4b.	Adequate compensation for appointed attorneys	55	26	9	8	11
	4c.	As a result of the Texas FDA, expenses have gone down because of decreased court costs associated with resetting cases of unrepresented defendants	68	27	7	11	22
	4d.	Better access to experts and investigators	17	7	1	5	4
	4e.	Better qualified counsel selected	27	11	3	3	10
	4f.	Greater Countywide Consistency in Indigent Defense Practices	67	29	12	10	16
	4g.	Higher quality legal representation provided to indigent defendants	25	11	3	3	8
	4h.	Please list other areas where the FDA has improved the indigent defense process and any other improvements in the system that may be helpful for other jurisdictions:	33	7	4	8	14

5.	In your opinion, what is not working concerning the FDA? (Check all that apply)
	5a.	Lack of appointment/delayed appointment of counsel for indigent defendants that make bail	12	5	1	2	4
	5b.	Time Frame for contacting/meeting with client is too short	48	20	5	9	14
	5c.	No notice to appointed counsel when client retains counsel	49	17	3	5	24
	5d.	Requires appointed counsel to do more work without compensation	25	7	3	5	10
	5e.	Inadequate compensation for appointed attorneys	22	5	5	2	10
	5f.	Pressure on appointed attorneys to plead cases inappropriately	23	10	0	1	12
	5g.	Appointments are still made arbitrarily by court rather than as provided in the indigent defense plan (i.e. rotation or other method)	12	3	1	1	7
	5h.	Inadequate resources for experts and investigators	22	10	1	4	7
	5i.	Lower quality representation provided to indigent defendants	17	3	0	1	13
	5j.	Please list other areas where the FDA is not working in your county (and any potential remedies or improvements):	41	10	4	7	20