The Department of Public Advocacy was created in 1972 after years of controversy surrounding compliance with Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Gideon established the right to counsel for poor people charged with felony crimes. In Bradshaw v. Ball, 487 S.W. 2d 294 (Ky. 1972), the Court held that an attorney in Kentucky could not be required to represent an indigent absent compensation. Together, these two cases represented a sea change in the manner in which indigents charged with crimes would be provided counsel. Gone would be the pro bono method, whereby new attorneys to the bar would put in their time representing indigents. In its place was a state agency charged with the constitu-tional obligation of providing counsel to indigents. How to turn the requirements of Gideon and Bradshaw into reality has been the mission of the Department of Public Advocacy over the years.

In FY 97, DPA handled over 101,849 cases at the trial and post-trial levels. This was accomplished for $163 per case, one of the lowest rates of any public defender agency in the nation. This repre-sented a 10%+ increase over FY 96.

DPA does not receive a significant share of the criminal justice dollar. In FY 98, DPA is receiving only 2.79% of the total criminal justice budget. This is slightly down from the 2.9% received in FY 97. In contrast, Kentucky's prosecutors re-ceive 8.82%, over three times DPA's budget. DPA's clients paid $2,695,096 of the $17,000,000+ budget in FY 97.

DPA's general fund budget has been static for three years. Each of the last three years, DPA has received a continuation budget of 3+%. The only growth in services during the last three years has occurred as a result of revenue being received from our revenue sources, recoupment, the administrative fee, and the DUI service fee. As predicted, the advent of revenue appears to have resulted in a stagnation of increases in state support through the general fund.

The impact of this level of resources is dramatic. Most of DPA's full-time attorneys have caseloads of 50%-100% above of national standards. Louisville's defenders' caseloads were 820 cases in FY 97. Lexington's defenders had a caseload of 632 per lawyer. Most of the attorneys in DPA's rural offices had caseloads from 400-650. These heavy caseloads cause dramatic turnover and create an insurmountable burden for the conscientious defender attempting to represent his/her clients in a reasonable fashion.

This is particularly acute in juvenile court. In 1996, the Children's Law Center criticized DPA in a law review article for the quality of representation being rendered in Kentucky's juvenile courts. DPA was criticized for having contract lawyers untrained in juvenile law, placing inexperienced lawyers in juvenile court, and most significantly doing little to solve the problem of having too many juveniles going unrepresented in juvenile court.

DPA is trying to solve these significant problems with a request of $5.4 million additional general fund dollars during the biennium. This is a modest 15% budget increase which would raise the cost-per-case to approximately $190. It would allow for defenders to reduce their unconscionable caseloads. It would also accomplish the following:

1. DPA would open 5 additional full-time offices, as well as expanding several existing offices into surrounding counties. This would enable DPA to cover 85% of the caseload by the full-time method. Presently, full-time prosecutors serve in 64 counties, compared to 50 counties featuring full-time defenders. Under this plan, the full-time method would be extended to approximately 70 counties. Private lawyers serving as part-time public defenders would continue to serve in the 50 counties with 15% of the cases, as well as serving as conflict lawyers.

Further, this plan would create a structure whereby most geographical areas in Kentucky would have a full-time office nearby. Finally, the plan would ensure accountability for the increase in tax dollars.

2. DPA would enhance its representation in juv-enile court. This budget request would enable DPA to lower caseloads in many areas, thereby allowing for better representation by overworked public defenders in juvenile court. The budget request would create a position for a juvenile trainer, thereby allowing DPA to concentrate on training in this complex area. Further, extending the full-time method into additional counties, with increased training and accountability, is expected to increase significantly the quality of representation in juvenile court.

3. DPA would be able to lower the high case-loads of defenders in Jefferson and Fayette Counties as well as in some of the rural offices.

4. The DPA lost funding for the Capital Post-Conviction Branch in July of 1997. This occurred when the Justice Cabinet ended a Byrne Grant which had previously been given to DPA to continue the funding for the Kentucky Resource Center, renamed the Capital Post-Conviction Branch. While the funding has been lost, the responsibility for representing the 31 men on Kentucky's death row continues. In order to avoid the shameful lack of representation in post-conviction of persons on the southern death row as is now the case in states like Texas and Georgia, DPA is seeking to fund a modest Capital Post-Conviction Branch.

It is my desire to have a reasonably funded, professional, high-quality public defender system in Kentucky. DPA plays a crucial role in our criminal justice system by ensuring fairness and the reliability of verdicts. We have been under-funded for too long. I encourage the readers of The Advocate to do everything they can to sup-port this budget request as the General Assembly is meeting.

Return to Table of Content