Professionals Defend Sonoma County’s Indigents

Conclusions 5

• CL1 Page 5
  After a defendant completes an “Application for Financial Evaluation” under penalty of perjury, at the Public Defender’s Office, the information provided is verified by that office only “in rare cases.” (Stated by the Public Defender in his response to the 1996-1997 Sonoma County Grand Jury Report). That practice has not changed.
• CL2 Page 5
  Fewer than 10% of the defendants who are directed by the Court to undergo financial evaluation by County Collections ever show up at that office.
• CL3 Page 5
  Although defendants must provide written documentation regarding finances, Central Collections does not routinely verify assets, and it checks credit reports for fewer than 25% of those who do appear for the financial evaluation.
• CL4 Page 5
  The “Application for Financial Evaluation” completed at the Public Defender’s Office is not forwarded to the Collections Department, so there is no financial record for those defendants who do not show up there.
• CL5 Page 5
  Defendants are required to fill out the same form twice. The Public Defender’s Office handled 22,926 cases in FY 2001-2; Central Collections collected $72,877. The Jury believes strongly in the rights of all citizens to competent counsel and supports the importance of providing such counsel to indigent defendants. However, the Jury believes that the methods currently used by the Collections Department and the Public Defender’s Office do not adequately verify the accuracy of the information provided by represented defendants and allows clients who can afford private counsel to take unfair advantage of the system. Management of Public Defender’s Office The Public Defender’s office exemplifies an organizational culture where teamwork is an integral part of daily operations and morale is very high. Almost all information from Public Defender employees reflected the perception that department members are mutually supportive and enjoy a positive work environment. It is troubling, however, that 40% of the clerical support staff do not perceive positive and constructive attitudes in the department. That perception would bear exploring by management. Communication effectiveness is mixed. People do feel free to ask advice and to consult with more experienced staff whenever they wish and do so regularly. There is, however, no process to keep all employees well-informed. When infrequent meetings of all attorneys occur, investigators and clerks are 5 not included. Managers as a group perceive they are well-informed, and top management believes that supervisors keep employees informed, but that perception is not shared by a number of employees. There is obvious discrepancy between managers’ and other employees’ perceptions of performance review frequency and effectiveness. We found no consistency in use of reviews to provide performance feedback. Reviews seem to be largely regarded by evaluators as a form to fill out rather than an opportunity for meaningful discussion about performance and a time to help employees improve their performance. Additionally, evaluations are too often based on comments from other persons than on direct supervision and observation by reviewers. The U. S. Bureau of Justice Assistance’s monograph Keeping Defender Workloads Manageable, cited 10 competence factors for criminal defense attorneys as defined by the American Bar Association: “legal knowledge and skill, timeliness of representation, thoroughness of preparation, client relationship and interviewing, communicating with the accused, advising the accused, investigation, trial court representation, sentencing, and appellate representation maintaining competence and ensuring quality.” When the Jury reviewed the Sonoma County Public Defender’s “Attorney Performance Evaluation Report” we determined it could be an excellent tool that assesses attorneys on all 10 qualities cited above. However, the form is not used effectively for performance feedback. While it calls for reviewer’s impressions “based on personal observations and/or knowledge,” most managers, including the department head, said they did not observe attorneys they review in court or in conducting interviews, nor did they have time to review the quality of motions filed or case files. Case loads carried by managing attorneys contribute to their failure to observe those they supervise. The fact that the department head asks that reviews be modified if he believes them too “tough on someone,” also weakens the credibility and effectiveness of the process. The Sonoma County Public Defender’s Office is the only one of 6 similarly populated counties that does not have a written performance review policy and the only one without an annual review for all employees. In another area, survey data indicate a significant disconnect between management perceptions and those of other employees, especially about whether promotions are based on effective performance. It would benefit the department if managers were more in touch with the concerns and issues of their employees. It is also unfortunate that employees perceive that exceptional performance is not rewarded or even publicly recognized in this organization. Another weakness exists in the performance management process. A large number of interviewees, including most managers interviewed, blamed civil service rules for protecting poor performers, but some managers admitted they were not very good at managing performance. Over the past several years Sonoma County Grand Juries have received a number of complaints from defendants regarding the competence of their public defenders. After investigation, many of those complaints were determined to have no merit. However, some complaints do seem to have merit, and some of the same defender names appear in those complaints. Additionally, some interviewees indicated that there is a small number of attorneys who do not perform to the department’s standards. In the Sonoma County Public Defender’s Office the only consequence for attorneys who do not appear to be providing the high level of service exemplified by most of the department is that they are rotated to a different court. Thus, problems are moved, not dealt with. Managers tend to blame civil service restrictions for being unable to discipline and/or terminate consistently poor performers; that excuse does a disservice to all professionals in the department. After reviewing documents from the County Human Resources Department, this Jury is convinced that there is a detailed progressive discipline process that provides supervisors with a tool to improve performance whenever possible and to fairly discipline employees who are unable or unwilling to improve. While the form could be improved, one is available, but it is currently not used by the Sonoma County Public Defender’s Office. 6 The last time the Public Defender’s Office was reviewed in1996-1997, the Sonoma County Grand Jury raised concerns about adequate space, computer access and access to legal research software. All attorneys in the Public Defender’s Office now have computer access, but only three computers in the department are linked to a legal research engine and those computers are primarily used by law clerks. Although there is great improvement in available office space since that report, there are still some attorneys who share offices and find it difficult to offer privacy to clients they interview and lack space to work on files and maintain organized research materials. The small library is still inadequate for the many uses required of it. Nevertheless, the department, supported by the Board of Supervisors, has admirably satisfied many concerns raised by the Grand Jury in 1997. Training dollars are available for all attorneys as are training materials. In addition, the recent introduction of training for new preliminary attorneys using videotaped mock trials is valued by participants. Several respondents indicated that case loads precluded them from taking advantage of the office’s supply of binders and training materials; they were interested in a formal training system with a specific training scheduled throughout the year. Currently the clerical staff is beginning cross training to allow more flexibility in staff assignments and is developing process and procedure binders to support that effort; this is very positive. There are two important department needs regarding client support: mental health and interpreter resources. Professional mental health support for attorneys who have clients whose cases raise mental health issues is a growing need; the number of such clients is increasing dramatically. Some attorneys interviewed indicated that an experienced mental health professional to assist them in putting together appropriate analysis of needs and treatment recommendations would free attorneys to focus on their own professional strengths. In evaluating the costs to the department, the Jury compared salary ranges for a social welfare worker III and a deputy public defender III; the social worker earns 57% of a public defender salary and by hiring a social worker, the department could save some “expert” expenses as well allow attorneys more time to practice law. The second need that negatively impacts service quality to a large number of clients is the availability of full-time interpreting support. Currently there is only a part- time interpreter. All information the Jury received by survey and interviews indicates a very high level of professional pride by department employees as well as respect for the clients they serve. The Jury’s own observations of how clients were treated by attorneys and staff reinforced that perception. Department employees are deservedly proud of the high level of service they provide to indigent clients of Sonoma County.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.