Putting Pennsylvania's First Indigent Defense Funds to Action

For the first time in the Commonwealth's history, Pennsylvania has allocated state dollars to support public defenders.

This week, the Indigent Defense Advisory Committee met to start discussions on how the fund should be distributed.

“We talked about procedure and process, but we also started hearing from the public defenders and other folks in the room about what’s needed," said Sara Jacobson, chair of the Indigent Defense Advisory Committee and the executive director of the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania.

"We heard about the need for the grant writing process to be simple," said Jacobson. "We heard about the need for support staff. Offices don't have social workers, investigators, paralegals."

Governor Josh Shapiro signed a budget bill in December that gave $7.5 million towards indigent defense.

Indigent refers to someone who cannot pay for a lawyer.

PA's Current Indigent Defense System

Before the bill was signed, local counties were responsible for all indigent defense expenses and operations. The state requires each county to have a public defenders office, but did nothing else to oversee standards or fund those offices.

Some counties can afford and manage the responsibilities well.

Some can't.

Jacobson described a recent visit to one public defender's office on the western side of the state.

“She had one part time lawyer working with her. She told me their case load was something between 550-600 cases," said Jacobson. "That’s 550-600 people, people’s lives.”

Pennsylvania counties spend around $125.4 million on indigent defense, averaging $9.67 per case.

The national average is $19.82.

“Even if Pennsylvania doubled it's current expenditure, it would still be below the national average," said David Carroll, the executive director of 6th Amendment Center.

"7.5 million dollars, though it sounds like a lot of money," said Carroll, "is not going to go very far in addressing the deficiencies in Pennsylvania’s indigent defense system.”

Here is a 2021 report from Pennsylvania's Legislative Budget and Finance Committee that lays out how the state has been operating.

Carroll says analysis of the report shows a "significant number of people going without counsel at all."

How to Go Forward

Carroll says that how money is spent is equally important to having money.

“A lot of states have had success tying that money to standards," said Carroll. 6th Amendment Center encourages states to implement the American Bar Association's '10 Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System'.

“A public defense attorney should not be unduly influenced by judges and politicians. They should be appointed early enough in the case to be effective. Once appointed they should provide continuous representation to that defendant. They should have proper qualifications, training, and supervision. And they should have caseload controls," said Carroll. "These are just some of the main points in the list."

For an example of applying standards to funding, counties might prioritize creating more defender positions to help with case loads before trying to raise the wage of current positions.

Governor Josh Shapiro recognized that the committee and funding is just the first step, and has proposed an added $2.5 million in this year's budget.

“We need to do more, because the need is great," said Shapiro.

Historical Context

Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that had NEVER allocated state funds to indigent defense.

Currently, South Dakota is not providing state funding for indigent defense, but the state has done so in the past.

The right of the accused to have access to legal counsel is in the Constitution. But the states were inconsistent in how they provided the right, leaving much of the process to local courts.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright mandated indigent defense was a Constitutional right that state courts must provide.

Still, inconsistencies persist. Some states took on all parts of the indigent defense system, some split the costs and responsibilities with local governments, and still others leave most of the burden on local governments.