State public defender highlights volatile funding, seeks $2M building supplement and statutory "warrants" for stable support

Ramey Starnes, Louisiana state public defender, told the Senate Finance Committee that the office’s FY2026 executive request is $48,800,000 and described changes enacted in Act 22 of the 2024 second special session that moved authority from the old Louisiana Public Defender Board to the Office of the State Public Defender.

Starnes said the office now has an auditor and a compliance unit charged with improving monthly and annual reporting by district defenders and that accurate data are needed to support policy changes and funding requests. “We need a criminal justice system we could pay for and a reliable, renewable funding source,” Starnes told the committee.

Why it matters: most public defender services in Louisiana are funded by statutory dedications—and those revenue streams have fluctuated. Starnes and staff warned the committee that conviction and user fees (traffic and other fees imposed at conviction) are volatile, that local funding and fee collections declined during the COVID period, and that district fund balance depletions totaled about $1.8 million in calendar year 2024.

Key details: the office reported that about 93% of its expenditures are “other charges” that flow to district defender offices and contract programs. The statewide breakout the presenter provided showed roughly $34,000,000 for the district assistance program, $8,000,000 for contracts (capital and other legal defense), about $1,200,000 for indigent parent representation in child-abuse/neglect cases, and $1,500,000 expected from a Title IV‑E interagency transfer with DCFS (an increase from $750,000). Starnes also noted a very small DNA Post‑Conviction Relief Fund (Code of Criminal Procedure 926.1) with limited receipts.

Operational context: the office has 17 authorized TO positions and reported four funded-but-unfilled positions as of early February. Personal services are about 5% of the recommended budget; the average TO salary shown in the presentation was roughly $87,000. The presenter said the agency typically spends about 97% of its budget authority by year end and described the FY2026 request as a “standstill” budget in overall dollar terms compared with the existing operating baseline.

Buildings and self‑generated revenue: Starnes described a district building fund the office has used to purchase district offices rather than rent. He said the system has purchased 12 buildings in 11 districts and noted Lake Charles (Calcasieu Parish) as a high‑profile example where purchasing converted a $7,000 monthly rent obligation into a revenue‑generating asset by renting excess space. Jefferson Parish is the next priority; the district used $1,000,000 of fund balance to buy a building and is asking the legislature to replenish that amount. Starnes characterized the $2,000,000 supplemental request as an “additional request” that is not in the governor’s executive budget and said two high‑priority uses are replenishing Jefferson Parish and replacing unusable space in Winn Parish after an electrical fire.

Policy asks: Starnes said the office also seeks a statutory warrant funding approach modeled on how district attorneys are financed—an approach he estimated would amount to about $56,000,000 and would allow the system to provide consistent benefits (retirement and health insurance) and to recruit and retain line defenders.

Concerns and constraints: legislators pressed the office on whether revenue from purchased buildings has been dedicated to operations rather than maintenance; Starnes acknowledged that maintenance funding is limited and that some districts that generate revenue (Calcasieu) can cover repairs while others will have to request future appropriations. Committee members also questioned a planned supplemental and the volatility of conviction fee collections, which fell sharply during COVID and have only partially rebounded.

What’s next: Starnes invited follow‑up questions and offered to provide data requested by members. The $2,000,000 district building supplemental was described as an agency request (not in the governor’s budget) and the committee heard details about the proposed uses.