Subcommittee reviews public defender budget, eligibility process as OPD seeks supplemental funding

A Section D subcommittee meeting on the Office of Public Defender’s (OPD) budget examined a package of changes that would centralize contracted-attorney authority, convert modified positions into permanent FTEs and raise contractor pay to address an attorney shortfall and backlog.

The budget analyst, Mr. Hopkins, described the fiscal picture to the committee and said the agency’s biennial request includes a large consolidation of contracted services into a central services division. He said the consolidation “moved 7,400,000.0 out of public defender division into central services” and that the central services division request represents the single largest percentage increase in the agency’s House Bill 2 material.

Why it matters: OPD officials told legislators the changes are intended to reduce an average monthly shortfall in trial counsel and to stabilize a contracting market where private attorneys have been less willing to accept state contracts at existing rates. The subcommittee heard both operational details — how eligibility determinations are made and automated — and budget-level solutions such as a proposed increase in the contractor hourly rate from $71 to $90.

Mr. Hopkins summarized elements of the request and the recent fiscal transfer that affected the agency’s base: “That DP ... actually moved 7,400,000.0 out of public defender division into central services.” He also outlined supplemental and ongoing requests contained in program materials, including personal services increases to convert modified positions to permanent status.

OPD staff described how eligibility works and how eligibility interacts with representation. Mr. Shandelson, speaking for the Office of Public Defender, said appointment and representation begin immediately: “An individual ... if I was an individual appearing in court and I asked or was appointed a public defender, the court would appoint OPD. And from that moment on, OPD, is appointed in the case.” He emphasized that eligibility is a parallel process to representation and that counsel continues to represent clients unless a court orders otherwise.

On the substance of eligibility, OPD officials told the committee they apply statutory criteria. They cited the agency’s statutory authorizations (referencing 47-1-1104 and related eligibility provisions) and the internal policy that implements income and hardship reviews. Officials said income eligibility uses a 33% of federal poverty guideline threshold for financial disqualification; hardship review is a case-by-case assessment that may consider assets, household obligations and the estimated private-market cost of counsel.

Key figures and program details the committee was given

- Central services: staff told the committee the central services division request increases roughly $50,200,000 (a large percentage increase driven by consolidation of contracted costs) and that $22,400,000 is being moved from other programs into central services. - Supplemental/Ongoing requests: OPD seeks $13,100,000 to make a supplemental (House Bill 3) request ongoing, and the agency proposed a contractor rate increase that staff estimated would cost about $6,200,000 (raising contract attorney pay from $71 to $90 per hour). - New FTEs and transitions: the request includes converting 13 modified positions to permanent in the public defender division, and a separate central proposal would fund 8 new attorney positions in FY2026 and 16 in FY2027 (Mr. Hopkins’ materials note $3.1 million to fund the initial-year phase of that staffing plan). - Fiscal transfers: OPD staff described a fiscal transfer that shifted about $5,300,000 from FY2025 into FY2024 as part of prior modifications.

Eligibility workload and results

OPD staff said the office processed a large volume of eligibility records in fiscal 2024. The figures presented to the committee included:

- About 17,000 eligibility applicants approved in FY2024, of which roughly 1,000 (about 6%) were approved on a hardship basis. - Approximately 900 individuals were determined not eligible on income grounds in FY2024; OPD filed motions to rescind appointment in about 780 of those cases. Of the motions filed, staff reported roughly 300 resulted in the court granting rescission (OPD’s wording: the court agreed to rescind the appointment and the agency was no longer required to provide counsel for those matters). - OPD has four eligibility technicians processing applications. Applicants are generally given ten days to submit an initial application; staff said straightforward income validations “can happen within about 2 weeks,” and hardship reviews take longer.

On presumptive and exempt categories, OPD staff described exceptions to the standard income review. Mr. Shandelson said the agency uses presumptive eligibility for some incarcerated people who have been in custody more than 14 days and for other categories (for example, dependency-and-neglect cases) that the statute exempts from an eligibility showing.

Backlog and shortfall context

OPD officials framed the request as an effort to reduce a persistent attorney shortfall. The agency reported an average monthly shortfall of public defender coverage in the trial division that it is trying to close by hiring more staff and by increasing contract pay to attract outside counsel. The appellate backlog was described separately; staff said about 37 appellate cases were pending assignment as of the most recent count.

Agency process and verification

Committee members pressed OPD on verification of applicant claims. Committee members and OPD staff described the agency’s verification tools: OPD said it uses automated checks for participation in benefit programs (for example, SNAP or TANF) and can validate employment using state workforce records or pay stubs when available. On unsworn financial affidavits, staff said the application is “an unsworn declaration” subject to perjury and that the office validates income and assets where it can, escalating documentation requests at the hardship stage.

Public comment and next steps

Two public commenters addressed the committee. Brennan of the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence told the subcommittee that “it is very important that the criminal justice system be respected by all and fairness is critical,” and urged support for funding that ensures timely counsel. Josh Butterfly, speaking from Cascade County, urged transparency and plaintiff protections in plea processes and said people in poverty need reliable access to counsel.

The subcommittee did not take a vote at the session. Staff indicated they will supply follow-up metrics requested by committee members (for example, more granular eligibility and workload breakdowns), and the committee’s calendar shows executive action still pending later in the section’s schedule.

Ending: The hearing provided figures and operational explanations that frame the policy choice before the Legislature: whether to fund centralized contracting authority, convert modified positions to permanent FTEs and raise contractor pay to reduce shortfalls in public defense services. OPD and legislative staff told the subcommittee they will provide additional documentation before executive action so members can weigh cost, operational impacts and tradeoffs.