New State Public Defender office seeks $39M spending authority, supplements for transcripts and staffing

BOISE — Lawmakers spent a substantial portion of the Oct. 24 Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee meeting examining the newly created State Public Defender office, its funding structure and a string of supplemental and ongoing requests to cover rising costs as counties transition responsibilities to the state.

Christopher Lahoset, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, opened the presentation by explaining the agency’s funding flow: Idaho Code directs the state controller to transfer $39 million from the tax relief fund into a dedicated State Public Defense Fund (cited in the presentation as section 57‑8207 of Idaho Code). Lahoset told the committee that about two‑thirds of the agency’s current appropriation is expected to come from that dedicated fund and that the agency’s total personnel budget is about $37.7 million.

Lahoset outlined multiple enhancement requests. The agency asked for a $2.5 million one‑time supplemental in the current fiscal year to allow full use of the $39 million transfer; the agency says that portion is earmarked to represent children and parents qualifying under the Child Protective Act. The governor proposed a $390,200 one‑time supplemental to cover transcript costs after the Idaho Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 5, 2024 in State v. Blasick that the state is responsible for court‑ordered transcripts in such cases. The governor also recommended one‑time and ongoing funding to raise contract rates and recruit and retain employees; Lahoset summarized a $5,427,600 one‑time FY25 recommendation and a larger FY26 package that would move more of the appropriation onto the dedicated fund and add cash transfers for hiring and contracting.

Eric Frederickson, the State Public Defender, described a difficult but rapidly evolving transition after the agency began operations on Oct. 1. He said the office “walked into 1,300 withdrawals and cases,” that many contract attorneys left or were on flat‑fee arrangements that the agency determined were inadequate, and that higher contract rates were necessary to meet constitutional and ethical standards. “We lost a lot of contract attorneys,” Frederickson said. “We had to increase the rates … an attorney in Ada County should have the same representation as an attorney in Wallace, Idaho.”

Frederickson and staff outlined several operational issues the committee probed: the agency currently expects to onboard a small number of counties each year (Lahoset said 11 counties were in the system with four more scheduled for onboarding this year — Benewah, Elmore, Jerome and Shoshone), statute leaves county‑provided facilities in place until 2029 unless the legislature changes the law, and additional specialized costs (experts, psychosexual evaluations, investigators, transcripts and capital litigation expenses) had not been fully accounted for in initial fiscal estimates.

Committee members pressed for more details on line items Lahoset cited in the budget book — for example, a $2 million line for experts and a roughly $3.58 million line described as “training, transcripts and miscellaneous expenditures.” Frederickson told the committee psychosexual evaluations cost about $2,500 each and confirmed that some categories formerly paid by counties (valuations, certain evaluations) would require new statutory clarity about who pays after the transition.

On staffing, Frederickson said the office has 29 vacant positions budgeted during the transition and requested authorization for nearly 18 additional full‑time positions to staff four new institutional offices. He said that if the committee approves competitive pay increases and the requested positions, recruitment prospects are strong and many private attorneys have indicated interest in returning to public defense.

Members also questioned the agency’s scope: Frederickson acknowledged the office has been appointed to cases outside its statutory core (civil custody and other non‑criminal matters) when no attorney was otherwise available, and he said the agency is litigating some appointments to clarify scope. He asked lawmakers to consider statutory clarifications if the committee wants to restrict appointments to the duties set out in Title 19, Chapter 60, Section 3 of Idaho Code.

The hearing included extended discussion of the statewide case management system the agency is implementing and differences between workload‑based staffing formulas the office now favors versus the older caseload numeric standards.

No formal appropriation votes occurred during the hearing. Committee members asked staff and the agency to supply additional line‑item detail and cost breakdowns as the budget process continues.