Page 259 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 259

 Section 10: Concerns About Defender Information Technology
In an increasingly technology-driven world, data collection and analysis is central to program administration. Studying the Criminal Justice Act program in the early 1990s, the Prado Report highlighted the difficulty that the Committee faced trying to evaluate a program for which there was no reliable data. At the time, there was “no comprehensive system for identifying and obtaining pertinent, reliable data and evaluating the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the program.”998 The absence of such a system, and the ensuing lack of “appropriate and comprehensive admin- istrative oversight”999 and “focused data collection and evaluation procedures,” represented “serious deficiencies in a government program.”1000 At the time of those findings, the CJA program budget was only $200 million annually. It is now more than $1 billion, but lack of access to reliable data about the program is no less of an issue today than it was twenty-five years ago.
As already discussed, data on the CJA panel is seriously deficient, especially in the area of voucher review. But there is also a dearth of systematic, national data on the work of federal defender offices. Individual offices collect their own data to inform staffing, provide internal accountability, and secure funding that is essential to [their] mission.1001 Data generated by federal defenders does not only involve budgets and oversight, however. In the course of representing their clients, defenders generate vast amounts of sensitive information that is privileged work product, protected under attorney-client privilege and which defenders have an ethical obligation to keep confidential. At this time, however, the data defenders
998 PradoReportat41.
999 Id.at43.TheCommitteealsostatedthatanyadministrativeoversightshouldinclude,“asafe mechanism for reporting improper interference with the delivery of legal services.” Id.
1000 Id.
1001 SteveKalar,FPD,N.D.Cal.,PublicHearing—SanFrancisco,Cal.,Panel7,Writ.Test.,at2.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T 215
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 
























































































   257   258   259   260   261