Page 108 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 108

 64 2 0 1 7
And while individual judges across the country continue to support a strong defense program, the erosion of the Defender Service Committee’s authority has caused defenders to rethink their position within that structure. The concern of defenders is not the product of any lack of commitment to the Sixth Amendment on the part of individual judges. Rather, it is a product of the very real conflicts created by housing the CJA program under the JCUS. There are times when the interests of the CJA program and the judiciary diverge. And these divergences become more obvious, and more severe, in times of constrained resources.236 Inevitably then, the views of the Defender Services Committee and the interests of the CJA program are subordinated to the pressing needs of the judiciary.
3.6.2 Work Measurement
The 2015 Work Measurement Study of Federal Defender Organizations is another example of how the structural conflicts caused by placing the CJA program within the judiciary affects CJA program administration. The September 2013 Report of the Judicial Conference announced that the Judicial Resources Committee, in consul- tation with the Defender Services Committee, would develop new national staffing formulas for FPDOs and CDOs.237 Until that time, defender organization staffing had been based on formulas created by the Defender Services Office, taking into account weighted cases238 and historical needs of the district. In December of 2013, the federal defender offices began participation in an extensive work measurement study program to determine their staffing needs.
Recognition of Defenders’ Distinct Function
Work measurement studies had previously been used in other court programs, and the thought was that such staffing formulas should be equally applied to defender offices. The study ended in June of 2015. While all defender organizations partici- pated,239 some told the Committee that it harmed morale because defenders felt the Work Measurement study did not recognize the distinct mission of the defender ser- vices program, instead treating them as another program meant to serve the courts.
One defender testified that such a study misunderstood the nature of the work that defenders do. “We were told that everyone else had to do work measurement, probation officers, court people and so we were just like everybody else and we’re not. When they tried to do work measurement on the U.S. Attorneys they couldn’t
236 Seediscussionaboveonsequestration;NACDLReportat5.
237 JudicialConferenceReportSept2013;seealsodiscussionDSCjurisdictionchangeabove. 238 EvaluatedunderastudypreparedbytheRANDcorporation.
239 AllFPDOemployeeswererequiredtoparticipateinthedatacollection,anddefenderstoldthe Committee the process was onerous. One defender testified, “It was laborious to do it. It was added on, we already had too much work to do.” Henry Martin, FPD, M.D. Tenn., Public Hearing—Birmingham, Ala., Panel 6, Tr., at 12.
No recommendation presented herein represents 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 the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   106   107   108   109   110