Supplemental State Funding Sources

Direct appropriations are, and must be, the primary means of funding indigent defense. Of the thousands of things that government does for people in America, indigent defense claims a unique priority, by virtue of being constitutionally mandated. It cannot be shirked.

Many states, however, have been inventive in supplementing direct appropriations to support defense services of adequate and consistent quality.

There are many ways that states have learned to generate their own supplemental funding sources for indigent defense. More than a dozen states require indigent defense clients to pay an "application fee,"' generally less than $100 and generally waivable for inability to pay, to cover part of the costs of their defense.¹ The fees are controversial in the indigent defense community, but are tolerated by national standards, as long as they can be conveniently collected in advance of representation and do not impose an onerous long-term debt upon the client.² Because the fees can be difficult to collect, and an uncertain revenue source, it is important that they be used to supplement, not supplant, regular revenues, such as direct appropriations.³

Application fees can be targeted, either in their source or their destination. In Kentucky, for example, a $200 fee is assessed against DUI offenders, producing some $1.5 million annually for the Department of Public Advocacy. The $10-per-case fees in New Mexico are designated specifically for the Public Defender Automation Fund, to upgrade the state public defender's computer system.

Court costs and filing fees on some or all convicted offenders are used in Arkansas, Ohio, Alabama, Oklahoma and Puerto Rico. In Louisiana, court assess ments on all criminal violations provide revenues for indigent defense.

IOLTA funds ("Interest on Lawyer's Trust Accounts"), an important source of funding for civil legal services in all 50 states, have also been used to support indigent defense in some states, such as Michigan, Maryland and Georgia.

Other ideas percolating around the country, according to the ABA Bar Information Program and the Spangenberg Group, include a small set-aside from asset forfeiture funds (under consideration in six states) or from state lottery or other gambling revenues, "sin taxes"" on alcohol or cigarettes, establishing an IOLTA like fund based on interest on real estate escrow ac counts or cash surety bond accounts, and taxes or surcharges on things such as personal injury awards, civil bonds, parking fines, attorney professional services (under consideration in three states), birth and death certificates, and license plates.