AFPD Budget Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am a current AFPD and, like everyone else, have been hearing both official statements and rumors about our budget cuts. I have seen many posts that mention the cuts on various threads.

I wanted to start a thread dedicated to this issue. It seems like no two people are hearing the same thing.

To start it off. Our defender has informed us that they do not believe they will need to cut staff. Our work management numbers were okay and didn't reveal any need for cuts. However, we have a fairly stiff hiring freeze. Our office was down a few attorneys before the freeze, and those positions are not getting backfilled.

I also know that some offices are losing staff due to work management, and others are having high turnover due to bad office culture. I think that complicates things in terms of who gets to backfill or get approval to hire from DSO. The offices that are being poorly managed (IMO) are going to get approval to hire faster than the stable ones are.

Also, I have heard from people closer to decision makers that our national budget was cut as part of the deal to raise the debt celling. My understanding is that cuts are being made across the board, not just for DSO. But, that deal was cut while McCarthey was speaker, so that may no longer be the case? In any event, I think we might be in for slow hiring for the next two years at least.

What have others heard?

[Anonymous User]

AFPD here as well. My understanding is the same as yours.

Hiring freeze, doesn't seem like we are losing anyone. Hiring will be slow the next year or two.

No idea if this is legit and I guess we will hear more in the next couple of weeks.

[Anonymous User]

Has nothing to do with a budget deal, except obliquely. The real problem is with the Administrative Office of the Courts and starts three or four budgets ago. During the height of the pandemic, the Defenders had a big budget surplus because of the complete lack of trials. That budget surplus carried forward to FY 2023 (the one that just ended September 30th).

The defenders suggested dividing that surplus (about $150m) between FY2023 and FY2024, but the AO, which oversees defender budgeting, instead applied it all in FY 2023 so it could make a smaller overall request of Congress last year. When we got to this year, the Administrative Office requested what appeared to be a $150m increase in funds for Defenders, unless you really, really drilled down into the budget appendix (page 52 of 1,354 for all those interested). As I understand it, the AO didn't even flag the prior surplus and that it wasn't asking for an actual increase.

So Congress, using the prior budgets as a base, "increased funding" by tens of millions of dollars which still leaves the Defenders tens of millions of dollars below parity. Now a number of Senators (every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee included) are trying to fix things, but that's much harder to do once the budgets have reached the stage they are at now (especially because the top line number is itself the subject of the budget deal--at this point, funding the Defenders means defunding something else).

There are a series of screw ups that led us to where we are now, but the AO is the biggest culprit.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't necessarily blame the AO. The problem arises from (1) FPDs large carryforward balance and (2) the freeze on non-defense discretionary appropriations for FY 2024. Some of the staff losses may also stem from having to absorb a 5.2% COLA plus the standard step/grade increases without a significant increase in funding.

The AO is getting blamed as a reason for appropriations to be shifted from other judiciary funds to FPD to cover the shortfall. This will likely be the solution, as It's ultimately more politically acceptable to lose other judiciary staff positions than it is FPD staff.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't necessarily blame the AO. The problem arises from (1) FPDs large carryforward balance and (2) the freeze on non-defense discretionary appropriations for FY 2024. Some of the staff losses may also stem from having to absorb a 5.2% COLA plus the standard step/grade increases without a significant increase in funding.

The AO is getting blamed as a reason for appropriations to be shifted from other judiciary funds to FPD to cover the shortfall. This will likely be the solution, as It's ultimately more politically acceptable to lose other judiciary staff positions than it is FPD staff.

Sorry, but I disagree. It is the AO that is entirely responsible for FPD budget submissions to Congress, and it is the AO that forced the Defenders to use all of their carryforward balance in FY2023 (rather than use half of it then and half of it in FY2024) to make the Judiciary's overall budget submission look better. The Senate and House toplines for defender services for FY2024 are close to halfway between the appropriation for FY2023 and what they actually used in FY2023. If the Defenders had only used half their carryforward last year, as they wanted to, we would already be home free this year.

And yes, other Judiciary programs are likely going to pay for it, but that's because the cost would end up coming out of the Judiciary's budget--at a higher level--anyway. (The Sixth Amendment requires the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. If there aren't enough Fed Defenders, CJA counsel get appointed, and they cost more than Defenders do per client, so the Judiciary would be out even *more* money.) The AO's not getting blamed because it's the most politically palatable way of solving the problem; the AO is getting blamed because it's the actor most at fault here. And no matter who's to blame, the Judiciary's going to pony up unless Congress can find more money somewhere else (and again, that's whether or not the Defenders end up getting the funding they need, but let's hope they do so that the government saves money overall).