... ... ... .
8
Costing Out AAD Appellate Cases
Using the same case-weighting system used earlier, the study compared what it cost to dispose of AAD
appellate cases to what it would have cost if private counsel had disposed of this same group of cases.
(See spreadsheet on following page)
It would have cost $36,738 less if private counsel had disposed of these appellate cases, although the
findings also suggest there would have been some loss in the quality of representation provided as well.
Since AADs have a much lower hourly rate than private counsel, there are two possible explanations as
to why the AAD total cost is higher than private counsel total cost:
1. AADs are not accurately reporting the number of hours spent on cases for the reasons explained in
detail earlier in this report.
2. The assumption that pending caseload is stable from year to year, and therefore not a factor when
costing out cases, is erroneous.
The Issue of Pending Case Work Load
The length of time it takes to dispose of appeals routinely exceeds one year. This could cause the rate at
which cases close to be uneven even though the rate at which AADs are working remains constant.
This means that some years would have a higher number of closed cases and a lower number of pending
cases, while other years would have the reverse. If in fact pending caseload does vary from year to year,
then years with higher pending caseloads would result in underestimating the amount of casework being
performed by AADs, which would in turn underestimate what it would have cost private counsel to do
this work, with the net result of making AADs look less cost-effective than they are.
To determine the effect of pending caseload, trend data on AAD pending caseload is needed, but was
unavailable. However, the study did look at trend data on the number of cases disposed of annually by
AADs to determine if there was a pattern of high case-closing years followed by low case-closing years
(see table). There is clearly a wide range in the number of annual case closings, but a pattern of above
average case closings followed by a year of below-average case closings did not occur. As there are a
number of factors that influence annual case closings, including personnel vacancies, differing
proportions in the types of appellate cases, or training new staff, this lack of pattern does not necessarily
rule out the possibility that pending caseload is negatively
skewing the cost outcome results.
FY02 was a below-average year for case closings for the
AADs. At the end of the year, AADs had a pending caseload of
93 cases—137% of the number of cases they closed that year.
If we assume that this pending caseload represents a caseload
that is above average, then the portion of pending caseload that
is above average would need to be factored into the cost
analysis.
Since AADs carried a 37% higher number of pending cases
than closed cases, pending cases received one-third the credit
of disposed cases. This assumes that two-thirds of the casework
inherent in these pending cases is normal. If a one-third credit
for pending cases is added into the cost analysis, AADs
become more cost-effective than private counsel and saved IDS
just over $60,000 in FY02 (see spreadsheet on next page).
OAD Annual Case Dispositions
FY
OAD Closed
Appeal
Cases
A=Above Avg.
B=Below Avg.
93 67 B
94 103 A
95 65 B
96 98 A
97 82 A
98 43 B
99 73 B
00 62 B
01 81 A
02 69 B
All Years 743
Average 74.3
Median 71
Low 43 High 103
Variation 60