Further confusing the eligibility determination process is the lack of uniform procedures and standards for insuring proper and consistent decisionmaking. Just as the entity who makes the eligibility decision varies from county to county, so too do the procedures followed for reaching the decision (Appendix at 1-6). In some counties, the court requires each applicant to fill out a form. In others, no written forms are used, and the eligibility decision is based solely on an incourt, verbal inquiry by the judge. In yet other counties, the court refers defendants to the public defense provider who either requires the completion of a written form, conducts eligibility interviews by phone, or delegates the task in its entirety to office staff such as law students or paralegals. In some counties, such as Cayuga, the courts and the assigned counsel administrators alternatively make the determinations (Appendix at 1).
There are also no uniform guidelines for counties to follow while implementing the disparate procedures for making eligibility determinations. Consequently, the guidelines actually employed vary greatly from county to county. Several counties, such as Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chemung, have no written guidelines (Appendix at 11). Some have no guidelines at all, either informal or in writing, and make all eligibility determinations on an ad hoc basis, premised on unknown criteria. Significantly, there are counties which characterize their own eligibility practices as "arbitrary" (Appendix at 11).
Even when fairly detailed guidelines do exist, there is frequently no indication as to the relative weight to be accorded the numerous factors considered in the process. Thus, there is a real danger that even when substantial information concerning financial status is gathered, the ultimate eligibility determination will be based only on a single factor, such as income, without sufficient consideration accorded to other highly relevant criteria.