Skip navigation

Bojs Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties 1999

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.



	














",!*)---"	&40'9)

	





	












	









	

! 
"#!
$!
%&'''!
(&
)*+*!
 !!
 ,
&--!

.!,/
!0
)!

. 	+
 ! 	
1"
, % !
2"%3&''')---
.,
 !
 ! ,
&'4-#
&
%5-+!*
&'4)/*
(060!+$ 
 
%&'''!5/!(477
!! 
, 078 !
&'4)

.!*
+! 
,"#&--!

%!
	





	!*&'46"	'07-)
	






	
!*&'44"	&&)'&'


&


	






	


	











</
23
"!* 

.

.  ,
*
1
*

 

&--

'-

4'

0)

./


(&)-5&96
6'0&

(44-')564'

()07)-0
)05-

(7--&)
5&7

.


0&70
)0

90&9
)-

6&4
0

&09
)

9&0

&)9

&)6

65

"!* !

</* !
!:=
 0 

*
</+,* !&'




1!(&
)*+
! 
"#&--!
&'''+*798*
* !)&8*
!
*68+


* *
4)8 0
)!
&58
*98

:,&)7--,+
!** 
!&--
&'''
;  &)9*
 !99!
* 


%! /
&--
!98 !
$/&68
$/
 %&''',9-7--
,!
!
,!,6-8
 
;  
,!)58 
&)6!
*!
&-'!!

 ,,

%! ,
&--!
,!0
)!
&'''


:,&--- 
 ,+!
&--&'''


populous counties. It also compares
the operating expenditures, staffing,
and caseloads of the different types
of indigent defense services used in
these counties.2
The indigent defense programs
examined in this report primarily
handled felony criminal cases at the
trial level. Some of these programs
also had responsibility for misdemeanor, juvenile, civil, and appellate
cases. The study was not designed to
include programs that exclusively
handled misdemeanor, juvenile, civil,
or appellate cases.
State governments exclusively funded
indigent defense services in 21 States.
About a quarter of the largest 100
counties were in the States that totally
funded indigent defense services. This
report does not provide State-level
data.3
Background

The legal mandate
The sixth amendment to the U.S.
Constitution establishes the right to
counsel in Federal criminal
prosecution. Through a series of
landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme
Court extended the right to counsel for
indigent defendants to State criminal
prosecution. In 1963 the Court held in
Gideon v. Wainwright that indigent
persons facing felony charges must be
provided with legal counsel.4 Nine
years later in Argersinger v. Hamlin
the Court extended a defendant’s right
to counsel to all criminal prosecutions,
felony or misdemeanor, that carry a
sentence of imprisonment.5
2

For information on the characteristics of the
defense counsel received by defendants see
Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases, BJS Special
Report, November 2000, NCJ 179023.
3
For more information on statewide systems see
Improving Criminal Justice Systems Through
Expanded Strategies and Innovative Collaborations: Report of the National Symposium on
Indigent Defense, Office of Justice Programs,
March 2000, NCJ 181344, and National Criminal
Defense Systems Study, BJS, September 1986,
NCJ 94702, table 19.
4
Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
5
Argersinger v. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25 (1972).

Contract  Non-salaried individual
private attorneys, bar associations, law
firms, consortiums or groups of attorAlthough the U.S. Supreme Court has
neys, or nonprofit corporations that
mandated States and localities to
contract with a funding source to
provide counsel for indigents accused
provide court-appointed representation
of crimes, the implementation of how
in a jurisdiction. This does not include
such services are to be provided has
not been specified. As a consequence, public defender programs primarily
funded by an awarded contract.
States and localities have devised
various systems, rules for organizing,
and funding mechanisms for indigent
Indigent criminal defense in the
defense services.
Nation’s 100 largest counties
Three primary ways of providing
indigent defense services have
Among the Nation’s 100 largest
emerged throughout the Nation.
counties, public defender programs
States and localities use these
including those primarily funded by an
methods of delivering indigent defense awarded contract operated in every
services either singly or in combination. county except eight. Assigned counsel
The following categories are used to
programs were available in 89 counties
help describe indigent criminal defense and contract programs in 42 (table 1).
services in this report. Local programs In most counties (95) more than one
may use different terminology.
type of indigent criminal defense
services was available (see appendix
Public defender  A salaried staff of
table).
full-time or part-time attorneys that
render criminal indigent defense
County operating expenditures and
services through a public or private
funding sources
nonprofit organization, or as direct
government paid employees.
During 1999 the Nation’s 100 most
populous counties spent an estimated
Assigned counsel  The appointment
$1.2 billion to deliver indigent criminal
from a list of private bar members who defense.6 Half of these counties
accept cases on a judge-by-judge,
reported nearly $7 million or more in
court-by-court, or case-by-case basis.
operating expenditures (table 2).
This may include an administrative
6
In 1990 all States and U.S. localities spent
component and a set of rules and
$1.3 billion (unadjusted for inflation) on criminal
guidelines governing the appointment
and civil public defense. See Indigent Defense,
and processing of cases handled by
BJS Selected Findings, February 1996, NCJ
158909.
the private bar members.

Types of indigent defense services

The Nation’s 100 largest counties
 Of the approximately 3,100 counties or independent cities, the most
populous 100 counties comprised 42% of the 1999 U.S. population.a
 Of the 36 million Americans that lived below the poverty level in 1995,

44% resided in the Nation’s largest 100 counties.b
 A majority of all arrests for Part I crimes (52%) and violent crimes (55%)

during 1997 occurred in the largest 100 counties.c
a
1999 population estimates for the United States and for each county came from Census
Bureau websites, http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/countypop.html and
http://www. census.gov/population/www/estimates/uspop.html.
b
The latest poverty estimates came from the Census Bureau website
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/estimate.html.
c
Arrests by county were taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: County-Level Detailed Arrest and
Offense Data, 1997 [computer file]. ICPSR. ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium
for Political and Social Research. Arrest data by county were not available for four counties
in Florida and the District of Columbia.

2 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999










	








	



. 
 ,
.

"!*

&--

* 
'1
4'

0)A
"@!!*
!,&!,
,*

A%)+* 
!! *+



,!  
 ,)0
758! 
,)5

,!+!
  ,&--8
!





	

	




* ! 
4& ,
"%+,* !	
&''6", 
2"3
%&'''4&
(&
&*
! ,

B$  
# 
!!
*(&
'*
A
A! /
** *
*
!2

/
 C !
,,,*+
 ! *
+/+ 
3
.
!!!
  6
)8*+&''6
&''' *



"%&''',D@B!
 E/F+
,  !
 ,E* 
!FG
"&''6,D@B+
*   
&''6G

! !*




	
		&''4
"	&7--')


 ! /
4758!
)9
.+
!,
!>
!*>

?,!

./
 &--2
3

(&)-5&96

 /
&--8
,*

)5
9

5'
4

'


)
5
:
9
0
"@,!,6-8
,!)58  *
! ,
.!
&58+,*,!2'83

?,!2983
  2983


	





%+* 
!,&)7-- !!*
+!&'''
.
!+')
!!*
1* 
!*  *


 

	




	
	






	



:
/
:/
23
.

!!
/!!

.&--

(&)-5&96
6'0&
&7-&)'556

"!* 
 *@




:

4
)0
&
&

"!* 
! *@*




)9
)5
9

/ 

&5

"@</+,*
!&'



,&--8  !

*
,758''
'8  !



"
	

#




 !$/H+!
,(65*&'''
 25483 /
&--

 %! /&--
!98 !$/&68 $
/

&''7/*,!
&'''23
<H
&--
.
(650670&)
(94)-'&-0
*
(0-)550-)
()9999)50
	
(&)4--9-'
(75)&5-5

(&)0&&7-&
(7950906
"@&''7/$  &'''

./$/

.H

/* )-&-0,!
IH

$/&9699,!IH

 
/9965,!
./ 
&--* '7I$/
'7I/'&
+
$ 


</ *,!
*/,!/

*
/ 


	/!,* 
/


/$*/

@H

 &''7 ?,!








 

	
9






(

!	









	




* 
 


&

'

	








	




"!*  
!
&--
.  

.
1*
 
%,

1
,
!*

&)7'&
6960
&)67
)74'

')

&0&

05
&&'

7&0
9&

9-75& )&-

09'


!
&-50
6
)5

% '-+*
 !*
 !!:=

*
 
!&'


% 0)+
!


  ,*7-

%  
&-!,&'
! 2*93

1!9-75&+
!
 ,
! 

,
%  7-
,
!)&-!


1!0)+
,&-50+!
&'''
;  0)
!6!


	

%&'''! 
!&--
,0
)!2
!
63
;  
!)9479
!
.,!*
 +0904-
2*03


.
 
.

"!* &--
.


0&70-7' )947)
0904-

!
	,
*
,
:

9957996

)-)79

90'7)

94&&74
47)54
900674

)75)
95'
&7

9'7&
'-'
95'-

"@ !*'6

+,*
!&'

+,*
!  !



%  
!!$
 *
,,

*
%$,CC
$,
!$, 
$, 


%!!!!
,*

*


%$,*
!
 



;  ,)-)79
!!&'''
.
,&-95---!
0---$,
*'-',95'-
 !
2$,*
!3

$


	




	




	


:,9--! 
!+ 
"#&--
1*
0-8+!
9'8* !
)&8!
2*53

1*5)8  
! !
 ! !
,!&&8 !
,!08 !,
!998 !!/
2+*3


0





 

	


"





#



* !
!(44&!*798
 (&
)*/!
 &-
;  &)9*
 !(0
5!
!,,

<! *
 !
/  
/,
,
* 
!+!
!
,/ 
,

 
* !
 ,,+
 
2)&83!2&'83
2*63

$





#



%&'''!
&--
!()07!,
! 
.!
!/*&)6
! ++
*+(594---
</
/,,,
+*4-8! 

%



	


	




	




. 
 !
.!


"!*
9&0

* 
1*


&)9
&)6
65

"@, ,
 ! !
!+*
* ! ,
!
C!*
 !!
!*! 
!"#&--



.+ &)9!
+! *
+

*

!&'


assigned counsel programs, for interpreter and transcript services by 60%
or more, and expenditures for social
services by 21%.

Contract program expenditures
Contracts awarded to provide indigent
criminal defense services in the largest
100 counties totaled an estimated $77
million in 1999. Half of the 65 contract
programs expended $319,000 or more.
Eighty-one percent of the contract
programs reported that the contract
they administered did not have funds
for social services. Expenditures for
interpreter (54%) and transcript
services (51%) were reported by more
than half of the contract programs.
Most of the contract programs reported
funding for expert (85%) and investigator services (96%).

Program caseload
Indigent criminal defense programs in
the most populous 100 counties
received an estimated 4.2 million cases
in 1999 (table 7). About 80% of the
cases were criminal cases that
included felony capital or death penalty
cases, felony non-capital cases,

Table 6. Estimated total operating expenditures and services in programs that
provide indigent criminal defense in the Nation’s 100 largest counties, 1999
Operating
expenditures
Number of programs

Total
programs
314

Operating expenditures
(in thousands)
Total
Median
Mean
Minimum
Maximum

$1,205,136
1,500
3,850
<1
94,400

Percent of programs where
operating expenditures include:
Expert services
Investigator services
Interpreter services
Transcript services
Social services

Type of program
Assigned
counsel
Contract
126
65

Public
defender
123

$880,920
4,536
7,221
100
94,400

81.1%
92.9
70.2
65.1
34.0

84.6%
95.9
80.5
81.3
49.6

$247,204
538
1,962
<1
13,143

83.3%
90.5
68.3
60.3
21.4

$77,012
319
1,185
8
9,000

84.6%
95.4
53.8
50.8
18.5

Note: Data were not available for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties.
Total expenditure information was estimated for 47 of the 123 public defender programs,
54 of the 126 assigned counsel programs and 24 of the 65 contract programs.
Funding for expert services were estimated for 12 public defender programs, 41 assigned
counsel programs, and 14 contract programs. Funding for investigator services was estimated
for 12 public defender programs, 40 assigned counsel programs, and 14 contract programs.
Funding for interpreter services was estimated for 14 public defender programs, 40 assigned
counsel programs, and 14 contract programs. Funding for transcript services was estimated
for 12 public defender programs, 41 assigned counsel programs, and 14 contract programs.
Funding for social services was estimated for 14 public defender programs, 44 assigned
counsel programs, and 16 contract programs. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
Data rounded to nearest thousand. In Orange County, CA, expenditure information for the
public defender conflict and specialty programs is included in the expenditure information
provided by the primary public defender program.

Table 7. Estimated number of cases received by 314 identified indigent criminal defense
programs in the Nation’s 100 largest counties, 1999
Type of case
Number of programs
Total cases
a

Criminal
Juvenile relatedb
Civilc
Otherd

Total programs
Total
Median Mean
314

Public defender
Total Median Mean
123

Assigned counsel
Total Median Mean
126

Contract
Total Median
65

Mean

4,174,079

2,351 13,508

3,412,487 13,654

28,919

618,465

1,072

4,908

143,127

993

2,202

3,357,336
381,178
87,258
344,678

1,564 10,865
5 1,234
0
283
0 1,115

2,742,567 12,504
277,995 1,188
78,343
12
313,579
0

23,242
2,356
664
2,657

522,988
61,381
6,755
24,012

1,007
0
0
0

4,151
487
54
191

91,781
41,802
2,160
7,087

500
0
0
0

1,412
643
33
109

Note: Caseload information for programs in the four most populous counties in Maryland was not provided and could not be estimated. Data were
not available for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties.
The number of total cases was estimated for 50 of the 123 public defender programs, criminal cases for 51, juvenile cases for 53, civil cases for 49,
and other cases for 48 programs. The number of total cases was estimated for 63 of the 126 assigned counsel programs, criminal cases for 84,
juvenile cases for 85, civil cases for 62, and other cases for 59 programs. The number of total cases was estimated for 31 of the 65 contract
programs, criminal cases for 37, juvenile cases for 35, civil cases for 18, and other cases for 17 programs.
Detail may not sum to total within program type because some programs only could provide total case information and were not able to break out the
information by case category. In most instances, main caseload categories were able to be estimated from the total case information provided.
However, for one respondent in Bucks County, PA, and one in Franklin County, OH, the main caseload categories were not able to be estimated
from the total case information provided. Respondent programs counted cases in different ways. No attempt was made to standardize case counts.
For Marion County, IN, contract caseload information is included with the public defender caseload information. For Pierce County, WA, assigned
counsel caseload information is included with the public defender caseload information. For 11 respondents in Harris County, TX, contract caseload
information is included with the assigned counsel caseload information. In Orange County, CA, caseload information for the public defender conflict
and specialty programs is included in the caseload information provided by the primary public defender program.
a
Includes felony capital, felony non-capital, misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence, ordinance infraction, appeal, probation, and revocation cases.
b
Includes juvenile delinquency, delinquency appeals, juveniles proceeded against in adult criminal court, juvenile status offense,
and juvenile transfer hearings.
c
Includes mental commitment, State post-conviction habeas corpus, and Federal habeas corpus.
d
Includes juvenile dependency, abuse and neglect, paternity, guardianship,
contempt, traffic, special proceedings, and other case types.

Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 5

Table 8. Public defender program staffing, assigned counsel appointments,
and contracts in the Nation’s 100 largest counties, 1999

Type of program
Public defender staffing
Total
a

Chief public defender
Assistant public defenderb
Supervisory attorneysc
Managersd
Investigatorse
Social workers
Paralegals
Indigency screeners
Support stafff
Other
Assigned counsel private
attorney appointments
Contracts administered

Number of staff, appointments,
and contracts
Total
Median
Mean
12,791

80

105

83
6,364
681
292
1,267
314
395
64
2,789
542

1
33
4
1
6
1
1
0
14
0

1
52
6
2
10
3
3
1
23
4

30,751

109

244

1,054

1

16

Note: Data were not available for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties.
There are 123 public defender programs in the top 100 counties, 126 assigned counsel
programs, and 65 contract programs. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
The number of chief public defenders was estimated for 50 public defender programs, assistant
public defenders for 50, supervisory attorneys for 51, managers for 52, investigators for 52,
social workers for 52, paralegals for 52, indigency screeners for 52, support staff for 51, and
other staff for 55 programs.
The number of assigned counsel appointments was estimated for 74 assigned counsel
programs.
The number of contracts administered was estimated for 31 of the contract programs.
In Orange County, CA, staffing information for the public defender conflict and specialty
programs is included in the staffing information provided by the primary public defender
program.
a
The term chief public defender was not defined on the program survey and may represent
different meanings across programs. Some of the public defender programs in the study are
located in statewide systems with one statewide chief public defender. In other programs the
person in charge is called something other than chief public defender.
b
Any employee of the public defender program licensed to practice law or who has applied for
admission to the bar, and who primarily litigates cases. Excludes attorneys in non-litigating
positions.
b
Attorneys in managerial positions who litigate cases.
d
Attorneys or non-attorneys in primarily managerial positions who do not litigate cases.
e
Includes investigators on contract.
f
Administrative staff, clerical staff, computer personnel, fiscal officers, and training directors.

misdemeanors that carry a jail
sentence, ordinance infractions,
appeals, probation, and parole revocations. Juvenile-related cases
accounted for about 9% of the total.
Civil cases such as mental commitment, State post-conviction habeas
corpus, and Federal habeas corpus
comprised approximately 2% of all
cases. An estimated 8% were other
types of cases such as juvenile
dependency, abuse and neglect,
and contempt cases. Half of the 314
identified indigent criminal defense
programs received 2,351 or more
cases.

Public defender program caseload
Public defender programs handled
82% of the 4.2 million cases with
indigent defendants. In 1999 public
defender programs in the largest 100
counties received over 2.7 million
criminal cases, 277,000 juvenile cases,
78,000 civil cases, and 314,000 other
types cases.
In terms of their total caseload, public
defender programs (9%) were more
likely to receive other types of cases
than either assigned counsel programs
(4%) or contract attorneys (5%). Half
of the 123 public defender programs
received 12,504 or more criminal
cases and 1,188 or more juvenilerelated cases.

6 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999

Assigned counsel program caseload
About 618,000 cases were received by
assigned counsel programs. Approximately 85% of these cases dealt with
criminal matters, 10% with juvenilerelated matters, 1% with civil matters,
and 4% with other types of matters.
The median number of criminal cases
handled by assigned counsel programs
was 1,007. Half of the assigned
counsel programs received no juvenile,
civil, or other types of cases during
1999.

Contract program caseload
Contract attorneys handled approximately 143,000 cases in 1999, of
which almost two-thirds (64%) were
criminal cases. As a percentage of
their total caseload, contract attorneys
were more likely than public defender
or assigned counsel programs to
receive juvenile cases. Approximately
29% of the caseload received by
contract attorneys dealt with juvenilerelated cases compared to 10% for
assigned counsel programs and 8%
for public defender programs.

Public defender program staffing
In 1999 public defender programs in
the largest 100 counties employed
almost 12,800 individuals (table 8).
The median total staff size was 80.
Approximately 6,400 assistant public
defenders were employed by public
defender programs and comprised half
of all staff employed by these
programs. The median number of
assistant public defenders was 33.
About 4% of all assistant public
defenders were employed on a parttime basis.
About a quarter of those employed by
public defender programs were support
staff. Half of the public defender
programs had 14 or more support staff.
Public defender programs in the most
populous 100 counties employed
approximately 1,267 investigators in
1999. Half of the programs had six or
more investigators on staff. Staffing of
the public defenders programs also
included 314 social workers and 395
paralegals.

Assigned counsel private attorney
appointments
Assigned counsel programs appointed
an estimated 30,751 private attorneys
to represent indigent criminal defendants in 1999. Half of the assigned
counsel programs had 109 or more
private attorney appointments. The
largest number of appointments
reported by any program was 1,782
private attorneys.

Contracts administered
Approximately 1,054 contracts were
administered by the 65 contract
programs. The median number of
contracts administered was one.
The largest number of contracts
administered by one program was 245.
Methodology

The program survey consisted of 141
questions divided into major sections.
The 58 questions in Part A asked
about program expenditures and other
areas such as indigency determination,
cost recovery, standards and guidelines, training, and computer
resources; the 27 questions in Part B
asked for information about public
defender programs such as staffing,
caseload, and conflicts; the 26
questions in Part C asked for information about assigned counsel programs
such as program administration,
caseload, and assigned counsel
compensation; the 25 questions in Part
D asked for information related to
contract programs such as contract
administration, awards and monitoring,
caseload and contract attorney
compensation; and the 5 questions in
Part E asked for information about
additional programs in the county other
than the respondent’s.

Respondent selection
The universe for this study consisted
of indigent criminal defense programs
that handled felony cases at the trial
level in the 100 most populous
counties in the United States. These
counties were selected with certainty
from a list of approximately 3,100
counties and independent cities in the
United States ranked according to
1997 intercensal population estimates.
Once the 100 largest counties were
selected, the indigent criminal defense
programs and county officials in these
counties were identified.

County and program surveys
Data were collected through two
surveys. The county survey, which
consisted of 16 questions, was used to
gather expenditure information and to
assist in identifying indigent criminal
defense programs operating in the
county. The program survey was sent
to the identified program respondents
to collect specific information about
expenditures, staffing, caseloads,
policies and practices of public
defender, assigned counsel, and
contract defender programs within the
counties, and to identify any additional
programs.

All program respondents were required
to complete Parts A and E, and Part B,
C, or D according to their program
type. Most respondents, therefore,
needed to answer only the survey parts
that were relevant to their type of
program. Both survey instruments are
available on the BJS website at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
A review of a compilation of existing
information determined that 28 of the
most populous 100 counties were
entirely funded by State governments
and 72 all or in part by county governments.
County surveys were mailed to
counties that provided partial or all
county funding for indigent criminal
defense programs. For counties
located in States that totally fund
indigent criminal defense services,
only a program survey was sent.

Data collection and follow-up
The data collection for the study was
conducted by the National Opinion
Research Center (NORC). In August
1999, NORC mailed the county and
program surveys to identified respondents. For the 28 counties totally State
funded, program surveys were sent
directly to the State and in a few cases

directly to the program as well. If State
agencies could only provide data for
the entire State, apportionment was
used to produce county-level information. Estimated county-level data were
provided by only three States: North
Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
For the remaining 72 counties, both
county and program surveys were
mailed to appropriate officials. In some
instances, multiple mailings were
required to different county offices in
the same jurisdiction or to multiple
offices for the same indigent criminal
defense program because different
types of cases (non-capital felony,
misdemeanors, and juvenile delinquency) were handled by different units
or branches of a program. In January
to May 2000 the additional indigent
criminal defense programs identified by
the county or program survey were
mailed a program survey. In total 78
county surveys and 345 program
surveys were mailed.
After the initial mailing, NORC engaged
in extensive follow up to obtain a
returned survey from each county and
program survey respondent. For the
program survey, critical information,
included the type of program, expenditures, staffing, and caseload. The
follow up process involved phone calls,
e-mail communication, re-mailing
questionnaires, faxing or re-mailing
only the critical items, and sending
follow-up letters. Staff of the National
Legal Aid and Defender Association
and the State coordinators for the study
also assisted NORC by providing
additional follow up. Both efforts
contributed to improving survey
response.
Each completed survey in the NSIDS
study also required a unique follow up
procedure to clarify discrepancies with
county-level information, discrepancies
and duplication of data in programs
within counties, and to retrieve missing
critical items. Follow up with survey
respondents continued until July 2000.
An estimated 5,000 phone calls were
logged for non-response follow-up and
respondent verification.

Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 7

Survey response
Among the 78 county surveys mailed,
4 were determined to be duplicates
and 5 were determined to be ineligible,
leaving 69 surveys eligible for the
study. Of the eligible surveys, 4 were
not returned and 65 were completed
for a response rate of 94%.

defender or contract program identified
within the county but not for the
assigned counsel program.

Of the returned program surveys, 23
contained information either for an
entire State or a multi-jurisdictional
program. The data in these 23 surveys
were apportioned to the individual
counties or jurisdictions within the
State based on 1990 Census populaFor the program survey, 345 surveys
were mailed to either individual indigent tion data. The 23 source surveys were
then deleted from the final program
criminal defense programs or State
data file leaving 220 returned surveys,
agencies for programs located in
for a response rate of 92% of the 238
counties with all State funding. Of the
eligible surveys.
345 program surveys, 36 were determined to contain duplicate information
Since there is no complete roster of
already provided on another program
indigent criminal defense providers in
survey and 48 were determined to be
ineligible because the program excluthe largest 100 counties the actual
sively handled juvenile-related, misde- number of programs is not known.
meanor, or appellate cases.
Data used for this report
Eighteen known programs did not
return the program survey. These
All information provided in this report
include one program in each of the
came from data taken from the
following counties: Cook County, IL;
program surveys. A comparison
Kent, MI; Oakland, MI; Nassau County, between expenditure information
NY; Westchester County, NY;
reported on the county survey and the
Montgomery County, OH; Bexar
program survey revealed discrepancies
County, TX; El Paso County, TX; two
in many counties between the informaprograms in Erie County, NY; and eight tion provided on the two surveys. This
programs in Tarrant County, TX.
discrepancy was due in part to the fact
that many programs received more
The Maryland State Public Defender
than just county funding. Therefore
Program did not provide any informaexpenditure data from the program
tion for their four jurisdictions (Baltisurveys were used because they
more County, Baltimore City,
provided a more accurate accounting
Montgomery County, and Prince
of what the programs actually spent in
George’s County) in this study. Some
providing indigent criminal defense.
information for the public defender
program (e.g., expenditures and staffThe data for the 18 non-respondents
ing) was taken from statistics available to the program survey were imputed for
from their website. No information was all critical items, and then added to the
available for the assigned counsel
program data file.
program. For nine programs in Riverside, CA, expenditures, funding source, The final program data file contained
and program type was obtained from
238 surveys records, but accounted
the county.
for 314 indigent criminal defense
programs since some respondents
In fifteen counties (Hillsborough
(55 of the 238) provided information
County, FL; Honolulu County, HI;
for more than one type of program.
Jefferson County, KY; Hennepin
County, MN; Bergen County, NJ;
On 12 surveys, a juvenile or misdeEssex County, NJ; Hudson County, NJ; meanor program was indicated but it
Middlesex County, NJ; Monmouth
could not be determined if these were
County, NJ; Tulsa County, OK; Multno- separate programs or components of
mah County, OR; Allegheny County,
larger programs. Due to the ambiguity,
PA; Davidson County, TN; Shelby
these programs were left in the
County, TN; and Salt Lake County, UT) program data file.
information was received for the public
8 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999

While the NSIDS program survey
contained many data elements,
program type, expenditures, public
staffing, assigned counsel attorney
appointments, number of contracts
administered, and caseload were
presented for this report.
NORC was instructed that if a respondent refused to complete the entire
survey they should at a minimum try to
obtain data from respondents for these
critical items. Many program respondents only provided the critical items.
Even with targeting these variables,
there was still a substantial amount of
missing data (see notes on tables 7, 8,
and 9). Since most of the critical items
were interval level data NORC was
able to impute these data through
various techniques for missing
responses.

Caseload data
The 4.2 million cases received by
indigent criminal defense programs in
the largest 100 counties is an underestimate of the total number of indigent
cases handled in these counties.
During the process of compiling the
respondent list for the present study,
many indigent defense programs that
exclusively handled misdemeanor,
juvenile-related, or appellate cases
were identified but were deemed out of
scope for the study.
In addition no caseload data were
obtained for the four most populous
counties in Maryland and for assigned
counsel programs in 19 counties. If the
specialized programs and these
additional programs had been
included, the estimate for the total
number of cases received would have
been higher.

Data imputation for critical items in
program survey
If a program in the most populous 100
counties was known to be missing,
NORC logically imputed as much critical information as possible based on
information gathered in follow-up
telephone calls and questionnaires
from related counties and programs.
NORC used several different
techniques to impute data for selected

missing individual survey items (type of
program, expenditures, staffing, and
caseload). Some items were imputed
by hot deck methods in which a value
is copied or adapted from a donor case
having similar values of related
variables. Some items were imputed
using a statistical model of relationships among variables. The goal was
to create a program data file with
complete information on critical items,
where the imputed values were plausible given the data relationships among
the unimputed data. An indicator
variable was added to the file for each
critical item. The values of these
companion variables indicated whether
the critical item was imputed, and if so,
by what method. A detailed memorandum describing the imputation process
will be archived with the public use
dataset.

Data allocation for surveys completed
by state agencies and multi-jurisdiction
programs
Some states operate a single indigent
defense program covering most or all
counties in the state. If the State
agency completed one single program
questionnaire for the entire State,
NORC allocated the statewide data to
the counties in that State by prorating
the quantitative variables in proportion
to 1990 census population. Multicounty programs for which a single
program questionnaire was received
were allocated to their respective counties in the same way. BJS staff deleted
the State and multi-jurisdictional source
surveys from the final program data file
to avoid duplication of information.

Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 9





)




	







	





I


.&'''


*
 
,

1

,

11
%
;.
1N
1

'9)''4'
5&')9)6
9)5-0-0
)46&9'5
)4)-400








:1
J"K


B%
.

)76-'04
))64)'7
)&75690
)&-60'5
)-6)&--












M"K
1
JB1
1
"+K"K

)---60)
&66''90
&660406
&6070&'
&55&400













+

=,1
/1
1
1!1

&595064
&59-659
&0)66-6
&0&76-&
&0&554)












 "K
..
/.
:;
""K

&949407
&94)00)
&97)467
&97&7&7
&9-5-57



11
"L
/"K
!1
:%

&)564-6
&)&7&55
&&'0-''
&&40546
&&7''74












;"
!


:;

:

 /L1

&-600&'
&-0'0)&-)74)&
''6&4&
'057&7













;*

1
<"K
+B%
B"K

'0-040
'99&0&
')5'57
'-6)04
'-557)













%


*."
;;%
"	

4')507
4740''
479--46057&
457-5)







!
G.

 .
;!:;
; .

45)&70
45-)09
40&990
40-009
4)'67&











,





I

*
 
,

1

,

4&7)-6
4&-'06
4-96&4
7'9)-4
7')-4)






?#

1
</"	

1
L1

74&74&
769-6'
707955
706777
705-69










?1
B1
,

.,.
!1

7004)7
7946)'
794049
7)7-))
7)0-47













!
/"	
"K
</1
1

7)9'&0
7&7'0'
7&)0&'
7-00-7
7-)&-)











<.
B1
	 JK
	 1*
	:

7-&'-4
6444-7
67)'-6570))
650040












*"
" L1
J1
 1
:!:J

6040-6095460)0'5
60&6'5
69659'















!:=
!
%
!"	
J*?1

699))0
69)64&
6&7'75
6&&000
5'6459











!B1
1
B"
**?1
,=%

5'65'4
5'0-07
546'054950&
570&-4










!:;
	C1
;"	
J%
.:J

565466
569&49
55)4&'
55-944
504)'6















+1
!!:;
,."
"
 !*

50&5-)
597456
59--55)907)
5&'---





























*













,

:

%"
!1N
"+;,.
!*%









.&'''










&-





 

	






































"@+!* ,
! ,! 

.!* ! .&'4)	+&'' '

*
%* !! *+ 

@&'''! ! !+*
@II+++

,II+++I!I
!








The Bureau of Justice Statistics
is the statistical agency of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director.
This BJS Bulletin presents findings
from the National Survey of Indigent
Defense Systems, 1999.

This report and others from the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, as well
as graphical figures and spreadsheets, are available through the
Internet 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Carol J. DeFrances and Marika F.X.
Litras wrote this report. At BJS Greg
W. Steadman provided statistical
review; Devon B. Adams, Todd D.
Minton, and Donna D. Oliphant
provided assistance in compiling the
respondent lists; and Steven K.
Smith provided overall guidance for
the project.
Data collection was performed by
the National Opinion Research
Center (NORC); Natalie Suter was
the project director. At NORC,
project staff included Rachel Harter,
Angela Herrmann, Irv Horwitz,
Kymm Kochanek, Jayan Moolayil,
Gloria Rauens, Joanna Small, Hee
Choon Shin, Charles Taragon, and
Crystal Williams.
The National Legal Aid and
Defender Association, (NLADA), as
well as various State coordinators,
assisted in the follow-up phase of
the project. The Project’s Advisory
Group provided review of the text.
H. Scott Wallace of NLADA provided
review and compiled comments from
the Project’s Advisory Group
members.
Ellen Goldberg produced and edited
this report assisted by Rhonda Keith.
Jayne Robinson administered final
production.
November 2000, NCJ 184932

Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 11

 

 

Prison Profiteers - Side
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
Prison Phone Justice Campaign