U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 November 2000, NCJ 184932 Revised 12/6/00 ------------------------------------------------------------------ This file is text only without graphic and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/idslc99.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------- By Carol J. DeFrances, Ph.D. Marika F. X. Litras, Ph.D. BJS Statisticians -------------------------------------------------------------------- Highlights Operating expenditures and cases handled by indigent criminal defense programs in the Nation's 100 most populous counties, 1999 Type of indigent defense service Expenditures and Public Assigned cases (in thousands) Total defender/a counsel/b Contract Number of counties 100 90 89 42 Total expenditures $1,205,136 $880,920 $247,204 $70,012 Median per county 6,941 5,689 2,450 517 Total cases 4,174 3,413 618 143 Median per county 24 20 4 2 Number of programs 314 123 126 65 a/Expenditure and caseload data include the contract public defender programs in Multnomah County, OR. Caseload data not included for the 4 large counties in Maryland. * An estimated $1.2 billion was spent on indigent criminal defense in the Nation's 100 most populous counties during 1999, with about 73% spent by public defender programs, 21% by assigned counsel programs, and about 6% on awarded contracts. * Indigent criminal defense expenditures in the largest 100 counties comprised 3% of all local criminal justice expenditures and 16% of judicial expenditures in these counties. * County governments provided 60% and State governments 25% of total funding used by indigent criminal defense service providers. * Indigent criminal defense providers in the 100 most populous counties received an estimated 4.2 million cases in 1999. * Public defenders handled about 82% of these 4.2 million cases, assigned counsel attorneys 15%, and contract attorneys about 3%. * Over 12,700 individuals were employed by public defender programs in the largest 100 counties in 1999. Half of the 123 public defender programs had 33 or more assistant public defenders. * In 1999, over 30,700 attorneys received appointments through assigned counsel programs to represent indigent defendants. Half of the 126 assigned counsel programs had 109 or more appointments. * Over 1,000 contracts for indigent defense services were administered in the top 100 counties during 1999. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Court-appointed legal representation for indigent criminal defendants plays a critical role in the Nation's criminal justice system. In 1999 an estimated $1.2 billion was spent by indigent criminal defense programs that primarily handled felony cases at the trial level in the 100 most populous counties. These programs received approximately 4.2 million cases. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, conducted the National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) in 1999-2000. The survey represents the first systematic study of indigent criminal services since the 1980's.***Footnote 1: National Criminal Defense Systems Study, BJS, September 1986, NCJ 94702, and Criminal Defense for the Poor, 1986, BJS Bulletin, September 1988, NCJ 112919.*** In the 50 counties with comparable data, 1982 expenditures totaled about $464 million when adjusted for inflation. In 1999 these same 50 counties spent approximately $877 million on indigent criminal defense services, an increase of 47% from 1982. This report details the methods by which indigent criminal defense is delivered in the Nation's 100 most populous counties. It also compares the operating expenditures, staffing, and caseloads of the different types of indigent defense services used in these counties.***Footnote 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.*** 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.***Footnote 3: For more information on state- wide 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.*** 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.***Footnote 4: Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963).*** 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. ***Footnote 5: Argersinger V. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25 (1972).*** Types of indigent defense services Although the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated States and localities to provide counsel for indigents accused of crimes, the implementation of how such services are to be provided has not been specified. As a consequence, States and localities have devised various systems, rules for organizing, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense services. Three primary ways of providing indigent defense services have emerged throughout the Nation. States and localities use these methods of delivering indigent defense services either singly or in combination. The following categories are used to help describe indigent criminal defense services in this report. Local programs may use different terminology. Public defender -- A salaried staff of full-time or part-time attorneys that render criminal indigent defense services through a public or private nonprofit organization, or as direct government paid employees. Assigned counsel -- The appointment from a list of private bar members who accept cases on a judge-by-judge, court-by-court, or case-by-case basis. This may include an administrative component and a set of rules and guidelines governing the appointment and processing of cases handled by the private bar members. Contract -- Non-salaried individual private attorneys, bar associations, law firms, consortiums or groups of attorneys, or nonprofit corporations that contract with a funding source to provide court-appointed representation in a jurisdiction. This does not include public defender programs primarily funded by an awarded contract. --------------------------------- 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. (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 a http://www. census.gov/population/www/estimates/uspop.html). *Of the 36 million Americans that lived below the poverty level in 1995, 44% resided in the Nation's largest 100 counties. (The latest poverty estimates came from the Census Bureau webs http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/estimate.html). *A majority of all arrests for Part I crimes (52%) and violent crimes (55%) during 1997 occurred in the largest 100 counties. (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 1997 [computer file]. ICPSR. ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Arrest data by county were for four counties in Florida and the District of Columbia). ---------------------------------- Indigent criminal defense in the Nation's 100 largest counties Among the Nation's 100 largest counties, public defender programs including those primarily funded by an awarded contract operated in every county except eight. Assigned counsel programs were available in 89 counties and contract programs in 42. In most counties (95) more than one type of indigent criminal defense services was available. County operating expenditures and funding sources During 1999 the Nation's 100 most populous counties spent an estimated $1.2 billion to deliver indigent criminal defense.***Footnote 6: In 1990 all States and U.S. localities spent $1.3 billion (unadjusted for inflation) on criminal and civil public defense. See Indigent Defense, BJS Selected Findings, February 1996, NCJ 158909.*** Half of these counties reported nearly $7 million or more in operating expenditures. County governments funded all of the indigent defense services in 24 counties and 75% or more of those services in another 25. State governments also were an important source of funding, providing 100% of indigent criminal defense expenditures in 8 counties and 75% or more in 23 counties. Three counties were funded primarily through city governments and one -- the District of Columbia -- entirely through the Federal Government. ------------------------------ State court prosecutor budgets and indigent criminal defense expenditures Prosecutorial budget information for 81 of the counties surveyed in NSIDS was available from the BJS 1996 National Survey of Prosecu- tors (NSP). In 1999 these 81 counties spent $1.1 billion on indigent criminal defense services. When adjusted for inflation, State court prosecutors' offices in these same counties reported estimated budgets totaling $1.9 billion.* *Some categories of expenses are typically borne by indigent defense but not necessarily by local prosecution agencies, thus hindering direct comparisons (e.g., expenditures of prosecutors' offices may not include investigative resources provided by law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratory work or expert witnesses, office space or technology, and training). These data assume no programmatic increases and an inflation rate of 6.2% between 1996 and 1999 for prosecution budgets. NSIDS 1999 question: What amount out of [total operating expenditures] was spent to provide different types of criminal defense services [public defender, assigned contract, and contract program]? NSP 1996 question: What was the total budget of the office for prosecutorial functions in 1996? For more information about prosecutors in State courts, see Prosecutors in State Courts, 1996, BJS Bulletin, July 1998, NCJ 170092. -------------------------------------- Total operating expenditures of 100 largest counties (in thousands) $1,205,136 Percent of total expenditures provided by- 100 % State 25.3 County 59.8 City 9.0 Federal 2.5 Other 3.4 Note: County governments provided 60% and State governments 25% of total funding used by indigent criminal defense providers. The remain- ing 15% was provided by city governments (9%), the Federal Government (3%), and other sources of funding (3%). County staffing, attorney appointments, and contracts In counties with public defender programs, over 12,700 staff members were employed during 1999. The median per county was 92 staff members. Assistant public defenders made up about half of all public defender staff, averaging about 70 per county. In addition, half of the counties had 10 or more investigators and 19 or more support staff. Local government criminal justice expenditures *Local criminal justice expenditures in the United States were estimated at over $65 billion in 1999. More than half (58%) of these expenditures occurred in the largest 100 counties. *Indigent crimianl defense expenditures in the largest 100 counties comprised 3% of all local criminal justice expenditures and 16% of judicial expenditures in these counties. 1997 direct expenditures by local governments in 1999 dollars/a (in thousands) Entire United States Largest 100 counties Total $65,467,412 $38,209,104 Police/b $40,255,402 $23,333,254 Judicial/c 12,800,309 $7,521,505 Corrections/d $12,411,701 $7,354,346 Note: 1997 expenditure data are adjusted for inflation and presented in 1999 dollars. Total expenditure includes police, judicial, and corrections expenditures. Total U.S. police expenditures are based on reporting of 20,104 government units; U.S. judicial expenditures on 13,633 government units; and U.S. corrections expenditures on 3,365 government units. Total police expenditures for 100 largest counties are based on reporting of 97 counties; judicial expenditures on 97 counties; and corrections expenditures on 91 counties. Data were not adjusted for nonresponse. a/Expenditures include all funds spent by county and city governments but exclude intergovernmental expenditures. b/Police expenditures include State police, local police, and county sheriff. c/Judicial expenditures include criminal and civil public defense, prosecutor, and court expenditures. d/Correction expenditures include jail, prison, probation, and parole expenditures. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997 Census of Local Governments. An estimated 30,751 attorneys were appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants in counties that delivered criminal indigent defense all or in part through assigned counsel services. In half of the 70 counties that provided data, assigned counsel programs appointed 210 or more attorneys. Among the 42 counties with contract services, 1,054 contracts were administered in 1999. Half of these 42 counties administered 6 or more contracts. County caseloads In 1999 indigent criminal defense programs in the 100 largest counties received 4.2 million cases (see Methodology, page 6). Half of these counties handled an estimated 23,873 or more cases. The average number of cases per county was 43,480. Criminal cases accounted for most of the cases handled in the largest 100 counties, with half of the counties receiving 20,273 or more criminal cases during 1999. The average county in the largest 100 handled nearly 35,000 indigent criminal cases, nearly 4,000 juvenile cases, about 909 civil cases, and 3,590 other types of indigent criminal cases (juvenile dependency, abuse and neglect, and contempt cases). Public defender, assigned counsel, and contract programs in the Nation's 100 largest counties Over 300 indigent criminal defense programs were identified in the Nation's 100 largest counties. About 40% were assigned counsel programs, 39% public defender programs, and 21% contract attorney programs. About 52% of all the identified indigent criminal defense programs indicated that all their funding came from the county government, 11% all from state government, 4% all from city government, and 33% from mixed sources (not shown in a table). Public defender program expenditures Public defender programs spent an estimated $881 million, or about 73% of the $1.2 billion expended on criminal indigent defense in the largest 100 counties. Half of the 123 public defender programs spent $4.5 million or more to provide services. Eighty percent or more of the public defender programs indicated their expenditures included funding for expert, investigator, interpreter, and transcript services. Public defender programs were more likely than either assigned counsel or contract programs to have expenditures for interpreters and transcript services. Fifty percent of the public defender programs reported funding for social services, over twice the percentage for assigned counsel (21%) and contract programs (19%). Assigned counsel program expenditures In 1999 assigned counsel programs in the largest 100 counties spent an estimated $247 million to provide indigent criminal defense. The median amount expended by the 126 assigned counsel programs for which data were obtained was $538,000. Expenditures for expert and investigative services were reported by 80% or more of the 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. About 80% of the cases were criminal cases that included felony capital or death penalty cases, felony non-capital cases, misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence, ordinance infractions, appeals, probation, and parole revocations. Juvenile-related cases accounted for about 8% 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 9% 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 juvenile-related cases. 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 juvenile-related 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 juvenile- related 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. 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 part-time 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 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. 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. 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. 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%. For the program survey, 345 surveys were mailed to either individual indigent criminal defense programs or State agencies for programs located in counties with all State funding. Of the 345 program surveys, 36 were determined to contain duplicate information already provided on another program survey and48 were determined to be ineligible because the program exclusively handled juvenile-related, misdemeanor, or appellate cases. Eighteen known programs did not return the program survey. These include one program in each of the following counties: Cook County, IL; Kent, MI; Oakland, MI; Nassau County, NY; Westchester County, NY; Montgomery County, OH; Bexar County, TX; El Paso County, TX; two programs in Erie County, NY; and eight programs in Tarrant County, TX. The Maryland State Public Defender Program did not provide any information for their four jurisdictions (Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County) in this study. Some information for the public defender program (e.g., expenditures and staffing) was taken from statistics available from their website. No information was available for the assigned counsel program. For nine programs in Riverside, CA, expenditures, funding source, and program type was obtained from the county. In fifteen counties (Hillsborough County, FL; Honolulu County, HI; Jefferson County, KY; Hennepin County, MN; Bergen County, NJ; Essex County, NJ; Hudson County, NJ; Middlesex County, NJ; Monmouth County, NJ; Tulsa County, OK; Multnomah County, OR; Allegheny County, PA; Davidson County, TN; Shelby County, TN; and Salt Lake County, UT) information was received for the public 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 population data. The 23 source surveys were then deleted from the final program data file leaving 220 returned surveys, for a response rate of 92% of the 238 eligible surveys. Since there is no complete roster of indigent criminal defense providers in the largest 100 counties the actual number of programs is not known. Data used for this report All information provided in this report came from data taken from the program surveys. A comparison between expenditure information reported on the county survey and the program survey revealed discrepancies in many counties between the information provided on the two surveys. This discrepancy was due in part to the fact that many programs received more than just county funding. Therefore expenditure data from the program surveys were used because they provided a more accurate accounting of what the programs actually spent in providing indigent criminal defense. The data for the 18 non-respondents to the program survey were imputed for all critical items, and then added to the program data file. The final program data file contained 238 surveys records, but accounted for 314 indigent criminal defense programs since some respondents (55 of the 238) provided information for more than one type of program. On 12 surveys, a juvenile or misdemeanor program was indicated but it could not be determined if these were separate programs or components of larger programs. Due to the ambiguity, these programs were left in the program data file. 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. 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. Multi-county 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. 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. 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 End of file 11/27/00 ih Revised 12/4/00 pm