U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007 Public Defender Offices, 2007 Statistical Tables November 2009 NCJ 228538 ------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: ------------------------------------------------------------- Public Defender Offices, 2007 Statistical Tables Lynn Langton and Donald J. Farole, Jr. BJS Statistician In 2007 a total of 957 public defender offices in 49 states and the District of Columbia provided defense services for indigent clients. (Indigent defense services were provided by private attorneys in Maine.) The public defender offices received more than 5.5 million cases in 2007, employed more than 15,000 full-time equivalent litigating attorneys, and reported operating expenditures of more than $2.3 billion. Highlights *In 2007, 957 public defender offices across the nation received more than 5.5 million indigent defense cases. *Misdemeanor cases accounted for about 40% of all cases received by state-based public defender offices and about 50% of the cases received by county-based offices. *Half of all state-based public defender offices had formal caseload limits in place in 2007. *Total expenditures in public defender offices exceeded $2.3 billion in 2007. *More than 15,000 full-time equivalent litigating attorneys were employed by public defender offices in 2007. State-based public defender programs employed more than 4,000 full-time equivalent litigating attorneys, with a median of 163 per state-based program. County-based offices employed about 11,000 full-time equivalent litigating attorneys, with a median of seven per office. *In addition to attorneys, public defender offices nationwide employed nearly 9,700 full-time equivalent support staff, including investigators, paralegals, and administrative staff. *The average public defender office examined six criteria to determine whether a client was indigent. The most commonly used criteria in state-based programs were income level, defendant receipt of public assistance, sworn defendant application, and defendant's debt level. The most commonly used criteria in county-based public defender offices were income level, sworn defendant application, judge's discretion, defendant residence in a public institution, and defendant's debt level. *The Census of Public Defender Offices collected data on eight commonly referenced standards for operating a public defender office. The most commonly reported standard in public defender offices related to continuing legal education for litigating attorneys. *State-based public defender programs reported receiving a median of 82 felony (non-capital) cases, 217 misdemeanor cases, and two appeals case per full-time equivalent litigating attorney. County-based public defender offices reported receiving an average of 100 felony (non-capital) cases and 146 misdemeanor cases per full-time equivalent litigating attorney. The CPDO collected data only on the number of cases received in 2007 and, therefore, was unable to estimate the actual caseload (including ongoing cases received prior to 2007) of litigating public defenders. Errata: Public Defender Offices, 2007 Statistical Tables The Bureau of Justice Statistics is re-issuing the report, Public Defender Offices, 2007 Statistical Tables, originally published on November 19, 2009, to correct errors recently identified in the data. The revised report corrects caseload data for one office, excludes caseload data that was determined to be unreliable (out-of-range) for another office, and excludes all data for seven additional offices that were found to be ineligible (out-of-scope). These changes affected data in the text and tables. The Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO), 2007, collected nationwide data on the caseloads, staffing, expenditure, and policies for all primary, alternate, and conflict public defender offices. It also collected data on specialty offices that provided capital case representation. BJS restricted the scope of the data analysis to offices that had indicated they were the primary public defender office in their jurisdiction, providing general criminal defense representation. A subsequent office-by-office examination of the data and comparison to secondary data sources revealed that seven offices which reported that they were the primary office in their jurisdiction were in fact providing supplemental defense services. These offices were removed from the analyses. Also, we conducted a secondary validity assessment of the reported felony capital caseload and found potential problems with the data from two public defender offices . For one office, we were able to independently verify and correct the caseload data. For the other office we were unable to independently verify the caseload data, and decided to remove it from the report. The reported felonycapital caseloads in the revised statistical tables reflect these decisions. Indigent defense representation is typically provided through some combination of three methods: a public defender office, an assigned counsel system, and a contract system. The Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) data collection focused on public defender offices. Public defender offices employ a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys to represent indigent clients, as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. The CPDO collected data on public defender office caseloads, staffing, expenditures, and adherence to accepted standards and guidelines in offices found across 49 states and the District of Columbia. It was the first systematic, nationwide study of public defender offices. Public defender offices are typically administered and funded at the county or state level. In 2007, 22 states with state-based programs administered and provided funding for all public defender offices in their respective states. In the remaining 27 states and the District of Columbia, public defender offices were administered and funded at the county level. States with county-based systems included 15 states with public defender offices that were principally funded at the county level, and 12 states with offices that received some level of funding from the state government in addition to county funding. The District of Columbia was grouped with the county-funded public defender offices due to its unique status outside of any state's jurisdiction. Methodology The 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected office-level data from approximately 1,050 publicly funded public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. (Maine provided indigent defense services through assignment to and contract services with private attorneys.) The universe included all public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation. Federal public defender offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, any public defender offices that were privately or principally funded by tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. Questionnaires were sent to 1,046 public defender offices identified in the United States. Approximately 97% of those offices provided responses to at least some of the critical items identified on the survey instrument. Offices that primarily handled conflict of interest cases or specialized in capital, appellate, or juvenile cases were outside of the scope of the study. As a result, data presented in this report describe 957 public defender offices. Organizational Structure of Public Defender Offices The offices included in the census were administered and funded at the county or state level. State-based programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. County-based programs were administered at the local level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. These variations in public defender systems dictated the manner by which the CPDO data collection instrument was distributed. In the District of Columbia and states with county-based public defender offices, each of 530 offices submitted one completed questionnaire via hardcopy or online submission. The 22 states employing a central state-based public defender program completed an online questionnaire and responded to questions pertaining to each of the local offices within the states. Because the state-based public defenders often shared resources among the local offices as needed, the state-based programs were given the option of providing data on staffing, caseload, and expenditures for either the entire state or for each respective office. Six of the 22 state-based public defender programs were able to provide information at the local office level (covering 27% of the 427 local offices in state-based public defender programs). Sixteen state-based programs provided at least some of requested information at the state level only. Scope of Data Collection The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), and a number of chief defenders and other experts in the field of indigent defense collaborated to develop the CPDO data collection instrument. The instrument was additionally sent to the American Bar Association's Standing Committee for Legal Aid and Indigent Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for review and comment. Data collection began in April 2008 and was completed in March 2009. The CPDO data include information on caseload, staffing, and expenditures of the public defender offices. The CPDO data do not allow comparison of public defender statistics to those for indigent defense services across the state and local jurisdictions. Jurisdictions generally provide indigent defense through some combination of a public defender, assigned counsel, and contract attorney programs. While each jurisdiction represented in the CPDO provided some indigent defense through the public defender office, each also provided varying levels of indigent defense through other means. The level and type of indigent cases handled outside of the public defender office varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as illustrated by the 1999 National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS). According to State-Funded Indigent Defense Services, 1999, , the Massachusetts public defender program handled 3% of the approximately 208,000 indigent defense cases in the state in 1999; the remaining 97% were handled by assigned counsel. In Connecticut that same year, 87% of the 64,500 indigent defense cases were handled by the public defender offices, while 1% were handled by assigned counsel and 11% by contract attorneys. The CPDO data reflect operations of public defender offices only. Public Defender Offices, 2007 - Statistical Tables: Table 1. Characteristics of public defender offices, 2007 Table 2a. General characteristics of state-based public defender programs, by state, 2007 Table 2b. General characteristics of county-based public defender offices, by office type and caseload, 2007 Table 3a. Formal or written criteria used by state-based programs to qualify a defendant for representation, by state, 2007 Table 3b. Formal or written criteria used by county-based public defender offices to qualify a defendant for representation, by office type and caseload, 2007 Table 4a. Formal standards or written guidelines used by state-based public defender programs, by state, 2007 Table 4b. Formal standards or written guidelines used in the county-based public defender offices, by office type and caseload, 2007 Table 5a. Cases received in state-based public defender programs, by state and type of case, 2007 Table 5b. Cases received in county-based public defender offices, by office type and caseload, 2007 Table 6a. Staff employed by state-based public defender programs, by state and position title, 2007 Table 6b. Staff employed by county-based public defender offices, by office type, caseload, and position title, 2007 Table 7a. State-based public defender programs with caseload limits and authority to refuse appointments due to caseload, by state, 2007 Table 7b. Local public defender offices with caseload limits and authority to refuse appointments due to caseload, by office type and caseload, 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael D. Sinclair is acting director. This Selected Findings was written by Lynn Langton and Donald J. Farole, Jr. under the supervision of Duren Banks. Tracey Kyckelhahn and Sean Rosenmerkel verified this report. Doris J. James, Catherine Bird, and Jill Duncan edited the report, and Tina Dorsey produced the report. Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final printing. November 2009, NCJ 228538 ------------------------------------------------------------- This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: . ------------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov ------------------------------------------------------------- 6/22/2010/ JER/ 12:38