U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------- 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 on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5052 ------------------------------------------------------- Special Report State Government Indigent Defense Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 – Updated Erinn Herberman, Ph.D., and Tracey Kyckelhahn, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians In 2012, state governments spent $2.3 billion nationally on indigent defense. From 2008 to 2012, state government indigent defense expenditures ranged from $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion (figure 1). The majority of state government indigent defense expenditures were for services directly provided by the state (92% each year from 2008 to 2012) (table 1). The remainder of state government indigent defense expenditures were intergovernmental transfers to local governments to fund local indigent defense services. While direct expenditures held steady, intergovernmental transfers declined from $195 million to $180 million between 2011 and 2012 (down 7.6%). From 2011 to 2012, state government indigent defense expenditures remained stable at $2.3 billion. *********************************************** ************ Highlights ************ * In 2012, state governments spent $2.3 billion nationally on indigent defense. * State government indigent defense expenditures showed an average annual decrease of 0.2% from 2008 to 2012. * From 2011 to 2012, state government indigent defense expenditures remained stable at $2.3 billion. * As a share of total judicial-legal expenditures by state governments, spending on indigent defense held steady between 9.5% and 10.0% from 2008 to 2012. *********************************************** From 2008 to 2012, state government spending on all judicial-legal services ranged from $22.8 to $23.6 billion (table 2). As a share of total judicial-legal expenditures by state governments, spending on indigent defense held steady between 9.5% and 10.0% during this period. The data used in this report are from a larger study funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and produced by the Census Bureau. The study, Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008–2012 (NCJ 246683, BJS web, July 2014), contains information on— * state legislation related to the provision of indigent defense * the availability, quality, and sources of data for state government indigent defense expenditures for each state and the District of Columbia * total, direct, and intergovernmental indigent defense expenditures by state limited information on indigent defense expenditures by some local governments. For this report, financial data for fiscal years 2008 to 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 constant dollars (see Methodology). For the Census Bureau’s Indigent Defense Services (IDS) study, expenditure data are in nominal dollars. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee that people accused of crimes who cannot afford an attorney have the right to appointed counsel. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court mandate for appointed counsel, states enacted various methods to provide indigent defense services. Indigent defense funding, service delivery, and administration differ by state. Depending on the state, indigent defense expenditures are funded by the state or local governments, or a combination of both. Pennsylvania is the only state that does not provide any state-based funding for indigent defense, leaving all financial responsibility to the counties. States also have varying methods of service delivery for indigent defense, using different combinations of public defender offices, assigned counsel systems, or contract systems with private attorneys. In addition, the source of administration at the state or local levels for indigent defense services varies across states, including sources of governance, policy determinations, and operations. Some state-administered systems are not funded completely by the state. Some county-administered systems are funded entirely by the state government. Caution must be taken when comparing states on the total state government indigent defense expenditures presented in the Census Bureau’s IDS study, as the information may not encompass all resources spent on indigent defense. In addition, as this report focuses only on state government indigent defense expenditures, these data cannot be used to compare spending on indigent defense and prosecution. *********************************************** *************************************** Comparing total indigent defense expenditures and spending by public defender offices *************************************** Fiscal year 2008 data from the Census Bureau’s Indigent Defense Services (IDS) study were compared to calendar year 2007 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO), which collected office-level data from approximately 950 publicly funded public defender offices located in 49 states and the District of Columbia. ***Footnote 1 In 2007, Maine did not have a publicly funded public defender office.*** The universe included all public defender offices principally funded by state or local governments that provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation. The CPDO collected operational expenditure data for the government-funded public defender offices, which represented one component of total indigent defense system. In comparison, the IDS study by the Census Bureau consisted of all spending on indigent defense, including contract attorneys, assigned counsel, and public defender office expenditures. The CPDO and IDS studies differed in other ways. The CPDO only contained operational expenditures, while the IDS study also included capital outlay, generally a small percentage of spending on indigent defense. The CPDO reported on calendar year 2007, while the Census Bureau’s IDS study collected data for fiscal year 2008, which included some of calendar year 2007.***Footnote 2 The degree to which CY 2007 expenditures was included in a state’s FY 2008 expenditures depended on the start of a state’s fiscal year, which varies by state.*** Among the 22 states classified as state-administered in the CPDO, state government expenditures for calendar year 2007 for (14) states were within 10% of expenditures from the Census FY 2008 data.***Footnote 3In the upcoming BJS 2013 National Survey of Indigent Defense, 29 states are classified as state-administered. *** Of the remaining seven states, four states contained 17% to 50% more expenditures than in the Census Bureau’s IDS study, and three states had 50% more expenditures in the IDS study than the CPDO (table 3). *************************************** ************* Methodology ************* The data used for this report and in the Census Bureau study were extracted from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State Government Finances for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This report includes state government indigent defense expenditures and total judicial-legal expenditures compiled by U.S. Census Bureau representatives. Data were collected from government audits, budgets, and other financial reports. Differences in functional responsibilities from state to state may prohibit the comparability of expenditure data across all jurisdictions, and caution should be exercised when comparing government expenditures. For more detailed information on the functional responsibilities by state, see the previously referenced Census Bureau study, Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008–2012, (NCJ 246683, BJS web, July 2014). Adjusting for Inflation ************************* Government expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation adjusted to 2012 dollars, as is standard for state government spending. Annual chain-type price indices for gross domestic product were employed as divisors, and unadjusted expenditures were employed as dividends to produce inflation adjusted expenditures in 2012 dollars. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, developed the price indices used in all inflation adjustments, as published through their interactive data tool (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). (See Table 1.1.4, Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product, March 27, 2014.) Imputation ************ For 2008 and 2010, expenditure data for Georgia were only available for total indigent defense expenditures. Totals for direct and intergovernmental expenditures for Georgia for those 2 years were imputed by taking the average share for each category for 2009, 2011, and 2012, and applying it to 2008 and 2010. Expenditures for California were compiled using the State of California Governor’s Budget. However, only partial indigent defense expenditure information was available; therefore, California’s expenditures are likely an underestimate. Census Bureau data from Florida could not be fully validated. These states’ data were used to impute national totals. For FY 2009, Tennessee State Budget Publications were used to provide data for imputation to national totals. Terms and definitions ********************** Expenditures--external cash payments made from any source of funds, including any payments financed from borrowing, fund balances, intergovernmental revenue, and other current revenue. Intergovernmental transfers--the sum of payments made from one government entity to another, including grants-in-aid, shared revenues, payments in lieu of taxes, and amounts for services performed by one government for another on a reimbursable or cost- sharing basis (e.g., payments by one government to another for boarding prisoners). Excludes amounts paid to other governments for purchase of commodities, property, or utility services. Direct expenditures--all expenditures except those classified as intergovernmental. Includes direct current expenditures (e.g., salaries, wages, fees, and commissions and purchases of supplies, materials, and contractual services) and capital outlays (e.g., construction and purchase of equipment, land, and existing structures). Note that capital outlays are included for the year in which the direct expenditure was made, regardless of how the funds were raised (e.g., bond issue) or when they were paid back. Indigent defense services--the provision of legal services to individuals accused of crimes who cannot afford an attorney. *********************************************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Erinn Herberman and Tracey Kyckelhahn. E. Ann Carson verified the report. Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced the report. July 2014, NCJ 246684 *********************************************** ***************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ***************************************************** *********************** 11/06/2014/JER/10:35am ***********************