U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007
State Public Defender Programs, 2007
September 2010 NCJ 228229
----------------------------------------------------------
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:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2242.
This report is associated with the State Public Defender
Offices, 2007. For a list of related publications go to
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=215
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Langton and Donald Farole, Jr., Ph.D.
BJS Statisticians
In 2007, 49 states and the District of Columbia had public
defender offices to provide legal representation for some or
all indigent defendants. Twenty-two states had a state
public defender program that oversaw the operations,
policies, and practices of the 427 public defender offices
located in these states (figure 1). State-based public
defender offices functioned entirely under the direction of
a central office that funded and administered all public
defender offices in the state. In the remaining 27 states,
public defender offices were county-based, administered at a
local level, and funded principally by the county or through
a combination of county and state funds. The public defender
office in the District of Columbia operated like a county-
based office and was classified as county-based.
---------------------------------------------------------
Highlights
*State programs spent more than $830 million representing
indigent defendants, which was about 14% of total state
expenditures for all judicial and legal functions in 2007.
*Public defender programs in the 13 states with death
penalty statutes spent a combined $11.3 million providing
capital case representation in 2007.
*Misdemeanor and ordinance violations accounted for the
largest share (43%) of cases received by public defender
programs.
*Fifteen state programs exceeded the maximum recommended
number of felony and misdemeanor cases per attorney.
*State programs employed a median of 163 litigating
attorneys per state.
*In 2007 state public defender programs employed about 1
investigator for every 6 full-time equivalent (FTE)
litigating attorneys.
*State programs had a median attrition rate of 10% for
attorneys in 2007.
*Among the 17 states that had a state public defender
program in 1999, criminal caseloads increased by 20%
overall from 1999 to 2007.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Professional guidelines for the provision of indigent defense
State Public Defender Programs, 2007 presents the Bureau of
Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender
Offices (CPDO) data in the context of applicable
professional guidelines for representing indigent clients.
The American Bar Association (ABA), the National Legal Aid
and Defender Association (NLADA), and special commissions,
such as the National Study Commission on Defense Services
(1976) and the President's National Advisory Commission on
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973), have released
professional guidelines for the provision of indigent
defense. In 2002, the ABA condensed these guidelines into
the ABA's Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery
System. The ten principles are widely regarded as a succinct
statement of the currently accepted requirements for
adequate defense representation and are referenced
throughout the report. The report also references
professional guidelines from the American Bar Association
Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services
(3rd ed. 1992), and the National Legal Aid and Defender
Association, Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense
Representation (1995).
Ten Principles
1. The public defense function, including the selection,
funding, and payment of defense counsel, is independent.
2. Where the caseload is sufficiently high, the public
defense delivery system consists of both a defender office
and the active participation of the private bar.
3. Clients are screened for eligibility, and defense counsel
is assigned and notified of appointment, as soon as feasible
after clients' arrest, detention, or request for counsel.
4. Defense counsel is provided sufficient time and a
confidential space within which to meet with the client.
5. Defense counsel's workload is controlled to permit the
rendering of quality representation.
6. Defense counsel's ability, training, and experience match
the complexity of the case.
7. The same attorney continuously represents the client
until completion of the case.
8. There is parity between defense counsel and the
prosecution with respect to resources, and defense counsel
is included as an equal partner in the justice system.
9. Defense counsel is provided with and required to attend
continuing legal education.
10. Defense counsel is supervised and systematically
reviewed for quality and efficiency according to nationally
and locally adopted standards.
Other professional guidelines
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals, Task Force on Courts, Chapter 13: The Defense
(1973).
National Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines
for Legal Defense Systems in the United States (1976).
American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice,
Providing Defense Services (3rd ed. 1992).
National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Performance
Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation (1995).
-------------------------------------------------------
State public defender programs employed 29% of the nation's
15,000 public defenders in 2007 (table 1). The 4,300
attorneys working in these state programs served 73.4 million
residents and handled approximately 1.5 million cases, or 27%
of the nearly 5.6 million cases handled by public defenders
nationwide.
In 1963 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v.
Wainwright that state courts are required to ensure that
right-to-counsel provisions under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments apply to indigent defendants. Since the Gideon
ruling, states, counties, and jurisdictions have established
varying means of providing public representation for
defendants unable to afford a private attorney. Indigent
defense systems typically provide representation using some
combination of--
1.a public defender office
2.an assigned counsel system in which the court schedules
cases for participating private attorneys
3.a contract system in which private attorneys contractually
agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or
indigent defense cases.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public
Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data on public defender
offices, which was one of the three methods for delivering
indigent defense services. Public defender offices have a
salaried staff of full or part-time attorneys who
represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct
government employees or through a public, nonprofit
organization.
The CPDO was the first systemic, nationwide study of public
defender offices to collect data on the staffing, caseloads,
expenditures, standards and guidelines, and attorney training
in the 957 offices across 49 states and the District of
Columbia. Maine did not have public defender offices
in 2007.
Public defender offices nationwide employed over 15,000
litigating attorneys in 2007. These offices received a total
of approximately 5.6 million indigent defense cases and spent
about $2.3 billion representing indigent defendants.
This report presents data on the policies and operations of
the 427 public defender offices that comprised the 22 state
public defender programs. Data from the 22 state programs are
reported at the state-level because within each state,
state-based offices often share resources and caseloads,
as needed.
Information presented in the text and tables of the report
came from the CPDO unless otherwise noted. In some instances
states did not report data, and the CPDO findings were
supplemented with information from relevant state statutes.
Any data supplemented from outside sources are noted in the
text and tables.
CPDO findings on county-based offices in 27 states and the
District of Columbia are discussed in County-based and Local
Public Defender Offices, 2007, BJS Web, September 2010.
State public defender programs spent over $830 million
providing indigent defense representation in 2007
In 2007, public defender programs served a total resident
population of over 73 million and operated 427 public
defender offices (table 2).These 22 programs served a median
resident population of 2.9 million, with a median of 19
public defender offices per state; the number of offices per
state ranged from 4 in North Dakota to 36 in Missouri. State
public defender programs employed 4,321 litigating attorneys
to handle the nearly 1.5 million cases received in 2007.
State programs spent more than $830 million representing
indigent defendants in 2007, with the median annual
expenditure estimated at over $33 million per program.
***Footnote 1 Survey instructions asked respondents to report
operating expenditures for public defender offices only. If
the state funded assigned counsel or contract attorneys in
addition to public defenders, these expenditures were not to
be reported by the state.*** The 22 programs received a
median of 73,000 cases, equating to a median per-case
expenditure of $510 (not shown in table).
A median of 15% of states' legal and judicial direct
expenditures went to public defender programs
Each year the U.S. Census Bureau produces state-by-state
estimates of direct government expenditures for police,
courts, and corrections. ***Footnote 2 State-by-state
justice expenditure estimates were derived from the U.S.
Census Bureau's Annual Government Finance Survey. (See
U.S.Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finance, Web
2007. .*** A median of
15% of state judicial and legal direct expenditures was spent
by public defender programs in the 22 states in 2007.
Wisconsin spent the largest share of judicial and legal
expenditures on the state's public defender program (30%),
followed by Montana (24%), Maryland (17%) and Minnesota
(17%). All other states spent less than 20% of their reported
legal and judicial expenditures on the public defender
program.
The public defense function should be independent of undue
political influence. To safeguard independence and promote
efficiency and quality of services, a nonpartisan board
should oversee defender systems.
In 2007, 15 state public defender programs were overseen by
an advisory board or commission
In 2007, 15 state public defender programs had an advisory
board or commission (table 3). In 9 of these states, the
board had both rule-making authority and the authority to
hire and remove the chief public defender. The board's
authority also extended over budgetary decisions in 6 of
these states.
Seven of the 15 state public defender programs with an
advisory board relied on more than one authority to select
board members. The governor, in conjunction with the state
supreme court, legislature, or other entity, such as the
State Bar Association, appointed members to the advisory
board in 7 state public defender programs: Connecticut, Iowa,
Kentucky, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and
Wisconsin. In Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, and Montana, the
governor had the sole responsibility for advisory board
appointments. The state supreme court was the sole appointing
authority in Colorado and Massachusetts.
The defender office should screen clients for eligibility,
with eligibility decisions then subject to review by the
court. The determination of eligibility should be based on
the liquid assets of the defendant, as well as the
defendant's own assessment of his or her ability to obtain
sufficient representation. The office should not base
indigency determinations on whether the defendant was able to
post bond following his or her arrest
Nearly all states with a state public defender program
followed specific criteria or written guidelines to determine
indigency
Except for New Hampshire, states with a public
defender program used specific criteria to determine if a
defendant qualified as indigent and was eligible for legal
representation (table 4). Eligibility criteria included, at a
minimum, the defendant's income level and a sworn or unsworn
statement from the defendant declaring indigency. Six
states Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Missouri, and Wisconsin also considered a defendant's ability
to post bond as a criterion for indigency determination.
Public defenders (8 states), judges (8 states), and court
personnel (5 states) were the most common entities
responsible for indigency screening for potential clients in
the 18 states that reported data. Kentucky and Massachusetts
used either pretrial services or probation officers to screen
clients for indigency. Judges were also involved in the
screening process in both these states (not shown in a
table).
The private bar should be involved in providing indigent
defense services for cases in which there is a conflict of
interest with the public defender's office or the public
defender has exceeded caseload limits. Private bar
appointments for conflict cases should be made through an
established and directed assigned counsel or contract system
and not on an ad hoc basis.
Eleven of 19 reporting public defender programs used a
state-administered assigned counsel program for conflict
cases
Nineteen state public defender programs provided data on the
handling of cases in which there was a conflict of interest
with the public defender office, such as a co-defendant
already handled by the office. Of these states, 11 used a
program-administered assigned counsel system to handle
conflict cases in 2007 (figure 2). Seven states reported
using a case-by-case contract with a private attorney, the
second most common approach to handling conflict cases. No
state public defender program reported using an ethical
screen, whereby anoffice takes the case regardless of the
conflict, but isolates the attorney with conflicting
connections from involvement in the case.
The same attorney should represent a client through all
stages of case proceedings.
Eleven state programs provided vertical representation for
felony defendants in the majority of offices in the state
Vertical representation refers to the practice of one
attorney representing a client from arraignment through the
duration of the case. It is distinguished from horizontal
representation in which a different attorney represents the
same client at various stages of the case. Nearly three-
quarters of reporting state public defender programs had a
written policy encouraging vertical representation in 2007
(table 5). In 11 of the programs that reported data, the
majority of offices in the state provided vertical
representation for defendants in felony, non-capital cases.
Six state programs used a mixture of vertical and horizontal
representation in felony, non-capital cases, and 4 programs
assigned one attorney to cover the arraignment and another
to represent the defendant through the duration of the case.
No state program relied solely on horizontal representation
for felony, non-capital cases in 2007.
Five state programs had a written policy that an attorney
should be appointed within 24 hours of client detention.
Thirteen programs had a policy of assigning cases based on
case type and attorney experience. Most state programs (14)
also had a policy that the most experienced attorneys in an
office should handle the most complex cases.
Public defender programs can charge fees to indigent
defendants under circumstances in which the defendant's
contribution would not impose significant financial hardship.
Nineteen state public defender programs could charge fees
for indigent defense services
Three states, Iowa, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, did not
allow cost recoupment for public defender services in 2007
(table 6). The other 19 state programs had a system in place
to allow for the collection of fees from indigent
defendants.
Among the states permitting cost recoupment, the most widely
available fee was a charge based on the cost for the
defender's services (12 programs). Eight public defender
programs could charge an up-front application or
administrative fee, which typically ranged between $10 and
$200 depending on the state and type of case.3 Expert
witness fees, facilities fees, and court-related expenses
were each allowed in 4 or fewer programs. ***Footnote 3 See
American Bar Association. (December 2001). 2001 Public
Defender Up-front Application Fees Update.
.***
Public defender programs can charge fees to indigent
defendants under circumstances in which the defendant's
contribution would not impose significant financial hardship.
Misdemeanors or ordinance violations made up more than
40% of the cases received by state public defender
programs in 2007
The 22 state public defender programs received nearly 1.5
million cases in 2007. Misdemeanors carrying a jail sentence
or ordinance violations accounted for about 640,000 (43%) of
these cases (table 7). Felony non-capital cases accounted
for the next largest percentage (25%) of public defender
program caseloads. Juvenile-related (14%), civil (3%),
appellate (1%), and felony capital (<0.5%) cases made up the
smallest share of cases received by state programs in 2007.
The CPDO, however, did not collect data from public defender
offices that provided primarily juvenile or appellate case
representation.
Variations in the number and type of cases received by
public defender programs are due in part to differences
between the resident population and offending patterns in
each state. These variations may also be due in a larger
part to the differences in how indigent defense cases are
distributed among public defender offices and other contract
and assigned counsel programs in each state. The 2007 CPDO
did not allow for enumeration of the total number of
indigent cases received in each state or the percentage of
indigent defense cases handled by the public defender office
versus contract or assigned counsel attorneys. However,
public documents allow for some examination of state
variations in the percentage and type of cases that public
defender offices receive.
An earlier BJS report, State-Funded Indigent Defense
Services, 1999, revealed that the volume and type of
indigent cases handled outside of the public defender office
varies from state to state. Massachusetts' public defender
program handled 3% of the approximately 208,000 indigent
defense cases received in 1999, while assigned counsel
attorneys handled the remaining 97%. During that same year,
Connecticut's public defender programs handled 87% of the
64,500 indigent defense cases received, while assigned
counsel handled 1%, and contract attorneys handled 11%.
***Footnote 4 See State-Funded Indigent Defense Services,
1999, BJS Web. September 2001 and National Survey of Indigent
Defense Systems (NSIDS), BJS Web. 1999.)***
Other documents reveal that some of the variation in the
types of cases handled by state public defender programs in
2007 may also be due to variations in the types of indigent
cases assigned to public defenders versus other indigent
service providers. In 2007, misdemeanors and ordinance
violations accounted for 92% of the public defender program
caseload in Wyoming, while felony non-capital cases made up
the majority of the caseloads in Massachusetts (76%). The
2009 Annual Report for the Wyoming Office of the State
Public Defender reported that from 2006 to 2009 the public
defender program has served over 80% of the state's indigent
criminal defendants.***Footnote 5 See
. *** In contrast, Massachusetts typically assigned serious
felony non-capital cases to the public defender offices,
while state-assigned counsel attorneys handled misdemeanor
cases.***Footnote 6 See National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, Massachusetts Indigent Defense
.***
Public defender programs in states with death penalty
statutes spent $11.3 million providing capital case defense
in 2007
Thirteen of the 22 states with state-based public defender
programs had death penalty statutes (table 8). Of these
states, 11 provided complete data on capital case
representation and spent almost $11.3 million to represent
capital case defendants. Connecticut, Kentucky, and Virginia
spent more than $2 million each to provide capital case
representation of indigent defendants in 2007.
Collectively, the 11 state-based programs represented 436
indigent defendants charged with capital offenses.
Prosecutors filed for the death penalty in 209 of these
cases. The number of cases in which the prosecutor filed for
the death penalty ranged from 97 cases represented by public
defenders in Kentucky to 1 case each in Arkansas and New
Hampshire.
Eight of the 11 reporting public defender programs in death
penalty states had specialized units for capital case
defense. Six state programs provided indigent defense in more
than 15 capital cases in 2007. Of these state programs, one
program (Colorado) did not have a specialized unit.
All specialized capital defense units provided indigent
representation for trial-level capital cases. Specialized
units also provided representation for direct appeals and
post-conviction capital cases in 4 states: New Jersey,
Connecticut, Virginia, and Arkansas. Kentucky's death penalty
unit represented capital defendants in trial-level cases and
direct appeals, and Maryland's unit represented defendants in
trial-level and post-conviction cases.
The defense counsel's workload should be sufficiently
controlled to allow defenders the time needed to provide
quality representation in each case. Furthermore, public
defenders are expected to decline appointments that exceed
the established caseload limits.
Fifteen state public defender programs had caseload or
workload limits, the authority to refuse cases, or both
In 2007, 11 of the 22 state programs had established formal
caseload limits, and 8 had the authority to refuse
appointments due to case overload (table 9). Four states
Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming had both
formal caseload limits and the authority to refuse
appointments. Seven states had neither caseload limits nor
the authority to refuse appointments.
Fifteen of the 19 reporting state programs exceeded the
maximum recommended limit of felony or misdemeanor cases per
attorney
State public defender programs received a median of 11,420
felony non-capital cases and 20,340 misdemeanor cases in
2007. These programs employed 4,321 full-time equivalent
(FTE) litigating public defenders, with a median of 163
litigating attorneys in each state. Maryland employed the
most FTE litigating attorneys (508) and North Dakota
employed the fewest attorneys (10).
The National Advisory Commission (NAC) guidelines recommend
a caseload for each public defender's office, not
necessarily each attorney in the office. They state that
"the caseload of a public defender office should not exceed
the following: felonies per attorney per year: not more than
150; misdemeanors (excluding traffic) per attorney per year:
not more than 400; juvenile court cases per attorney per
year: not more than 200; Mental Health Act cases per
attorney per year: not more than 200; and appeals per
attorney per year: not more than 25."***Footnote 7 Department
of Justice, National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, Courts 13.12
(1973).*** While caseload' can apply to the number of cases
per attorney at a given time, BJS interprets the NAC standard
as applicable to the sum of cases attorneys in an office are
responsible for in a given year. Because the CPDO only
collected data on cases received in 2007, these caseload
numbers may understate the actual caseload of attorneys who
are responsible not only for the new cases received in a
given year but also cases pending from previous years.
One way to analyze the numeric caseload guideline is to
estimate the number of cases received per FTE litigating
attorney. Since the CPDO did not collect data on the
caseloads of individual attorneys, it was assumed for
estimation purposes that the felony and misdemeanor cases
received in 2007 were equally distributed among FTE
litigating attorneys.
Using this estimation method, a public defender program
would meet the professional guideline for cases received in
2007 if FTE litigating attorneys received no more than 75
felony non-capital and 200 misdemeanor cases.*** Footnote 8
The NAC guideline frames caseloads as though an attorney
handles only one type of case. The misdemeanor and felony
caseload guidelines were halved to follow the analytic
assumption that attorneys handle both types of cases.***
This conservative measure also assumes that attorneys did
not have any cases pending from previous years and did not
handle any other type of case. Still, in 2007 attorneys in
state public defender programs received a median of 82
felony and 217 misdemeanor cases, approximately 27 more
cases in one year than recommended by the guideline.
Four states--Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and New
Hampshire--met the professional guidelines for cases per
attorney based on this conservative estimation. Rhode Island
(391 cases per attorney) and Hawaii (384 cases per attorney)
had two of the highest combined felony and misdemeanor
caseloads per attorney in 2007.
Another way to examine caseloads is to calculate the number
of defenders needed to meet the nationally accepted caseload
guideline of 150 felony non-capital cases, 400 misdemeanor
cases, 200 juvenile cases, or 25 appellate cases per
defender each year. To calculate the total number of
attorneys needed in each program, analysts first computed
the number of attorneys needed to handle the cases received
in each of the four case categories: felony non-capital,
misdemeanor, juvenile-related, and appellate. The numbers of
attorneys needed for each of the case types were then summed
to get the total number of litigating attorneys recommended
by the caseload guideline.
In order to meet the professional guideline, a state program
would need a median of 151 attorneys to handle the median
number of felony, misdemeanor, juvenile-related, and
appellate cases received in 2007 (table 10). State public
defender programs reported a median of 128 FTE litigating
attorneys, and had a median of 67% of the estimated number
of attorneys required by the guideline.
Seventeen states reported complete caseload data in 2007. Of
these states--Massachusetts, Montana, Wyoming, and New
Hampshire--had enough litigating attorneys to handle the
number of cases received without exceeding the caseload
guideline. In the remaining 13 states, the actual number of
litigating attorneys represented between 31% and 89% of the
number required to meet professional caseload guidelines for
the number of cases received in 2007.
There should be 1 managerial attorney for every 10 staff
attorneys in an office to ensure effective attorney
supervision.
Nearly 3,000 employees provided support to attorneys in state
public defender programs
In 2007, state public defender programs in 20 reporting
states employed nearly 3,000 support staff (table 12).
Support staff refers to employees--such as clerical and
administrative staff, paralegals, investigators, social
workers, indigency screeners, and interns who typically are
not attorneys, but provide case assistance for public
defenders. Clerical and administrative positions accounted
for more than half (56%) of the total support staff.
Investigators made up the next largest category of support
staff, accounting for almost a quarter (24%) of the
positions. The 20 programs also employed a median of 2
paralegals to provide assistance to all public defenders
statewide.
Maryland received the most cases of any state program in
2007, employed the largest number of support staff, and
exceeded all other states in the number of clerical staff
(450), indigency screeners (100), paralegals (35), and
interns (30). New Jersey was also among the top five states
in terms of the number of cases received, and employed the
highest number of investigators (233) of all state programs.
Investigators accounted for 40% of New Jersey's support
staff. While Wyoming reported one of the lowest caseloads of
the 22 programs, paralegals accounted for more than 60% of
the public defender support staff in the state.
Five states Hawaii, Iowa, Delaware, New Hampshire, and
Virginia reported no paralegals or interns on staff. North
Dakota reported the lowest number of cases received, was 1 of
9 states that did not employ social workers or indigency
screeners, and was the only state that did not employ
investigators in 2007. The public defender program in Iowa
employed only two types of support staff: investigators and
administrative personnel.
A public defender program should have at least 1 investigator
for every 3 litigating attorneys.
State programs had 1 investigator for every 6 FTE litigating
attorneys in 2007
In 2007, 18 of the 20 reporting public defender programs had
a ratio of less than 1 investigator for every 3 FTE
litigating attorneys (table 13). State programs in New Jersey
and Connecticut exceeded the professional guidelines for the
ratio of investigators to attorneys. New Jersey had about 15
investigators and Connecticut had about 11 investigators for
every 30 FTE litigating attorneys. Conversely, Arkansas
reported having less than 1 investigator per 30 FTE
litigating attorneys.
State public defender programs had a median of about 1
paralegal per 60 FTE litigating attorneys. Wyoming reported
the highest ratio of paralegals to attorneys (about 2
paralegals for every 5 attorneys), followed by North Dakota
(1 paralegal for every 10 attorneys).
Defender organizations should offer professional development
opportunities to assist attorneys in providing quality
representation for indigent clients. Public defense counsel
should also have systematic and comprehensive training
appropriate to specific areas of practice.
All state programs provided opportunities for public defense
attorneys to improve trial skills
The CPDO collected data on policies related to continuing
education for attorneys and the types of training provided by
state public defender programs. Nearly all of the 19
reporting state programs had operating guidelines that
included a policy on continuing education requirements (18
programs) and annual attorney performance review (17
programs) (table 14).
All of the state public defender programs provided
opportunities for attorneys to improve trial skills. Nearly
all (20) programs provided attorneys with professional
development opportunities in the area of juvenile
delinquency. In 17 public defender programs, attorneys could
take training on handling defendants with mental illness. In
10 of the 13 states with the death penalty, public defender
programs also provided professional development
opportunities in the area of death penalty defense. Civil
defense training, offered in 3 states, was the least common
type of professional development offered by state public
defender programs.
State public defender programs had a median attrition rate
of 10% for assistant public defenders
Minimum entry-level salaries for assistant public defenders
ranged from about $37,000 to $58,000, with a median salary
of $46,000 per year. More experienced (6 years or more)
assistant public defenders earned a median salary between
$60,000 and $78,000. Connecticut had the highest salary
range, with an entry-level salary of more than $58,000 and a
maximum salary for experienced public defenders of nearly
$122,000 per year.
State public defender programs reported a median 10%
turnover rate of assistant public defenders in 2007 due to
resignation, termination, retirement, or illness (table 15).
Virginia had the highest attrition rate (24%) and one of the
lowest averages for assistant public defenders' length of
service (3 years). Nearly all states with an attrition rate
below 10% reported assistant public defender salaries that
were at or above the median salary observed in the 22
states.
From 1999 to 2007, public defender program caseloads
increased by 20% while staffing increased by 4%
Seventeen of the 22 states in this report had established a
state public defender program in 1999. These states were
included in the BJS National Survey of Indigent Defense
Systems (NSIDS) conducted from 1999 to 2000. ***Footnote
9 See State-Funded Indigent Defense Services, 1999,
for1999 data on the 17 state public defender programs.***
Data on caseloads, staffing, and expenditures from 1999 and
2007 can be compared for these 17 states. The 1999
expenditure data have been adjusted for inflation and are
represented in 2007 dollars.
Overall, total expenditures, cases received and full-time
equivalent (FTE) public defenders increased in the 17 states
from 1999 to 2007 (table 16). The number of attorneys
employed in state public defender programs increased by 4%,
from approximately 2,700 to over 2,800. Additionally,
criminal caseloads increased by 20% overall and total
expenditures increased by 19% during this period. There was
considerable variability in the caseload, expenditure, and
staffing trends for individual states.
Increases in the number of cases received were greater than
increases in staffing or expenditures in five states from
1999 to 2007: Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Virginia. Conversely, caseloads in state-based
public defender offices stayed the same or decreased in five
states during the same period: Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa,
Minnesota, and Vermont.
After adjusting for inflation, Virginia's public defender
program spent 67% more in 2007 than in 1999. Hawaii (down
20%), Missouri (down 12%), Minnesota (down 5%), and New
Jersey (down 4%) had declines in expenditures during this
period. From 1999 to 2007, Minnesota had greater declines in
both criminal caseloads (down 20%) and FTE public defenders
(down 30%) than in expenditures.
Of the states that reported data in 1999 and 2007, more
state programs had a decline in the number of FTE public
defenders than in the number of cases received or
expenditures. Seven state programs reported a decrease in
the number of FTE public defenders from 1999 to 2007,
compared to four programs reporting a decrease in criminal
caseloads and four state programs reporting a decline in
expenditures during this period.
Methodology
The 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected
office-level data from 957 publicly funded public defender
offices located in 49 states and the District of Columbia.
(Maine had no public defender offices in 2007 and provided
all indigent defense services through assignment to and
contract services with private attorneys.) The universe
included all public defender offices principally funded by
state or local governments to provide general criminal
defense services, conflict services, or capital case
representation.
Federal public defender offices and offices providing
primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private
attorneys were excluded from the data collection. Public
defender offices funded privately or principally by a tribal
government or by offices providing primarily appellate or
juvenile services were also excluded.
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 American Bar Association's Standing Committee for Legal
Aid and Indigent Defense and the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers also had the opportunity to review
and comment on the instrument. The data collection began in
April 2008 and was completed in March 2009.
BJS had questionnaires sent to 1,046 public defender offices
identified in the United States. Approximately 97% of the
offices provided responses to at least some of the critical
items identified on the survey instrument.
Organizational Structure of Public Defender Offices
The CPDO included both state and county-based public
defender offices. State-based offices functioned entirely
under the direction of a central administrative office that
funded and administered all the public defender offices in
the state. County-based offices were administered at the
local level and funded principally by the county or through
a combination of county and state funds. The Public Defender
for the District of Columbia was funded by the Federal
Government, but functions as a county-based office and was
classified as such.
These variations in public defender systems dictated the
distribution of the CPDO data collection instrument. In the
District of Columbia and states with county-based public
defender offices, each of 588 offices submitted one
completed questionnaire via hard copy or online submission.
Only the 530 offices that served as the principal public
defender office for the jurisdiction are included in table
1.
Data presented are primarily from the 22 central offices of
the state public defender programs. The 22 states completed
an online questionnaire and responded to questions
pertaining to each of the local offices within the states.
All 22 states provided responses to at least some of the
critical items identified on the survey instrument. In
select instances where respondents did not provide the
information requested and the information was detailed in
certain state statutes, BJS analysts used the statutes to
supply missing data.
Because the state-based public defender offices often shared
resources among local offices as needed, the state programs
had the option of providing data on staffing, caseload, and
expenditures either for the entire state or for each
individual office. Six of the 22 state-based public defender
programs were able to provide complete information at the
local office level, covering 27% of the 427 local offices in
state-based public defender programs. Sixteen state programs
provided a portion of the data at the state level and a
portion of the data at the local office level. Because of
the variations in the level of data provided by each state
public defender program, all local office data were
aggregated to the state level for these 22 states.
Measuring caseload versus workload
The CPDO was designed to collect aggregate data from public
defender offices or programs. Respondents were instructed to
provide the number of cases received by the office or
program in 2007. This caseload number is presented
throughout the report as a measure of public defender office
labor. While workload is generally considered a more
accurate measure of the burden on public defenders than
caseload, an assessment of workload requires data on the
number and types of cases handled by individual attorneys
within an office, as well as information about additional
attorney responsibilities. The survey instrument and project
design did not allow for assessment of the work of
individual attorneys within an office. Providing data on
individual attorneys would have been burdensome and time-
consuming for the public defender offices and programs.
Calculating number of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating
attorneys
Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a computed statistic
calculated by dividing the hours worked by part-time
employees by the standard number of hours for full-time
employees (40 hours per week) and then adding the resulting
quotient to the number of full-time employees. (See U.S.
Census Bureau, Government Employment, 1997, Web. Updated
annually.
.)
Included are litigating attorneys who carry a caseload
(supervisory attorneys, assistant public defenders, and
chief defenders). Excluded are managing attorneys who do not
litigate cases. Data on whether chief public defenders carry
a caseload were missing for Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, and
New Mexico. The total number of FTE litigating attorneys
excludes chief public defenders in these 4 states.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency
of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is
director.
This Special Report was written by Lynn Langton and
Donald Farole, Jr., Ph.D. Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D., Tracey
Kyckelhahn, and Kyle C. Harbacek verified the report.
Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report, Tina
Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne E. Robinson prepared
the report for final printing under the supervision of
Doris J. James.
September 2010, NCJ 228229
------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------
09/15/2010/ JER 3:05pm