U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Selected Findings

November 2009, NCJ 228538

Lynn Langton and Donald J. Farole, Jr.

BJS Statisticians

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.

Public Defender Offices, 2007 - Statistical Tables

Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007

No public defender offices

State-based

County-based; county/state funded

County-based; county-funded

Organizational structure of 

public defender offices

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 officeby-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 felony capital caseloads in the revised statistical tables reflect these decisions.

Revised 6/17/2010
2 Public Defender Offices, 2007 - Statistical Tables

• 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 fulltime 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.

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. 
June 2010 3

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 statebased 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, 
4 Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables

<http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/sfids99.pdf>, 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 statistical 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 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: <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1758>.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Table 1. Characteristics of public defender offices, 2007

U.S. total 50 240,160 957 5,572,450 15,026 $2,310,040

State-based 22 73,370 427 1,491,420 4,321 833,358County-based 28 166,790 530 4,081,030 10,705 1,476,682

County/state funded 12 53,991 193 1,372,633 3,580 423,673County-funded 16 112,799 337 2,708,397 7,126 1,053,009

cAlaska's state-based public defender program did not report caseload data. Data available for 95% of county/state/federally funded offices and 98% of county-funded 

only offices.

dFTE (full-time equivalent) is a computed statistic calculated by dividing the hours worked by part-time employees by the standard number of hours for full-timeemployees (40 hours per week) and then adding the resulting quotient to the number of full-time employees. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm. Type of offices

Number of officesb

Number of cases receivedc 

FTE litigating attorneysd 

Number of statesa

bExcludes public defender offices that are privately funded or principally funded by federal or tribal governments and those that provide primarily conflict of interest 

representation, or felony capital, juvenile, or appellate cases services. Also excludes all other providers of indigent services, including attorneys or offices providing contract or assigned council services on an individual or case basis.

aIncludes the District of Columbia, which is classified as county-funded public defender office due to its unique status outside of any state's jurisdiction. In 2007 Maine did not 

have city, county, or state public defender offices.

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

Population served (thousands)

Total expenditures (thousands)

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Table 2a. General characteristics of state-based public defender programs, by state, 2007

Total 73,370 427 1,491,420 4,321 $833,358Median 2,907 19 72,740 163 $33,326

Alaska 681 13 / 93 $17,231

Arkansas 2,831 31 83,810 305 20,047Colorado 4,843 22 90,620 241 37,884Connecticut 3,490 27 83,100 127 47,600Delaware 862 7 29,410 70 13,713Hawaii 1,277 5 43,770 93 8,500Iowa 2,983 16 70,150 96 48,533

Kentucky 4,236 31 148,520 327 32,513Maryland 5,619 16 199,750 508 77,519Massachusetts 6,468 28 16,820 197 123,400

Minnesota 5,182 27 139,120 371 61,800

Missouri 5,878 36 83,160 261 34,138Montana 957 21 22,650 128 18,659New Hampshire 1,312 10 24,130 107 12,668New Jersey 8,653 23 100,240 458 99,000New Mexico 1,964 13 72,740 223 37,083

North Dakota 638 4 2,270 10 1,700

Rhode Island 1,053 6 18,760 40 8,782Vermont 621 11 11,690 31 6,839

Virginia 7,699 29 95,340 305 37,369Wisconsin 5,599 35 142,400 294 80,766

Wyoming 523 16 12,980 38 7,615

/Data not reported.

aRounded to the nearest ten. 

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

cThe Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, instructed respondents to report either fiscal or calendar year 2007 total public defender office 

expenditures for indigent defense functions, excluding any fixed capital costs.

Number of offices

State population (thousands) 

Number of cases receiveda 

Total expendituresc (thousands)

FTE litigating attorneysb

bFTE (full-time equivalent) is a computed statistic calculated by dividing the hours worked by part-time employees by the standard number ohours 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, <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm>.State

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Table 2b. General characteristics of county-based public defender offices, by office type and caseload, 2007

Number of offices Total Median per office Total Total Total 

All county-based offices 530 166,790 117 4,081,030 2,482 10,705 7 $1,476,682 

County-funded 337 112,799 91 2,708,397 1,995 7,126 5 $1,053,009 

Less than 1,000 cases received 112 3,661 23 47,075 351 229 2 $16,324 

1,000 - 2,500 74 7,151 67 119,143 1,513 392 5 42,527 

2,501 - 5,000 58 14,473 147 209,912 3,567 722 9 100,522 

More than 5,000 88 84,775 498 2,332,267 12,078 5,722 32 882,696 

County/state funded 193 53,991 147 1,372,633 3,518 3,580 9 $423,673 

Less than 1,000 cases received 24 1,546 47 15,507 734 158 4 $7,968 

1,000 - 2,500 49 5,010 72 81,253 1,597 301 6 33,385 

2,501 - 5,000 45 7,675 144 164,705 3,600 468 9 45,644 More than 5,000 66 35,969 349 1,111,168 8,195 2,412 23 298,896 

Note: Office size statistics may not sum to totals due to missing cases received data. Data available for 99% of offices.

aRounded to nearest thousand.

Number of cases received 

Me

Total operating expe

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

b The Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, instructed respondents to report either fiscal or calendar year 2007 total public defender office expenditures for indigent defense functions, 

excluding any fixed capital costs.

FTE litigating attorneys

Office type and caseload Median per office

Jurisdiction population (thousands)a

Median per office

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Table 3a. Formal or written criteria used by state-based programs to qualify a defendant for representation, by state, 2007

Income level

Receipt of public assistance

Defendant's sworn application Debt level

Residence in public institutionb

Ability to post bail/bond

Defendant's unsworn application

Federal poverty guidelines

Judge's discretionc Othe

Total -- 21 17 16 15 11 6 7 13 9 9

Alaskae 4 X X X X

Arkansas 7 X X X X X X X

Colorado 8 X X X X X X X X

Connecticut 7 X X X X X X x

Delaware 6 X X X X X X

Hawaii 6 X X X X X X

Iowa 4 X X X X

Kentucky 8 X X X X X X X X

Maryland 6 X X X X X X

Massachusetts 7 X X X X X X XMinnesota 7 X X X X X X X

Missourif 4 X X X X

Montana 6 X X X X X X

New Hampshireg 0

New Jersey 4 X X X XNew Mexicoh 6XX X X X X

North Dakota 6 X X X X X X

Rhode Island 7 X X X X X X X

Vermont 8 X X X X X X X X

Virginia 4 X X X XWisconsin 6 X X X X X X

Wyoming 3 X X X

--Not calculated.

aThe Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, included questions about 10 criteria used to determine indigence.dIncludes family status, number of dependants, monthly expenses, worker's compensation or disability, bankruptcy, liquid assets, and letters from employers.

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

hCriteria used to determine eligibility for representation in New Mexico were obtained from New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978: Section 31-15-7. Available at 

<http://www.pdd.state.nm.us/aboutus/clientinfo_guideline.html>.

eCriteria used to determine eligibility for representation in Alaska were obtained from Alaska Statute 18.85.120(b), "Determination of Indigency; Repayment." Available at 

<http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter85/Section120.htm>.

fCriteria used to determine eligibility for representation in Missouri were obtained from Missouri Revised Statute 600.086.(1), "Eligibility for representation, rules to establish--indigency, how determined

procedure, appeal--false statements, penalty --investigation authorized." Available at <http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C600-699/6000000086.HTM>.

gNew Hampshire did not use formal or written criteria to determine indigence.bIncludes residence in a public mental health institution or a correctional institution.cJudge's decision based on defendant's testimony.

Number of criteria considereda State

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
All county-based offices 439 6 98 % 62 % 79 % 66 % 66 % 34 % 41 % 

County-funded 269 6 97 % 63 % 77 % 63 % 68 % 30 % 46 % 

Less than 1,000 cases received 92 5 98 % 45 % 80 % 62 % 63 % 30 % 42 % 1,000 - 2,500 67 6 97 73 81 63 75 28 45 2,501 - 5,000 47 6 96 72 77 53 64 28 45 More than 5,000 58 6 98 74 69 78 71 29 53 

County/state funded 170 6 99 % 61 % 81 % 71 % 64 % 39 % 33 % 

Less than 1,000 cases received 20 6 100 % 45 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 20 % 15 % 1,000 - 2,500 46 6 100 61 83 63 72 39 24 2,501 - 5,000 41 5 98 51 68 56 54 37 39 More than 5,000 57 7 98 70 88 83 61 47 42 

aThe Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, included questions about 10 criteria used to determine indigence.

Ability to

postbail/bond

Defendant'sUnswornapplication

Fedepoveguide

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

Defendant'sSwornapplication

Median numberof criteriaconsidered a

Offices withformal/writtencriteria

Debtlevel

Note: Includes offices classified as the primary or alternate public defender office for the jurisdiction. Offices that handled primarily conflict of interest cases or provided representa

cases were not included.

dIncludes evaluation of assets and property owned, child support obligations, the complexity of the case and the cost of litigation, determination by a county screening agency, num

bankrupcy.

cJudge's decision based on defendant's testimony.bIncludes residence in a public mental health institution or a correctional institution.

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

Office type and caseload

Incomelevel

Receipt ofpublicassistance

Residence inpublicinstitutionb

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Total* 18 17 14 14 13 12 9 5

X X X X XXX X X X XX XX X XX X X

X X X X XXX X X X

XX XX X XX X XX X X XX XX X X X XX X X

X

X X X X XX XX X XX X X XX X X X XX X XXX X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X XXX X X X XX XX X

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

Maximum number of cases an attorney can have at one time

Attorney appointment w24 hours of clie

State detention

Continuing legal education for attorneys

Annual attorney performance review

Attorney representation of client through all stages of proceedings

Matching attorney experience with case complexity

Matching attorney experience with types of cases handled

Client eligibility screening

ArkansasColoradoConnecticutDelawareHawaiiIowaKentuckyMarylandMassachusettsMinnesotaMontanaNew HampshireWyomingNote: The Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, asked respondents to indicate whether their program’s operating guidelines included a standard related to each of the general areas listed in this table. Data were not reported by Alaska, Missouri, or New Mexico . *Total based on the 19 states that provided data on standards and guidelines.

Table 4a. Formal standards or written guidelines used by state-based public defender programs, by state, 2007New JerseyNorth DakotaRhode IslandVermontVirginiaWisconsin

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Table 4b. Formal standards or written guidelines used in the county-based public defender offices, by office type and caseload, 200

All county-based offices 530 92 % 48 % 60 % 58 % 51 % 49 % 21 % 

County-funded 337 90 % 45 % 61 % 55 % 47 % 44 % 18 % 

Less than 1,000 cases received 112 84 % 16 % 55 % 27 % 25 % 37 % 11 % 1,000 - 2,500 74 89 38 55 50 39 54 15 

2,501 - 5,000 58 97 53 61 72 61 58 21 

More than 5,000 88 94 82 73 84 73 36 26 

County/state funded 193 97 % 52 % 57 % 63 % 59 % 57 % 27 % 

Less than 1,000 cases received 24 87 % 25 % 50 % 38 % 42 % 50 % 29 % 1,000 - 2,500 49 98 49 67 63 63 63 22 

2,501 - 5,000 45 100 61 55 64 50 68 23 

More than 5,000 66 99 61 55 71 67 50 33 

Note: Includes offices classified as the primary or alternate public defender office for the jurisdiction. Offices that handled primarily conflict of interest cases or provided representation specifically in feloincluded. The Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007, asked respondents to indicate whether their program’s operating guidelines included a standard related to each of the general areas listed in th99% of offices. 

Attorney representation of client through all stages of proceedings

Matching attorney experience with case complexity

Client eligibility screening

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

Matching attorney experience with types of cases handled

Maximum number cases an attorney have at one time

Number of 

Office type and caseload offices

Continuing legal education for attorneys

Annual attorney performance review

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Table 5a. Cases received in state-based public defender programs, by state and type of case, 2007

Total 1,491,420 4,321 436 378,400 25 % 88 575,770 40 % 133 10,760 1 % 3Median 72,740 163 2 11,420 16 % 82 20,340 28 % 217 100 -- % 2

/ 93 / / / /

83,810 305 99 29,190 35 % 96 35,500 42 % 116 150 -- % --90,620 241 13 55,160 61 229 26,670 29 111 0 0 0

83,100 127 56 / / / 27,520 33 217 320 -- 3

29,410 70 9 5,820 20 83 20,340 69 291 110 -- 2

43,770 93 ~ 4,600 11 49 31,170 71 335 0 0 0

70,150 96 ~ 10,000 14 105 25,000 36 262 60 -- 1

148,520 327 181 33,170 22 101 86,560 58 265 2,230 2 7199,750 508 15 41,280 21 81 124,960 63 246 60 -- --

16,820 197 ~ 12,830 76 65 3,180 19 16 270 2 1

139,120 371 ~ 28,000 20 75 19,750 14 53 1,200 1 3

83,160 261 / / / /22,650 128 2 5,800 26 45 12,300 54 96 290 1 2

24,130 107 1 7,420 31 69 13,350 55 125 90 -- 1

100,240 458 18 65,110 65 142 / / / 1,260 1 3

72,740 223 6 / / 0 0 0

2,270 10 ~ 800 35 80 650 29 65 50 2 5

18,760 40 ~ 4,770 25 119 10,870 58 272 60 -- 1

11,690 31 ~ 2,290 20 75 6,850 59 225 60 1 2

95,340 305 34 36,280 38 119 47,280 50 155 1,340 1 4

142,400 294 ~ 35,800 25 122 71,810 50 245 3,160 2 11

12,980 38 2 120 1 3 12,000 92 316 60 -- 2

Note: Caseload data not available for Alaska, Missouri, and New Mexico. Total, felony (non-capital), and misdemeanor cases received rounded to the nearest ten.~ Not applicable.

bIncludes felony (capital and non-capital), misdemeanor, and appeals cases; and civil, juvenile, and ordinance violations cases (not shown on table). 

eTotal cases received does not include misdemeanor cases.

Per FTE attorneyc Number

Percent of all cases 

Per FTE attorneyc Number 

Felony (non-capital) cases Misdemeanor casesa Appeals cases

Number

Percent of all cases 

State receivedAlaskaArkansasColorado

Per FTE attorneyc

Percent of all cases received

All cases receivedb

FTE litigating attorneysc

Number of

capital casesd

ConnecticutDelawareHawaiiIowaKentuckyMarylandVermontVirginiaWisconsinMassachusettsMinnesotaMissouriMontanaNew HampshireNew Jerseye

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

dThe following states did not have the death penalty in 2007: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Public defenders in Missouri and 

New Mexico represented indigent defendants in death penalty cases but did not report data on number of cases, expenditures, or use of specialized death penalty defense units.

cFTE (full-time equivalent) 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. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm>. Wyoming/ Data not reported.-- Less than 0.5.

aIncludes only misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence.

New MexicoNorth DakotaRhode Island

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Table 5b. Cases received in county-based public defender offices, by office type and caseload, 2007

Number 

All county-based offices 530 4,081,030 10,705 1,210 1,231,435 30 % 100 2,067,403 49 % 146 

County-funded 337 2,708,397 7,126 545 667,911 25 % 79 1,514,771 52 % 157 

Less than 1,000 cases received 112 47,075 229 13 13,509 25 % 50 23,742 52 % 104 

1,000 - 2,500 74 119,143 392 29 35,322 26 88 56,337 51 167 

2,501 - 5,000 58 209,912 722 34 66,313 27 98 97,739 52 188 

More than 5,000 88 2,332,267 5,722 469 552,767 23 91 1,336,953 55 240 

County/state funded 193 1,372,633 3,580 665 563,524 41 % 150 552,632 38 % 119 

Less than 1,000 cases received 24 15,507 158 6 7,165 39 % 76 5,790 35 % 66 

1,000 - 2,500 49 81,253 301 16 42,779 50 148 26,614 36 90 

2,501 - 5,000 45 164,705 468 26 77,138 42 159 60,325 43 130 

More than 5,000 66 1,111,168 2,412 617 436,442 38 169 459,903 44 174 

-- Less than 0.5.

bIncludes felony (capital and non-capital), misdemeanor, and appeals cases; and civil, juvenile, and ordinance violations cases (not shown on table). 

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

dExcludes the District of Columbia, Michigan, New York, and West Virginia because they did not have the death penalty. aIncludes only misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence.

Note: Includes offices classified as the primary or alternate public defender office for the jurisdiction. Excludes offices that handled primarily conflict of interest cases or provided representation specificareceived refers to cases appointed to and accepted for representation by the public defender office.

Percent of all cases received

cFTE (full-time equivalent) 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 

number of full-time employees. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm. Office type and caseload

Number of capital casesd

Per FTE attorneyc

Number of offices

All cases receivedb

Number of FTE litigating attorneysc

Misdemeanor casesa Felony (non-capital) cases 

Per FTE attorneyc

Number 

Percent of all cases received

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
Total 329 25 314 3,153 2,963 714 117 672 976 485

Median 11 0 5 126 85 25 2 32 11 17

1 0 15 78 56 15 6 5 31 0

10 0 24 274 27 6 4 5 6 622 2 2 218 163 72 4 59 15 14

27 0 0 100 126 46 2 0 38 40

1 1 8 62 74 14 0 35 5 2056 0 89 317 0 23 20

14 0 0 83 51 20 0 31 0 031 0 8 290 172 46 6 46 50 24

26 0 89 403 716 30 35 50 450 151

30 2 18 152 106 31 2 33 18 23

10 0 42 319 157 35 24 69 6 2336 0 0 261 / / / / / /

/ / / / 89 17 4 52 9 7

10 1 1 96 81 29 0 44 7 1

/ / / / 577 233 12 0 279 53

10 1 42 181 / / / / / /

4 0 0 6 9 0 1 4 224 5 0 35 55 7 0 2 24 23

90 0 20 30 10111 63

30 0 52 224 210 51 0 109 14 37

37 7 13 246 212 43 2 92 17 59

13 0 0 19 25 3 16 5 0 2

Note: State data may not sum to totals due to rounding.MontanaNew HampshireNew Jersey

Total Investigators

FTE support staffa

DelawareHawaiiKentucky

FTE attorneysa

Paralegals

MarylandMassachusetts

bIncludes social workers, indigence screeners, training staff, interns, human resources staff, forensic specialists, clinical psychologists, information technology (IT) specialists, 

interpreters, and investigators hired on a contractual basis.

Supervisory 

State attorneys 

Chief public defender

Managing attorneys

Assistant public defenders

WyomingVirginiaWisconsinAlaska ArkansasColoradoConnecticutNew MexicoMinnesotaMissouriIowa

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

North Dakota/Data not reported.aFTE (full-time equivalent) 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. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm. 

Table 6a. Staff employed by state-based public defender programs, by state and position title, 2007

Administrative Clerical Otherb

VermontRhode Island

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
All county-based offices 530 7 543 187 979 9,035 4 1,529 779 2,419 1,0

County-funded 337 5 289 158 612 6,087 3 967 469 1,344 7

Less than 1,000 cases received 112 2 85 0 3 87 1 10 13 77 

1,000 - 2,500 74 5 64 1 18 256 3 38 22 115 

2,501 - 5,000 58 9 53 12 88 541 5 90 28 169 1

More than 5,000 88 32 84 144 494 5,152 18 827 404 969 5

County/state funded 193 9 255 29 367 2,949 6 562 310 1,075 3

Less than 1,000 cases received 24 4 56 0 2 97 2 8 45 35 

1,000 - 2,500 49 6 46 1 19 223 4 52 30 107 

2,501 - 5,000 45 9 42 0 45 372 6 71 37 137 

More than 5,000 66 23 104 25 285 2,040 22 406 196 643 2

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

Median FTE litigating attorneys per officea

bIncludes social workers, indigence screeners, training staff, interns, human resources staff, forensic specialists, clinical psychologists, information technology (IT) specialists, interpreters, and investiga

a contractual basis.

FTE support staffa

Investigators

aFTE (full-time equivalent) 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 

resulting quotient to the number of full-time employees. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm. 

Paralegals Cler

Administrative

Median FTE support staff per officea

Table 6b. Staff employed by county-based public defender offices, by office type, caseload, and position title, 2007Office type and caseload

FTE attorneysa

Number of offices

Chief public defender

Managing attorneys

Supervisory attorneys 

Assistant public defenders

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
/ Yes /

96 No Yes

229 Yes No

/ Yes No

83 No No49 No No

105 No Yes101 No No

81 Yes No65 Yes Yes75 No No

/ No No

45 Yes Yes69 Yes Yes

142 Yes No

/ No No

80 No Yes

119 No No

75 Yes No

119 No Yes

122 Yes No

3 Yes Yes

*FTE (full-time equivalent) is a computed statistic calculated by dividing the hours worked by parttime 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. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm. Rhode IslandVermontVirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

/ Data not reported.New MexicoNorth Dakota

Offices with --

MarylandTable 7a. State-based public defender programs with caseload limits and authority to refuse appointments due to caseload, by state, 2007StateAlaska ArkansasColoradoDelaware

Authority to refuse appointments due to caseload

Felony non-capital cases received per FTE attorney *

Caseload limits

ConnecticutKentuckyMontanaNew HampshireNew JerseyHawaiiMassachusettsMinnesotaMissouriIowa

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables 
All county-based offices 530 100 15 % 36 %

County-funded 337 79 12 % 33 %

Less than 1,000 cases received 112 50 9 211,000 - 2,500 74 88 11 252,501 - 5,000 58 98 12 34More than 5,000 88 91 16 57

County/state funded 193 150 22 % 42 %

Less than 1,000 cases received 24 76 25 58

1,000 - 2,500 49 148 18 312,501 - 5,000 45 159 21 48More than 5,000 66 169 24 39

Note: This table was revised June 22, 2010 in accordance with the revised office classification described on page 1 of this report. 

Note: Includes offices classified as the primary or alternate public defender office for the jurisdiction. Offices that handled primarily conflict of interest cases or provided representation specifically in felony capital cases were not included. Details do not sum to total due to missing data on the volume of cases received by some offices.*FTE (full-time equivalent) is a computed statistic calculated by dividing the hours worked by part-time employees by thestandard number of hours for full-time employees (40 hours per week) and then adding the resulting quotient to the number of fulltime employees. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm. Table 7b. County-based public defender offices with caseload limits and authority to refuse appointments due to caseload, by office type and caseload, 2007

Percent of offices with—

Authority to refuse appointments due to 

Caseload limits caseload

Felony (non-capital) cases received per FTE attorney*

Number of 

Office type and caseload offices

Public Defender Offices, 2007 — Statistical Tables