U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

September 2010, NCJ 228229

Highlights

Special Report

Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007

State Public Defender Programs, 2007

Lynn Langton and

Donald Farole, Jr., Ph.D.

BJS Statisticians

n 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. 

I

• 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.

Figure 1. 

Twenty-two states had state public defender programs in 2007

$PVOUZCBTFEPîDFT

/PQVCMJDEFGFOEFST

4UBUFCBTFEQSPHSBN

0SHBOJ[BUJPOBMTUSVDUVSFPGQVCMJDEFGFOEFSPîDFT
2 State Public Defender Programs, 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).
September 2010 3

Table 1. 

Characteristics of public defender offices, by type of office, 2007

Type of office Number of statesa

Population served 

(in thousands)b Number of officesc

Number of cases 

receivedd

FTE litigating 

attorneyse

Total expenditures 

(in thousands)

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

State-based 22 73,370 427 1,491,420 4,321 833,358

County-based 28 166,790 530 4,081,030 10,705 1,476,682

a

Includes the District of Columbia, which is classified as county-based 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.

b

Includes the population served only in those jurisdictions that had a public defender office in 2007. c

Excludes 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 counsel services on an individual or case basis.

dRounded to the nearest ten. Alaska's state public defender program did not report caseload data. Caseload data available for 97.4% of all county-based offices. e See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney. 

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. 
4 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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.1 The 22 programs received a

median of 73,000 cases, equating to a median percase expenditure of $510 (not shown in table). 

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. 

Table 2. 

General characteristics of state public defender programs, by state, 2007

State

State population 

(in thousands)a

Number of 

offices

Number of cases 

receivedb

FTE litigating 

attorneysc

Total expenditures 

(in thousands)d

State judicial and 

legal expenditures 

(in thousands)

Public defender expenditures as 

a percent of judicial and legal 

expenditures

Total 73,370 427 1,491,420 4,321 $833,358 $6,183,948 13.5%

Median 2,907 19 72,740 163 33,326 230,056 14.5

Alaska 681 13 / 93 $17,231 $171,776 10.0%

Arkansas 2,831 31 83,810 305 20,047 126,664 15.8

Colorado 4,843 22 90,620 241 37,884 251,642 15.1

Connecticut 3,490 27 83,100 127 47,600 566,197 8.4

Delaware 862 7 29,410 70 13,713 138,845 9.9

Hawaii 1,277 5 43,770 93 8,500 203,107 4.2

Iowa 2,983 16 70,150 96 48,533 218,686 13.3

Kentucky 4,236 31 148,520 327 32,513 364,033 8.9

Maryland 5,619 16 199,750 508 77,519 456,812 17.0

Massachusetts 6,468 28 16,820 197 123,400 820,454 15.0

Minnesota 5,182 27 139,120 371 61,800 371,252 16.7

Missouri 5,878 36 83,160 261 34,138 224,667 15.2

Montana 957 21 22,650 128 18,659 77,542 24.1

New Hampshire 1,312 10 24,130 107 12,668 96,935 13.1

New Jersey 8,653 23 100,240 458 99,000 839,868 11.8

New Mexico 1,964 13 72,740 223 37,083 235,445 15.8

North Dakota 638 4 2,270 10 1,700 38,956 4.4

Rhode Island 1,053 6 18,760 40 8,782 100,232 8.7

Vermont 621 11 11,690 31 6,839 53,823 12.7

Virginia 7,699 29 95,340 305 37,369 344,876 10.8

Wisconsin 5,599 35 142,400 294 80,766 269,400 30.0

Wyoming 523 16 12,980 38 7,615 54,187 14.1

/Data not reported.

a

Population estimates from Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1. Annual estimates of the population for the United States, regions, states, and Puerto Rico: April 

1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. <http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est2008.html>.

bRounded to the nearest ten. Includes cases received by general trial public defender offices only. Any indigent defense cases handled by contract or assigned counsel 

attorneys within the state are not included.

c

See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney.

dThe 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.
September 2010 5

A median of 15% of states’ legal and judicial 

direct expenditures went to public defender 

programs

Each year the U.S. Census Bureau produces stateby-state estimates of direct government

expenditures for police, courts, and corrections.2

 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.

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. <http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/>.

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

Table 3. 

Authorities appointing state public defender program advisory boards or commissions and the authority exercised by boards, by state, 

2007

Advisory board appointed by— Advisory board authority

State Governor Supreme Court Legislature Othera

Hire or remove chief 

public defender Rule-making Budgetary Otherb

Total 11 8 5 4 11 10 7 8

Arkansas X X X X X

Connecticut X X X X X X X

Colorado X X

Hawaii X X X

Iowa X X X X

Kentucky X X X X X

Maryland X X X

Massachusetts X X X X

Minnesota X X X X X X

Missouri / / / / / / / /

Montana X X X

North Dakota X X X X X X

New Hampshire X X X X X X

Virginia X X XX

Wisconsin X X X X X X

Note: Fifteen states had a public defense advisory board or commission. Alaska, Delaware, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming did not have 

an advisory board in 2007 and are not included in the table.

/Data not reported.

a

Includes statutorily determined appointing bodies, State Bar Association, and state law school ex officio deans. In Virginia, the appointing body was statutorily determined and varied depending on the board member’s position. 

bIncludes general supervision of operations, recommendations regarding per case fees, approval of district public defenders and deputy chief public defender selections, 

approval of union contracts and employee salaries, and authority to contract for indigent defense services.

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.
6 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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. 

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).

Table 4. 

Criteria used to determine whether a defendant qualified for public counsel representation, by state, 2007

 Defendant's

State

Number of factors 

considereda

Income 

level

Receipt 

of public 

assistance

Sworn 

application Debt level

Federal 

poverty 

guidelines

Residence 

in public 

institutionb

Judge's 

discretion

Unsworn 

application

Ability to 

post bail 

or bond Otherc

Total 21 17 16 15 13 11 9 7 6 9

Alaskad 4 X XX 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 X

Minnesota 7 X X X X X X X

Missourie 4X X X X

Montana 6 X X X X X X

New Hampshiref

 0

New Jersey 4 X X X X

New Mexicog 6 XX XX 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 X

Wisconsin 6 X X X X X X

Wyoming 3 X X X

a

The 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) included questions about 10 factors used to determine indigency.

bIncludes residence in a public mental health institution or a correctional institution.

c

Includes family status, number of dependants, monthly expenses, worker's compensation or disability, bankruptcy, liquid assets, letters from employers, and 

judicial discretion.

dCriteria used to determine eligibility for representation in Alaska were obtained from Alaska Statute 18.85.120(b), Determination of Indigency; Repayment. (See 

Alaska Legal Resource Center, Web. 5 Jan. 2009 <http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter85/Section120.htm>.)

e

Criteria 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. (See Missouri revised statutes, Web. 28 Aug. 2009 <http://

www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C600-699/6000000086.htm>.)

f

New Hampshire did not use formal or written criteria to determine indigency.

g

Criteria used to determine eligibility for representation in New Mexico were obtained from New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978: Section 31-15-7. (See New 

Mexico Public Defender Department, Web. 26 Oct. 2009 <http://www.pdd.state.nm.us/aboutus/clientinfo_guideline.html>.)

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.
September 2010 7

Figure 2. 

Types of conflict attorney systems established in states with state public defender programs, 2007

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Assigned counsel program administered through public defender program

Case-by-case contract with private attorney

Assigned counsel program administered through the court

Previously established contract with private attorney

State conflict public defender office

Jurisdictional conflict public defender

In house/ethical screen

Number of states

Method for obtaining a conflict attorney

Note: Based on 19 states. Alaska, Missouri, and New Mexico did not provide data on obtaining conflict attorneys.

Numbers do not sum to 19 due to some states using multiple methods for handling conflict cases.

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 programadministered 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 an office takes the case regardless of the

conflict, but isolates the attorney with conflicting

connections from involvement in the case.

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.
8 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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. 

Table 5. 

Program operating guidelines and representation practices used by state public defender programs, by state, 2007

Operating guidelines included a policy related to—

Type of felony, non-capital case representation 

provided by the majority of offices in the state

Attorney appointment within 24 hours 

of client detention

Matching attorney experience with— Attorney representation of client through all 

stages of 

proceedings Vertical

Combination 

of vertical and 

horizontal

One attorney through 

arraignment, one for the 

State Case complexity duration of the case

Types of cases 

handled

Total 5 14 13 14 116 4

Alaska / / / / / / /

Arkansas X X X X

Colorado X X X X

Connecticut X X X

Delaware X X X X

Hawaii X X X X

Iowa X X

Kentucky X X X X X

Maryland X X X

Massachusetts X X X X X

Minnesota X

Missouri / / / / X

Montana X X X X

New Hampshire X X X X X

New Jersey X X X X X

New Mexico / / / / X

North Dakota X X X

Rhode Island X

Vermont X X X

Virginia X X X X

Wisconsin X X X X

Wyoming X

/Data not reported

The same attorney 

should represent a client 

through all stages of case 

proceedings.
September 2010 9

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. 

3

See American Bar Association. (December 2001). 2001 Public 

Defender Up-front Application Fees Update. <http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/indigentdefense/

pdapplicationfees2001-table.pdf>. 

Table 6. 

Types of cost recoupment that could be required for public defender representation, by state, 2007

Cost recoupment that could be required

State Attorney cost

Standard 

statutory fee

Application or 

administrative fee

Court-related 

expenses Facilities fee Expert witness fee Other*

Total 11 9 8 4 3 4 3

Alaska X X

Arkansas X X X

Colorado X X X X

Connecticut / / / / / / /

Delaware X

Hawaii X

Iowa

Kentucky X X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X

Minnesota

Missouri X X X

Montana X X

New Hampshire X X X

New Jersey X X X

New Mexico X X X

North Dakota X X X

Rhode Island

Vermont X X

Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X

Wyoming X X

Note: Iowa, Minnesota, and Rhode Island did not require any cost recoupment for indigent criminal defendants. 

/Data not reported. Connecticut could require cost recoupment, but did not provide data on the types of fees that could be applied to indigent defendants. *

Includes standard fees set by a commission or administrative rule and court reporter or investigator fees. 

Public defender 

programs can charge 

fees to indigent 

defendants under 

circumstances in 

which the defendant's 

contribution would 

not impose significant 

financial hardship.
10 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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%.4

4

See State-Funded Indigent Defense Services, 1999, BJS Web. September 2001 and National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems 

(NSIDS), BJS Web. 1999.)

Table 7. 

Number of cases received by state public defender programs, by state and case type, 2007

State Total cases receiveda Felony capital Felony non-capital

Misdemeanor/ 

violationb Juvenile-relatedc Civild Appeals

Total 1,491,420 436 378,440 640,230 208,400 47,620 10,870

Median 72,740 2 11,420 25,840 7,610 280 100

Arkansas 83,810 99 29,190 35,500 16,460 2,410 150

Colorado 90,620 13 55,160 26,670 8,780 0 0

Connecticut 83,100 56 / 27,520e 5,900 100 320

Delaware 29,410 9 5,820 20,340 3,130 0 110

Hawaii 43,770 ~ 4,600 31,170 7,610 280 110

Iowa 70,150 ~ 10,000 25,000 35,000 110 60

Kentucky 148,520 181 33,170 86,700 21,850 4,430 2,230

Maryland 199,750 15 41,280 125,010 20,220 13,160 60

Massachusetts 16,820 ~ 12,830 3,180 490 50 270

Minnesota 139,120 ~ 28,000 83,020 26,900 0 1,200

Missouri 83,160 / / / / / /

Montana 22,650 2 5,800 12,300 1,060 3,200 290

New Hampshire 24,130 1 7,420 13,350 3,250 10 90

New Jersey 100,240 18 65,110 / 17,760 16,090 1,260

New Mexico 72,740 6 / / / / /

North Dakota 2,270 ~ 800 650 500 280 50

Rhode Island 18,760 ~ 4,770 10,870 2,310 770 60

Vermont 11,690 ~ 2,290 6,850 2,130 370 60

Virginia 95,340 34 36,280 48,280 9,420 0 1,340

Wisconsin 142,400 ~ 35,800 71,810 25,240 6,390 3,160

Wyoming 12,980 2 120 12,000 400 0 60

Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest ten with the exception of felony capital case numbers. Number of cases may not sum to total due to rounding. Caseload data 

not reported for Alaska. Includes cases received by general trial public defender offices only. Any indigent defense cases handled by contract or assigned counsel attorneys within the state are not included.

~Not applicable. Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin did not have the death penalty in 2007.

/Data not reported.

a

Refers to cases that were assigned to and accepted for representation by the public defender program.

bIncludes misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence and ordinance or municipal infractions or violations.

c

Includes juvenile delinquency, delinquency appeals, and transfer or waiver hearing cases.

dIncludes mental commitment, state post-conviction or habeas corpus, federal habeas corpus, status offense, child protection or dependency, termination of parental 

rights, or sexually violent predator cases.

e

Includes only misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence. Data on number of ordinance or municipal infraction or violations were not provided.
September 2010 11

Table 8. 

Capital case representation among states with death penalty statutes that represented an indigent defendant facing the death 

penalty, 2007

Death penalty eligible cases State has a specialized death penalty unit providing representation for—

State

Representation 

expenditures Cases receiveda

Number of death 

penalty casesb Trial level cases Direct appeals Post-conviction cases

Total $11,289,150 436 209 8 5 5

Arkansas 80,000 99 1 X X X

Colorado 896,820 13 17

Connecticut 2,383,330 56 16 X X X

Delaware 276,430 9 8 X

Kentucky 2,474,880 181 97 X X

Maryland 1,900,000 15 30 X X

Missouri / / / / / /

Montana 100,000 2 2

New Hampshire 171,690 1 1

New Jersey 206,000 18 19 X X X

New Mexico / 6 / / / /

Virginia 2,600,000 34 16 X X X

Wyoming 200,000 2 2 X

Note: The following states did not have death penalty statutes and were excluded: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode 

Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Missouri and New Mexico provided indigent defendant death penalty representation but did not report data on number of 

cases, expenditures, or use of specialized death penalty units. Representation expenditures rounded to the nearest ten.

a

Includes felony capital cases received in 2007. 

bIncludes felony capital cases in which the prosecutor actually filed for the death penalty. May be greater than the number of felony capital cases received 

in 2007 because of cases carried over from previous years.

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 postconviction 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 triallevel and post-conviction cases. 

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.5 In

contrast, Massachusetts typically assigned serious

felony non-capital cases to the public defender

offices, while state-assigned counsel attorneys

handled misdemeanor cases.6

5

See <http://wyodefender.state.wy.us/files/2009Annual.pdf>. 

6

See National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Massachusetts Indigent Defense <http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/defenseupdates/mass007>.
12 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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.”7 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.

Table 9. 

Caseload or workload limits, number of cases received, and estimated attorney caseloads, by state and case 

type, 2007

Cases received

Program reported workload or caseload limitsFTE litigating 

attorneys

Felony, non-capital Misdemeanora

State Total

Per FTE litigating 

attorneyb Total

Per FTE litigating 

attorneyb

Total 4,321 378,440 88 575,770 133

Median 163 11,420 82 20,340 217

Alaska X 93 / /

Arkansas * 305 29,190 96 35,500 116

Colorado X 241 55,160 229 26,670 111

Connecticut X 127 / 27,520 217

Delaware 70 5,820 83 20,340 291

Hawaii 93 4,600 49 31,170 335

Iowa * 96 10,000 105 25,000 262

Kentucky 327 33,170 101 86,560 265

Maryland X 508 41,280 81 124,960 246

Massachusetts X* 197 12,830 65 3,180 16

Minnesota 371 28,000 75 19,750 53

Missouri 261 / /

Montana X* 128 5,800 45 12,300 96

New Hampshire X* 107 7,420 69 13,350 125

New Jersey X 458 65,110 142 /

New Mexico 223 / /

North Dakota * 10 800 80 650 65

Rhode Island 40 4,770 119 10,870 272

Vermont X 31 2,290 75 6,850 225

Virginia * 305 36,280 119 47,280 155

Wisconsin X 294 35,800 122 71,810 245

Wyoming X* 38 120 3 12,000 316

Note: Total cases received rounded to the nearest ten.

*Program reporting having the authority to refuse appointments due to caseload.

/Data not reported.

a

Includes misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence.

b

Assumes that all cases and case types are evenly distributed across reported full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorneys. The 1973 

U.S. Department of Justice’s National Advisory Commission (NAC) on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals suggest that if a public 

defender carries both felony and misdemeanor cases, s/he should carry no more than 75 felony and 200 misdemeanor cases per year. 

See Methodology for definition of FTE litigating attorney.

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.

The 1973 U.S. 

Department of 

Justice's National 

Advisory Commission 

(NAC) on Criminal 

Justice Standards and 

Goals specified that a 

public defender 

should not have more 

than 150 felony noncapital, 400 

misdemeanor, 200 

juvenile, or 25 

appellate cases per 

year.

7

Department of Justice, National Advisory Commission on 

Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 

Courts § 13.12 (1973).
September 2010 13

Table 10. 

Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorneys and estimated number of attorneys required to meet 

caseload guidelines, by state, 2007

Percent range of actual FTE litigating attorneys 

out of the estimated number neededb

Statea

FTE litigating attorneys 

on staffb

Attorneys needed to meet 

caseload guidelinesc <50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%+

Totald 3,159 4,755 X

Mediand 128 151 X

Arkansas 305 372 X

Colorado 241 479 X

Delaware 70 110 X

Hawaii 93 151 X

Iowa 96 307 X

Kentucky 327 636 X

Maryland 508 692 X

Massachusetts 197 107 X

Minnesota 371 419 X

Montana 128 87 X

New Hampshire 107 103 X

North Dakota 10 12 X

Rhode Island 40 73 X

Vermont 31 46 X

Virginia 305 461 X

Wisconsin 294 671 X

Wyoming 38 36 X

Note: The 1973 U.S. Department of Justice’s National Advisory Commission (NAC) on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals specified that 

a public defender should not have more than 150 felony non-capital cases, 400 misdemeanor cases per year, 200 juvenile-related cases, or 

25 appellate cases per year. Number of attorneys needed to meet the NAC standard is based on the total number of cases received across 

each of these four case types.

a

Caseload data not available for Alaska, Missouri, and New Mexico. Connecticut did not report number of felony cases and New Jersey did 

not report number of misdemeanors and both were excluded from the table.

bSee Methodology for definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney. c

All fractions rounded up.

dTotal and median numbers include only the 17 states shown in the table.

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.8

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. 

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. 
14 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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. 

State public defender programs reported a 

median of about 2 managerial attorneys to 

supervise 10 assistant public defenders

State public defender programs reported a median

of 163 litigating attorneys, 12 chief public defenders,

and 5 supervisory attorneys in 2007 (table 11). Each

state reported having at least 1 managerial attorney

for every 10 staff attorneys. Twelve states reported

having a managing attorney to litigating attorney

ratio of at least 2 managing attorneys for every 10

litigating attorneys.

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.

Table 11. 

Full and part- time public defenders employed by state public defender programs, by state and position title, 2007

State

Total FTE litigating 

attorneysa

Full-time attorneys

Total part-time 

attorneys

Number of FTE managerial attorneys per 10 FTE assistant public 

defendersb

Chief public 

defender

Managing 

attorneys

Supervisory 

attorneys 

Assistant public 

defenders

Totalc 4,321 369 62 336 3,508 345 1.2

Median 163 12 0 5 125 3 2.2

Alaska 93 1 0 15 76 4 2.1

Arkansas 305 9 0 24 240 68 1.2

Colorado 241 22 2 2 218 0 1.2

Connecticut 127 27 0 0 100 0 2.7

Delaware 70 1 1 8 61 2 1.6

Hawaii 93 5 6 0 89 0 1.2

Iowa 96 13 0 0 82 3 1.7

Kentucky 327 31 0 8 290 0 1.3

Maryland 508 26 0 89 400 5 2.9

Massachusetts 197 29 1 17 149 10 3.2

Minnesota 371 10 0 42 229 180 1.6

Missouri 261 36 0 0 261 0 1.4

Montana 128 21 5 26 81 / 6.4

New Hampshire 107 10 1 1 96 0 1.3

New Jersey 458 25 34 0 436 / 1.4

New Mexico 223 10 1 42 181 0 2.9

North Dakota 10 4 0 0 6 0 6.7

Rhode Island 40 4 5 0 35 0 2.6

Vermont 31 9 0 0 18 3 4.6

Virginia 305 30 0 52 215 18 3.7

Wisconsin 294 37 6 10 231 36 2.3

Wyoming 38 9 0 0 14 16 6.8

/Data not reported.

a

See Methodology for definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney. 

bFTE managerial attorney refers to all full and part-time attorneys in a supervisory position, including chief public defenders, managing attorneys, and 

supervisory attorneys.

c

Includes only full-time attorneys for New Jersey and Massachusetts.

There should be 1 

managerial attorney 

for every 10 staff 

attorneys in an office to 

ensure effective 

attorney supervision.
September 2010 15

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.

Table 12. 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) support staff in state public defender programs, by state and position title, 2007

FTE support staff

State Total Investigators

Social 

workers

Indigency 

screeners Paralegals Administrative Clerical Training Interns Other*

Total 2,963 714 166 109 117 672 976 14 87 110

Median 85 25 4 0 2 32 11 1 0 0

Alaska 56 15 0 0 6 5 31 0 0 0

Arkansas 27 6 6 0 4 5 6 0 0 0

Colorado 163 72 3 0 4 59 15 1 10 0

Connecticut 126 46 29 0 2 0 38 0 11 0

Delaware 74 14 14 0 0 35 5 1 0 5

Hawaii 31 7 0 0 0 23 2 0 0 0

Iowa 51 20 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 172 46 10 0 646 50 012 2

Maryland 716 30 20 100 35 50 450 1 30 0

Massachusetts 106 31 16 1 2 33 18 3 / 3

Minnesota 157 35 23 0 24 69 6 0 0 0

Montana 89 17 0 0 4 52 9 1 0 6

New Hampshire 81 29 0 0 0 44 7 1 0 0

New Jersey 577 233 0 0 12 0 279 0 0 53

North Dakota 9 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 2 0

Rhode Island 55 7 6 4 0 2 24 1 10 2

Wisconsin 212 43 13 4 2 92 17 3 10 29

Vermont 30 10 0 0 1 11 6 1 0 2

Virginia 210 51 27 0 0 109 14 1 0 9

Wyoming 25 3 0 0 16 5 0 0 2 0

Note: Data not available for Missouri and New Mexico. Numbers rounded to the nearest whole number. See Methodology for definition of full-time equivalent (FTE).

/Data not reported.

*Includes human resources staff, forensic specialists, clinical psychologists, information technology (IT) specialists, interpreters, and investigators hired on a 

contractual basis.
16 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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). 

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). 

Table 13. 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) support staff per 30 litigating attorneys in state public defender programs, 

by state and position title, 2007

FTE support staff per 30 FTE litigating attorneysa

State FTE litigating attorneys Investigators Paralegals All other positionsb

Median 163 4.7 0.5 15.8

Alaska 93 4.7 1.9 11.5

Arkansas 305 0.6 0.4 1.7

Colorado 241 8.9 0.5 10.9

Connecticut 127 10.9 0.5 18.3

Delaware 70 6.0 -- 25.7

Hawaii 93 2.3 -- 7.7

Iowa 96 6.3 -- 9.6

Kentucky 327 4.2 0.6 11

Maryland 508 1.8 2.1 38.5

Massachusetts 197 4.7 0.2 15.9c

Minnesota 371 2.8 1.9 7.9

Missouri 261 / / /

Montana 128 4.0 0.9 15.9

New Hampshire 107 8.0 -- 14.4

New Jersey 458 15.3 0.8 21.8

New Mexico 223 / / /

North Dakota 10 -- 3.0 22.5

Rhode Island 40 5.3 -- 36.4

Vermont 31 9.8 0.5 18.7

Virginia 305 5.0 -- 15.6

Wisconsin 294 4.3 0.2 17.1

Wyoming 38 2.4 12.2 5.1

Note: Support staff data not available for Missouri and New Mexico. See Methodology for definition of full-time equivalent (FTE). 

--Less than 0.5%.

/Data not reported.

a

Ratio calculated from a base of 30 FTE litigating attorneys to allow comparison with the professional guidelines recommending at 

least 1 investigator for every 3 litigating attorneys. According to the guidelines, a program should employ at least 10 FTE investigators 

for every 30 litigating attorneys. 

bIncludes all support staff with the exception of paralegals and investigators. Includes social workers, indigency screeners, administrative staff, clerical staff, training staff, interns, and other support staff. 

c

Does not include interns. Data on interns not reported.

A public defender 

program should have at 

least 1 investigator for 

every 3 litigating 

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.
September 2010 17

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. 

Table 14. 

Program operating guidelines and attorney professional development opportunities in state public defender programs, by state, 2007

Operating guidelines included a 

policy related to— Areas of professional development training provided to attorneys

State

Continuing legal 

education for 

attorneys

Annual attorney 

performance 

review Civil

Death 

penalty trial 

defense

Juvenile 

delinquency Trial skills

Appellate 

cases

Dependency 

cases

Mental 

illness 

cases Other

Total 18 17 3 10 20 22 16 11 17 8

Alaska / / X ~ X X X X X

Arkansas X X X X X X X X

Colorado X X X X X X X

Connecticut X X X X X X X X

Delaware X X X X X X X X

Hawaii X ~ X X X

Iowa X X ~ X X X X

Kentucky X X X X X X X X X

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts X X X ~ X X X X X

Minnesota X ~ X X X

Missouri / / X X X

Montana X X X X X X X X X

New Hampshire X X X X X X X X

New Jersey X X X X X X X X

New Mexico / / X X X X

North Dakota X X ~ X X X X

Rhode Island X ~ X X X X

Vermont X X ~ X X X X X X

Virginia X X X X

Wisconsin X X ~ X X X X X X

Wyoming X X X X X X X

/Data not reported.

~Not applicable. Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin did not have the death penalty in 2007.
18 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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 2000.9

 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 fulltime 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.

9

See State-Funded Indigent Defense Services, 1999, <http://

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pds/sfids99.pdf> for1999 data on 

the 17 state public defender programs.

Table 15. 

Length of service, attrition rate, and base annual salary for assistant public defenders in state public defender programs, 

by state, 2007

Salary for assistant public defendersa

Entry level 5 years or less experience 6 years or more experience

State Mean years of service Attrition rateb Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Median 9 10.0 % $46,000 $58,400 $54,800 $64,900 $60,300 $77,700

Arkansas 5 10.0 39,400 47,500 / / / /

Colorado 7 16.5 45,700 59,100 49,900 65,600 67,700 90,700

Connecticut 13 4.0 58,300 63,100 71,000 71,000 73,900 121,800

Delaware 18 4.8 52,700 52,700 56,900 76,400 79,000 97,700

Hawaii 6 11.0 57,100 57,100 65,300 78,300 78,300 89,600

Iowa 12 -- 44,400 67,600 55,600 85,500 71,900 102,300

Kentucky 9 13.0 38,800 51,400 46,900 60,000 51,600 60,000

Maryland 10 4.0 53,000 77,400 56,500 90,700 60,300 96,800

Massachusetts 8 12.5 37,500 37,500 39,000 55,500 57,500 77,700

Minnesota 10 5.0 49,200 92,000 / / / /

Montana 1 20.0 40,000 58,800 58,800 70,500 60,100 70,500

New Hampshire 5 15.3 42,900 42,900 44,500 56,600 63,600 74,700

New Jersey 11 6.6 54,500 77,400 68,600 97,900 78,800 112,700

North Dakota 2 0.0 46,000 60,000 46,000 60,000 50,000 62,000

Rhode Island 12 15.0 51,500 58,400 63,000 64,300 70,500 71,200

Vermont 11 13.3 37,200 47,400 44,300 56,500 52,800 67,500

Virginia 3 24.0 48,200 64,600 / / 55,200 72,900

Wisconsin 16 7.9 47,000 47,000 49,700 49,100 49,100 113,000

Wyoming 6 10.0 45,000 45,000 54,000 57,000 57,000 66,000

Note: Data not provided by Alaska, Missouri, and New Mexico. 

--Less than 0.5%.

/Not applicable. Respondent reported “no such position.”

a

Rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

bAttrition rate is defined as the number of litigating attorneys who left the office in fiscal year 2007, divided by the total number of litigating attorneys employed on the 

first day of the fiscal year. Attrition rate includes supervisory attorneys as well as assistant public defenders.
September 2010 19

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.

Table 16. 

Percent change in criminal caseloads, operating expenditures, and the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) attorneys in state public 

defender programs, by state, 1999 and 2007

Criminal caseloada Operating expenditures (in thousands) Total FTE attorneysb

State 1999 2007 Percent change 1999c 2007 Percent change 1999 2007 Percent change

Total 711,090 855,417 20% 634,851 752,825 19% 2,710 2,819 4%

Alaska 15,853 / /% 14,021 17,231 23% 84 94 12%

Colorado 54,352 81,842 51 32,044 37,884 18 249 244 -2

Connecticut 56,327d 83,100d 48 32,197 47,600 48 169 127 -25

Delaware 30,460e 26,285 -14 10,286 13,713 33 60 72 20

Hawaii 35,778 35,874 0 10,614 8,500 -20 94 100 6

Iowa 48,360 35,060 -28 43,246f 48,533 12 126 97 -23

Maryland / 166,367 / 55,304f 77,519 40 / 518 /

Massachusetts 6,200 16,278 163 87,559f 123,400 41 125 201 61

Minnesota 140,475 112,224 -20 65,318f 61,800 -5 527 371 -30

Missouri 73,738d 83,160d 13 38,944 34,138 -12 337 297 -12

New Hampshire 8,812 20,865 137 11,362 12,668 11 65 108 66

New Jersey 58,165 66,391 14 102,727 99,000 -4 350 495 41

New Mexico 53,911d 72,740d 35 32,230f 37,083 15 161 234 45

Rhode Island 10,500 15,686 49 6,696 8,782 31 48 44 -8

Vermont 10,344 9,202 -11 6,095 6,839 12 46 29 -37

Virginia 41,019 85,937 110 22,365 37,369 67 269 306 14

Wisconsin 82,649 110,773 34 54,058 80,766 49 / 302 /

Note: Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming did not have state public defender programs in 1999 and are not included in the table.

/Data not reported.

a

Criminal caseload counts include felony capital, felony noncapital, misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence, ordinance infraction, appeal, and probation and revocation 

cases. Juvenile, civil, and other cases, including special proceedings, miscellaneous hearing, post conviction probation, and child protection cases, are excluded from the 

analysis because of changes in the way these data were collected in 2007. Numbers from 2007 do not include probation and revocation cases. Totals and percent changes 

are based on the 15 states that reported data in both 1999 and 2007.

bIncludes full and part-time chief public defenders, managing attorneys, supervisory attorneys, and assistant public defenders. Totals and percent changes are based on 

the 15 states that reported data in both 1999 and 2007. See Methodology for definition of full-time equivalent (FTE).

c

Expenditures from 1999 are adjusted for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index and presented in 2007 dollars. 

dIncludes total criminal, juvenile, civil, and other cases.

e

Includes conflict cases.

f

Expenditures reported for all indigent defense services in the state.
20 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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. Countybased 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 hardcopy 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.
September 2010 21

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 fulltime 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. <http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_58632.htm>.) 

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.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~228229*

22 State Public Defender Programs, 2007

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.

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=2242>.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov