U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

JULY 2014 NCJ 246684

HIGHLIGHTS

 In 2012, state governments spent $2.3 billion nationally 

on indigent defense. 

 State government indigent defense expenditures 

showed an average annual decrease of 0.2% from 2008 

to 2012. 

 From 2011 to 2012, state government indigent defense 

expenditures remained stable at $2.3 billion. 

 As a share of total judicial-legal expenditures by state 

governments, spending on indigent defense held steady 

between 9.5% and 10.0% from 2008 to 2012.

Figure 1

State government indigent defense expenditures, 

FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 

2012 dollars. See Methodology. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, 

FY 2008–2012.

Expenditures (in millions)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Annual percent change

Annual percent change

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Revised April 21, 2015

State Government Indigent Defense 

Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 – Updated

Erinn Herberman, Ph.D., and Tracey Kyckelhahn, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

I

n 2012, state governments spent $2.3 billion nationally 

on indigent defense. From 2008 to 2012, state 

government indigent defense expenditures ranged from 

$2.2 billion to $2.4 billion (figure 1). 

This report is based solely on state expenditure data, 

which may not be inclusive of county or jurisdictional 

appropriations for indigent defense. Indigent defense 

delivery systems in the United States vary widely and are 

complicated as a whole. The report provides an initial 

snapshot based on publicly available information and 

additional data provided by several states. The information 

in this report is not intended to provide legal advice. BJS is 

currently conducting a comprehensive survey of indigent 

defense delivery systems, the results of which will be released 

at a future date.

The majority of state government indigent defense 

expenditures were for services directly provided by the state 

(92% each year from 2008 to 2012) (table 1). The remainder 

of state government indigent defense expenditures were 

intergovernmental transfers to local governments to fund 

local indigent defense services. While direct expenditures 

held steady, intergovernmental transfers declined from 

$195 million to $180 million between 2011 and 2012 

(down 7.6%). From 2011 to 2012, state government indigent 

defense expenditures remained stable at $2.3 billion.

Table 1

State government indigent defense expenditures, 

FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)

Direct Intergovernmental

Fiscal year

Total 

(in millions)

Expenditures 

(in millions) Percent 

Expenditures 

(in millions) Percent 

2008* $2,310 $2,109 91.3% $200 8.7%

2009 2,237 2,055 91.8 182 8.2

2010* 2,359 2,169 92.0 190 8.0

2011 2,293 2,098 91.5 195 8.5

2012 2,293 2,113 92.2 180 7.8

Average annual percent 

 change, FY 2008–2012 -0.2% 0.0% -2.7%

Percent change, 

 FY 2008–2012 -0.7% 0.2% -10.2%

Percent change, 

 FY 2011–2012 -0.01% 0.7% -7.6%

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 

dollars. See Methodology. 

*

Data for direct and intergovernmental expenditures were imputed for Georgia. 

See Methodology.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, 

FY 2008–2012.
STATE GOVERNMENT INDIGENT DEFENSE EXPENDITURES, FY 2008–2012 | JULY 2014 2

From 2008 to 2012, state government spending on all 

judicial-legal services ranged from $22.8 to $23.6 billion 

(table 2). As a share of total judicial-legal expenditures by 

state governments, spending on indigent defense held steady 

between 9.5% and 10.0% during this period. 

The data used in this report are from a larger study funded 

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and produced by 

the Census Bureau. The study, Indigent Defense Services 

in the United States, FY 2008–2012 (NCJ 246683, BJS web, 

July 2014), contains information on—

 state legislation related to the provision of indigent 

defense 

 the availability, quality, and sources of data for state 

government indigent defense expenditures for each state 

and the District of Columbia 

 total, direct, and intergovernmental indigent defense 

expenditures by state 

 limited information on indigent defense expenditures by 

some local governments. 

For this report, financial data for fiscal years 2008 to 

2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 constant dollars 

(see Methodology). For the Census Bureau’s Indigent 

Defense Services (IDS) study, expenditure data are in 

nominal dollars.

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution guarantee that people accused of crimes 

who cannot afford an attorney have the right to appointed 

counsel. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court mandate 

for appointed counsel, states enacted various methods 

to provide indigent defense services. Indigent defense 

funding, service delivery, and administration differ by state. 

Depending on the state, indigent defense expenditures are 

funded by the state or local governments, or a combination 

of both. Pennsylvania is the only state that does not provide 

any state-based funding for indigent defense, leaving all 

financial responsibility to the counties. States also have 

varying methods of service delivery for indigent defense, 

using different combinations of public defender offices, 

assigned counsel systems, or contract systems with private 

attorneys. In addition, the source of administration at the 

state or local levels for indigent defense services varies 

across states, including sources of governance, policy 

determinations, and operations. 

Some state-administered systems are not funded completely 

by the state. Some county-administered systems are funded 

entirely by the state government. Caution must be taken 

when comparing states on the total state government 

indigent defense expenditures presented in the Census 

Bureau’s IDS study, as the information may not encompass 

all resources spent on indigent defense. In addition, as 

this report focuses only on state government indigent 

defense expenditures, these data cannot be used to compare 

spending on indigent defense and prosecution.

Table 2

State government judicial-legal expenditures, FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)

Direct Intergovernmental

Fiscal year Total (in millions)

Expenditures

(in millions) Percent 

Expenditures

(in millions) Percent 

2008 $22,963 $21,888 95.3% $1,076 4.7%

2009 23,599 22,427 95.0 1,172 5.0

2010 23,514 21,946 93.3 1,568 6.7

2011 22,957 21,376 93.1 1,581 6.9

2012 22,842 21,328 93.4 1,514 6.6

Average annual percent change, FY 2008–2012 -0.1% -0.6% 8.5%

Percent change, FY 2008–2012 -0.5% -2.6% 40.8%

Percent change, FY 2011–2012 -0.5% -0.2% -4.3%

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. See Methodology. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, FY 2008–2012.
STATE GOVERNMENT INDIGENT DEFENSE EXPENDITURES, FY 2008–2012 | JULY 2014 3

Comparing total indigent defense expenditures and spending by public 

defender offices

Fiscal year 2008 data from the Census Bureau’s Indigent 

Defense Services (IDS) study were compared to calendar 

year 2007 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 

Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO), which collected 

office-level data from approximately 950 publicly funded 

public defender offices located in 49 states and the 

District of Columbia.1 The universe included all public 

defender offices principally funded by state or local 

governments that provided general criminal defense 

services, conflict services, or capital case representation. 

The CPDO collected operational expenditure data for 

the government-funded public defender offices, which 

represented one component of total indigent defense 

system. In comparison, the IDS study by the Census 

Bureau consisted of all spending on indigent defense, 

including contract attorneys, assigned counsel, and public 

defender office expenditures.

The CPDO and IDS studies differed in other ways. The 

CPDO only contained operational expenditures, while the 

IDS study also included capital outlay, generally a small 

percentage of spending on indigent defense. The CPDO 

reported on calendar year 2007, while the Census Bureau’s 

IDS study collected data for fiscal year 2008, which 

included some of calendar year 2007.2

Among the 22 states classified as state-administered in 

the CPDO, state government expenditures for calendar 

year 2007 for (14) states were within 10% of expenditures 

from the Census FY 2008 data.3 Of the remaining 

seven states, four states contained 17% to 50% more 

expenditures than in the Census Bureau’s IDS study, and 

three states had 50% more expenditures in the IDS study 

than the CPDO (table 3).

2The degree to which CY 2007 expenditures was included in a state’s 

FY 2008 expenditures depended on the start of a state’s fiscal year, which 

varies by state.

3In the upcoming BJS 2013 National Survey of Indigent Defense, 

29 states are classified as state-administered.

Table 3

Comparison of Indigent Defense Expenditures in BJS’s Census of Public Defender Offices, CY 2007, and Census Bureau’s 

Indigent Defense Services Study, FY 2008 (2012 dollars)

BJS’s Census of Public 

Defender Offices, CY 2007

Census Bureau’s Indigent 

Defense Services Study, FY 2008

State

Expenditures

(in thousands)

Expenditures

(in thousands)

Expenditure difference

(in thousands)

Percent

difference

Alaska $19,388 $33,750 $14,362 74.1%

Arkansas 22,556 30,777 8,220 36.4

Colorado 42,626 86,628 44,002 103.2

Connecticut 53,558 51,461 -2,097 -3.9

Delaware 15,430 16,001 571 3.7

Hawaii 9,564 10,420 856 9.0

Iowa 54,608 56,132 1,523 2.8

Kentucky 36,583 42,922 6,339 17.3

Maryland 87,222 95,445 8,223 9.4

Massachusetts 138,847 218,775 79,929 57.6

Minnesota 69,536 72,135 2,599 3.7

Missouri 38,411 36,941 -1,470 -3.8

Montana 20,995 21,105 110 0.5

New Hampshire 14,254 17,754 3,500 24.6

New Jersey 111,392 118,465 7,072 6.3

New Mexico 41,725 44,213 2,488 6.0

North Dakota 1,913 4,988 3,076 160.8

Rhode Island 9,881 13,569 3,688 37.3

Vermont 7,695 11,217 3,522 45.8

Virginia 42,047 43,884 1,837 4.4

Wisconsin 90,876 89,783 -1,093 -1.2

Wyoming 8,568 8,026 -542 -6.3

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. See Methodology. 

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Public Defender Offices, CY 2007; and U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, FY 2008.

1In 2007, Maine did not have a publicly funded public defender office.
STATE GOVERNMENT INDIGENT DEFENSE EXPENDITURES, FY 2008–2012 | JULY 2014 4

Methodology

The data used for this report and in the Census Bureau study 

were extracted from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey 

of State Government Finances for fiscal years 2008 through 

2012. This report includes state government indigent defense 

expenditures and total judicial-legal expenditures compiled 

by U.S. Census Bureau representatives. Data were collected 

from government audits, budgets, and other financial 

reports. Differences in functional responsibilities from state 

to state may prohibit the comparability of expenditure data 

across all jurisdictions, and caution should be exercised 

when comparing government expenditures. For more 

detailed information on the functional responsibilities by 

state, see the previously referenced Census Bureau study, 

Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008–2012,

(NCJ 246683, BJS web, July 2014).

Adjusting for Inflation

Government expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 

were inflation adjusted to 2012 dollars, as is standard for 

state government spending. Annual chain-type price indices 

for gross domestic product were employed as divisors, and 

unadjusted expenditures were employed as dividends to 

produce inflation adjusted expenditures in 2012 dollars.

The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, developed the price indices used in all inflation 

adjustments, as published through their interactive data 

tool (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). (See 

Table 1.1.4, Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product, 

March 27, 2014.)

Imputation

For 2008 and 2010, expenditure data for Georgia were only 

available for total indigent defense expenditures. Totals for 

direct and intergovernmental expenditures for Georgia for 

those 2 years were imputed by taking the average share for 

each category for 2009, 2011, and 2012, and applying it to 

2008 and 2010.

Expenditures for California were compiled using the State of 

California Governor’s Budget. However, only partial indigent 

defense expenditure information was available; therefore, 

California’s expenditures are likely an underestimate. 

Census Bureau data from Florida could not be fully 

validated. These states’ data were used to impute national 

totals. For FY 2009, Tennessee State Budget Publications 

were used to provide data for imputation to national totals.

Terms and definitions

Expenditures—external cash payments made from any 

source of funds, including any payments financed from 

borrowing, fund balances, intergovernmental revenue, and 

other current revenue.

Intergovernmental transfers—the sum of payments 

made from one government entity to another, including 

grants-in-aid, shared revenues, payments in lieu of taxes, 

and amounts for services performed by one government 

for another on a reimbursable or cost-sharing basis 

(e.g., payments by one government to another for boarding 

prisoners). Excludes amounts paid to other governments for 

purchase of commodities, property, or utility services.

Direct expenditures—all expenditures except those 

classified as intergovernmental. Includes direct current 

expenditures (e.g., salaries, wages, fees, and commissions 

and purchases of supplies, materials, and contractual 

services) and capital outlays (e.g., construction and purchase 

of equipment, land, and existing structures). Note that 

capital outlays are included for the year in which the direct 

expenditure was made, regardless of how the funds were 

raised (e.g., bond issue) or when they were paid back.

Indigent defense services—the provision of legal services to 

individuals accused of crimes who cannot afford an attorney.
STATE GOVERNMENT INDIGENT DEFENSE EXPENDITURES, FY 2008–2012 | JULY 2014 5

Appendix table 1

State government indigent defense expenditures, by state, FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)

Average annual 

percent change, 

FY 2008–2012

Percent change, 

FY 2008–2012

Percent change, 

FY 2011–2012

Total state government indigent defense expenditures (in thousands)

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Alabama 72,540 73,973 66,590 66,221 59,707 -4.9% -17.7% -9.8%

Alaska 33,750 35,682 36,794 37,957 40,036 4.3 18.6 5.5

Arizona 2,796 2,627 2,287 2,189 1,378 -17.7 -50.7 -37.0

Arkansas 30,777 24,046 31,146 34,816 37,600 5.0 22.2 8.0

California -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Coloradoa 86,628 99,127 98,036 92,324 100,714 3.8 16.3 9.1

Connecticut 51,461 52,087 50,453 51,269 64,002 5.5 24.4 24.8

Delaware 16,001 15,622 14,804 15,251 18,792 4.0 17.4 23.2

Florida -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Georgiab 76,075 66,457 69,524 68,706 69,539 -2.2 -8.6 1.2

Hawaiic 10,420 10,708 9,491 8,869 9,275 -2.9 -11.0 4.6

Idaho 2,197 2,238 2,018 2,018 1,990 -2.5 -9.4 -1.4

Illinois 26,151 26,984 24,527 23,313 20,266 -6.4 -22.5 -13.1

Indianac 23,318 24,504 24,920 24,352 24,906 1.6 6.8 2.3

Iowa 56,132 59,397 58,436 55,492 55,726 -0.2 -0.7 0.4

Kansas 25,084 25,252 24,845 23,117 22,714 -2.5 -9.4 -1.7

Kentucky 42,922 41,466 46,061 44,995 43,586 0.4 1.5 -3.1

Louisianad 30,360 29,923 71,479 71,349 67,964 : : -4.7

Mainec 14,946 14,104 13,141 13,483 14,448 -0.8 -3.3 7.2

Maryland 95,445 97,423 89,869 87,268 87,952 -2.0 -7.9 0.8

Massachusettsc 218,775 206,999 208,858 200,136 191,228 -3.4 -12.6 -4.5

Michigan 14,585 14,549 13,415 12,950 12,866 -3.1 -11.8 -0.7

Minnesotac 72,135 72,771 69,241 68,218 64,509 -2.8 -10.6 -5.4

Mississippi 3,009 3,329 3,416 3,638 4,307 9.0 43.2 18.4

Missouric 36,941 38,239 37,541 36,713 35,739 -0.8 -3.3 -2.7

Montana 21,105 21,982 21,259 21,742 23,335 2.5 10.6 7.3

Nebraska 3,573 3,727 3,902 3,662 3,533 -0.3 -1.1 -3.5

Nevada 2,063 2,314 2,376 2,686 3,234 11.2 56.7 20.4

New Hampshiree 17,754 19,252 19,316 19,255 18,038 : : -6.3

New Jerseyc 118,465 124,142 118,796 117,501 117,628 -0.2 -0.7 0.1

New Mexico 44,213 45,882 42,889 41,160 38,519 -3.4 -12.9 -6.4

New Yorkc,f 93,851 85,827 93,075 96,888 109,256 3.8 16.4 12.8

North Carolina 124,308 136,244 137,343 138,097 125,603 0.3 1.0 -9.0

North Dakota 4,988 5,523 5,711 5,919 6,140 5.2 23.1 3.7

Ohio 92,164 69,831 71,128 75,399 70,413 -6.7 -23.6 -6.6

Oklahoma 18,589 19,333 17,965 17,105 16,581 -2.9 -10.8 -3.1

Oregon 114,154 107,994 123,410 110,371 112,269 -0.4 -1.7 1.7

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rhode Island 13,569 13,543 13,245 13,645 13,805 0.4 1.7 1.2

South Carolina 25,444 29,842 25,822 22,058 21,938 -3.7 -13.8 -0.5

South Dakotag 823 806 728 656 624 -6.9 -24.2 -4.9

Tennessee 66,548 / 72,864 72,262 74,032 2.7 11.2 2.4

Texas 20,609 28,863 31,754 36,095 26,981 6.7 30.9 -25.3

Utahh 7 103 118 171 108 66.7 1,340.9 -36.7

Vermont 11,217 11,762 11,772 11,832 12,103 1.9 7.9 2.3

Virginia 43,884 45,138 42,494 42,101 43,257 -0.4 -1.4 2.7

Washington 28,926 28,811 27,613 26,721 25,564 -3.1 -11.6 -4.3

West Virginia 40,193 41,363 53,858 46,547 42,681 1.5 6.2 -8.3

Wisconsin 89,783 82,995 90,938 78,586 90,592 0.2 -0.9 15.3

Wyoming 8,026 10,451 10,345 9,591 10,258 6.1 27.8 7.0

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. See Methodology. 

/ Not reported.

: Not calculated due to changes in data reporting methods across years.

-- Data are unreliable. For details, see Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008–2012 (NCJ 246683, BJS web, July 2014). 

aData from FY 2008 to 2012 include criminal, juvenile delinquency, and child welfare indigent representation.

bData from FY 2008 and 2010 are actual amounts from Georgia Budgetary Compliance Reports.

cRetirement and other benefits are not included or only partially included.

dData from FY 2010 to 2012 are the sum of Census Bureau query and judicial district expenditures from the Louisiana Public Defender Board’s Annual Reports. Data from 

FY 2008 and 2009 are missing amounts transferred to district courts.

eData from FY 2008 are actual amounts from New Hampshire’s Operating Budget.

f

Data from FY 2009 to 2011 are the sum of the Census Bureau query and nonpersonal service/indirect costs from New York’s Enacted Budget.

gData from FY 2008 to 2012 are actual amounts from the South Dakota State Treasurer’s Fiscal Report.

hData from FY 2008 to 2012 are actual amounts from Utah’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, FY 2008–2012.

Revised April 21, 2015
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the 

principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal 

victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, 

and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, 

tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and 

valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports 

improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and 

participates with national and international organizations to develop and 

recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is 

acting director.

This report was written by Erinn Herberman and Tracey Kyckelhahn. 

E. Ann Carson verified the report.

Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced 

the report.

July 2014, NCJ 246684