United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,

and State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies, Senate Committee on

Appropriations

July 1995 FEDERAL CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

Cost of Providing

Court-Appointed

Attorneys Is Rising, but

Causes Are Unclear

GAO/GGD-95-182

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-259805 

July 19, 1995

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and

 State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

Dear Senator Hollings:

The Federal Defender Services program provides legal counsel for eligible

federal criminal defendants who are unable to pay for these services

themselves. Between fiscal years 1990 and 1993, the program’s costs more

than doubled from about $122 million to almost $252 million.1

 During this

same period, the number of Defender Services representations closed rose

23 percent. In federal district courts the number of criminal cases filed

rose less than 1 percent, and the number of defendants grew about 3

percent. At the same time, the costs to operate Death Penalty Resource

Centers (DPRCs)—whose representations in federal courts are funded by

grants from the Defender Services program—almost tripled from about

$6 million to $18 million, and the number of DPRC representations more

than doubled from 491 to 1,014.2

 These centers were created in part to

provide a source of expertise and help to reduce or contain the costs of

death penalty representations. You asked us to examine a number of

aspects of the Defender Services program, including the causes of the

program’s increased workload3

 and costs (as measured by program budget

obligations) and whether the DPRCs have reduced the federal costs of

representing indigent defendants in death penalty cases.

As we informed your office early in our evaluation, the Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) did not have adequate data for us to

evaluate the direct impact on program workload and costs of factors that

AOUSC had suggested as possible causes of increases. Moreover, the lack of

comparable data for both before and after the establishment of the DPRCs,

including data on the impact of changes in the complexity of death penalty

litigation, precluded meaningful assessment of whether the centers have

1

All dollar figures in this report are expressed in current dollars, unadjusted for inflation. See app. I.

2

The Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services has recently changed the name of the

DPRCs to Post-Conviction Defender Organizations. Throughout this report, we refer to them by their

former designation, DPRCs.

3

Throughout this report, we measure program workload in terms of representations closed (see page 6

for more details).

Page 1 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

reduced or contained the costs of representing indigent defendants in

death penalty cases. Therefore, as agreed, our objectives were to provide

information on (1) the reasons that Defender Services workload has

grown faster than district court criminal cases; (2) the data available to

assess the causes of increased Defender Services workload and costs;

(3) the comparative costs of representations provided by federal defender

organizations and by private attorneys directly assigned by federal judges;

(4) the additional costs of paying higher standard hourly rates to private,

court-appointed attorneys in all or parts of 16 districts; (5) the comparative

costs of federally funded private attorney and DPRC death penalty

representations; and (6) the potential causes of increased DPRC workload

and costs.

Background The Criminal Justice Act of 19644

 required the federal judiciary to provide

for the legal representation of eligible federal criminal defendants who

were financially unable to afford their own attorneys.5

 In response, the

federal judiciary created the Federal Defender Services program. In

August 1993, AOUSC reported that about 85 percent of all criminal cases

prosecuted in federal courts required court-appointed legal counsel. The

Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United

States6

 provides overall policy direction and guidance of the program, and

the Defender Services Division of AOUSC provides administrative and

program support.

Legal services for eligible defendants in the nation’s 94 federal district

courts and 12 circuit courts of appeals are provided through a mixed

system, which at the end of fiscal year 1994 included 45 Federal Public

Defender Organizations (FPDs) serving 54 districts; 10 Community

Defender Organizations (CDOs) serving 11 districts; and private “panel”

attorneys chosen from a list, or panel, maintained by the district courts.

Together, FPDs and CDOs are generally referred to as Federal Defender

Organizations (FDOs). As shown in table 1, the number of FPDs and CDOs

has gradually increased since 1990. FPD attorneys are federal employees;

CDO attorneys are not. CDOs are private organizations funded by federal

4

Public Law 88-455 (1964), codified at 18 U.S.C. 3006A.

5

In addition to financial requirements, eligibility for court-appointed counsel is also dependent upon

the offense with which the defendant is charged. For example, defendants charged with certain

misdemeanors are not provided court-appointed attorneys unless the U.S. Magistrate or the court

determines that the interests of justice require it.

6

The Judicial Conference is a group of federal judges, chaired by the Chief Justice of the United States,

who serve as the central policymaking body for the federal court system.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

defender services grants. FPD and CDO attorneys are salaried; panel

attorneys receive an hourly rate for their services that varies by district.

Higher panel attorney hourly rates are generally paid for death penalty

cases in all districts. Panel attorneys generally provided all

court-appointed representations in the 29 districts that had neither a FPD or

CDO, and by statute panel attorneys must receive a “substantial” number of

representation appointments in districts with such organizations.

Table 1: Number of Federal Public and

Community Defender Organizations

and Number of Districts Served, Fiscal

Years 1990 to 1994

Federal public

defenders Community defenders Total

Fiscal

year Number

Districts

serveda Number

Districts

serveda Number

Districts

serveda

1990 37 39 6 7 43 46

1991 38 40 6 7 44 47

1992 41 47 9 10 49 57

1993 42 47 9 10 51 57

1994 45 54 10 11 55 65

aSome FPDs and CDOs serve more than one district.

Source: AOUSC.

To date, death penalty representations have generally been handled by

panel attorneys (including some pro bono representations)7

 or the DPRCs.

Occasionally, FDOs have also been appointed in such cases.8

 At the end of

fiscal year 1994 there were 20 DPRCs serving 50 federal judicial districts.

The DPRCs are specialized CDOs that provide legal services—through direct

representation and/or consultation and support services to panel

attorneys—for persons appealing state death penalty convictions and/or

sentences. The DPRCs are also authorized to represent defendants in

federal capital prosecutions and in appeals of federal death penalty

convictions. Under the grant agreement between each center and the

Judicial Conference, use of each DPRC’s federal funds is to be limited to

federal death penalty habeas corpus9

 cases and the defense of those

7

In pro bono cases, attorneys represent defendants without cost as a public service.

8

In late 1994, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council approved a pilot plan to establish a death penalty unit

in the FPD for the Central District of California to handle death penalty habeas corpus cases. The

Council has sought Judicial Conference approval for this pilot project.

9

Federal habeas corpus proceedings are civil proceedings in which convicted persons raise a challenge

in federal court to their conviction and/or sentence on the grounds that they are in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

charged with capital crimes in federal district courts. A DPRC’s nonfederal

funds must be used to support representations in state court proceedings.

Results in Brief Defender Services representations cannot be compared directly to

criminal case filings in district courts because Defender Services’

workload also includes representations, such as appeals (reported in

appellate court statistics) and habeas corpus proceedings (reported in

district court civil case statistics), that are not included in district court

criminal caseload statistics. Moreover, Defender Services represents

individual defendants, not cases, and during fiscal years 1990 through 1993

there was an average of 1.4 defendants per criminal case filed.

AOUSC has maintained that overall program workload has grown and costs

have increased because (1) criminal cases, especially drug cases, now

involve more defendants; (2) more defendants apply for and receive

court-appointed attorneys; (3) more defendants are being tried in federal

courts; and (4) the cases are more complex, principally because of

changes in federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum

sentencing statutes,10 resulting in more work for attorneys on each case.

While each of these factors may have had some effect, we were not able to

determine to what extent they individually or collectively accounted for

the doubling of the overall program costs or the tripling of DPRC costs from

fiscal years 1990 through 1993. This is because AOUSC collected little

consistent, national empirical data that could be used to make such

determinations.

The data available on the costs of representations by federal defender

organizations and panel attorneys were not precisely comparable. For

example, FPD and CDO data included the costs of training provided to panel

attorneys. Also, FPD and CDO cost data were not available by type of case

(such as appeals) or major criminal offense category (such as drugs), but

such data were available for panel attorneys. Nevertheless, prior studies

by the Judicial Conference and AOUSC and our analysis of available data

suggested that, overall, FPD and CDO attorney representations cost less than

panel attorney representations, although the cost advantage has gradually

declined.

10By statute, a minimum prison sentence must be imposed for certain offenses when the statutorily

specified criteria have been met.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

However, the average cost per representation closed can vary among

districts, among FPDs and CDOs, and from year to year depending upon

changes in the proportion of expensive cases in the total workload. In

fiscal year 1993, for example, each panel attorney drug or fraud

representation (at an average cost of more than $3,000) had as much

impact on program costs as three immigration representations.

The additional costs of paying higher standard hourly rates to panel

attorneys in the 16 districts authorized to pay such rates has been a

relatively small part of total panel attorney costs. In 78 of the 94 districts,

panel attorneys are paid a standard hourly rate of $40 for each out-of-court

hour and $60 for each in-court hour.11 In 1986, Congress authorized higher

rates of up to $75 per hour for both in-court and out-of-court hours in

specific circuits or districts, if the Judicial Conference determined it was

justified. As of March 1995, the Judicial Conference had approved higher

standard rates for 89 districts. However, the Judicial Conference, at

congressional direction, has limited actual payment of the higher

rates—$60, $70, or $75 for both in-court and out-of-court hours—to all or

parts of only 16 districts. We estimated (on the basis of available data) that

the additional cost of paying these higher standard hourly rates from fiscal

years 1991 through 1993 was at least $33.5 million, about 10.2 percent of

total panel attorney obligations during the period. Our estimate excluded

most appeals representations because the AOUSC database did not

designate the district of origin for at least 85 percent of all appeals

representations.

Death penalty representations have been expensive relative to other types

of Defender Services representations. In 1993, the average DPRC cost per

representation12 was about $17,200 and the average panel attorney cost

per representation closed was about $37,000.13 The 246 panel attorney

death penalty representations closed in fiscal year 1993 were 0.6 percent

of all panel attorney representations closed, but they accounted for 8.7

percent of the $104.3 million in 1993 panel attorney payments approved by

the courts. Because of missing data, we could not compare costs in

districts with and without DPRCs to determine if panel attorney death

11This basic statutory rate has not increased since 1984.

12DPRC costs per representation include the cost of all cases during the year, including cases pending

at the end of the year.

13According to AOUSC, death penalty representations are more likely than other types of

representations to extend over 2 fiscal years or more. Thus, the total cost of death penalty

representations may be more than we report, since our cost is based on the total of all vouchers

approved for payment in a single fiscal year.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

penalty representations were less expensive in districts with DPRCs, or

whether the cost per representation had grown less in districts with DPRCs.

According to Defender Services officials, DPRC costs have increased

because more DPRCs have been created, more death penalty cases are in

the courts, and the cases are becoming more complex. The number of

DPRCs increased from 14 in fiscal year 1989 to 20 in 1994. The number of

DPRC death penalty cases also increased from 313 to 1,086, but data on case

complexity were limited.

AOUSC has embarked on a number of initiatives to address the data

deficiencies identified in this report and to improve the information

provided to Congress for appropriations and oversight.

Scope and

Methodology

To meet our objectives, we reviewed prior studies by the Judicial

Conference, AOUSC, and consultants. We met with federal judges and AOUSC

officials, members of AOUSC’s Defender Services Advisory Group, defender

services attorneys, and other officials in six judgmentally selected judicial

districts. To try to identify potential causes of workload and cost increases

and to compare FDO and panel attorney costs per representation, we

reviewed previous analyses and available AOUSC data on FDO and panel

attorney workload and costs.

For FDOs, AOUSC provided data for fiscal years 1990 through the first 6

months of 1994 on type of representation; type of disposition;

representations opened, closed, and pending; and in-court hours per

representation closed. For the same period, we analyzed the panel

attorney voucher automated database, which included data by type of

representation and criminal offense on (1) total in-court and out-of-court

compensation requested and approved, and (2) the in-court and

out-of-court hourly rates paid for representations in which the panel

attorney had requested payment. To provide comparable workload data

for FPDs, CDOs, and panel attorneys, we used representations closed

because this was the only workload measure available for panel attorneys.

Although we did not verify the accuracy of the data we received, we did

some edit checks and a distributional analysis of the data, which raised

questions about the accuracy of some of the data in the panel attorney

database, including the hourly rates recorded in the database. We have

qualified our conclusions to take this possibility of error into account.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

We also used data from AOUSC’s master criminal file database and other

sources to determine total district court criminal workload and to try to

assess the impact of such variables as the number of trials on Defender

Services workload. Our analysis of data on criminal trials and cases with

multiple defendants used data on total district court workload because the

database did not reliably identify that subset of cases in which defendants

had court-appointed attorneys. This limitation is noted in our analysis and

conclusions. Certain information, including data on cases involving

mandatory minimum sentences and federal prosecutions of

state-developed cases, was either unavailable or too incomplete for

analysis. Also, because data reported by FDOs and panel attorneys differed,

workload and cost comparisons between the two were limited.

To determine the additional costs of paying panel attorneys the higher

standard hourly rates, we used AOUSC’s database to calculate the difference

in compensation at the higher and lower standard hourly rates. We

calculated the in-court and out-of-court compensation approved for those

representations in the 16 districts compensated at the higher standard

hourly rates. We then estimated the in-court and out-of-court

compensation that would have been requested at the lower standard

hourly rates of $40 out-of-court and $60 in-court. We subtracted the lower

rate estimate from the actual amounts approved for payment at the higher

standard rates. The difference was the estimated additional costs of paying

the higher standard rates. As explained in more detail in appendix I, this

produced a conservative estimate of the additional costs of paying the

higher standard hourly rates in the 16 districts.

We used DPRC quarterly reports for fiscal years 1990 through the first half

of 1994 to examine trends in DPRC workload and costs. However, due to

data limitations we could not fully assess whether DPRCs had lowered the

costs of death penalty representations.

The Defender Services program has been reviewed by various sources,

and where appropriate we have incorporated the results of these studies

into our work. To determine what actions the Judiciary has underway to

improve Defender Services program data and analyses and to control

costs, we obtained copies of AOUSC and Judicial Conference reports,

directives, and other documents addressing these issues, and we talked to

AOUSC officials.

We did our work primarily in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Detroit,

between April 1993 and February 1995 in accordance with generally

Page 7 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

accepted government auditing standards. Our objectives, scope, and

methodology are discussed in greater detail in appendix I. AOUSC provided

written comments on a draft of this report, which are discussed on pages

28-29 and printed in full in appendix III.

Defender Services

Representations Are

Not Synonymous With

District Court

Criminal Filings

Data on Defender Services representations are not fully comparable to

district court criminal filings or terminations (case closings). In fiscal year

1993, 46,786 criminal cases involving 65,653 defendants were filed in

federal district courts.14 In the same year, district courts closed (disposed)

44,800 cases involving 64,048 defendants. Since Defender Services

represents defendants, not cases, the district court defendant data are

more appropriate than case data in comparing district court and Defender

Services workloads.

Defender Services attorneys closed 78,016 representations in fiscal year

1993, which was 13,968 more than the number of defendants reported as

disposed in district courts. Of this additional Defender Services workload,

at least 9,478 representations (about 68 percent) were not reported in

district court criminal workload statistics. The Defender Services 1993

workload, for example, included 6,126 appeals, reported in appellate court

statistics; 1,028 habeas corpus proceedings, reported in district court civil

statistics; and 2,324 bail proceedings, which Defender Services reported as

a separate workload category, but district courts did not.

Criminal representations appeared to be the category of Defender Services

representations most comparable to district court criminal workload. In

fiscal year 1993, Defender Services closed 54,907 criminal representations,

or 9,141 less than the 64,048 criminal defendants disposed in federal

district courts in 1993. The 9,141 additional defendants reported in district

court statistics may have paid for their own attorneys rather than having

court-appointed attorneys. However, we found no consistent data on the

number of defendants in federal courts who received court-appointed

attorneys.

14Totals include traffic cases and defendants as well as transfers between districts. Traffic cases in

federal courts arise from traffic violations on federal property.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Total Defender

Services

Representations

Closed, Total Budget

Obligations, and Costs

per Representation

Closed Have Grown

Defender Services appropriations, obligations, representations closed, and

costs per representation closed have generally grown in recent years. As

shown in table 2, from fiscal years 1990 through 1994, total budget

obligations grew about 118 percent from $122.5 million to $266.7 million.15

According to AOUSC, the growth in representations closed and obligations

was less in fiscal year 1994 than in recent years, but it was not clear at the

time whether this was the beginning of a long-term trend or a short-term

phenomenon. The Judiciary initially requested $387 million for fiscal year

1994, which included $14 million to extend the standard higher panel

attorney rates beyond the 16 districts in which they were being paid.

Congress rejected this expansion and appropriated $280 million for fiscal

year 1994. Defender Services requested $290.3 million for fiscal year 1995,

an increase of 3.7 percent. Congress appropriated $250 million for fiscal

year 1995.16 The Judiciary has requested $295.8 million for fiscal year

1996—an increase of 18 percent over the 1995 appropriation and

1.9 percent more than the 1995 budget request.

Table 2: Federal Defender Services Budget Obligations by Major Activity, Fiscal Years 1990-1994 (in Thousands of Current

Dollars)

Fiscal year

Program activity 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Percent

change,

1990-1994

Federal public defenders $38,243 $47,912 $64,992 $78,798 $90,224 135.9%

Community defenders 10,617 12,733a 17,861 21,865 24,360 129.4

Death Penalty Resource

Centersb

6,000 9,183 11,524 17,758 18,730

212.2

Panel attorneys 62,901 85,463 119,204 123,500 122,858 95.3

Other program costs 4,700 5,800 8,290 9,700 10,552 124.5

Total $122,461 $161,091 $221,871 $251,621 $266,724 117.8%

aReflects recoveries of $1,200,000 from fiscal year 1991 obligations that are not shown in the

fiscal year 1993 Budget Appendix.

bAs noted in its fiscal year 1996 budget request, Defender Services has renamed these

organizations Post-Conviction Defender Organizations.

Source: AOUSC and Budget Appendix.

15The Defender Services program costs cited in this report exclude AOUSC costs, such as the

operations of the Defender Services Division and processing panel attorney payments. Also excluded

are district and courts of appeals costs for reviewing and approving panel attorney vouchers; such

costs are included in local court budgets. An AOUSC analysis estimated such annual administrative

costs at $10.68 million in fiscal year 1992.

16Defender Services funds are available until expended. In addition to its fiscal year 1995

appropriation, Defender Services had available $36.5 million in unobligated appropriations from prior

years to apply to its fiscal year 1995 expenses.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Overall Change in Number

of Representations Closed

and Costs for Panel

Attorneys and Defender

Organizations Varied

As shown in figure 1, from fiscal years 1990 to 1993 growth in the number

of representations closed, total obligations, and the average cost per

representation closed17 for panel attorneys, FPDs, and CDOs varied. To

provide comparable data for defender organizations and panel attorneys,

our workload figures are based on representations closed, because data

for ongoing representations were not available for panel attorneys (see

app. I). While panel attorney workload grew more than that of FPDs or

CDOs, panel attorney costs per representation closed grew less than FPDs or

CDOs. Compensation approved for panel attorney fees grew about

88 percent, while total panel attorney budget obligations—a figure an

AOUSC official told us included payments for investigators and experts in

addition to attorney fees—grew about 96 percent during the period.

17Cost per representation closed for FPDs and CDOs was determined by dividing total budget

obligations for these organizations in each fiscal year by the total number of representations closed.

Cost per representation closed for panel attorneys was determined by dividing the total amount of

attorney compensation approved for payment in each fiscal year by the number of representations

closed.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Figure 1: Percent Change in Total

Representations Closed, Budget

Obligations, and Average Cost per

Representation Closed for FPDs,

CDOs, and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal

Years 1990-1993

Percent change

-20

-5

10

25

40

55

70

85

100

115

130

FPDs CDOs Panel attorneys

including death

penalty

representations

Panel attorneys

excluding death

penalty

representations

Type of Defender Services attorney

28

106

61

-12

106

134

33

96

41

32

83

30

Number of representations closed

Budget obligations

Average cost per representation closed

Note: Growth in panel attorney budget obligations excluding death penalty representations was

based on total panel attorney obligations less attorney fees in death penalty representations. We

did not have data on nonattorney fee costs, such as transcripts and investigators, in death

penalty representations.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Representations

Closed for FPDs,

CDOs, and Panel

Attorneys Increased

Defender Services representations closed annually increased by about

23 percent from 63,504 to 78,016 between fiscal years 1990 and 1993. Of

this total, panel attorney representations closed increased about

33 percent from 28,575 to 38,005, or about twice as fast as FDOs’ workload,

which increased from 34,929 to 40,011, about 15 percent. Within this FDO

total, FPD representations closed grew 28 percent and CDO representations

closed declined 12 percent. Most of the CDO decline was due to a drop in

immigration representations closed at the CDO in the Southern District of

California. Excluding this district’s workload, CDO representations closed

Page 11 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

declined about 5.5 percent. Although still a very small percentage of total

panel attorney workload (less than 1 percent), panel attorney death

penalty representations closed grew from 9 to 246. (More detail is found in

the tables in app. II.)

As shown in figure 2, from fiscal years 1990 through 1993 criminal

representations closed were by far the largest proportion of total

representations closed for both FDOs and panel attorneys, followed by

“other” and appeals. The number of FDO and panel attorney criminal

representations was about even in fiscal year 1990, but FDO criminal

representations increased 8 percent during the period while panel attorney

criminal representations increased almost 23 percent. Consequently, by

1993 panel attorney criminal representations closed exceeded those of

FDOs by 3,567. The growth in panel attorney appeals representations closed

(118 percent) was also greater than that for FDOs (54 percent). From fiscal

years 1991 through 1993, panel attorneys closed at least 75 percent more

appeals representations each year than did FDOs. On the other hand, the

number of FDO “other” representations closed was more than twice that of

panel attorneys each year for 1990 through 1993, reflecting the much

higher number of bail and probation/parole revocation proceedings

handled by FPDs and CDOs.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Figure 2: Representations Closed by Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs) and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990-1993

Number of representations closed

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

12500

15000

17500

20000

22500

25000

27500

30000

Criminal—FDOs Criminal—panel

attorneys

Appeals—FDOs Appeals—panel

attorneys

Other—FDOs Other—panel

attorneys

Type of representation by type of attorney

Fiscal year 1990

Fiscal year 1991

Fiscal year 1992

Fiscal year 1993

Note 1: Panel attorney data exclude death penalty representations. Numbers for this figure are

shown in appendix II, table II.1.

Note 2: “Other” includes habeas corpus and bail proceedings, motions to reduce sentence, and

probation and parole revocation proceedings.

Source: AOUSC.

We disaggregated criminal representations closed into five major offense

categories—weapons, immigration, drugs, fraud, and other—to examine

changes in representations closed by type of offense and type of Defender

Services attorneys. As shown in figure 3, within each major offense

category, FPDs, CDOs, and panel attorneys had different growth rates. For

some offenses there were fewer representations closed in 1993 than in

Page 13 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

1990. However, we could not determine the reasons for the variations

shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Percent Change in Criminal Representations Closed by Type of Defender Services Attorney and Major Offense

Category, Fiscal Years 1990-1993

Percent change, fiscal years 1990-1993

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Weapons Immigration Drugs Fraud Other Total criminal

Major offense category

80

6

92

15

-42

4

42

10

45

0

33

57

21

-46

-7

25

-23

23

FPDs

CDOs

Panel attorneys

Note: FPD fraud representations closed increased by less than one-half of 1 percent.

Source: AOUSC.

Determining the

Causes of Defender

Services Cost Growth

Is Difficult

Changes in Defender Services costs are basically the result of two

factors—changes in the number of representations combined with

changes in the average cost of each representation. If the number of

representations increases, program costs will also increase even if the

average cost per representation remains unchanged. Conversely, costs will

Page 14 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

rise if the cost per representation increases, even though the number of

representations remains unchanged.

Estimated Impact of

Increased Representations

Closed on Program Costs

To determine the impact of increased workload from fiscal years 1990

through 1993—as measured by representations closed—on fiscal year 1993

FPD, CDO, and panel attorney costs,18 we estimated what fiscal year 1993

costs would have been if the average cost per representation closed in

1993 were the same as the 1990 average cost (unadjusted for inflation).19

As shown in figure 4, about 26 percent of the increase in FPD costs and

38 percent of the increase in panel attorney costs between fiscal years

1990 and 1993 could be attributed to the increase in representations closed

in 1993. However, CDO representations closed declined from 11,706 in 1990

to 10,299 in 1993; consequently, none of the increase in CDO costs could be

attributed to increased representations closed.20

18Costs for FPDs and CDOs are based on total obligations each fiscal year divided by the number of

representations closed. Because we could not separately identify those costs associated with FPD and

CDO representations closed, our average cost per representation closed included the cost of all

representations during the fiscal year—new, closed, and pending at the end of the fiscal year—as well

as the costs of training provided for panel attorneys. Panel attorney cost data reflect only the costs of

attorney fees for those representations for which panel attorneys have requested payment. Panel

attorney costs exclude such costs as transcripts, psychiatrists, or investigators—costs that are

included in FPD and CDO budgets, and, thus, FPD and CDO cost per representation. (See app I.)

19For reasons described more fully in appendix I, our 1993 estimates are based on 1990 costs per

representation, unadjusted for inflation. The result may somewhat underestimate the impact of

increased representations closed on program costs, especially for FPDs and CDOs.

20The percentage of increased costs attributed to factors other than increased representations closed is

the difference between 100 percent and the percent of increased costs attributed to increased

representations closed. For panel attorneys, for example, we assumed about 62 percent (100 percent

minus 38 percent) of total increased costs were the result of factors other than increased

representations closed.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Figure 4: Estimated Percent of the

Total Increase in FPD, CDO, and Panel

Attorney Costs Between Fiscal Years

1990 and 1993 Resulting From

Increased Representations Closed or

From Other Factors

Percent of increase in costs due to workload or other factors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FPDs CDOs Panel attorneys

Type of Defender Services attorney

26

74

0

100

36

62

Percent due to increased workload

Percent due to other factors

Note: Workload was measured by representations closed.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

However, as the panel attorney data in figures 5 and 6 indicate, these

overall estimates can mask considerable variation by type of

representation.21 For some types of panel attorney representations

closed—appeals, other, death penalty—from about 69 to 92 percent of the

increase in costs could be attributed to increased numbers of

representations closed (fig. 5). Within criminal representations, increased

representations closed accounted for more than half of the increase in the

costs of weapons, drugs, and fraud representations closed, but they

accounted for only about 13 percent of the increase in the costs of

immigration representations closed (see fig. 6). Other criminal

representations closed declined 7 percent between fiscal years 1990 and

1993. Thus, all of the increase in costs for these representations must have

21Data limitations precluded a similar analysis for FPDs and CDOs.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

been the result of factors that have increased the average cost per

representation closed. As discussed later in this report, Defender Services

officials and AOUSC have suggested a number of factors, such as the

sentencing guidelines and a higher number of defendants charged with

mandatory minimum offenses, that could have contributed to higher

average costs per representation closed.

Figure 5: Estimated Percent of the

Total Increase in Panel Attorney Costs

Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1993

Resulting From Increased

Representations Closed or From Other

Factors (by Type of Representation)

Percent of increase in costs due to workload or other factors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Criminal Appeals Other Death penalty

Type of representation closed

36

64

69

31

92

8

90

10

Percent due to increased workload

Percent due to other factors

Note: Workload was measured by representations closed.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Figure 6: Estimated Percent of the

Total Increase in Costs of Panel

Attorney Criminal Representations

Closed Between Fiscal Years 1990 and

1993 Resulting From Increased

Representations Closed or From Other

Factors (by Major Offense Category)

Percent of increase in costs due to workload or other factors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Weapons

Immigration

Drugs

Fraud

Other

Total criminal

Major offense category

57

43

13

87

64

36 38

62

0

100

36

64

Percent due to increased workload

Percent due to other factors

Note: Workload was measured by representations closed.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Cost Per Representation

Closed Has Grown for All

Types of Defender Services

Attorneys

For each fiscal year 1990 through 1993, panel attorney costs per

representation closed were the highest and CDO costs the lowest.22 (See fig.

7.) Costs per representation closed for all three types of Defender Services

attorneys increased each year. Although CDOs still had the lowest cost per

representation in 1993), the 134-percent growth in CDO costs per

representation had narrowed the gap between CDOs and the other two

types of attorneys. In 1990, the FPD cost per representation closed was

about $300 lower than that of panel attorneys. By 1993, the cost advantage

22Based on aggregate data for all CDOs. CDO costs per representation closed are higher when the

workload and costs of the San Diego CDO are excluded from the analysis. All CDO cost and

representation data in this section include San Diego.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

had narrowed to about $100 per representation closed. However, if the

average panel attorney cost per representation is calculated excluding

death penalty representations, FPD average cost per representation closed

in fiscal year 1993 was about $130 more than the panel attorney average.

Including death penalty representations in calculating the overall panel

attorney average cost per representation added about $10 per

representation closed in fiscal year 1990 and about $223 in fiscal year 1993.

Figure 7: Average Cost per

Representation Closed for FPDs,

CDOs, and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal

Years 1990 Through 1993

Average cost per representation closed

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

FPDs CDOs Panel attorneys

including death

penalty

representations

Panel attorneys

excluding death

penalty

representations

Type of attorney

Fiscal year 1990

Fiscal year 1991

Fiscal year 1992

Fiscal year 1993

Note: Actual costs for this figure are shown in appendix II, table II.6.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

One possible reason for the generally higher panel attorney cost per

representation closed may be the higher average number of panel attorney

in-court hours per representation closed (see fig. 8). We could not

determine why panel attorneys apparently expended more in-court hours

per representation closed than did FPDs and CDOs. However, these

additional in-court hours can affect program costs. In 78 of the 94 districts

the hourly rate for in-court hours is $20 more than the rate for out-of-court

hours.

Figure 8: Average Number of In-Court

Hours per Representation Closed for

FPDs, CDOs, and Panel Attorneys,

Fiscal Years 1990-1993

Average number of in-court hours per representation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FPDs CDOs Panel attorneys

2.3

2.6

2.9 2.8

1.7

2.0

2.3 2.4

7.0

7.5 7.6

7.2

Fiscal year 1990

Fiscal year 1991

Fiscal year 1992

Fiscal year 1993

Note: Panel attorney data exclude death penalty representations.

Source: AOUSC.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Limited Data Were

Available to Verify the

Potential Causes of

Increased Costs per

Representation Closed

Overall, between fiscal years 1990 and 1993, we estimated that factors

other than increased representations closed accounted for about

74 percent of FPD cost growth, 62 percent of panel attorney growth, and

100 percent of CDO cost growth. Defender Services officials and Judicial

Conference and AOUSC studies offered a number of reasons why the cost

per representation closed had steadily increased for FPDs, CDOs, and panel

attorneys. These reasons included implementation of the federal

sentencing guidelines, which require additional attorney time; changing

prosecutorial priorities that increased the number of complex drug and

multiple defendant cases prosecuted in federal court, which were more

likely to result in trials for one or more defendants; and greater numbers

of offenses carrying mandatory minimum sentences, which were more

likely to result in trials.

These arguments were supported by some anecdotal evidence and such

aggregate empirical data as total district court criminal caseload statistics

showing a rising number of criminal trials and multiple defendant cases.

However, it was difficult to document that the reasons cited were in fact

the major contributing factors to rising workload and/or costs. This was

largely due to the absence of consistent, reliable data on such potential

causes of rising program costs as the number of Defender Services cases

involving multiple defendants or defendants charged with mandatory

minimum offenses; the percentage of such cases that go to trial; or the

number of cases investigated and developed by state agencies and handed

off to federal prosecutors because federal law and the sentencing

guidelines provided longer sentences. A more detailed analysis of the data

sources available to measure the impact of these factors is included in

appendix I.

As discussed in the following sections, there is some evidence that certain

of these factors may have affected program costs.

Impact of Sentencing

Guidelines

Recent Defender Services budget submissions have noted that the federal

sentencing guidelines, which became effective November 1, 1987,23 “have

profoundly altered the nature of the sentencing process and dramatically

increased federal and panel attorney workloads.” Contributing to the

impact on both attorney workload and program costs has been the need to

consider the accuracy of all facts in the judicial proceedings that could

affect the potential sentence under the guidelines; the many guidelines

amendments (434 between November 1987 and November 1991, for

23The guidelines apply to all federal criminal offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987.

However, the guidelines were not implemented nationally until after January 1989, when a U.S.

Supreme Court decision upheld their constitutionality. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).

Page 21 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

example); the increasing complexity of the guidelines; more defendants

choosing to go to trial under the guidelines; and the increased number of

sentencing appeals.

Our August 1992 sentencing guidelines report24 concluded that although

empirical data and reliable work measurements did not exist, available

statistics and our interviews suggested that the guidelines had apparently

increased criminal justice workload. Though Defender Services estimated

that the sentencing guidelines implementation had increased the time

required to provide representation by about 25 to 50 percent in most cases,

AOUSC officials could not provide data to substantiate this observation.

In addition, subsequent to the sentencing guidelines implementation, there

has been a rise in criminal appeals. The authorizing legislation for the

sentencing guidelines, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, provided for

appeals of sentences imposed by U.S. District Courts. For example, the act

provided that a defendant or the federal government may appeal a

sentence on the basis that the sentence was imposed as a result of an

incorrect application of the guidelines. Generally, appeals of sentences

were not common prior to the Sentencing Reform Act’s appellate review

provisions. There were 2,534 such sentencing appeals in fiscal year 1992,

or almost 23 percent of all criminal appeals. Defender Services appeals

representations closed more than doubled from about 3,300 in 1987 to

over 6,700 in 1993, but we could not determine how much of this increase

was attributable to appeals of sentence only.

The increase in the number of appeals and cost per appeals representation

closed has affected program costs. From fiscal years 1990 through 1993,

the cost per panel attorney appeals representation closed rose 24 percent

from $2,567 to $3,187,25 while the number of such appeals rose 118 percent

from 1,825 to 3,977. During the period, the cost per panel attorney appeals

representation closed was at least 20 percent more than criminal

representations closed and more than twice as much as “other”

representations closed.

Number and Length of Trials

Can Affect Costs

The number and length of criminal trials can also affect program costs.

The fiscal year 1994 Defender Services congressional budget submission

noted that the number of trials had increased, particularly for defendants

in multiple defendant cases or those charged with offenses requiring a

mandatory minimum prison term upon conviction. Although specific data

24Sentencing Guidelines: Central Questions Remain Unanswered (GAO/GGD 92-93, Aug. 14, 1992).

25Data to calculate the cost of FPD or CDO appeals representations closed were not available.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

on trials involving defendants represented by Defender Service attorneys

were not available, we did review general AOUSC statistical data on overall

trial trends.26

The number of criminal jury trials increased more than total criminal trials

(9.5 percent versus 2.9 percent) between statistical years 1990 and 1993.

Jury trials with 4 or more defendants increased about 15 percent (from 425

to 488) during the same period, though they tended to be a small and

stable percentage (between 8.4 and 8.8 percent) of total jury trials. Longer

criminal jury trials, those requiring 6 to 10 or 11 to 20 days, increased 22.9

and 17.3 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 1993.27 But such trials

have remained fairly constant as a percent of criminal jury trials. The

number of trials lasting 20 days or more has fluctuated by both district and

criminal offense.

The in-court hours recorded by FPDs, CDOs, and panel attorneys can be one

rough measure of trial time for Defender Services attorneys. While average

in-court time from fiscal years 1990 through 1993 has generally increased

for FPDs, CDOs, and panel attorneys, no clear pattern emerged. For

example, while average number of in-court hours for FPDs and CDOs in drug

offense representations closed generally increased, it generally declined

for panel attorneys. In average hours per representation closed, the largest

increase for panel attorneys was for fraud offenses (from an average of 7

to 11 hours); the largest for FPDs was fraud offenses (3.2 to 4.6); and the

largest for CDOs was for “other” offenses (2.1 to 4.3). Panel attorneys

consistently reported more in-court hours for all types of representations

than did FPDs or CDOs, but we could not determine why this was so.

Fiscal year 1993 data from the CDO for the Southern District of California in

San Diego provided some indication that representations for defendants

who had been charged with an offense carrying a mandatory minimum

prison term were more likely to be disposed of by trial than other criminal

representations. However, the CDO’s attorneys spent about the same

amount of in-court and out-of-court time on trials that did and did not

involve defendants charged with mandatory minimum offenses. The San

Diego data indicated that attorneys spent more time negotiating guilty

pleas in multiple defendant drug cases that involved mandatory minimums

than in multiple defendant drug cases that did not.

26AOUSC provided trial data by statistical year (July 1 to June 30). AOUSC’s trial database defines a

trial as any contested proceeding before a judge at which evidence is introduced.

27Trials lasting 6 to 10 days rose from 607 to 746. Trials lasting 11 to 20 days rose from 214 to 251.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

Prosecutorial Activities and

Other Factors

The Judiciary also has stated that workload and costs of Defender Service

attorneys in federal criminal cases have increased as a result of Justice

Department prosecutorial initiatives, such as the organized crime and drug

enforcement task forces. Although specific data were not available, the

Judiciary pointed out that these investigations often lead to cases that can

be rather complex and expensive to prosecute and defend.

Operation Weed and Seed is a multiple agency approach to combatting

violent crime, drugs, and gangs in high-crime areas. Project Triggerlock

targets dangerous, repeat offenders for prosecution in federal court as

opposed to state court to take advantage of federal mandatory minimum

penalties for firearms offenses. According to the Judiciary, both initiatives

have increased the complexity of cases and the subsequent costs of

Defender Services attorneys. However, the courts do not maintain detailed

data on the number of criminal cases resulting from these initiatives. Our

analysis showed that from fiscal years 1990 through 1993, the number of

weapons representations closed28 by Defender Services attorneys

increased by 75 percent to 3,279. Data were not available to determine

how many of these resulted from Operation Triggerlock investigations

and/or carried mandatory minimum sentences.

Various sources have also cited the growing number of multiple defendant

cases as a major contributor to increased program costs. Multiple

defendant cases can be more complex and time-consuming than other

cases, particularly when they involve sophisticated drug trafficking

organizations. Conflict of interest concerns have led FPDs and CDOs

generally to represent only one defendant in multiple defendant cases. The

remaining defendants are generally represented by panel attorneys, whom

our analysis and that of AOUSC showed were, overall, more costly per

representation closed than FPD and CDO lawyers.

Statistics were not available on the number of representations by Defender

Services attorneys in multiple defendant cases. However, AOUSC does

maintain national data on multiple defendant cases. These data showed

that the number of multiple defendant cases increased by about 9 percent

between statistical years 1990 and 1993 to about 8,100. However, as a

percent of all criminal cases, multiple defendant cases remained fairly

constant (between about 19 and 20 percent). The total number of multiple

defendant drug cases also increased; cases involving two to five

defendants accounted for most of the increase. In 1992 almost 4,000 cases,

28This is a representation in which the defendant is charged with a federal firearms violation, such as

the use or possession of a firearm during commission of a felony.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

or 36 percent of all drug cases, involved multiple defendants. However,

there were no reliable data available showing multiple defendant drug

cases by type of counsel.

The number of Defender Services representations closed for drug offenses

increased by 39 percent from 15,271 to 21,270 between fiscal years 1990

and 1993. Drug representations closed were 43 percent of all panel

attorney criminal representations closed during the period and, excluding

death penalty representations closed, generally were the most costly,

rising about 18 percent to an average of $3,152 in fiscal year 1993.29 Similar

cost data were not available for FDOs.

The Costs of Paying

Higher Hourly Rates

in 16 Districts

The current standard panel attorney rates of $40 for each out-of-court hour

and $60 for each in-court hour were set in 1984. On the basis of its

assessment of such factors as attorney compensation and expenses, the

Judicial Conference has approved higher rates in 89 districts (as of March

1995). However, at congressional direction, the Judicial Conference has

limited the actual payment of higher standard rates—a single rate of $60,

$70, or $75 per hour for both in-court and out-of-court hours—to all or

parts of the 16 districts for which the higher standard rates were approved

in January 1990.

Had the Judiciary paid the full amount panel attorneys requested in these

16 districts during fiscal years 1991 through 1993, the additional costs of

paying the higher rates would have been about $40.4 million, about 12

percent of total panel attorney obligations during the period. However,

with some regularity judges approved less than the total compensation

requested. Based on the amounts judges approved for payment, a more

accurate measure, the additional costs were about $33.5 million, or about

10.2 percent of total panel attorney obligations during the period.

Because they exclude virtually all appeals representations, these estimates

probably underestimate the additional costs. Appeals were excluded

because virtually all appeals representations in the database—at least

98 percent in each year for 1990 through 1993 and 85 percent in the first 6

months of 1994—were identified only by the appeals circuit and, thus,

could not be associated with a specific district (see app. I). Because the

jurisdictions of 11 of the 12 circuit courts of appeals cover several states

29By 1993 the average cost of fraud representations was $3,394, more than that for drug

representations. However, fraud representations were less than 10 percent of all panel attorney

criminal representations in 1993 and, thus, had a much smaller impact on program costs than drug

representations.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

and a number of districts, we could not use the circuit identifier for our

analysis in 11 of the 12 circuits.

Data Limitations

Precluded Full

Assessment of

Increase in DPRC

Workload and Costs

DPRCs were created in part to help reduce or contain the cost of death

penalty representations. Budget requests and appropriations for the

centers have increased sharply since the establishment of the first one in

1988. From fiscal years 1989 to 1994 the number of centers increased from

14 to 20, and the amounts appropriated for the centers more than tripled,

from $5,890,000 to $19,800,000.30 During the period, the overall cost per

case increased from $9,521 to $17,247, up about 81 percent (in current

dollars). (See table 3.)

Table 3: Total Workload, Total Costs, and Cost per Case for DPRCs and Panel Attorney Death Penalty Cases, Fiscal Years

1988-1994

DPRCs

Panel attorneys

Fiscal year

Total

DPRCsa Total cases Total costb Cost per casec Total cases Total costb Cost per casec

1988 3 NA $90,000 NA NA NA NA

1989 14 313 $2,980,000 $9,521 NA NA NA

1990 15 491 $5,640,000 $11,487 9 $299,288 $33,254

1991 16 670 $11,540,000 $17,224 121 $2,444,894 $20,206

1992 19 828 $11,540,000 $13,937 156 $5,398,658 $34,607

1993 19 1,014 $18,065,000 $17,816 246 $9,072,071 $36,878

1994 20 1,086 $18,730,000 $17,247 NA NA NA

Legend: NA = not available.

aTotal number at end of fiscal year.

bTotal budget obligations for DPRCs. Panel attorney obligations reflect attorney fees only.

cRounded to the nearest whole number. Total “cases” and cost per “case” for DPRCs are based

on representations pending at beginning of the fiscal year plus new appointments. Total panel

attorney “cases” and cost per “case” are based on representations closed during the fiscal year.

Source: Judiciary’s fiscal year 1996 Congressional Budget Justifications for Defender Services

(DPRC data) and other AOUSC data (panel attorneys).

AOUSC offered three major reasons for the increases in total costs and costs

per representation: more operational centers, increased caseload, and

increased complexity of death penalty litigation. While the number of

death penalty cases in federal courts has increased, the lack of a reliable

30The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $265,000 less than the 1993 appropriation of $20,065,000. The

fiscal year 1994 request was $30,559,000.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

death penalty identifier in the database precluded an accurate measure of

the increase. Almost all death penalty cases in federal courts arise from

state death penalty convictions. Between the end of calendar years 1989

and 1993, the total number of persons sentenced to death, including those

convicted and sentenced in state courts, rose from 2,186 to 2,785. As of

March 1995, only 6 persons had been convicted and sentenced to death in

federal courts.

AOUSC asserted that the services provided by the centers actually lower

federal death penalty litigation costs by

• encouraging competent private attorneys to immediately accept death

penalty cases;

• providing consultation, investigative, and other services to private

attorneys; and

• using expert, salaried center attorneys to directly represent

defendants/prisoners.

Due to data limitations, we could not fully assess the validity of these

assertions. Comparable empirical data on case complexity and reliable

baseline data concerning death penalty litigation costs prior to

implementation of the resource centers were not available, and much of

the available cost information was anecdotal. Our analysis of aggregate

data from quarterly reports was limited because (1) comparable reports

were available only for fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993; (2) the 1992 and

1993 reports included centers not operational in 1991; and (3) complete

data were not available from all operational centers. These data limitations

in turn precluded a full assessment of the costs of death penalty litigation.

The absence of a reliable district identifier in panel attorney death penalty

representations precluded a cost comparison of such representations in

districts with and without DPRCs to determine if the costs were less in

districts with DPRCs.

Efforts to Improve

Program Data and

Operations

In its fiscal year 1995 congressional budget submission, the Judiciary

acknowledged that it did not have sufficient data or analyses to explain

the causes of increased panel attorney costs and announced steps to

improve Defender Services program operations, enhance data collection

and analysis, and reduce costs. According to AOUSC officials, many of these

initiatives were undertaken in response to congressional concerns and/or

our inquiries. Several were recommended by the Economy Subcommittee

Page 27 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

of the Judicial Conference’s Budget Committee or the Defender Services

Committee.

Among the initiatives are (1) the creation of a nine-person program

analysis office within the Defender Services Division of AOUSC; (2) efforts

to develop Defender Services case weights and FDO work measurement

formulas and improve available analytical data by requiring additional

financial and statistical data, including FDO reporting of out-of-court time;

(3) implementation of new “death penalty” panel attorney vouchers to aid

improved cost analysis; (4) continuation of a study to assess the impact of

the federal sentencing guidelines on program costs; and (5) improved

audits of FPDs, CDOs, and DPRCs. The Judiciary also announced steps to

control FDO costs, such as limitations on space alterations, salary

increases, and travel.

The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Defender Services has

established a Death Penalty Representation subcommittee (generally

known as the Cox Committee, after its Chair, Judge Emmett R. Cox) to

reevaluate the DPRC concept and report on proposals for containing death

penalty litigation costs. The subcommittee is reviewing available data,

soliciting the views of various sources, and planning to complete its work

during the summer of 1995.

AOUSC’s Office of Audit continues to play a role in evaluating various

aspects of the program. The Office, either directly or through its

contractor accounting firm, conducts periodic financial audits of court

operations, which include reviews of FPD activities and panel attorney

payments. The Office’s audit staff has identified some FPD office

deficiencies regarding payroll, time and attendance, and disbursements, as

well as problems in some DPRCs’ reporting on time spent on federal

representations. At its January 1995 meeting, the Judicial Conference’s

Committee on Defender Services directed AOUSC to contract centrally for

audits of CDOs and DPRCs.

AOUSC’s comments on a draft of this report mentioned some additional

initiatives (see app. III).

Agency Comments AOUSC’s written comments incorporated the views of the Chair of the

Judicial Conference’s Committee on Defender Services. AOUSC said that the

findings and issues identified in our report would assist the Judiciary in its

ongoing efforts to increase the type, quality, and consistency of data being

Page 28 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
B-259805 

collected on the activities of FDOs, DPRCs, and panel attorneys. AOUSC

identified a number of specific efforts, planned and underway, to improve

data collection and analysis and contain Defender Services costs. A

number of these efforts were initiated in response to our work. On the

basis of our review of the information provided by AOUSC, we agree that

successful completion of AOUSC’s efforts—both those mentioned in its

letter and those discussed in our report—would help to rectify the issues

identified in our report. The full text of AOUSC’s comments are in appendix

III.

We are sending copies of this report to the Subcommittees on Commerce,

Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies of the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority

Members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary; the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Judiciary

Subcommittee on the Judiciary and Intellectual Property; the Chairman

and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on

the Courts and Administrative Practice; the Director of the Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts; the Chairman of the Judicial Conference of the

United States’ Committee on Defender Services; and other interested

parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. If you have any

questions about the contents of this report, please call me on

(202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 29 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

34

Appendix II 

Selected Data on

Defender Services

Workload and Costs

51

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts

69

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

72

Tables Table 1: Number of Federal Public and Community Defender

Organizations and Number of Districts Served, Fiscal Years 1990

to 1994

3

Table 2: Federal Defender Services Budget Obligations by Major

Activity, Fiscal Years 1990-1994

9

Table 3: Total Workload, Total Costs, and Cost per Case for

DPRCs and Panel Attorney Death Penalty Cases, Fiscal Years

1988-1994

26

Table I.1: Criminal Defendant Workload Data Available From

Four Databases of the Federal Judiciary

38

Table II.1: Representations Closed by Federal Defender

Organizations and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990 Through

First 6 Months of 1994

52

Table II.2: Defender Services Representations Closed by Type of

Attorney, Fiscal Years 1990 Through First 6 Months of 1994

54

Page 30 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Contents

Table II.3: Comparison of Average In-Court Hours by Type of

Representation Closed for Federal Public Defender

Organizations, Community Defender Organizations, and Panel

Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990 Through First 6 Months of 1994

56

Table II.4: Criminal Representations Closed by Federal Defender

Organizations and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990 Through

First 6 Months of 1994

57

Table II.5: Comparison of Average In-Court Hours for Federal

Public Defender Organizations, Community Defender

Organizations, and Panel Attorneys by Major Offense Category in

Criminal Representations Closed, Fiscal Years 1990 Through First

6 Months of 1994

58

Table II.6: Average Cost per Representation Closed by Federal

Public Defender Organizations, Community Defender

Organizations, and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990 Through

First 6 Months of 1994

60

Table II.7: Number of Panel Attorney Representations Closed and

Average Cost per Representation Closed by Type of

Representation, Fiscal Years 1990 Through First 6 Months of 1994

62

 Table II.8: Number of Panel Attorney Criminal Representations

Closed, Total Costs, and Average Cost per Representation Closed

by Major Offense Category, Fiscal Years 1990 Through 1993

64

Table II.9: Districts in Which Higher Standard Panel Attorney

Rates Have Been Implemented as of January 1, 1990

66

Table II.10: Estimated Additional Cost of Paying Panel Attorneys

Higher Standard Rates in Sixteen Districts

67

Table II.11: Death Penalty Resource Centers, End of Fiscal Year

1993

68

Figures Figure 1: Percent Change in Total Representations Closed,

Budget Obligations, and Average Cost per Representation Closed

for FPDs, CDOs, and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990-1993

11

Figure 2: Representations Closed by Federal Defender

Organizations and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990-1993

13

Figure 3: Percent Change in Criminal Representations Closed by

Type of Defender Services Attorney and Major Offense Category,

Fiscal Years 1990-1993

14

Figure 4: Estimated Percent of the Total Increase in FPD, CDO,

and Panel Attorney Costs Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1993

Resulting From Increased Representations Closed or From Other

Factors

16

Page 31 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Contents

Figure 5: Estimated Percent of the Total Increase in Panel

Attorney Costs Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1993 Resulting

From Increased Representations Closed or from Other Factors

17

Figure 6: Estimated Percent of the Total Increase in Costs of

Panel Attorney Criminal Representations Closed Between Fiscal

Years 1990 and 1993 Resulting From Increased Representations

Closed or From Other Factors

18

Figure 7: Average Cost per Representation Closed for FPDs,

CDOs, and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990 Through 1993

19

Figure 8: Average Number of In-Court Hours per Representation

Closed for FPDs, CDOs, and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years

1990-1993

20

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

CDO Community Defender Organization

DPRC Death Penalty Resource Center

FDO Federal Defender Organization

FPD Federal Public Defender (Organization)

Page 32 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Page 33 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The former Chairman, and now Ranking Minority Member, of the

Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the

Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations,

requested that we examine a number of issues regarding the Federal

Defender Services program and the causes of the rapid growth in both

program workload and costs. Specifically, we were asked to assess, for

fiscal years 1990 to 1993 and the first half of 1994:

• the causes of the growth in overall Defender Services workload and costs,

including the reasons that Defender Services workload has grown faster

than district court criminal cases;

• the comparative costs of representations closed provided by FDOs and

panel attorneys and, if the FDO costs were lower, what actions the federal

judiciary was taking to increase the use of FDOs;

• the additional costs of paying standard higher hourly rates to panel

attorneys in all or parts of 16 districts; and

• the causes of the increased workload and costs of the DPRCs, including

whether the DPRCs had helped to reduce or contain the costs of panel

attorney death penalty representations.

However, because of the data limitations described below, and as agreed

with the requestor, we changed our objectives to provide information on

(1) reasons that Defender Services workload has grown faster than district

court criminal cases; (2) data available to assess the causes of increased

Defender Services workload and costs; (3) comparative costs of

representations closed by federal defender organizations and by private

attorneys directly assigned by federal judges; (4) additional costs of paying

higher standard hourly rates to private, court-appointed attorneys in all or

parts of 16 districts; (5) the comparative costs of panel attorney and DPRC

death penalty representations; and (6) the potential causes of increased

DPRC workload and costs.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed prior studies of the Federal

Defender Services program, including those of the Committee to Review

the Criminal Justice Act (commonly referred to as the Prado Committee),

the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Defender Services

Division, and the Financial Analysis Office of the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). We also reviewed a number of private studies of

death penalty litigation, including studies of DPRCs by the Spangenberg

Group, a consulting firm.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We met with federal court officials, including the Chairman of the

Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the

Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services, the

Defender Services Advisory Committee, and the Chief Judge of the Second

Circuit court of appeals. We also met with judges, federal and community

defenders, and other officials in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New

York, Eastern District of Michigan, District of New Jersey, District of

Delaware, and Southern District of California. These districts were

judgmentally selected. Delaware was chosen because it was served by the

FPD for New Jersey. The districts of Southern and Eastern New York,

Eastern Michigan, and New Jersey had large criminal caseloads and were

near our regional office staff. We chose the Southern District of California

because Defender Services officials told us this district had developed a

method of tracking attorney hours that captured many of the elements,

such as representations for defendants charged with offenses carrying a

mandatory minimum sentence, not captured by the national data systems

used in our analysis. We also met with AOUSC officials in the Office of

Audit, Defender Services Division, Office of Finance and Budget, and

Statistics Division to discuss a number of issues, including studies they

had or were conducting on Defender Services workload and costs.

Data Available on

Defender Services

Workload and Costs

We identified the workload and cost data available from AOUSC. FPD and

CDO workload data are reported semiannually by each office on form JS-50.

We obtained these semiannual workload reports for fiscal years 1990,

1991, 1992, 1993, and the first half of fiscal year 1994 and produced a

dataset to analyze FPD and CDO workload by case type, disposition (where

available), and type of representation—criminal, appeals, and all other

representations (such as bail and probation/parole revocation hearings

and habeas corpus proceedings).

We obtained a copy of the automated database created from the vouchers

submitted by panel attorneys for fiscal years 1990 through 1993, plus the

first 6 months of fiscal year 1994. This database contained data on the

amount of in-court and out-of-court compensation requested by panel

attorneys and approved by the court, the approval date, the payment date,

and the attorney’s authorized hourly in-court and out-of-court billing rates.

We did not verify the accuracy of the data entered on the forms or the

database AOUSC provided. However, edit checks on the internal reliability

of data in selected data fields in the database, such as attorney hourly

rates, revealed some questions about the accuracy of the data in these

fields. These problems are discussed in later sections of this appendix.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

AOUSC’s master criminal file provided a wide variety of data on overall

criminal workload in the federal district courts. We used this database, the

annual statistical reports of the courts, and a Statistics Division analysis to

identify trends in total district court criminal workload, such as the

number of multiple defendant criminal cases filed in district courts, the

number of trials with four or more defendants, and trial lengths in days.

However, the master criminal file did not reliably differentiate between

Defender Services cases and other cases, precluding a comparison of

overall workload trends and Defender Services workload trends. In

addition, data on some of the workload and cost variables we were asked

to examine were unavailable or too incomplete to be analyzed. These

included data on:

• the number of defendants who required court-appointed counsel because

their assets had been seized or frozen (not available);

• the total number of cases in which defendants were charged with offenses

carrying mandatory minimum sentences (not available nationally,

although we found that the CDO for the Southern District of California

maintained such data, beginning in fiscal year 1993);

• the number of panel attorney appointments resulting from multiple

defendant cases in which more than one defendant required a

court-appointed attorney (not available nationally);1

• the additional hours Defender Services attorneys expend on

representations because of the implementation of the federal sentencing

guidelines (not available);

• federal prosecutions of cases developed by state investigative agencies,

such as weapons or drug cases prosecuted in federal courts to take

advantage of higher mandatory minimum sentences imposed under the

federal sentencing guidelines (not available from AOUSC).2

• the link between the increased number of assistant U.S. Attorneys and the

number of criminal cases filed in U.S. district courts (only basic trends can

be described from available data, such as the percent increase in resources

for criminal prosecutions and criminal cases initiated in federal courts).

1

In such cases, only one defendant was generally to be assigned to the local FPD or CDO; all remaining

defendants requiring court-appointed counsel were to be assigned to panel attorneys. The rationale for

limiting FPD and CDO appointments to a single defendant in multiple defendant cases is to avoid

conflicts of interest that may arise from representing more than one defendant in the same case.

2

The U.S. Attorney database indicated that the U.S. Attorneys initiated a total of 35,000 criminal cases

in federal district courts in fiscal year 1992, including 1,158 cases referred by state investigative

agencies and 344 cases referred by District of Columbia authorities. About two-thirds of the cases

referred by state or D.C. authorities were narcotics cases.

Page 36 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Defender Services officials said that each of these factors had contributed

to increased attorney hours and costs per representation closed. Early in

our work we informed Subcommittee staff that these data limitations

precluded an assessment of the direct impact of individual factors on

Defender Services workload and costs. Therefore, as agreed with the

requestor, we changed our objectives. Table I.1 summarizes the limitations

of available Defender Services workload and cost data for criminal

representations closed.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table I.1: Criminal Defendant Workload

Data Available From Four Databases of

the Federal Judiciary

Criminal cases assigned to

Defender Services attorneys

Type of data

All criminal

casesa FDOsb

Panel

attorneysc

San Diego

CDOd

Workload data

Number of new defendants who

received appointed counsel

Yese Yes Nof Yes

Number of multidefendant cases Yes No No Yes

Number of defendants whose

cases were completed (disposed)

Yes Yesg Yesg Yes

Number of in-court hours per

representation closed

Noh Yes Yes Yes

Number of out-of-court hours per

representation closed

Noh Noi Yes Yes

Disposition and offense data

Total dispositions by type of 

disposition—casesj

Yes No No Yes

Total dispositions by type of 

disposition—defendants

Yes Yesg No Yes

Disposition by type of offense Yesk No No Yes

Number of defendants charged

with mandatory minimum offense In partl No No Yes

Cost data

Cost per representation closedm No Yes Yes Yes

Cost per representation closed

by district Noh Yesn In parto Yes

Cost by type of representation

closedp

Noh No Yes No

Cost by offense category Noh No Yes No

Appeals data

Number of appeals closed Yes Yes Yes Yes

Appeal of sentence Yes Noq Noq Yes

Appeal of conviction Yes Yes Yes Yes

aCriminal cases in district courts were recorded in the master criminal file; the appeals database

contained data on criminal appeals; the trial database included data on the number and length of

criminal trials.

bData for these offices are reported semiannually on the JS-50 form.

cPanel attorney workload data were derived from the CJA-20 database which includes data from

the forms (called CJA-20s) on which panel attorneys requested payment and on which approved

payments were recorded. Attorney requests for payment for other expenses, such as expert

witnesses and investigators, were reported on the CJA-21 form, which we did not review.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

dThe CDO for the Southern District of California in San Diego has developed its own automated

system for tracking attorney hours and assignments that includes many data elements not

recorded on the forms we reviewed. The San Diego system was not designed to track costs per

representation.

eThe master criminal file included a field for type of legal counsel, including whether the

defendant had a court-appointed attorney. However, according to AOUSC, the data in this field

were not reliable. Our own validity test confirmed this assessment. The data in this field could be

entered twice—when the case was filed and when the case was closed.

f

A representation appeared in the database only when an attorney submitted a request for partial

or complete payment. This request may not have appeared in the file for the fiscal year in which

the attorney was appointed. If the attorney submitted two vouchers for the same representation in

two different fiscal years, the second voucher was counted as a separate representation. Thus, it

was possible to double-count representations and defendants in such cases. For example, in

fiscal years 1991 and 1992 we found that 1,591 (about 2 percent) of the panel attorney

representations were double-counted.

gFor panel attorneys, determining the number of unique defendants disposed requires matching

individual vouchers with a number of data elements as discussed later in this appendix. The

number of defendants disposed by each type of counsel cannot necessarily be added together

to obtain the total number of separate defendants whom FDOs and panel attorneys have

represented. It is possible for a single defendant to be represented by more than one type of

attorney. For example, the defendant could be represented by a FPD or CDO attorney at the bail

hearing, but by a panel attorney for the remainder of the case. In such instances, Defender

Services data would report two representations—one for FDOs in the JS-50 reports (under “other”

representations for the bail hearing), and one in the CJA-20 database (under criminal

representations) for the panel attorney representation.

hNot available. The master criminal file and appeals databases were designed to track overall

workload, not cost per case or attorney or judge hours per case.

i

Out-of-court hours were to be reported beginning in fiscal year 1995.

j

Types of dispositions included guilty pleas, dismissals, acquittals, and trials, including both

nonjury and jury trials. The master criminal file defines nonjury trials as any contested proceeding

before a judge at which evidence is introduced.

k

The master criminal file contained data on the type of disposition by case and defendant, but not

on the length of the trial, if there was a trial. The trial database contained data on the length of

criminal trials but not by type of offense, such as drugs or weapons.

l

The master criminal file included the most serious charge at indictment and the most serious

charge of conviction as determined by the maximum penalty that could be imposed. If the

mandatory minimum offense were not the most serious charge in either case, it would not be

shown in the database.

mIn its December 1992 study of Defender Services costs, AOUSC calculated the cost per

representation closed for FPDs and CDOs by dividing their total obligations by the total number of

representations closed. In the fiscal year 1995 budget submission, cost per representation closed

was calculated as total obligations divided by total new appointments. The cost data for panel

attorneys in both the December 1992 study and the fiscal year 1995 budget submission reflected

representations for which at least partial payment had been made. Our analysis used

representations closed for both types of counsel. For panel attorneys, we used the same

definition of case closed as AOUSC.

nSome FDOs serve more than one district. There is a place on the form to identify the district of

jurisdiction. We did not use these data or check their reliability.

Page 39 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

oIn the database the district of origin was not available for about 98 percent of appeals

representations closed for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 and for about 85 percent of

representations closed in the first 6 months of fiscal year 1994. The district of origin was missing

for about 10 percent or less for all other types of representations.

pTypes of representations included criminal, appeals, and other (which includes bail hearings,

probation and parole revocations, and civil actions, such as habeas corpus proceedings and

prisoner petitions).

qData included total number of appeals, but not whether the appeal was an appeal of conviction,

sentence, or both. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a defendant may appeal the

sentence without appealing the conviction. The government may also appeal the sentence.

The types of data reported for panel attorneys and for FDOs differed in

many respects, significantly limiting the comparisons that could be made

between the work of panel attorneys and defender organizations. As

shown in table I.1, the criminal caseload data available from the principal

judiciary databases were varied and not always comparable. While the

number of multiple defendant cases could be obtained from the master

criminal file, for example, we could not determine how many defendants

in these cases required court-appointed counsel. The national workload

data available for FDOs and CDOs included the number of new

representations, number of representations closed, and number of

representations pending at the end of the fiscal year. However, the data

available on panel attorneys included only the number of representations

closed—representations for which panel attorneys had requested

payment. If the representation were closed, but the panel attorney did not

request payment during the same fiscal year, the representation would not

appear in the database until the attorney had submitted a voucher for

payment.

Comparison of

Defender Services

Representations With

District Court

Criminal Workload

To determine why the rate of Defender Services representations closed

has exceeded the increase in criminal filings in recent years, we tried to

identify those Defender Services representations that were most

analogous to criminal filings in district courts. Defender Services

representations were reported in three broad categories—criminal,

appeals, and other. After consulting with Defender Services and AOUSC’s

Statistics Division, we determined that the category “criminal

representations” was most analogous to criminal filings as reported by the

district courts and recorded in the master criminal file.

Appeals are reported in AOUSC statistical reports as workload of the courts

of appeals. Thus, such representations would not be reported in district

court workload statistics. The category “other representations” included

Page 40 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

proceedings, such as prisoner petitions and habeas corpus petitions, that

are civil actions and reported in district court civil workload statistics.

Defendants disposed rather than commenced in district courts was the

most appropriate comparison between Defender Services criminal

representations and district court criminal workload statistics. This was

because panel attorney data were not available on new appointments but

were available only for representations closed (those for which payment

had been requested). When this comparison was made, we found that

Defender Services criminal representations did not exceed the number of

criminal defendants disposed in district courts.

Comparing FDO and

Panel Attorney

Workload and Costs

As summarized in table I.1, comparable workload and cost data for FDOs

and panel attorneys were limited. FPDs and CDOs reported aggregate data

on case disposition (such as trial or guilty plea); panel attorneys did not.

Panel attorneys reported both in-court and out-of-court hours; FPDs and

CDOs reported only in-court hours. Because panel attorneys submitted

vouchers for each type of representation they were assigned—criminal

representations, appeals, other—it was possible to calculate the average

cost per representation for different types of panel attorney

representations. However, FPD and CDO cost data were not available by

type of representation. Consequently, we could not determine FPD and CDO

costs by type of representation using existing data. Therefore, we used

aggregate FPD and CDO costs per representation when comparing panel

attorney and FDO costs per representation.

An AOUSC study found that CDOs had a lower average cost per

representation closed than FPDs or panel attorneys. Defender Services

officials suggested that a large number of relatively inexpensive

immigration representations, particularly in the CDO for the Southern

District of California in San Diego, may have largely accounted for the

lower average CDO costs. The CDO for the Southern District of California

accounted for more than half of all Defender Services immigration

representations. Because of its impact on total CDO workload and costs, we

examined CDO workload and costs with and without San Diego included in

the analyses.

The San Diego CDO has developed its own system for tracking attorney

assignments and hours that captured a variety of data not available from

the AOUSC forms, such as representations involving offenses carrying a

mandatory minimum prison term, dispositions by type of offense, in-court

Page 41 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

and out-of-court hours by type of offense, and multiple defendant cases.

The San Diego system was not designed to capture costs per

representation closed but was principally designed to track attorney hours

and aid in attorney assignments. The fiscal year 1993 San Diego data on

attorney hours provided a case study of the impact of multiple defendant

cases and representations involving mandatory minimum offenses on

attorney hours. The San Diego data also illustrated how such attorney

hour data could aid the Defender Services Division in analyzing its

workload.

How We Counted FPD,

CDO, and Panel Attorney

Representations

To compare the workload and per representation costs for FPDs, CDOs, and

panel attorneys, we developed a working definition of representation, and

calculated costs and in-court hours per representation. As explained

below, we used representations closed as our basic measure of Defender

Services workload. Because FPDs and CDOs did not report out-of-court

hours per representation closed for the years we reviewed, we could only

compare in-court hours per representation closed for FPDs, CDOs, and panel

attorneys.

Prior to its fiscal year 1996 submission, the Judiciary’s congressional

budget submissions counted workload differently for FDOs and panel

attorneys. FPDs and CDOs have been reported as cases opened, the basic

equivalent of new court appointments. For panel attorneys, the

submissions have used “cases against which payment is made in a given

fiscal year.” In its fiscal year 1996 submission, the Judiciary used

“representations closed” for reporting FPD and CDO workload, adopting the

method we used to count workload.

Our analysis used FPD and CDO representations closed as reported on the

AOUSC forms, because data for panel attorneys were available only for

(1) closed representations; or (2) representations for which panel

attorneys had requested partial payment, though the case may not yet have

been completed.3

 We defined a panel attorney representation as the

representation of a defendant charged with or convicted of a specific

offense by a private, court-appointed attorney. Representations for

convicted defendants included appeals of conviction and/or sentence or

habeas corpus proceedings in which the defendant may be challenging a

state conviction in federal court.4

3

While panel attorneys are generally expected to submit a single voucher after the representation is

closed, they may and do submit interim vouchers for payment.

4

Habeas corpus proceedings are civil, not criminal, proceedings.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We took several steps to avoid double-counting panel attorney

representations closed. When a panel attorney was appointed, the court

assigned a unique voucher number that the panel attorney was to use

when submitting request(s) for payment. Panel attorneys may submit more

than one voucher for each representation using the voucher number they

were assigned upon appointment. We considered all claims for payment

under a single voucher number to be part of a single representation. If

payments under the same voucher number were approved and paid in two

successive fiscal years, AOUSC counted the request for payment in the new

fiscal year as a separate representation. We found 691 voucher numbers

that appeared in fiscal years 1990 and 1991, 900 numbers that appeared in

fiscal years 1991 and 1992, and 1,202 numbers that appeared in fiscal years

1992 and 1993.5

 Thus, AOUSC would have counted as separate

representations 691 voucher numbers in 1991, 900 in 1992, and 1,202 in

1993.

We followed the AOUSC convention because we were tracking payments

per representation closed in each fiscal year. Thus, like AOUSC, our counts

of representations closed in each fiscal year were not precisely accurate.

First, we overestimated representations actually closed in fiscal year 1990

by as much as 691 (2.4 percent of the 28,575 representations we attributed

to 1990); in fiscal 1991 by as many as 900 (2.5 percent of 36,027

representations); and in fiscal year 1992 by as many as 1,202

representations (3.3 percent of 36,479 representations).

Second, this method of counting did not accurately reflect panel attorney

costs per representation closed. If each voucher number appearing in two

fiscal years represented a single representation, then the true cost for each

representation closed would be the total of all the payments made under

each voucher number for both fiscal years. This approach affected hours

per representation closed for the same reason. The total attorney hours

appearing in both fiscal years would be the true hours per representation

closed.

Some defendants were represented by more than one panel attorney in the

same case, but we counted such situations as a single representation. To

determine a single panel attorney representation, we matched offense,

court district, docket number, and defendant name. Multiple records and

multiple voucher numbers that matched exactly on these data elements

were considered part of a single representation. If they did not match on

all data elements, we counted them as separate representations.

5

We did not determine how many numbers, if any, appeared in more than two successive fiscal years.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

How We Calculated Costs

per Representation Closed

We calculated FPD and CDO costs per representation closed by dividing the

total budget obligations for all FPDs or CDOs by the total number of FPD (or

CDO) representations closed in that fiscal year, as reported on the AOUSC

forms. Thus, if total FPD obligations were $100,000 and total

representations closed were 1,000, the cost per FPD representation closed

would be $100 ($100,000/1,000). This calculation was not very precise, but

available data did not permit a more detailed estimate of costs per

representation closed. This methodology may have overstated the FPD and

CDO costs per representation closed because an undeterminable portion of

their budgets was used for representations opened, but not closed, during

the fiscal year. In addition, FDO attorneys provide training for panel

attorneys, the costs of which are included in FDO budgets.

The calculation of panel attorney costs per representation closed was

somewhat more complicated. The AOUSC used “payment date”—the date on

which the check was written—to calculate per representation costs. In

fiscal years 1991 and 1992, payments to panel attorneys were deferred due

to shortage of funds, with large numbers of payments made in the first

month of the new fiscal year. Thus, payment date was not necessarily the

best measure of when the representation was closed. Therefore, we used

“certification date,” the date on which the court approved payment,

because this date was likely to be closer to the date on which the work

was completed and payment requested than the payment date.

We calculated costs per representation closed using a two-step process.

First, to determine costs for closed representations having a single panel

attorney, we aggregated all payments for each voucher number. That is, if

there were five payments approved for voucher number 12345, we

combined all five payments to obtain a single cost for that voucher

number. Second, we aggregated all payments for each voucher number

associated with the same representation. For example, if voucher numbers

54321 and 67890 were associated with the same representation, we

combined them into a single total for that representation.

As noted, our panel attorney costs per representation closed may be

somewhat understated since in the database we used the costs for as many

as 691 representations that were split between fiscal years 1990 and 1991,

900 between 1991 and 1992, and 1,202 between 1992 and 1993. Moreover,

our costs per representation closed included attorney time only. The costs

of experts, investigators, and other services, reported on another form,

were not included in our costs because of the difficulty of matching these

payments, recorded in a separate database, with the representations

Page 44 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

recorded in the AOUSC database for attorney hours. However, such costs

were included in the costs for FPDs and CDOs, since these costs were

included in the total budget obligations we used to calculate FPD and CDO

costs. Thus, the FPD and CDO cost per representation closed used in our

analysis included all costs incurred by these organizations, while our panel

attorney cost per representation closed included only attorney time.

Consequently, any FPD or CDO cost advantage we found in our analysis was

probably somewhat understated.

How We Calculated Hours

per Representation Closed

We used the in-court hours reported on the JS-50 forms for

representations closed to calculate FPD and CDO in-court hours per

representation closed. FPDs and CDOs did not report out-of-court hours.

Panel attorney vouchers included separate sections for in-court and

out-of-court compensation requested and approved. In all but 16 districts

panel attorneys were reimbursed at the standard rate of $60 per hour for

in-court time and $40 per hour for out-of-court time. Thus, in these

districts in-court hours are reimbursed at a rate 50 percent higher than

out-of-court hours. The court may reduce the amount requested for either

in-court compensation, out-of-court compensation, or both. However,

where the court made a reduction in the amount approved for payment,

the database did not usually indicate the number of attorney hours by

which the request had been reduced. Rather, the database showed

separately the amount requested and the amount approved for payment.

Because attorney hours were not entered into the automated database,

AOUSC calculated the actual number of in-court hours expended per panel

attorney representations by dividing the total amount of compensation

requested (for example, $2,400) for in-court time by the authorized hourly

rate ($60 in most districts). The same calculation was made for

out-of-court hours. The database supports no other reasonable method of

calculation. Consequently, we used the same method to calculate attorney

hours per representation closed.

If the the authorized hourly rate is recorded erroneously on the CJA-20,

this would affect the calculation of attorney hours. We found a wide

variety of hourly rates reported in the database for both death penalty and

nondeath penalty representations. Some appeared to be keying errors. For

example, in more than 1,300 nondeath penalty panel attorney

representations in fiscal year 1993 the out-of-court hourly rate was

recorded as $752, perhaps reflecting a data entry error. The correct rate

was probably $75—the higher standard hourly rate in those districts

Page 45 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

authorized to pay the higher rates. However, because of the method used

to calculate panel attorney hours, this error would reduce by a factor of 10

the actual out-of-court hours reported as expended in such cases. Due to

resource limitations, we did not validate the hourly rates entered in the

database. Consequently, we could not determine the magnitude of the

error that may be attributable to such erroneous hourly rates, and the data

used in our analyses were based on the rates as reported in the database.

FPDs and CDOs were not assigned death penalty cases during the period of

our review. Therefore, when comparing FPD, CDO, and panel attorney

average costs per representation closed, we used the average panel

attorney cost per representation closed, excluding death penalty

representations. We separately calculated the costs for panel attorney

death penalty representations closed for the analysis on death penalty

representations.

How We Estimated the

Impact of Increased

Representations Closed on

Program Costs

To estimate the impact of increased workload (as measured by

representations closed) on program costs, we estimated what fiscal year

1993 costs would have been if the average cost per representation closed

had remained unchanged throughout the period at the fiscal year 1990

average cost per representation closed (unadjusted for inflation). For

example, in fiscal year 1990, total panel attorney criminal representation

costs were $47,212,797, with an average cost of $1,985 each. At $1,985

each, the 29,237 panel attorney criminal representations closed in fiscal

year 1993 would have cost $58,035,445, or $10,822,648 more than the total

1990 costs. However, total 1993 panel attorney costs for criminal

representations were actually $30,009,222 more than the 1990 total. Thus,

we estimated that the increased workload accounted for about 36 percent

of increased panel attorney costs for criminal representations between

fiscal years 1990 and 1993.6

We did not adjust the 1990 cost per representation closed for inflation

because we wanted a comparable estimate for panel attorneys and FDOs.

While FDO attorneys received cost-of-living adjustments during the period

(though not always at the same time in the fiscal year), the basic panel

attorney hourly rates in 78 of 94 districts remained unchanged at $40

(out-of-court) and $60 (in-court). We had already separately estimated the

impact of paying higher standard hourly rates to panel attorneys in the 16

districts in which higher rates were paid in fiscal years 1991, 1992, and

6

This is derived by dividing $10,822,648 (the cost of the increased workload at the 1990 average cost

per representation closed) by $30,009,222 (the actual increased costs).

Page 46 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

1993. Although our use of 1990 average costs unadjusted for inflation may

have underestimated the impact of increased workload on program costs,

particularly for FDOs, it was the most straightforward method of

developing reasonable, comparable estimates for panel attorneys and

FDOs.

How We Calculated

the Additional Cost of

Paying Higher Hourly

Rates in 16 Districts

In 78 districts, panel attorneys are paid a standard hourly rate of $40 for

each out-of-court hour and $60 for each in-court hour. In all or parts of 16

districts, panel attorneys are paid a single, standard higher hourly rate of

$60, $70, or $75 for both in-court and out-of-court hours. The applicable

rate varies by district. The AOUSC database included the hourly rate and the

separate amounts of compensation requested for in-court and out-of-court

hours, but the database did not include the number of in-court or

out-of-court hours on which the request was based. We excluded from our

analysis representations compensated at rates other than the standard

higher rates, as applicable, of $60, $70, or $75 per hour in these 16 districts.

Representations compensated at other hourly rates would, by definition,

have been exceptions to the standard higher hourly rates prevailing in

these districts. In some of these districts, the higher rate applies only to

specific location(s) within the district. To the extent that the higher

standard rates were approved in specific cases outside these locations,

they would be included in our analysis because we could identify

representations only by district, not by specific locations within a district.

We calculated the number of in-court hours and out-of-court hours by

dividing the total requested amount by the approved hourly rate. We used

these hours to recalculate the requested compensation at the rate of $40

for each out-of-court hour and $60 for each in-court hour. This provided a

comparison between requested compensation at the higher standard rate

in these districts and the amount that would have been requested using the

lower standard hourly rates of $40 out-of-court and $60 in-court.

However, the courts reduced some requests for compensation at the

higher rates. Consequently, a comparison based solely on requested

compensation would overstate the amount actually paid in the higher-rate

districts. To determine how much had actually been approved and paid in

each of the 16 higher-rate districts, we used the AOUSC database to identify

the amount by which the requests for compensation had been reduced in

each district.

Page 47 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We then compared the amounts actually approved and paid at the higher

rates with the amounts that would have been requested at the lower rates.

We did not also reduce the calculation using the lower rates because the

database provided no basis on which to make such an adjustment. The

database did not explain the basis for the reductions in requested

compensation, nor were there any data on the number of hours

disallowed—only final dollar amounts approved and paid. Our method of

calculation produced a conservative estimate of the additional costs of

paying the higher rates in the 16 districts.

Our estimates and cost comparisons were also conservative because we

excluded from the analysis any voucher without a district identifier. For

every type of representation—criminal, appeals, other—some

representations did not include district identifiers, but only the appeals

circuit in which the district was located. Each circuit, except the District

of Columbia circuit, covers a number of states and districts. The

higher-cost districts are in the second, third, seventh, ninth, and tenth

circuits, but not all districts in each of these circuits were authorized to

pay the higher panel attorney hourly rates.

At least 98 percent of all appeals in the database for fiscal years 1990

through 1993, and 85 percent in the first half of 1994, were identified only

by the circuit in which the appeal was filed. Consequently, our estimate of

paying the higher rates excluded the costs of most appeals originating in

the districts authorized to pay the higher rates.

Death Penalty

Resource Centers

To assess the costs of representations by DPRCs we relied primarily on DPRC

budget and workload data included in the DPRCs’ quarterly reports and data

on panel attorney costs per death penalty representation closed from the

AOUSC database. Because there were no baseline cost data prior to the

DPRCs’ creation, we could not determine whether the services the DPRCs

provided had helped to reduce the costs of death penalty litigation.

Because of considerable variations in the type of work each DPRC does,

including the mix of direct representations and assistance provided to

private counsel, we could not determine whether the increased costs of

the DPRCs were justified by the workload.

About 37 percent of panel attorney death penalty representations closed in

fiscal year 1991, 23 percent in fiscal year 1992, and 17 percent in fiscal year

1993 were not identified by district. This precluded a comparison of the

Page 48 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

costs of panel attorney death penalty representations closed in districts

with and without DPRCs.

To develop descriptive information on DPRCs, we reviewed the fiscal year

1991, 1992, and 1993 quarterly reports submitted by the DPRCs on their

workload. California did not submit quarterly reports until fiscal year 1994

because it submitted monthly vouchers instead; fiscal year 1991 quarterly

reports for the Georgia DPRC were also unavailable.

We also reviewed studies by the Spangenberg Group, a consulting firm, on

death penalty litigation and costs, and incorporated some of their data in

our analysis, as appropriate.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 50 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

This appendix provides selected tables on Defender Services workload

and costs for fiscal years 1990 through 1993. Where available, data for the

first 6 months of fiscal year 1994 are included. The tables in this appendix

supplement the tables and figures in the letter.

Only overall costs per representation closed were available for FPDs and

CDOs. However, per representation costs by type of representation and

major offense category (within criminal representations) were available

for panel attorneys and are shown in tables II.7 and II.8.

Page 51 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.1: Representations Closed by

Federal Defender Organizations and

Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990

Through First 6 Months of 1994

1990 1991 Type of

representation FDOs PAs FDOs PAs

Criminal 23,743 23,782 24,660 28,119

Appeals 1,391 1,825 1,746 3,699

Other 9,795 2,959 10,741 4,088

Death penalty NA 9 NA 121

Total 34,929 28,575 37,147 36,027

Page 52 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

1992 1993 First 6 months 1994 Percent change 1990-1993a

Fiscal year

FDOs PAs FDOs PAs FDOs PAs FDOs PAs

24,634 28,555 25,670 29,237 12,115 13,485 8% 23%

1,818 3,225 2,149 3,977 1,077 2,000 54 118

11,888 4,543 12,192 4,545 5,524 2,395 24 54

NA 156 NA 246 NA 171 NA 2,633

38,340 36,479 40,011 38,005 18,716 18,051 15% 33%

Legend: FDOs = Federal Defender Organizations

PAs = Panel Attorneys

NA = not applicable

aPercent change based upon fiscal year 1990-1993 data only.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 53 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.2: Defender Services

Representations Closed by Type of

Attorney, Fiscal Years 1990 Through

First 6 Months of 1994

Fiscal year 1990 Fiscal year 1991 Type of

representation FPDs CDOs PAs FPDs CDOs PAs

Criminal 15,326 8,417 23,782 17,068 7,592 28,119

Appeals 1,150 241 1,825 1,411 335 3,699

Other 6,747 3,048 2,959 7,163 3,578 4,088

Death penalty NA NA 9 NA NA 121

Total 23,223 11,706 28,575 25,642 11,505 36,027

Page 54 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Fiscal year 1992 Fiscal year 1993 First 6 months fiscal year 1994

s FPDs CDOs PAs FPDs CDOs PAs FPDs CDOs PAs

9 17,749 6,885 28,555 19,220 6,450 29,237 8,891 3,224 13,485

9 1,549 269 3,225 1,825 324 3,977 943 134 2,000

8 8,007 3,881 4,543 8,667 3,525 4,545 3,932 1,592 2,395

NA NA 156 NA NA 246 NA NA 171

7 27,305 11,035 36,479 29,712 10,299 38,005 13,766 4,950 18,051

Legend: FPDs = Federal Public Defenders

CDOs = Community Defender Organizations

PAs = Panel Attorneys

NA = not applicable

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.3: Comparison of Average

In-Court Hours by Type of

Representation Closed for Federal

Public Defender Organizations,

Community Defender Organizations,

and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990

Through First 6 Months of 1994

Fiscal year

Federal public defenders

Type of representation 1990 1991 1992 1993

1st half

1994

Criminal 3.0 3.4 3.9 3.8 3.6

Appeals 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7

Other 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.4

Overall average 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.8

Page 56 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Fiscal year Fiscal year

Community defenders Panel attorneys

Average in-court hours per representation

f

4 1990 1991 1992 1993 1st half 1994 1990 1991 1992 1993 1st half 1994

6 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.0 8.1 9.2 9.2 8.9 8.4

7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7

4 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6

8 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.3 7.0 7.5 7.6 7.2 6.8

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table II.4: Criminal Representations Closed by Federal Defender Organizations and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990

Through First 6 Months of 1994

Fiscal year

1990

Fiscal year

1991

Fiscal year

1992

Fiscal year

1993

First 6 months fiscal

year 1994

Percent change

1990-1993a

Type of offense FDOs PAs FDOs PAs FDOs PAs FDOs PAs FDOs PAs FDOs PAs

Weapons 982 887 1,321 1,365 1,517 1,631 1,577 1,702 801 741 61% 92%

Immigration 4,342 1,765 3,889 2,110 3,019 1,710 3,329 1,834 1,748 905 –23 4

Drugs 5,828 9,443 6,301 11,883 7,224 12,589 7,611 13,659 3,296 6,201 31 45

Fraud 2,855 1,789 2,940 2,354 2,879 2,563 3,079 2,814 1,590 1,459 8 57

Other 9,736 9,898 10,209 10,407 9,995 10,062 10,074 9,228 4,680 4,179 3 –7

Total 23,743 23,782 24,660 28,119 24,634 28,555 25,670 29,237 12,115 13,485 8% 23%

Legend: FDOs = Federal Defender Organizations

PAs = Panel Attorneys

aPercent change based upon fiscal year 1990-1993 data only.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 57 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.5: Comparison of Average

In-Court Hours for Federal Public

Defender Organizations, Community

Defender Organizations, and Panel

Attorneys by Major Offense Category

in Criminal Representations Closed,

Fiscal Years 1990 Through First 6

Months of 1994

Fiscal year

Federal Public Defender Organizations

Type of criminal

representation 1990 1991 1992 1993 1st half 1994

Weapons 3.8 4.8 6.0 4.9 4.7

Immigration 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5

Drugs 4.2 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.1

Fraud 3.2 3.6 4.6 4.6 4.2

Othera 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7

Average, all offenses 3.0 3.4 3.9 3.8 3.6

Page 58 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Fiscal year Fiscal year

Community Defender Organizations Panel attorneys

Average in-court hours per representation

4 1990 1991 1992 1993 1st half 1994 1990 1991 1992 1993 1st half 1994

7 4.0 4.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.9 6.1 5.4 5.9 6.5

5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.6

3.7 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.4 12.2 12.7 11.6 11.0 10.6

2 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.7 7.0 9.8 11.7 11.0 10.4

7 2.1 2.6 3.4 4.3 3.8 5.7 6.7 7.2 6.9 5.9

6 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.0 8.1 9.2 9.2 8.9 8.4

aPanel attorney data excludes hours for death penalty representations.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 59 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.6: Average Cost per

Representation Closed by Federal

Public Defender Organizations,

Community Defender Organizations,

and Panel Attorneys, Fiscal Years 1990

Through First 6 Months of 1994

1990 1991

Type of attorney

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

FPDs 23,223 $1,647 25,642 $1,869

CDOs 11,706 $907 11,505 $1,107

Panel attorneys

Including death penalty

representations

28,575 $1,946 36,027 $2,383

Excluding death penalty

representations

28,566 $1,936 35,906 $2,323

Page 60 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

1992 1993 First 6 months 1994 Percent change 1990-1993a

Fiscal year

t

h

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

9 27,305 $2,380 29,712 $2,652 13,766 NA 27.9% 61.0%

7 11,035 $1,618 10,299 $2,123 4,950 NA –12.0 134.1

3 36,479 $2,595 38,005 $2,746 18,051 $2,790 33.0% 41.1%

3 36,323 $2,458 37,759 $2,523 17,880 $2,638 32.2% 30.3%

Legend: FDOs=Federal Defender Organizations

CDOs=Community Defender Organizations

NA=not available

aPercent change based upon fiscal year 1990-1993 data only.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 61 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.7: Number of Panel Attorney

Representations Closed and Average

Cost per Representation Closed by

Type of Representation, Fiscal Years

1990 Through First 6 Months of 1994

Fiscal year 1990 Fiscal year 1991

Type of representation

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Criminal 23,782 $1,985 28,119 $2,385

Appeals 1,825 2,567 3,699 3,049

Other 2,959 1,148 4,088 1,245

Death penalty 9 33,254 121 20,206

Total 28,575 $1,946 36,027 $2,383

Page 62 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Fiscal year 1992 Fiscal year 1993 First 6 months, fiscal year 1994 Percent change 1990-1993a

t

h

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

Number

closed

Average cost

each

5 28,555 $2,584 29,237 $2,641 13,485 $2,647 22.9% 33.0%

9 3,225 3,221 3,977 3,187 2,000 2,986 117.9 24.2

5 4,543 1,125 4,545 1,183 2,395 1,334 53.6 3.0

6 156 34,607 246 36,878 171 32,222 2,633.3 10.9

3 36,479 $2,595 38,005 $2,746 18,051 $2,790 33.0 41.1

aPercentages calculated using 1993 data because 1994 data include only the first 6 months of

the fiscal year.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 63 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.8: Number of Panel Attorney

Criminal Representations Closed,

Total Costs, and Average Cost per

Representation Closed by Major

Offense Category, Fiscal Years 1990

Through 1993

Fiscal year 1990

Major offense category

Total

number Total cost

Average

cost

Weapons 887 $1,339,719 $1,510

Immigration 1,765 1,435,092 813

Drugs 9,443 25,306,561 2,680

Fraud 1,789 3,826,579 2,139

Other criminal 9,898 15,304,845 1,546

Total 23,782 $47,212,796 $1,985

Page 64 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Fiscal year 1991 Fiscal year 1992 Fiscal year 1993

e

t

Total

number Total cost

Average

cost

Total

number Total cost

Average

cost

Total

number Total cost

Average

cost

0 1,365 $2,726,530 $1,997 1,631 $3,138,966 $1,925 1,702 $3,507,405 $2,061

3 2,110 1,736,657 823 1,710 1,774,858 1,038 1,834 1,862,166 1,015

0 11,883 37,111,706 3,123 12,589 $40,763,518 3,238 13,659 43,052,951 3,152

9 2,354 6,113,566 2,597 2,563 8,365,042 3,264 2,814 9,551,100 3,394

6 10,407 19,371,328 1,861 10,062 19,732,877 1,961 9,228 19,248,396 2,086

5 28,119 $67,059,787 $2,385 28,555 $73,775,261 $2,584 29,237 $77,222,018 $2,641

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 65 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.9: Districts in Which Higher

Standard Panel Attorney Rates Have

Been Implemented as of January 1,

1990

Hourly rate for both in-court and

out-of-court servicesa

Circuit/district $60 $70 $75

District of Columbia x

Second Circuit

New York, Southern x

New York, Eastern x

Third Circuit

New Jersey x

Sixth Circuit

Michigan, Eastern (Detroit) x

Ninth Circuit

Alaska x

Arizona (Phoenix and Tucson) x

California, Northern x

California, Central x

California, Eastern (Sacramento and

Fresno)

x

California, Southern x

Hawaii x

Nevada (Las Vegas and Reno) x

Oregon x

Washington, Western (Seattle) x

Tenth Circuit

New Mexico (Las Cruces) x

aThe Judicial Conference has authorized all locations in these districts to pay the $75 per hour

rate subject to the availability of funds.

Source: AOUSC.

Page 66 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.10: Estimated Additional Cost of Paying Panel Attorneys Higher Standard Rates in Sixteen Districts (Based on

Amounts Approved for Payment)a

Compensation rate Fiscal year 1991 Fiscal year 1992 Fiscal year 1993 First half 1994

In-court compensation

Higher rateb $5,268,998 $6,327,422 $5,834,069 $2,611,307

Lower rate

($60/hour)c 4,457,413 5,334,113 5,046,650 2,249,896

Difference 811,585 993,309 787,419 361,411

Out-of-court compensation

Higher rateb 21,429,473 26,494,753 27,272,108 13,520,886

Lower rate

($40/hour)c 12,420,513 15,566,189 16,266,000 8,060,878

Difference 9,008,960 10,928,564 11,006,108 5,460,008

Total

difference $9,820,545 $11,921,873 $11,793,527 $5,821,419

aAmounts in this table exclude most appeals representations. For about 98 percent of all appeals

representations in fiscal years 1990 through 1993 and 85 percent in the first half of fiscal year

1994, the database does not contain an identifier for the district from which the case was

appealed.

bTotals reflect any court reductions in the amount of compensation requested.

cTotals at lower rate assume compensation for total number of hours requested. Because the

database did not reflect the number of hours by which requests were reduced, only dollar

amounts of the reductions, we could not correspondingly reduce the amount that would have

been approved at the lower rates.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 67 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix II 

Selected Data on Defender Services

Workload and Costs

Table II.11: Death Penalty Resource Centers, End of Fiscal Year 1993

Resource center Location

Federal judicial districts

served

Alabama Capital Representation Resource Center Montgomery AL (N, M, S)a

Arizona Capital Representation Project Tempe AZ

Arkansas Death Penalty Resource Center Little Rock AR (E, W)

California Appellate Project San Francisco CA (N, E, C, S)

Volunteer Lawyers’ Resource Center, Inc. Tallahassee FL (N, M, S)

Georgia Appellate Practice and Educational Resource Center, Inc. Atlanta GA (N, M, S)

Capital Resource Center Evanston IL ( N, C, S)

Kentucky Capital Litigation Resource Center Frankfort KY (E, W)

Loyola Death Penalty Resource Center New Orleans LA (E, M, W)

Mississippi Capital Defense Resource Center Jackson MS (N, S)

Missouri Capital Punishment Resource Center Kansas City MO (E, W)

Nevada Appellate and Post-Conviction Project, Inc. Las Vegas NV

North Carolina Death Penalty Resource Center Raleigh NC (E, M, W)

Ohio Death Penalty Resource Center Columbus OH (N, S)

Capital Post-Conviction Project of the Oklahoma Appellate Public Defender

System

Norman OK (E, N, W)

South Carolina Death Penalty Resource Center Columbia SC

Capital Case Representation Resource Center of Tennessee, Inc. Nashville TN (E, M, W)

Texas Appellate Practice and Educational Resource Center Austin TX (N, E, W, S)

Virginia Post-Conviction Assistance Project Richmond VA (E, W)

aLetters indicate districts as follows: E = eastern; W = western; S = southern; N = northern; M =

middle; C = central.

Source: AOUSC.

Page 68 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix III 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts

Page 69 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix III 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts

Page 70 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix III 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts

Page 71 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

William O. Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director, Administration of

 Justice Issues

Doris Page, Senior Evaluator

M. Grace Haskins, Senior Evaluator

David Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Boston/New York

Field Office

Rudy Plessing, Core Group Manager

Amy Hutner, Senior Evaluator

Lucine Moore-Willis, Evaluator

Detroit Field Office Kelly Haggard, Senior Evaluator

Keith Landrum, Evaluator

William G. Sievert, Technical Assistance Group Manager

Office of the General

Counsel

Jan Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

(188618) Page 72 GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/GGD-95-182 Defender Services Program