INDIGENT DEFENSE

DOJ Could Increase 

Awareness of Eligible 

Funding and Better 

Determine the Extent 

to Which Funds Help 

Support This Purpose

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2012

GAO-12-569

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-569, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2012

INDIGENT DEFENSE

DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible Funding 

and Better Determine the Extent to Which Funds 

Help Support This Purpose

Why GAO Did This Study

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution guarantees every person 

accused of a crime the right to counsel. 

States and localities generally fund 

indigent defense services, and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) also 

provides funding that can be used for 

these services. GAO was asked to 

review federal support for indigent 

defendants. This report addresses, for 

fiscal years 2005 through 2010, the (1) 

types of support DOJ provided for 

indigent defense; (2) extent to which 

eligible DOJ funding was allocated or 

awarded for indigent defense, the 

factors affecting these decisions, and 

DOJ’s actions to address them; (3) 

percentage of DOJ funding allocated 

for indigent defense and how it was 

used; (4) extent to which DOJ collects 

data on indigent defense funding; and 

(5) extent to which DOJ assesses the 

impacts of indigent defense grants, 

indigent defense programs have been 

evaluated, and DOJ has supported 

evaluation efforts. GAO surveyed (1) 

all 4,229 grant recipients about funding 

allocations and (2) a sample of 253 

public defender offices about factors 

influencing their decisions to apply for 

funding. Though not all survey results 

are generalizable, they provide 

insights. GAO also analyzed grant 

related documents and interviewed 

relevant officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ increase 

grantees’ awareness that funding can 

be allocated for indigent defense and 

collect data on such funding.

DOJ concurred with the 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Justice (DOJ) administered 13 grant programs from fiscal 

years 2005 through 2010 that recipients could use to support indigent defense, 4 

of which required recipients to use all or part of the funding for this purpose. DOJ 

also provides training to indigent defense providers, among other things.

From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, recipients of the 4 grants that required 

spending for indigent defense allocated or planned to use $13.3 million out of 

$21.2 million in current dollars for indigent defense. However, among the 9 

grants that did not require allocations or awards for indigent defense, two-thirds 

or more of state, local, and tribal respondents to GAO’s surveys reported that 

they did not use funds for this purpose, partly due to competing priorities. DOJ 

has listed the grants on its website. However, no more than 54 percent of 

grantees or public defender offices responding to GAO’s surveys were aware 

that such funding could be used to support indigent defense. Taking steps to 

increase awareness would better position DOJ to help ensure that eligible 

grantees are aware that they can access federal funding to help address their 

needs. DOJ officials acknowledged that opportunities exist to enhance grantees’ 

awareness.

When recipients allocated funding for indigent defense, the amount was 

generally small relative to the total award and most commonly used for personnel 

and training. For instance, among grant recipients who reported in GAO’s 

surveys that they had allocated funding for indigent defense, allocations as a 

percentage of total awards ranged from 2 percent to 14 percent. 

DOJ generally collects data on funding allocated for indigent defense when the 

grant program requires such funding or identifies it as a grant priority, but does 

not do so in two juvenile-focused grants. According to DOJ, it does not collect 

such data in these two programs because indigent defense is 1 of 17 purposes 

for which grant funds can be used. GAO has previously reported that agencies 

should collect data to support decision making, and the Attorney General has 

committed to focusing on indigent defense issues. Collecting data on the amount 

of funding from these two grants that is used to support indigent defense would 

position DOJ to better assess if it is meeting the Attorney General’s commitment. 

DOJ assesses the impact of indigent defense grant funding and has mechanisms 

to help indigent defense providers evaluate services. All 9 of the DOJ grant 

programs that required or prioritized funding to be used for indigent defense 

included output measures that described the level of grant activity, such as the 

number of defenders hired, and 7 of the 9 included outcome measures that 

described the intended results of the funds, such as the percent increase in 

defendants served. Nine of the 118 public defender offices or agencies that 

responded to GAO’s survey provided GAO with a copy of an evaluation that had 

been conducted of their office; those that did not most frequently cited lack of 

personnel (28 of 62) and lack of expertise or the need for technical assistance 

(26 of 62) as the reasons. DOJ has mechanisms that could address these 

challenges. For instance, DOJ provides technical assistance through a website.

View GAO-12-569. For more information, 

contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-8777 

or larencee@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Letter 1 

Background 6

DOJ and BIA Make Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance 

Available to Support Indigent Defense 10

Unless Required, Few Recipients Allocated or Planned to Use Any 

Federal Funding for Indigent Defense, in Part Due to Competing 

Priorities 17

When Recipients Allocated Funding for Indigent Defense, in 

General, the Amount Was Small Relative to the Total Award and 

Funding Was Used for Personnel and Training 31

DOJ Could More Consistently Collect Data on the Amount of 

Funding Allocated for Indigent Defense When Programs Identify 

It as a Priority 36

DOJ Assesses the Impact of Indigent Defense Grant Funding and 

Has Mechanisms to Help Indigent Defense Providers Evaluate 

Services 39

Conclusions 46

Recommendations for Executive Action 47

Agency and Third Party Comments and Our Evaluation 47

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 51

Appendix II Allocations and Uses of DOJ Grants That Required Indigent Defense 

Funding 61

Appendix III Percentage of Survey Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts 62

Appendix IV Additional Details on Number of Indigent Defense Discretionary 

Awards and Award Amounts 69

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Appendix V JAG Survey Respondents’ Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year 72

Appendix VI Analysis of Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures for 

Department of Justice Grant Programs 87

Appendix VII Select Measures, Findings, and Recommendations from Public 

Defender Office and Agency Evaluations and Reports 94

Appendix VIII Possible Data Elements for Evaluating Public Defender Offices, 

Extent to Which Respondents Collect Related Data, and Data 

Challenges and Limitations 101

Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Justice 104

Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 109

Tables

Table 1: DOJ Grant Programs that Require Funding to Be Allocated 

for Indigent Defense 11

Table 2: DOJ Grant Programs for which Allocating Funding for 

Indigent Defense Is a Priority or Stated Purpose 13

Table 3: DOJ Grant Programs for which Allocating Funding for 

Indigent Defense is Allowed, but Not Required or a Priority 14

Table 4: Survey Distribution, Populations, Respondents and Rates, 

and Generalizability 54

Table 5: Public Defender Offices by Stratum and Population, Cases 

Selected, and Sample Size 57

Table 6: Number and Amount of Awards for Indigent Defense for 

DOJ Grant Programs That Required Funding for Indigent 

Defense 61
Page iii GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 7: Awards and Allocations in Whole or in Part for Indigent 

Defense, by Discretionary Grant that Did Not Require 

Spending for this Purpose 69

Table 8: Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures and Type 

of Measure for DOJ Grant Programs 88

Table 9: Summary of Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Evaluations and 

Reports 94

Table 10: Survey Respondents Collecting Data Elements and 

Associated Challenges 101

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Survey Respondents that Received DOJ 

Formula Grants or BIA Tribal Courts TPA Funds and 

Reported Allocating These Funds for Indigent Defense 18

Figure 2: Percentage of Discretionary Grants That Were Awarded 

Fully or in Part for Indigent Defense during Fiscal Years 

2005 through 2010 20

Figure 3: Percentage of JAG, JJDP, JABG, and Tribal Courts TPA 

Survey Respondents Reporting Reasons That Were 

Extremely or Very Important to Their Decisions Not to 

Allocate Funding for Indigent Defense 21

Figure 4: Percentage of Public Defender Survey Respondents 

Reporting Reasons That Were Extremely or Very 

Important for Why They Did Not Apply for Grant Funding 

(N=103) 22

Figure 5: Percentage of Funding That JAG SAA Respondents 

Reported Allocating to Each Purpose Area, Including 

Indigent Defense, during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010 24

Figure 6: Percentage of Funding That JAG Local and Tribal 

Respondents Reported Allocating to Each Purpose Area, 

As Well As Indigent Defense, during Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2010 25

Figure 7: Criminal Justice Areas Awarded Byrne Competitive 

Grants during Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010 (N=287) 26

Figure 8: Survey Respondents Who Reported They Were Aware 

that Funding Could Be Used for Indigent Defense 29

Figure 9: Allocations for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total 

Awards among Those Who Reported Allocating Funding 

for Indigent Defense, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010 32
Page iv GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 10: Amounts Awarded Fully or In Part for Indigent Defense, 

as a Percentage of Total Amounts Awarded for Selected 

Discretionary Grants, during Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2010 33

Figure 11: Reported Uses of JABG and JJDP Grants Allocated for 

Indigent Defense 34

Figure 12: Uses of Discretionary Grants Awarded for Indigent 

Defense 35

Figure 13: Percentage of JAG State, Local, and Tribal Survey 

Respondents That Reported Allocating Funding for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year 63

Figure 14: Percentage of JJDP and JABG Survey Respondents That 

Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by 

Fiscal Year 64

Figure 15: Percentage of BIA Tribal Courts TPA Funding Survey 

Respondents That Reported Allocating Funding for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year 65

Figure 16: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by 

Fiscal Year, among JAG Respondents Who Reported 

Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense 66

Figure 17: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by 

Fiscal Year, among JABG and JJDP Respondents Who 

Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense 67

Figure 18: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by 

Fiscal Year, among BIA Tribal Courts TPA Respondents 

Who Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense 68

Figure 19: Percentage of Grants Awarded in Whole or in Part for 

Indigent Defense; Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010 70

Figure 20: Indigent Defense Awards, as a Maximum Possible 

Percentage of Total Awards; Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2010 71

Figure 21: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

Fiscal Year 2005 73

Figure 22: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

Fiscal Year 2006 74

Figure 23: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

Fiscal Year 2007 75
Page v GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 24: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

Fiscal Year 2008 76

Figure 25: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

Fiscal Year 2009 77

Figure 26: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

ARRA 78

Figure 27: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas 

and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, 

Fiscal Year 2010 79

Figure 28: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2005 80

Figure 29: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2006 81

Figure 30: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2007 82

Figure 31: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2008 83

Figure 32: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2009 84

Figure 33: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, ARRA 85

Figure 34: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations 

across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a 

Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2010 86
Page vi GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Abbreviations

ABA American Bar Association 

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ATJ Access to Justice Initiative

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics

CCLI Capital Case Litigation Initiative

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

ICRA Indian Civil Rights Act 

JABG Juvenile Accountability Block Grant

JAG Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant

JIDNC Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse 

JJDP Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant Title II

JRJ John R. Justice Program 

NIJ National Institute of Justice

NTTAC National Training and Technical Assistance Center

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OJP Office of Justice Programs

SAA state administering agency 

TCCLA Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance 

TJADG Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grants 

 Program 

TPA Tribal Priority Allocations

WCR Wrongful Conviction Review Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 9, 2012

Congressional Requesters

Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, every person 

accused of a crime is afforded the right to have counsel in his or her 

defense, even if unable to afford such representation.1

States, localities, and, in some cases, tribes fund indigent defense 

services, and the federal government—through the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) and the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), for tribes—also provides funding that can be used to support 

indigent defense services.

Individuals 

accused of a crime but unable to afford representation—referred to as 

indigent defendants—often rely on entities such as public defender offices 

for the provision of counsel. Several organizations, including the National 

Legal Aid and Defender Association, conducted national studies of 

indigent defense, pointing out many challenges in providing counsel 

across the country, including inadequate funding of defense programs as 

a whole, inadequate compensation for assigned counsel, lack of 

investigative resources, inexperienced counsel, and understaffing of 

public defense offices. In affording indigent defendants their right to 

counsel, both state and local governments generally decide the type of 

indigent defense programs to employ and how to fund them.

2

 

1

See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (holding that the Sixth Amendment’s 

effective assistance of counsel provision is a fundamental and essential right made 

obligatory upon states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process of law 

clause). Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment’s right to effective assistance of counsel 

provision, a penalty of imprisonment may not be imposed upon any defendant, indigent or 

otherwise, absent representation by counsel or a knowing and intelligent waiver of 

counsel.

However, in this country’s current fiscal crisis, 

several states have reported that when determining how to allocate 

scarce budget resources, they have reduced or eliminated state funding 

for state and local indigent defense services. Further, although tribes—

2

Throughout this report, we use “indigent defense” to refer to direct and indirect activities 

that help ensure indigent defendants are afforded counsel in criminal cases. These 

activities may include hiring additional public defenders, investigators, or other support 

staff; providing training for public defenders; making technological improvements in public 

defenders’ offices or systems; or providing loan repayments to help retain public 

defenders. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

which retain limited, inherent sovereignty—are not bound by restraints 

placed upon the federal or state governments through the Bill of Rights or 

other amendments to the U.S. Constitution, many tribal governments

choose to provide indigent defense services and face similar challenges 

as state and local governments in doing so.3

You requested that we assess federal funding and other federal support 

to state, local, and tribal governments to assist them in providing counsel 

to indigent defendants. Specifically, this report addresses the following 

questions:

1. What type of support, if any, have DOJ and BIA provided for state, 

local, and tribal indigent defense?

2. For fiscal years 2005 through 2010, to what extent was eligible DOJ 

and BIA funding allocated and awarded for indigent defense, what 

factors affected decisions to allocate and award funding for this 

purpose, and what actions have DOJ and BIA taken, if any, to 

address these factors?

3. When fiscal year 2005 through 2010 federal funding was allocated or 

awarded for indigent defense, how did it compare to the total 

allocations or awards made, and how did recipients use the funding?

4. To what extent does DOJ collect data on indigent defense funding 

when the grant program specifies that funds be allocated or awarded 

for this purpose or highlights it as a priority?

5. When a grant program specifies that funds be spent for indigent 

defense or highlights it as a priority, to what extent does DOJ assess 

the impacts of this grant funding, and to what extent have there been 

evaluations of indigent defense programs and has DOJ supported 

these evaluation efforts?

To determine what DOJ grant programs and BIA funding could be used 

for indigent defense from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, we analyzed 

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and DOJ’s website, and 

consulted DOJ and BIA officials responsible for administering state, local, 

 

3

See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 (1978) (recognizing that 

although Indian tribes no longer possess the full attributes of sovereignty, they remain a 

separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and that 

as separate sovereigns, tribes have historically been regarded as unconstrained by those 

constitutional provisions framed specifically as limitations on federal or state authority) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). See also 25 U.S.C. § 1302(2) (defining an 

Indian tribe’s power of self-government). 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

and tribal grant and funding programs.4

To determine the extent to which state, local, and tribal government 

recipients allocated federal funding for indigent defense, the factors that 

influenced their decisions, and the amounts allocated, we conducted 

separate web-based surveys of all recipients of fiscal year 2005 through 

2010 DOJ formula grants that could be allocated for indigent defense—

the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG),

We obtained records of all 

recipients of relevant DOJ grants, and identified recipients of relevant BIA 

funding through BIA’s annual budget justifications. Further, we 

interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the source of the grant 

data and the controls in place to maintain the integrity of the data and 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. In 

addition, we interviewed DOJ and BIA officials with knowledge of other 

assistance the agencies provide to support indigent defense.

5 Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant Title II (JJDP) and the Juvenile 

Accountability Block Grant (JABG)—and tribal governments that received

funding through BIA Tribal Courts tribal priority allocation (TPA) 

distributions from fiscal years 2005 through 2010.6

 

4

We selected fiscal years 2005 through 2010 because you requested that we identify 

federal funding that was used for indigent defense during this time frame. The Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance is a government-wide compendium of federal programs, 

projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. 

It contains financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments 

and establishments of the federal government. 

Forty-six percent of 

JAG recipients (1,818 of 3,963; including 89 percent of state agencies 

and 45 percent of localities and tribes) completed the JAG survey; 89 

5

Amounts appropriated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) are also included in our review. See Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 130 (2009). 

6

An electronic supplement to this report—GAO-12-661SP (available June 2012)—

provides survey results. Formula grants are funding programs for which the primary 

grantees do not compete, although they must submit an application and meet other 

specified requirements. These grants are usually administered and managed by State 

Administering Agencies (SAA), and the amount of the grant awards are calculated by a 

formula most often governed or established by statute, which may consider factors such 

as population or crime data. We provide further descriptions of these grants later in this 

report. In addition, we identified BIA funding to Courts of Indian Offenses (referred to as 

“CFR courts”) that could be used for indigent defense. We did not include CFR courts in 

our survey of tribal courts because CFR courts constitute direct services administered by 

BIA officials. However, according to BIA officials, every CFR court has a law-trained public 

defender. Also, based on discussions with BIA officials, we did not include tribal courts in 

BIA’s Alaska region.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

percent of JJDP recipients (50 of 56) completed the JJDP survey; 82 

percent of JABG recipients (46 of 56) completed the JABG survey; and 

68 percent (105 of 154) of recipients completed the Tribal Courts TPA 

survey.7 Because all recipients of JABG and JJDP funding were included 

in our population and we received response rates of 82 and 89 percent, 

we consider our results generalizable to the population of JABG and 

JJDP recipients. While all eligible members of our target population of 

JAG recipients and recipients of BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions were 

included in our survey, due to the relatively low response rates and the 

possibility of other errors all questionnaire surveys face, our results 

represent only those respondents who participated in our survey and 

should not be generalized to the population of JAG recipients or 

recipients of BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions.8 Moreover, dollar 

amounts reported by JAG respondents have limitations and should be 

treated as estimates. See appendix I for additional discussion of these 

limitations and the reasons they occurred, and additional details of our 

survey methods. However, the responses provide insights into the extent 

to which JAG funding and BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions have been 

allocated for indigent defense. Moreover, to determine the purposes for 

which this funding was used and to identify the most frequently reported 

uses, we conducted follow-up interviews with selected survey 

respondents who reported allocating funding for indigent defense.9

Further, to determine the extent to which DOJ awarded eligible 

discretionary grants for indigent defense, we obtained project descriptions 

of grants available for indigent defense from DOJ.10

 

7

We surveyed tribal JAG recipients separately from state and local JAG recipients. 

However, we combined all JAG responses for the purposes of this report. See appendix I 

for additional details. 

We reviewed these 

descriptions to identify the number and amount of grants used either all or 

in part for indigent defense and the uses of these funds.

8

Because we included all recipients in our survey, our results are not subject to sampling 

error. 

9

See appendix I for additional details on the number of number of respondents we 

followed up with and how they were selected. 

10Discretionary grants are awarded directly to eligible recipients, most often on a 

competitive basis.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

To determine what actions, if any, DOJ and BIA have taken to address 

factors influencing recipients’ decisions to allocate funding for indigent 

defense, we interviewed DOJ and BIA officials responsible for each type 

of funding. We also reviewed DOJ’s guidance to recipients to determine 

the extent to which DOJ communicated that funding could be used for 

indigent defense programs. We compared this guidance against relevant 

statutes, and DOJ’s stated commitment to support indigent defense.

In addition, we reviewed DOJ grant documentation to identify grants for 

which indigent defense was identified as a priority or purpose of the grant. 

For these grants, we reviewed grant performance measures outlined in 

DOJ grant solicitations. We also conducted interviews with relevant DOJ 

officials about the extent to which DOJ collects data on whether grants 

were allocated or awarded for indigent defense and measures the impact 

resulting from grant funds for indigent defense. We analyzed this 

information to determine the status of DOJ’s efforts and the mechanisms 

available to collect such data and assess the impact. We compared 

DOJ’s measures against criteria in Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance11 and our prior work on performance measures, which 

states that leading organizations promote accountability by establishing 

results-oriented, outcome goals and corresponding performance 

measures by which to gauge progress towards attaining these goals.12

Further, to determine the extent to which evaluations had been conducted 

of indigent defense programs, we conducted a web-based survey of a 

random sample of 253 public defender offices or agencies from among 

841 identified nationwide; 118 offices or agencies completed the 

questionnaire for an unweighted response rate of 47 percent. 

Respondents to this survey were generally a county or city public 

defender office, state-run public defender office, or firm or nonprofit 

To 

determine whether performance measures were outcome-oriented, two 

analysts also independently reviewed performance measures DOJ 

established to assess whether the measures focused on the intended 

result of the program. The analysts then met to discuss and resolve any 

differences in the results of their analyses.

 

11OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003). 

12GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118, (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
 

Page 6 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

organization under contract to provide indigent defense services. Due to 

the relatively low response rate and the possibility of other errors all 

questionnaire surveys face, our results represent only respondents who 

participated in our survey and should not be generalized to the population 

of public defender offices or agencies. However, the results provide 

insights into the evaluation conducted of public defender offices and the 

challenges associated with conducting such an evaluation. In addition, we 

conducted a literature search of peer-reviewed journals. In December 

2011, we held a listening session at a National Legal Aid and Defender 

Association conference where public defenders described challenges to 

conducting evaluations, among other topics.13

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to May 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit

objectives.

Finally, to identify actions 

DOJ has taken to evaluate indigent defense systems, we reviewed 

studies funded or conducted by DOJ and interviewed DOJ officials about 

its efforts to evaluate indigent defense systems. Additional details on our 

scope and methodology are contained in appendix I.

States and localities have developed and largely funded their own 

indigent defense systems. To do so, they have generally adopted one or 

more of the following methods for providing indigent defense—employing 

full or part-time public defenders to handle the bulk of cases requiring 

counsel; entering into contracts with private attorneys, often after a 

bidding contest, to provide counsel; or developing a list, or “panel,” of 

private attorneys who accept a predetermined fixed rate and from which 

the court appoints as defense counsel when needed. Further, depending 

on the state, funding for the indigent defense system is provided by the 

 

13The 17 public defender office or agency leaders who attended the listening session also 

discussed characteristics of model public defender programs; factors that affect the ability 

of public defenders to provide effective representation; and critical funding needs facing 

public defender programs. We observed their discussion, recorded the information shared, 

and reviewed the information to identify common themes.

Background 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

state, localities within the state, or a combination of state and local 

funding.

According to DOJ, as of its most recent census of public defender offices 

issued in 2007, 22 states have established statewide—and state 

funded—public defender agencies to provide indigent defense in which a 

central office oversees the operations, policies, and practices of all public 

defender offices located in the state.14

Unlike states, tribes—which retain limited, inherent sovereignty—are not 

bound by restraints placed upon the federal or state governments through 

the Bill of Rights or other amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including 

the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel provision.

In another 27 states, local 

jurisdictions—largely counties—are responsible for providing and, in 

whole or in part, funding, indigent defense services. The remaining state 

funds 100 percent of its indigent defense services, which are provided by 

assigned counsel, but does not have city, county, or state public defender 

offices.

15 However, the Indian 

Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA), as amended, limits the extent to which 

tribes may exercise their powers of self-government by imposing 

conditions on tribal governments similar to those found in the Bill of 

Rights to the U.S. Constitution.16 For example, ICRA extends the 

protections of free speech, free exercise of religion, and due process and 

equal protection under tribal laws.17

 

14State-based public defender offices functioned entirely under the direction of a central 

office that funded and administered all public defender offices in the state. BJS, State 

Public Defender Programs, 2007 (Washington, D.C.: September 2010). Similarly, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the US Virgin Islands have also established centralized indigent defense agencies. 

Maine funds 100 percent of indigent defense services, which are provided by assigned 

counsel, but does not have city, county or state public defender offices.

Among other protections afforded 

15See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 (1978) (recognizing that 

although Indian tribes no longer possess the full attributes of sovereignty, they remain a 

separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and that 

as separate sovereigns, tribes have historically been regarded as unconstrained by those 

constitutional provisions framed specifically as limitations on federal or state authority) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). See also 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (defining an 

Indian tribe’s power of self-government). 

16See Pub. L. No. 90-284, tit. II, 82 Stat. 73, 77 (1968) (codified as amended 25 U.S.C. §§ 

1301-41).

17See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(1), (8). 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

under ICRA, tribes must also afford a defendant the right to be 

represented by counsel at his or her own expense, and, as amended, the 

right to be provided counsel at the tribe’s expense if a sentence of 

imprisonment for more than 1 year is sought.18

DOJ and, in the case of tribes, DOI are the primary federal agencies that 

play a role in supporting indigent defense.

First, DOJ, as the agency responsible for ensuring the fair and impartial 

administration of justice for all Americans, works to provide support to all 

participants in the justice system. Further, in a June 2010 speech before 

a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals in 

North Carolina, the Attorney General identified a crisis in the criminal 

defense system, and stated the department’s commitment to focusing on 

indigent defense issues and developing and implementing solutions. 

Within DOJ, two components provide services that could support indigent 

defense providers, the Access to Justice Initiative (ATJ) and the Office of 

Justice Programs (OJP).

• Established in March 2010 to address criminal and civil access to 

justice issues, ATJ is charged with helping the justice system 

efficiently deliver outcomes that are fair and accessible to all, 

irrespective of wealth and status. ATJ staff work within DOJ, across 

federal agencies, and with state, local, and tribal justice system 

stakeholders to increase access to counsel and legal assistance and 

to improve the justice delivery systems that serve people who are 

unable to afford lawyers. According to DOJ, ATJ is comprised of 

seven staff and, in fiscal year 2011, had a budget of $1.27 million. 

ATJ staff focused their efforts on indigent defense as well as a range 

 

18See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(6), (c)(1)-(2). The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA), 

Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. II, 124 Stat. 2258, 2261, amended ICRA by authorizing tribal 

courts to imprison convicted offenders for up to 3 years if the defendant has been 

previously convicted of the same or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United 

States (federal, state, or tribal) or if the defendant is being prosecuted for an offense 

comparable to an offense that, in any U.S. or state jurisdiction, would be punishable by 

more than 1 year of imprisonment if prosecuted in state or federal court. See § 1302(b). In 

addition, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed in a criminal 

proceeding (i.e., where a defendant is charged with multiple offenses) is 9 years. See § 

1302(a)(7)(D). A tribe may not, however, impose a term of imprisonment in excess of one 

year unless it affords the defendant certain rights enumerated in the statute, including the 

right to have counsel provided at the tribe’s expense. See § 1302(c).
 

Page 9 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

of pressing criminal and civil access to justice issues, including 

foreclosure and veterans’ affairs.

• OJP works in partnership with the federal, state, local, and tribal 

justice communities—which include indigent defense providers—to 

identify the most pressing crime-related challenges confronting the 

justice system; to provide training, coordination, and innovative 

strategies and approaches for addressing these challenges; and to 

provide grant funding for implementing these strategies. Within OJP, 

several bureaus provide research, technical assistance, and funding 

that could support indigent defense providers. Specifically, the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) seeks to provide objective, 

independent, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet criminal 

justice challenges, particularly at the state and local levels. Among 

other things, NIJ funds research and development, assesses 

programs and policies, and publicizes its findings. In addition, the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) serves as DOJ’s primary statistical 

agency, collecting, analyzing, publishing, and disseminating 

information on criminal justice systems. Finally, both the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provide training, technical 

assistance, and grant funding designed to enhance and support the 

criminal and juvenile justice systems, respectively. Such funding may 

be awarded through formula grants, which are awarded on a 

noncompetitive basis generally using statutorily defined calculations, 

or discretionary grants, for which applicants generally compete for 

funding.19

Second, within DOI, BIA is responsible for supporting tribes in their efforts 

to ensure public safety and administer justice as well as to provide related 

services directly to, or through contracts or compacts with, federally-

 

19Other types of funding include congressionally directed awards (also referred to as 

earmarks), cooperative agreements, and payment programs. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

recognized tribes.20 To that end, BIA’s Office of Justice Services supports 

law enforcement, detention, and tribal court programs. In addition, the 

Division of Tribal Justice Support for Courts within BIA’s Office of Justice 

Services works with tribes to establish and maintain tribal judicial 

systems. This includes conducting assessments of tribal courts and 

providing training and technical assistance on a range of topics, including 

establishing or updating law and order codes. Further, tribal courts may 

receive funding through BIA’s TPA. All federally-recognized tribes are 

eligible to receive TPA funds—either through contracts or compacts—for 

operating tribal programs and, in general, these funds are available for 

use to provide basic tribal services, such as social services, child welfare, 

natural resources management, and tribal courts.

DOJ and BIA provide funding, training, and technical assistance that 

could support indigent defense, which may help to address challenges 

that public defenders face. Specifically, public defender offices or 

agencies that responded to our survey most frequently reported that 

obtaining adequate funding (75 of 106, or 71 percent) and providing 

appropriate compensation for their attorneys (77 of 107 or 72 percent) 

were extremely or very challenging to the ability of their office or agency 

to provide indigent defense services.21

DOJ makes funding available through formula and discretionary grants 

that could be used for indigent defense. Specifically, we identified 13 

For instance, one survey 

respondent explained that their office’s best attorneys leave to pursue 

positions offering higher compensation.

 

20Through the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 

No. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended, the federal government established a policy of 

Indian self-determination whereby tribes, with the support and assistance of the federal 

government, would be afforded an “effective and meaningful” role in planning, conducting, 

and administering programs and services previously administered by federal entities. See 

25 U.S.C. § 450a. Tribes generally obtain funding to assume these functions pursuant to 

self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts negotiated and entered into with 

BIA. See §§ 450h, 458cc. Self-governance compacts differ from self-determination 

contracts in that such compacts afford tribes more flexibility in how the agreed upon 

funding may be utilized.

21Our survey of public defender offices or agencies included a sample of 253 of the 841 

offices. Because of the relatively low response rate, responses should not be generalized 

to all public defender offices or agencies. See appendix I for additional details on the 

survey. The total respondents differ by question because not all respondents provided 

answers to all questions. 

DOJ and BIA Make 

Funding, Training, 

and Technical 

Assistance Available 

to Support Indigent 

Defense 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

grant programs that DOJ administered from fiscal years 2005 through 

2010 that recipients could use for this purpose. Three of these 

programs—the John R. Justice Program (JRJ), Capital Case Litigation 

Initiative (CCLI), and Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse 

Grant (JIDNC)—required recipients to allocate or use funding for indigent 

defense, either because of its authorizing statute or requirements that 

DOJ set in its grant solicitation. In addition, a fourth program—the 

Wrongful Conviction Review Program (WCR)—limits eligibility for funding 

to nonprofit organizations, as well as public defender offices, that 

represent convicted defendants (who are, according to DOJ, indigent) in 

claims of innocence. As a result, for the purposes of our review, we 

consider the WRC grant to require that funding be used for indigent 

defense. See table 1 for a description of the DOJ grant programs that 

require that funding be used for indigent defense.

Table 1: DOJ Grant Programs that Require Funding to Be Allocated for Indigent Defense

Name of grant program Purpose Type

 Appropriated 

amounts, fiscal 

years 2005-2010

John R. Justice Provides loan repayment assistance for local, state, and 

federal public defenders and state and local prosecutors.

Requires funding be split between defense and prosecution

Formulaa 2010: $10 million

Capital Case Litigation 

Initiative

Provides training on death penalty issues to improve legal 

representation to indigent defendants and enhance the 

capability of prosecutors to represent the public.

Since fiscal year 2009 requires funding in one grant category 

be split between defense and prosecution

Discretionary 2007: $1 million

2008: $2.5 million

2009: $2.5 million

2010: $2.5 million

Wrongful Conviction 

Review 

Helps ensure high-quality representation for potentially 

wrongfully-convicted defendants in cases of post-conviction 

claims of innocence.

Discretionary 2009: $3 million

2010: $3 million 

Juvenile Indigent Defense 

National Clearinghouse

Supports the improvement of juvenile indigent defense. Discretionary 2010: $500,000

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant documents and data.

Note: DOJ did not receive appropriations for JRJ grants in fiscal years 2005 through 2009, CCLI 

grants in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, WCR grants in fiscal years 2005 through 2008, and JIDNC 

grants in fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

a

DOJ uses a formula to allocate JRJ, but the statute establishing JRJ neither establishes a formula 

nor requires that a formula be followed in administering the grant.

DOJ also administered nine grant programs from fiscal years 2005 

through 2010 that recipients could choose to allocate or award to indigent 

defense, but were not required to do so. In five of these nine programs—

the JAG, JABG, Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant 

(TJADG), Byrne Competitive Grant Program, and the Tribal Civil and 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Criminal Legal Assistance Grant (TCCLA)—DOJ identified indigent 

defense as a priority or specific purpose of the grant. It did so by 

identifying indigent defense either as a purpose area, a stated priority in 

its grant solicitation, a specific category in the grant, or as a national 

initiative. According to DOJ, it established indigent defense as a priority to 

encourage spending in this area.22 See tables 2 and 3 for a description of 

the DOJ grant programs that do not require funding to be used for 

indigent defense, although recipients can use funds for such purposes.

 

22Hiring court-appointed defenders is an authorized use encompassed by one of the JABG 

program’s and TJADG program’s purpose areas, which are established in statute, not by

DOJ. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 2: DOJ Grant Programs for which Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense Is a Priority or Stated Purpose

Name of grant program Purpose Type

Appropriated amounts, 

fiscal years 2005-2010

Justice Assistance Grant Is the leading source of federal justice funding to state, 

local, and tribal governments to support purpose areas 

including law enforcement; prosecution and courts; 

prevention and education; corrections and community 

corrections; drug treatment and enforcement; planning, 

evaluation, and technology improvements; and crime 

victim and witness initiatives.

Indigent defense has been identified as a priority in the 

grant solicitation since fiscal year 2010.

Formula 2005: $634 million

2006: $416.4 million

2007: $525.2 million

2008: $170.4 million

2009: $546 million

ARRA: $2 billion

2010: $519 million 

Juvenile Accountability 

Block Grant 

Supports states and units of local government in their 

efforts to strengthen their juvenile justice systems.

One purpose area includes hiring court-appointed 

defenders.

Formula 2005: $55 million

2006: $50 million

2007: $49.4 million

2008: $51.7 million

2009: $55 million

2010: $55 million

Tribal Juvenile 

Accountability 

Discretionary Grant 

Provides funds to federally recognized tribes to combat 

delinquency and improve the quality of life in American 

Indian/Alaska Native communities.

One purpose area includes hiring court-appointed 

defenders.

Discretionary 2005: $1 million

2006: $1 million

2007: $1 million

2008: $1 million 

2009: $1.1million

2010: $1.1 million

Byrne Competitive Helps improve the functioning of the criminal justice 

system, prevent or combat juvenile delinquency, and 

assist victims of crime (other than compensation) within 

specific identified areas.

Indigent defense was prioritized as a national initiative in 

fiscal year 2009.

Discretionary 2007: $0

2008: $16 million

2009: $30 million

2010: $40 million

Tribal Civil and Criminal 

Legal Assistance

Provides funding to nonprofits and organizations for 

quality legal assistance targeting members of Indian tribes 

and tribal justice systems, pursuant to the federal poverty 

guidelines. The program also provides quality technical 

assistance to support development and enhancement of 

tribal justice systems.

Indigent defense is one grant category in the program.

Discretionary 2010: $3 million 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant documents and data.

Note: Allocating funding to indigent defense was not a requirement for any of these grant programs. 

DOJ did not receive appropriations for Byrne Competitive grants in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and 

for TCCLA grants in fiscal years 2005 through 2009. According to DOJ, it awarded competitive grants 

for national initiatives in fiscal year 2007 using funds that had been appropriated for Byrne 

Discretionary grants (Byrne Congressional Earmarks) for which no specific earmark had been 

specified.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 3: DOJ Grant Programs for which Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense is Allowed, but Not Required or a Priority

Name of grant program Purpose Type

Appropriated amounts, 

fiscal years 2005-2010

Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

Title II 

Supports state and local efforts in planning, establishing, 

operating, coordinating, and evaluating projects for the 

development of more effective education, training, 

research, prevention, diversion, treatment, and 

rehabilitation programs in the area of juvenile delinquency,

as well as programs to improve the juvenile justice 

system.

Formula 2005:$84 million

2006:$80 million

2007:$79 million

2008:$74.3 million

2009: $75 million

2010: $75 million

Tribal Court Assistance 

Program 

Helps develop and enhance the operation of tribal justice 

systems and provides funding for training and technical 

assistance to tribal court and justice system staff.

Discretionary 2005: $8 million

2006: $8 million

2007: $8 million

2008: $8.6 million

2009: $9 million

2010: $25 million

Justice and Mental Health 

Collaboration 

Facilitates collaboration among criminal justice and mental 

health treatment systems to increase access to services.

Discretionary 2007: $5 million

2008: $6.5 million

2009: $10 million

2010: $12 million

Adult Drug Court 

Discretionary 

Expands the drug court capacity at the state, local, and 

tribal levels.

Discretionary 2005: $40 million

2006: $ 10 million

2007: $10 million

2008: $15.2 million

2009: $40 million

2010: $45 million

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant documents and data.

Note: DOJ did not receive appropriations for the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Grant 

Program in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

In addition, we determined that BIA funding could be used for indigent 

defense. According to BIA officials, if tribes choose to use BIA funding for 

this purpose, this funding would come from the tribes’ Tribal Courts TPA, 

which are distributed pursuant to contracts or compacts.23

 

23In addition, BIA provides direct services to tribes that do not operate certain programs 

themselves, such as tribes that rely upon CFR courts. 

Through 

contracts and compacts, tribes, rather than BIA, determine the best use of 

their funds. BIA does not specify requirements for spending levels on 

particular tribal court services, including indigent defense, because the 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

nature of tribal sovereignty precludes BIA from placing requirements on 

how tribes spend their TPA funding. Tribes allocated a total of 

approximately $22 million through their Tribal Court TPA in each fiscal 

year from 2005 through 2010.

Further, within DOJ, BJA announced a new solicitation in April 2012 that 

focuses on helping indigent defense systems adhere to principles 

established by the American Bar Association (ABA) for public defense 

delivery systems.24

In addition to funding, DOJ, BIA, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts (AOUSC) provide training and technical assistance to indigent 

defense providers.

These principles, approved in 2002, were created as 

a practical guide for those creating and funding new, or improving 

existing, public defense delivery systems. The principles include the 

fundamental criteria necessary to design a system that provides effective, 

efficient, high-quality, ethical legal representation for indigent defendants 

in which defenders have no conflicts of interest, such as representing two 

defendants in the same case. According to DOJ, BJA will award $1.4 

million of new discretionary grant funding to support projects that help 

make achievement of these principles a reality. According to officials from 

BJA and ATJ involved in developing the solicitation, BJA and ATJ staff 

worked closely together to develop the grant, and also conducted 

outreach to indigent defense advocates to determine the type of 

assistance that would benefit public defenders. The officials explained 

that the grant will be flexible enough that a diverse group of public 

defender offices will be eligible to apply for funding because it will allow 

both less developed and more developed offices to identify areas for 

improvement in adhering to the ABA principles.

25

 

24American Bar Association, ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System.

(Chicago, Ill.: February 2002). 

For instance, BJA’s National Training and Technical 

Assistance Center (NTTAC) accepts requests for and provides training 

and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal criminal justice 

25The AOUSC serves the federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to 

provide equal justice under law through a wide range of administrative, legal, financial, 

management, program, and information technology services to the federal courts. 

According to AOUSC officials, funding for indigent defense providers is limited to federal 

defender organizations, attorneys appointed to represent defendants financially unable to 

retain counsel in federal criminal proceedings (see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A), and expert service 

providers. Similarly, all training and technical assistance is directed to persons providing 

representation in federal criminal and related matters. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

stakeholders.26 DOJ has also awarded funding to the ABA to convene a 

focus group of 18 successful reformers from across the country to 

develop strategies for reforming indigent defense systems. In its January 

2012 report to DOJ, the group suggested measures DOJ could take to 

improve indigent defense, including providing funding for programs that 

bring training and resources to regions that are most in need, among 

other things.27 In addition, BJA has a cooperative agreement with 

American University to provide technical assistance to criminal courts, 

including indigent defense providers. For instance, American University 

conducted a workshop on improving the criminal case process with the 

Texas Indigent Defense Board. Furthermore, DOJ (through ATJ and the 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices), BIA, and AOUSC’s Office of Defender Services 

have partnered to develop the Tribal Court Trial Advocacy Training 

Program, which will consist of a series of trainings for tribal court 

personnel, including defenders, prosecutors, and judges.28 The first such 

training occurred in August 2011, and the second in March 2012. 

According to DOJ and BIA officials, an additional six trainings are planned 

through January 2013. A BIA official responsible for conducting the 

trainings stated that the trainings have resulted in court personnel coming 

together to create an improved tribal justice system.

 

26NTTAC offers training and technical assistance services in the following criminal justice 

areas: adjudication (includes indigent defense), corrections, counter-terrorism, crime 

prevention, information sharing, law enforcement, mental health, and substance abuse. 

27The focus group, entitled National Indigent Defense Reform: The Solution is 

Multifaceted, produced a preliminary report suggesting DOJ endorse the following five 

core principles to demonstrably improve indigent defense reform: reclassify criminal 

offenses to reduce pressure on public defenders; support programs that ensure counsel is 

present for a criminal defendant’s first appearance; protect the sixth Amendment right to 

“effective” assistance of counsel by taking actions to support the right to counsel at the 

state and local level; ensure the defense bar is consulted prior to adoption of new law 

enforcement strategies, which could impact defender caseloads; and better utilize the 

resources of the private bar. 

28The U.S. Attorneys are the chief federal law enforcement officers in their districts, 

responsible for federal criminal prosecutions and civil cases involving the United States 

Government. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Recipients of the four grant programs requiring funds to be used in whole 

or in part for indigent defense from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 

allocated or planned to use $13.3 million out of $21.2 million—or 63 

percent—of available funds for state, local, and tribal indigent defense.29

For instance, 19 of 33 grantees of the Capital Case Litigation Initiative 

used $3.3 million to provide training to indigent defense attorneys who 

handle death penalty cases.

30

However, two-thirds or more of the survey respondents who were 

recipients of the DOJ formula grants for which indigent defense was not a 

required use or Tribal Courts TPA distributions reported that they did not 

allocate funding for indigent defense, partly because of other competing 

priorities, such as law enforcement needs. As shown in figure 1, survey 

respondents for JAG State Administering Agencies (SAA)—the 

designated agencies in each state that establish funding priorities and 

coordinate JAG funds among state and local justice initiatives—and 

survey respondents for Tribal Courts TPA distributions more frequently 

reported allocating funds for indigent defense than JJDP, JABG, or local 

and tribal JAG survey respondents.

See appendix II for additional information 

about the allocation and use of these grants for indigent defense.

31

 

29The dollar figures are in current dollars not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation 

does not affect the percentages. 

(See appendix III for additional 

information on the percentages of respondents who reported allocating 

nondiscretionary funding for indigent defense.)

30DOJ did not receive appropriations for the Capital Case Litigation Initiative in fiscal years 

2005 and 2006. Eighteen of the 19 grantees who used funding to provide training to 

defenders also provided training to nondefenders, such as prosecutors.

3160 percent of JAG funding awarded to states is awarded directly to a SAA in each state, 

and each SAA must in turn allocate a formula-based share of these funds to local entities, 

for which SAAs may require that local entities apply. BJA awards the remaining 40 percent 

of the state’s allocation directly to eligible units of local government, as determined by a 

statutorily prescribed formula, within the state. 

Unless Required, Few 

Recipients Allocated 

or Planned to Use Any 

Federal Funding for 

Indigent Defense, in 

Part Due to 

Competing Priorities
 

Page 18 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 1: Percentage of Survey Respondents that Received DOJ Formula Grants or BIA Tribal Courts TPA Funds and 

Reported Allocating These Funds for Indigent Defense

Note: We provide separate data on JAG State Administering Agencies—which directly receive 60 

percent of the state’s JAG allocation—and localities and tribes that receive JAG funding—which 

directly receive 40 percent of the state’s JAG allocation. Survey response rates upon which these 

data were based were 68 percent for Tribal Courts TPA distribution recipients; 46 percent for JAG (89 

percent for SAAs and 45 percent for localities and tribes); 89 percent for JJDP; 82 percent for JABG. 

Because of the relatively low response rates among recipients of BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions 

and local and tribal JAG recipients, their results should not be generalized to the recipients of BIA 

Tribal Courts TPA distributions or local and tribal JAG recipient populations.

Similarly, as displayed in figure 2, our analysis of discretionary grants 

showed that no more than 25 percent was awarded for indigent defense 

from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. For example, the percentage of 

grants that was awarded fully or in part for indigent defense ranged from 

1.3 percent for the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program to 25 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

percent for the TCCLA grant.32

 

32DOJ determined that 35 percent of TCCLA funding was awarded for indigent defense in 

fiscal year 2010, and 51 percent was awarded for indigent defense in fiscal year 2011. 

The fiscal year 2010 percentage differs from our analysis due to the differences in the 

methodologies used to determine the percentage of grants awarded for indigent defense. 

Specifically, DOJ calculated its percentage by dividing the grants awarded under Category 

2—the purpose of which is to provide criminal legal assistance services—by the total 

awards under the grant. In contrast, we reviewed each of the project descriptions 

submitted by TCCLA grantees to determine whether the descriptions indicated that the 

grantee planned to use the funds for indigent defense. Because the project descriptions 

may not have included all the planned activities of the grantee, our methodology may not 

have captured all grants that were awarded for indigent defense. 

See appendix IV for additional information 

on the number of discretionary grants awarded for indigent defense.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 2: Percentage of Discretionary Grants That Were Awarded Fully or in Part for 

Indigent Defense during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010

Note: No grants were awarded for indigent defense in the Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary 

Grant Program. For the years focused on in this review, DOJ awarded grants under the Byrne 

Competitive Grant Program in fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal 

Assistance Grant Program in fiscal year 2010, the Tribal Court Assistance Program in fiscal years 

2005 through 2010, the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Grant Program in fiscal years 2007 

through 2010, and the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program in fiscal years 2005 through 2010.

In general, DOJ and BIA funding recipients who responded to our surveys 

most frequently reported that other criminal or juvenile justice areas were 

a higher priority and extremely or very important to their decisions not to 

allocate funding for indigent defense, while public defenders generally 

reported that they did not apply for discretionary grants because they 

were not aware they were eligible to do so. Figures 3 and 4, as well as 

the following sections, illustrate these responses in more detail.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 3: Percentage of JAG, JJDP, JABG, and Tribal Courts TPA Survey Respondents Reporting Reasons That Were 

Extremely or Very Important to Their Decisions Not to Allocate Funding for Indigent Defense

Note: The percentages are calculated out of only those respondents who indicated that the reasons 

were valid in their jurisdiction. Concerns with sustainability refer to grantee’s concerns that indigent 

defense positions funded through the grant would not be sustainable after the funding ended.

a

In order to compare responses across tribes, we did not ask Tribal Courts TPA or tribal JAG 

respondents about decreased funding or funding sustainability because BIA funding through the 

Tribal Courts TPA has been relatively constant from fiscal year 2005 through 2010.

b

N

=

9

6

We did not ask the remaining JAG, JABG, or JJDP respondents about the importance of not 

providing indigent defense services because the respondents were generally representing state and 

local government offices, and states and local governments are required to afford defendants, 

including indigent defendants, the right to counsel.

N

=

3

9

N

=

3

0

N

=

3

4

N

=

5

6

N

=

3

3

N

=

2

7 N

=

7

7

N

=

3

2

N

=

2

6

N

=

2

5

N

=

1

1

N

=

5

2

N

=

1

0

N

=

1

0

N

=

2

5

N

=

8

N

=

6 N=

763

N

=

1

6

N

=

2

0

N

=

4

3
 

Page 22 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 4: Percentage of Public Defender Survey Respondents Reporting Reasons 

That Were Extremely or Very Important for Why They Did Not Apply for Grant 

Funding (N=103)

Competing priorities: JAG respondents most frequently reported that 

funding for law enforcement, such as overtime for police officers; 

equipment, such as surveillance equipment or street lighting; and 

technology, such as cameras for police vehicles, were higher priorities 

than indigent defense. For instance, one JAG administrator with whom we 

spoke explained that his city was laying off over 30 police officers.

Because there will now be fewer officers on the street to identify, report, 

and respond to crime as it happens, his jurisdiction gave priority to 

obtaining technology that would allow citizens to better report crimes as 

opposed to providing funding for indigent defense. As figure 5 shows, 

respondents to our JAG survey reported allocating the largest proportion 

of funding to the law enforcement purpose area, followed by the planning, 

evaluation, and technology improvement purpose area, in which funds 

may be used for criminal justice information systems, such as automated 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

fingerprint identification systems. See figures 5 and 6 for the percentage 

of total JAG funding that respondents reported allocating to each of the 

seven JAG purpose areas, compared to indigent defense. See appendix 

V for additional information about survey respondents’ reported 

allocations across purpose areas and for indigent defense in each fiscal 

year.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 5: Percentage of Funding That JAG SAA Respondents Reported Allocating 

to Each Purpose Area, Including Indigent Defense, during Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2010

Note: Funding for indigent defense can be allocated in multiple purpose areas, as indigent defense is 

not its own purpose area. As a result, to obtain the percentages allocated for each purpose area, we 

subtracted the amount respondents reported allocating for indigent defense out of the specified 

purpose area. As discussed in appendix I, dollar amount data reported have limitations and should be 

considered estimates. In particular, in this figure, our data may overrepresent allocations to law 

enforcement because it was the first category listed in our survey and respondents that were unable 

to split their funding across purpose areas may have reported allocating all funding to law 

enforcement. Similarly, our data may overrepresent allocations for indigent defense because JAG 

recipients that allocated funding to indigent defense may have been more likely to respond to our 

survey than recipients that had never done so. Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages 

do not add up to 100 due to rounding.
 

Page 25 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 6: Percentage of Funding That JAG Local and Tribal Respondents Reported 

Allocating to Each Purpose Area, As Well As Indigent Defense, during Fiscal Years 

2005 through 2010 

Note: Funding for indigent defense can be allocated in multiple purpose areas, as indigent defense is 

not its own purpose area. As a result, to obtain the percentages allocated for each purpose area, we 

subtracted the amount respondents reported allocating for indigent defense out of the specified 

purpose area. As discussed in appendix I, dollar amount data reported have limitations and should be 

considered estimates. In particular, in this figure, our data may overrepresent allocations to law 

enforcement because it was the first category listed in our survey and respondents that were unable 

to split their funding across purpose areas may have reported allocating all funding to law 

enforcement. Similarly, our data may overrepresent allocations for indigent defense because JAG 

recipients that allocated funding to indigent defense may have been more likely to respond to our 

survey than recipients that had never done so. Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages 

do not add up to 100 due to rounding.

The three JJDP and five JABG survey respondents who provided specific 

examples of other activities that were higher priorities than indigent 

defense most frequently cited alternatives to detention, such as services 

provided to a juvenile offender in the community as an alternative to 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

incarceration, and programs to address the disproportionate number of 

juveniles of minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile 

justice system.33

Further, our review of the DOJ discretionary grants that can be, but are 

not required to be, used for indigent defense also showed that, generally, 

grantees that received these awards more frequently planned to use 

these awards for other criminal justice priorities. For example, Byrne 

Competitive grantees more frequently planned to use their awards to 

support law enforcement and other criminal justice areas than indigent 

defense. Figure 7 illustrates other criminal justice areas, such as law 

enforcement, that grantees commonly planned to fund with Byrne 

Competitive grants awarded from fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

Figure 7: Criminal Justice Areas Awarded Byrne Competitive Grants during Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010 (N=287)

Note: Other may include crime prevention, funding to prevent or address domestic violence, pretrial 

justice, and county and state government criminal justice practitioners. For the years focused on in 

this review, DOJ awarded Byrne Competitive Grants in fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

 

33While Tribal Courts TPA survey respondents most commonly reported that other criminal 

justice areas were higher priorities, five provided examples of these priorities, which were 

law enforcement, court personnel, and prosecution. 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Several factors may help to explain why grants were more frequently 

allocated or used for other criminal justice areas as opposed to indigent 

defense. For instance, a JAG administrator with whom we spoke 

indicated that JAG recipients often allocate funding to law enforcement 

because the JAG grant has historically been a law enforcement grant.34 In 

addition, 83 percent (1,484 of 1,779) of JAG survey respondents reported 

that their organization was a law enforcement entity—either a police 

department or sheriff’s office—which may not naturally allocate funding 

for indigent defense. Further, 64 percent (21 of 33) of JJDP, 63 percent 

(17 of 27) of JABG, and 54 percent (302 of 564) of JAG survey 

respondents reported that a decrease in the available grant funding was 

extremely or very important to their decision not to allocate funding for 

indigent defense.35

The Attorney General stated that DOJ is continuing to work to bring all 

criminal justice stakeholders, including indigent defense providers, 

together to plan comprehensive criminal justice strategies, which will help 

jurisdictions ensure that decisions are made with an eye toward 

strengthening the criminal justice system. For instance, DOJ issued new 

guidelines to JAG grantees in March 2012, within the fiscal year 2012

JAG solicitation, that encourage stakeholders to come together in a 

Specifically, according to one JAG administrator, 

decreases in JAG funding make it even less likely that jurisdictions that 

have traditionally allocated funding for law enforcement will allocate 

funding for indigent defense because the law enforcement agencies need 

the money. Further, DOJ officials explained that OJP follows a “state and 

local assistance model” in administering the JAG program, whereby DOJ 

provides funding to states and localities but does not determine how the 

jurisdictions allocate the funding. Instead, the states and localities 

independently determine what issues within their respective jurisdictions 

need funding, and then allocate funds for those purposes. As a result, 

states and localities may choose not to allocate funding for indigent 

defense but instead allocate it to these higher-priority areas.

 

34The JAG program was formed from two existing grants, one of which was a law 

enforcement-focused grant. Specifically, the JAG program was created following 

enactment of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act 

of 2005, which merged the discretionary Edward Byrne Memorial Grant program with the 

formula-based Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. See 42 U.S.C. § 3750.

35Total population numbers of JAG, JABG, and JJDP that responded to this question do 

not match the overall total survey population because some respondents did not answer 

the question. 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

comprehensive criminal justice planning process. Specifically, these 

recommended guidelines specify that, at a minimum, the strategic 

planning process include law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, indigent 

defense providers, victim advocates, and corrections officials. Further, the 

JAG solicitation asks applicants to identify, among other things, the 

stakeholders currently participating in the strategic planning process. 

According to DOJ officials, these guidelines may benefit indigent defense 

providers in two ways. First, JAG funding is more likely to be shared with 

a broader range of stakeholders if they are included in the planning 

process, which our survey responses also suggest may be true. 

Specifically, among the 4 percent of JAG grantees who reported that 

representatives of the indigent defense community were involved in the 

decision making process, 22 percent reported allocating funding for 

indigent defense. In contrast, among the 52 percent who reported that 

representatives of the indigent defense community were not involved in 

the decision making process, 2 percent reported allocating funding for 

indigent defense.36

Lack of awareness of eligibility for funding: Public defender offices or 

agencies responding to our survey most frequently reported (67 of 103) 

that their lack of awareness about their eligibility for funding was an 

extremely or very important reason they did not apply for DOJ 

discretionary grant funding from fiscal year 2005 through 2011.

Second, if indigent defense providers are included in 

the planning process, they can provide input to other stakeholders, such 

as law enforcement personnel, about the impact that their use of JAG 

funding may have on both the indigent defense provider and, 

correspondingly, the criminal justice system. For instance, an indigent 

defense expert explained that, when law enforcement or prosecutorial 

agencies receive additional funding, arrests and prosecutions may 

increase, which in turn increase indigent defense providers’ caseloads. If 

the indigent defense provider does not receive additional funding to 

handle the caseload, cases may take longer to move through the judicial 

process.

37

 

36These percentages do not total 100 percent because 45 percent of respondents 

reported that they did not know if an indigent defense provider was involved in the 

determination of how JAG funding would be used. 

For 

37We asked public defender offices or agencies about their awareness of discretionary 

grants because they could apply for these grants. We did not ask about their awareness of 

formula grants or other funding sources because they do not have the opportunity to apply 

directly to DOJ or BIA for these funds. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

instance, 3 public defenders who submitted additional comments also 

reported that they would like to have a centralized source of information 

on available grants, training, and best practices that they could use for 

assistance. In addition, as shown in figure 8, no more than 54 percent of 

Tribal Courts TPA, JABG, JAG, and JJDP survey respondents reported 

that they were aware that funding could be allocated for indigent defense.

Figure 8: Survey Respondents Who Reported They Were Aware that Funding Could 

Be Used for Indigent Defense

DOJ has undertaken efforts to make grantees aware of available funding. 

It has provided training and technical assistance on the grant process and 

a list of available grants on OJP’s Web site. DOJ has also provided a list 

of grants that may be of interest to, among others, defender agencies, on 

ATJ’s Web site. Further, ATJ officials reported that they collaborate with 

public defender membership organizations, such as the National Legal 

Aid and Defender Association and the National Association of Criminal 

Defense Lawyers, to make indigent defense providers aware of grants. In 

addition, they mention funding opportunities during speeches to the 

indigent defense community. Moreover, DOJ officials reported that all 

available grant opportunities are listed on grants.gov, the federal 

government’s grant clearinghouse, and grantees can search the site 

using keywords that would help them identify grants of interest, such as 

those related to indigent defense. DOJ officials reported that they 
 

Page 30 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

encourage potential applicants to sign up to receive information from 

grants.gov. In addition, BIA officials stated that during the contracting 

process tribes go through to obtain TPA funds, BIA may inform tribes that 

they could use funding available through their Tribal Courts TPA 

distribution for indigent defense—or any other component of tribal 

courts—but did not know of any explicit efforts to make tribes aware.

Despite these efforts, no more than 54 percent of grantees or public 

defender offices or agencies that responded to our survey were aware of 

funding that could be used to support indigent defense. Moreover, 59 

percent (22 of 37) of Tribal Courts TPA distribution, 53 percent (8 of 15) 

of JABG, and 36 percent (5 of 14) of JJDP survey respondents reported 

that such lack of awareness was an extremely or very important reason 

why they did not allocate funding for indigent defense.38 While relatively 

few JAG recipients who responded to our surveys reported that lack of 

awareness was an extremely or very important reason why they did not 

allocate funding for indigent defense in the past, these states, localities, 

and tribes could make indigent defense a higher priority in the future. As a 

result, increasing awareness that federal funding can be used for this 

purpose could help DOJ and BIA to ensure that potential funding 

recipients are better positioned to respond to changing priorities.39

 

38These percentages are calculated only out of those respondents that indicated that they 

were not aware that funding could be used for indigent defense in any year from fiscal 

year 2005 through 2010. 

In 

addition, JAG (50 of 105), JABG (5 of 11), and JJDP (5 of 13) survey 

respondents most frequently suggested in open-ended responses that, to 

increase allocations for indigent defense, DOJ could take steps to 

increase awareness that funding could be allocated for indigent defense, 

such as by communicating this through e-mail, or during training sessions 

or conferences. Given that funding through these grant programs can be 

used, consistent with applicable authorizing statutes, to support indigent 

defense, and because the Attorney General has identified a crisis in 

criminal defense and has committed the department to focusing on 

indigent defense issues, increasing awareness among grantees and 

indigent defense providers about available funding could help DOJ better 

ensure that it meets its commitment to supporting indigent defense. DOJ 

grant administrators and ATJ officials acknowledged that opportunities 

3911 percent (90 of 837) of JAG survey respondents reported that lack of awareness was 

an extremely or very important reason why they did not allocate funding for indigent 

defense.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

exist to enhance grantees’ awareness of funding that can be allocated or 

awarded for indigent defense. Further, in open-ended responses, 14 

tribes stated that BIA should take actions to clarify that Tribal Courts TPA 

distributions may be used for indigent defense. Consistent with BIA’s 

authority to provide financial assistance to tribes through contracts, 

compacts, or other means, to support the development, enhancement, 

and continuing operation of tribal justice systems, including for the 

employment and training of public defenders and appointed defense 

counsel, increasing tribes’ awareness that funding may be used for 

indigent defense could better position BIA and tribes to support such 

systems. BIA officials responsible for providing assistance to tribal courts 

agreed that they could take additional actions to help increase tribes’ 

awareness of funding available for indigent defense.

Those recipients who chose to allocate or use funding for indigent 

defense generally reported providing a small amount of funding for 

indigent defense relative to their total awards.40 Specifically, the award 

amounts reported by JAG, JABG, JJDP, and Tribal Courts TPA recipients 

who allocated funding to indigent defense ranged from 2 percent of the 

total award (in the JJDP program) to 14 percent (in the JABG program).

Similarly, in our review of discretionary grants, awards for indigent 

defense were generally small relative to total awards, ranging from at 

most 0.4 percent of the total award (in the Justice and Mental Health 

Collaboration and Drug Court Discretionary Grant programs) to at most 

8.1 percent (in the Tribal Court Assistance Program).41

Figure 9 shows indigent defense allocations as a percentage of these 

survey respondents’ total awards, in current dollars unadjusted for 

inflation, while figure 10 shows discretionary awards for indigent defense 

as a percentage of total awards, in current dollars. See appendix IV for 

additional details about these allocations and awards by year.

 

40As previously discussed, recipients of grants that required that funding be allocated for 

indigent defense—JRJ, CCLI, WCR, and JIDNC—allocated or planned to use such funds 

for indigent defense in accordance with grant requirements. See appendix II for additional 

details on these allocations and uses. 

41Because the discretionary awards include funding used in part for indigent defense, 

these calculations are an upper bound of allocations to indigent defense as a percentage 

of total award. 

When Recipients 

Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense, in 

General, the Amount 

Was Small Relative to 

the Total Award and 

Funding Was Used for 

Personnel and 

Training 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 9: Allocations for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards among 

Those Who Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2010

Note: As discussed in appendix I, there are limitations to these data, particularly for JAG respondents. 

As a result, these numbers should be considered estimates.
 

Page 33 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 10: Amounts Awarded Fully or In Part for Indigent Defense, as a Percentage 

of Total Amounts Awarded for Selected Discretionary Grants, during Fiscal Years 

2005 through 2010

Note: Includes grants that were used fully or in part for indigent defense. Thus, these percentages 

may represent the upper bound of the amounts awarded for indigent defense. Because the amount 

awarded for indigent defense as a percentage of total awards in the Justice and Mental Health 

Collaboration grants was so small, the percentage rounded to zero. No grants were awarded for 

indigent defense from the Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant Program.

Recipients most frequently reported using indigent defense funding for 

personnel and training, which may help to address challenges that public 

defenders face. More specifically, public defenders that responded to our 

survey most frequently reported that financial challenges very greatly or 

greatly impacted their ability to increase compensation for people working 

in the indigent defense system, hire additional attorneys, travel to or 

register for external training, and hire clerical support or investigators. 

Further, indigent defense providers we spoke with during a panel 

discussion at the National Legal Aid and Defender Association’s annual 

conference confirmed this position, stating that critical funding needs for 

public defender programs included personnel—both attorneys and 

support staff—as well as training.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

JABG and JJDP recipients who had allocated funding for indigent 

defense most commonly reported using this funding for training and 

personnel, and our review of discretionary grants found that indigent 

defense funding was generally used for these same purposes. Figures 11 

and 12 illustrate the most frequently reported uses of the grants. Similarly, 

selected recipients of JAG and BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions with 

whom we spoke most commonly reported using funding for personnel.

Figure 11: Reported Uses of JABG and JJDP Grants Allocated for Indigent Defense

Note: Grants may be used for multiple purposes; therefore, single grants may be counted more than 

once in the above graphic.
 

Page 35 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 12: Uses of Discretionary Grants Awarded for Indigent Defense

Note: Grants may be used for multiple purposes; therefore, single grants may be counted more than 

once in the above graphic.

In terms of personnel, grantees funded both attorneys and support staff, 

including social workers, investigators, or substance abuse and treatment 

specialists. Support staff help to conduct investigations, process clients 

as they come in for assistance, or address needs clients have beyond 

their court case, such as challenges with substance abuse, mental health, 

employment, or housing. For instance, one JAG grantee reported that 

funds were used to hire an attorney in a county public defender office to 

represent veterans in the criminal court systems. The attorney represents 

the veterans at the county’s veterans’ court and also conducts significant 

outreach to treatment providers in the county to help ensure veterans can 

obtain any additional treatment they may need. In terms of training, 

grantees funded activities that included instruction on juvenile law and 

technology. Moreover, one grantee—The Bronx Defenders—received a 

Byrne Competitive grant to provide technical assistance to other public 
 

Page 36 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

defender organizations on the public defense model they use, known as 

holistic defense (see sidebar).

 

For grant programs that require funding be used at least in part for 

indigent defense, DOJ collects data on whether recipients have allocated 

funding for indigent defense and the allocation amounts, which allows 

DOJ to determine if funding was used in accordance with grant 

requirements. For instance, in the John R. Justice Program, which funds 

student loan repayments for public defenders and prosecutors, DOJ 

collects data on the number and amount of loan repayments made to 

state and local public defenders. In addition, for the Capital Case 

Litigation Initiative, DOJ can determine the amounts allocated for indigent 

defense because the grant funds must be allocated equally between 

prosecution and defense.42

In addition, DOJ collected data on indigent defense funding for the Byrne 

Competitive and TCCLA grants when funding for indigent defense was a 

 

42Data collection on indigent defense funding for the Wrongful Conviction Review Program 

and Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse is inherent because, according to 

DOJ, all funding for these programs must be awarded for indigent defense.

DOJ Could More 

Consistently Collect 

Data on the Amount 

of Funding Allocated 

for Indigent Defense 

When Programs 

Identify It as a 

Priority
 

Page 37 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

priority. Specifically, in 2009, when hiring public defenders was a national 

initiative for the Byrne Competitive grant, DOJ collected data on awards 

by national initiative and, thus, collected data on grant funding awarded 

for indigent defense under this initiative. Similarly, for the TCCLA grant, 

DOJ collects data on the grant category under which awards are made 

and, therefore, can identify funding awarded under the grant category 

related to indigent defense.

Further, DOJ has developed mechanisms to collect data on whether JAG 

recipients have allocated funding for indigent defense and the amount 

allocated. First, so that DOJ can determine the number of grantees that 

are using funds for a particular purpose, when applicants apply for JAG 

funding, DOJ allows them to identify which of the more than 150 “project 

identifiers” best describe the proposed activities for which they plan to use 

the funding.43

Second, as part of its efforts to revise JAG performance measures, which 

were made partly in response to our review, BJA has drafted a 

performance measure for the amount of funding spent on defense. 

Moreover, DOJ recently improved its efforts to collect data on the extent 

to which JAG grantees have allocated funds for indigent defense, but 

DOJ does not collect data on whether JABG or TJADG grantees have 

allocated funding for this purpose. According to an OJP official 

responsible for the grant system, all project identifiers are available to any 

According to BJA officials, DOJ created an indigent defense 

“project identifier” in fiscal year 2011 to better track indigent defense 

spending, given that indigent defense is listed as a priority in the fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011 JAG solicitations. Further, in its fiscal year 2011 

solicitation, DOJ required that JAG applicants identify up to 5 project 

identifiers to catalogue their allocations. According to DOJ grant program 

officials, they established this requirement because they wanted to be 

able to track grantees’ uses of the funds and respond to questions from 

Congress and others about these uses. DOJ officials stated that they 

limited the requirement to 5 project identifiers to help ensure that the 

identifiers selected were most representative of the projects being funded. 

BJA also noted that, during its application review, BJA staff have the 

option to select additional project identifiers that would assist in the 

description and tracking of projects being funded.

 

43GAO, Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls 

and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program Requirements, GAO-12-353

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2012).
 

Page 38 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

OJP grantees, including JAG as well as JABG and TJADG grantees. 

However, unlike the JAG program, JABG and TJADG grantees are not 

required to identify project identifiers to describe proposed project 

activities when applying for funding; therefore grantees may choose not to 

use them. Moreover, 3 of the 5 JABG survey respondents who reported 

allocating funding for indigent defense with whom we spoke reported that 

they were unaware of an indigent defense project identifier, and an 

additional respondent reported being aware, but unlikely to use it.44

DOJ officials responsible for the JABG program explained that they 

collect data on grantees’ allocation of funds for the JABG purpose area 

that includes hiring court-appointed defenders, but the data are not 

detailed enough to identify allocations specifically for indigent defense. 

Moreover, the officials noted that this purpose area is only 1out of 17 

JABG purpose areas. Similarly, the purpose area that includes hiring 

court-appointed defenders is only 1 out of 17 TJADG purpose areas, and 

TJADG data we obtained from DOJ did not identify whether funding was 

awarded for indigent defense. In addition, JABG and TJADG applicants 

have not been required to identify project identifiers because, according 

to an official from OJJDP, the office that administers the programs, 

OJJDP was not aware that the project identifiers available to JAG 

grantees could also be used by OJJDP staff and grantees. We have 

previously reported that agencies should collect sufficiently complete, 

accurate, and consistent data to measure performance and support 

decision making at various organizational levels.45 Given that the Attorney 

General has identified a crisis in criminal defense and committed the 

department to focusing on indigent defense issues and developing and 

implementing solutions, collecting data on whether grantees have 

allocated or awarded funding for indigent defense could help DOJ better 

assess whether funding is supporting this commitment.

 

44These 5 respondents included all JABG recipients who reported allocating funding for 

indigent defense from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 with whom we were able to conduct 

an interview. We did not discuss the project identifiers with the remaining respondent. One 

additional JABG respondent who reported allocating funding did not respond to our 

requests for an interview. 

45GAO/GGD-96-118. 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), performance 

measurement indicates what a program is accomplishing and whether 

results are being achieved.46 For all DOJ grant programs that either 

require funding be used for indigent defense or identify it as a priority, 

DOJ has or is developing indigent defense-related performance 

measures and requires grantees to provide data to inform these 

measures. For example, for the Byrne Competitive, TCCLA, TJADG, and 

JABG programs—where DOJ has prioritized indigent defense-related 

funding—DOJ requires grantees to report indigent defense-related 

measures such as the number of public defenders hired. In the JAG 

program, DOJ is developing a measure—the number of cases 

defended—in its revisions to its online performance measures.47

OMB guidance outlines four types of performance measures agencies 

may use to assess program impact: those that describe the level of 

activity that will be provided over a period of time (output measures), 

For a list 

of performance measures DOJ uses to assess the impact of funding used 

for indigent defense-related activities, see appendix VI.

 

46OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003). 

47BJA launched the online Performance Measurement Tool in 2007 to improve upon its 

previous grants management system and allow online performance data submission. 

However, we previously reported that DOJ acknowledged that weaknesses exist in the 

current JAG performance measures and were working to update the measures with input

from JAG SAAs. See GAO-11-87. After developing draft revisions to the Performance 

Measurement Tool, DOJ posted the revised measures on its website and received 

stakeholder comments. 

DOJ Assesses the 

Impact of Indigent 

Defense Grant 

Funding and Has 

Mechanisms to Help 

Indigent Defense 

Providers Evaluate 

Services 

DOJ Has Measures to 

Assess the Impact of 

Indigent Defense-Related 

Grant Funding
 

Page 40 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

those that describe the intended result of carrying out the program 

(outcome measures), those that indicate how well a procedure, process, 

or operation is working (process measures), and those that describe the 

resources used to produce outputs and outcomes (input measures).48

While each type of measure provides information that can help assess 

the impact of the program, OMB also states that appropriate performance 

goals should, among other things, focus on outcomes, but use outputs 

when necessary.49 In addition, OMB strongly encourages the use of 

outcomes because they are more meaningful to the public than outputs.50

As we have previously reported, developing output measures is a step 

toward developing outcome measures, and an important initial step in 

measuring progress.51 However, we have also previously reported that 

leading organizations promote accountability by establishing resultsoriented, outcome goals and corresponding performance measures by 

which to gauge progress towards attaining these goals.52

We found that all nine of the DOJ grant programs that required or 

prioritized funding for indigent defense included output measures that 

described the level of grant activity. In addition, seven of the nine grant 

programs included outcome-oriented performance measures that 

described the intended results of the program. For example, for the 

Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse Grant, DOJ developed 

the outcome measure “percentage of people exhibiting increased 

knowledge of the program area,” which demonstrates a clear linkage to 

the program goals to improve juvenile indigent defense, to build the 

capacity of the juvenile indigent defense bar, and to promote the zealous 

 

48OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003); OMB, Circular No. A-11, Part 6: Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, 

Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Performance Reports (Washington, D.C.: August 

2011). 

49OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003). 

50OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003). 

51GAO, Warfighter Support: DOD Needs Strategic Outcome-Related Goals and Visibility 

over Its Counter-IED Efforts, GAO-12-280 (Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2012).

52GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 
 

Page 41 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

and effective advocacy for juvenile indigent defendants. See appendix VI 

for our more detailed analysis of the measures used.

The John R. Justice and JAG programs do not include indigent defenserelated outcome-oriented performance measures that gauge impacts or 

results. However, DOJ requires states that receive John R. Justice 

funding to submit, at the conclusion of the grant, an assessment of the 

program’s impact on retention of prosecutors and defenders in the state, 

which would allow DOJ to assess whether the program is achieving 

intended results. DOJ officials explained that they required grantees to 

submit this assessment because the DOJ Inspector General is required in 

the statute establishing the John R. Justice program to report on the 

program’s impact on the retention of prosecutors and public defenders.53

In addition, according to DOJ officials, they have not developed indigent 

defense-related outcome-oriented performance measures for the JAG 

program because the ways in which JAG funds can be used vary 

significantly across and within the seven purpose areas, making the 

development of outcome-oriented measures that could capture the 

intended results of the program difficult. Even among grantees that 

allocated funding for indigent defense, the purposes varied significantly. 

For instance, one JAG grantee with whom we spoke reported using 

indigent defense-related JAG funds to update the case management 

system at a public defender’s office, for which an outcome measure could 

be the increase in the efficiency with which cases are handled, while 

another used the funds to pay for an attorney, for which an outcome 

measure could be the decrease in the number of cases each attorney 

handles. Further, OMB has acknowledged that developing performance 

measures for programs that, like JAG, address multiple objectives and 

support a broad range of activities can be challenging. For programs that 

focus funds on specific purpose areas, as JAG does, OMB states that 

agencies can address the challenge by articulating national goals, and 

then working with state and local entities to identify specific objectives 

As a result, DOJ decided to require these assessments from recipients in 

order to provide this information to the Inspector General, if requested.

 

53See 42 U.S.C. § 3797cc–21(h) (requiring the Inspector of the Department of Justice to 

submit a report to Congress, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 

section (enacted August 14, 2008), on the costs of the program and the impact of the 

program on the hiring and retention of prosecutors and public defenders).
 

Page 42 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

and measures linked to the national goals that the grantee will address.54

However, because indigent defense is not a JAG purpose area, such a 

solution would not result in indigent defense-related measures. In 

addition, DOJ officials stated that asking grantees to develop measures 

would place an additional reporting burden on the grantees. DOJ officials 

also stated that while they do not have indigent defense-related outcomeoriented measures in the JAG program, they do ask grantees to report on 

what they have accomplished with their grants. Like an outcome 

measure, this could allow DOJ to assess the results of the program.

With its indigent defense-related performance measures, DOJ can assess 

the impact of a grantee’s use of funds, such as whether the funding 

resulted in an increase in the number of defenders hired. However, its 

assessments are not intended to evaluate the effectiveness of a 

grantee’s, or any indigent defense provider’s, programs or services, such 

as whether the defender’s ability, training, and experience match the 

complexity of the case, which is one of ABA’s principles for public 

defense delivery systems. Instead, as we have previously reported, 

evaluations may be used to assess a program’s effectiveness, identify 

how to improve performance, or guide resource allocation. Moreover, 

evaluation can play a key role in strategic planning and in program 

management, providing feedback on both program design and 

execution.55 For example, respondents to our survey of public defender 

offices and agencies reported using evaluations for purposes such as 

enacting system improvements (8), supporting funding requests (8), and 

addressing caseload issues (4), among others. Of the 118 public 

defender offices or agencies that responded to our survey, 9 provided us 

with copies of evaluations that they had conducted of their office or 

agency or that another entity conducted, such as a consultant or 

oversight body.56

 

54OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003). 

For example, one evaluation—conducted by the 

oversight committee for a local jurisdiction’s indigent defense services—

collected data and used it to assess compliance with local indigent 

defense standards. The evaluation considered professional 

55GAO, Designing Evaluations, GAO-12-208G. Washington, D.C. January, 2012. 

56An additional 23 public defender offices or agencies reported that an evaluation had 

been conducted, but did not provide us with or direct us to a copy.

Indigent Defense Providers 

Generally Reported That 

Evaluations of Their 

Services Have Not Been 

Conducted; DOJ Has 

Mechanisms to Support 

Such Evaluations
 

Page 43 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

independence; attorney qualifications; training; supervision; workload; 

performance evaluation and discipline; support services; case 

management and quality control; and reporting. Appendix VII provides 

additional details on these evaluations.

Sixty-two percent (68 of 109) of public defender offices or agencies that 

responded to our survey reported that no evaluation had been conducted 

of their office or agency. Respondents who reported reasons for not 

conducting an evaluation most frequently cited lack of personnel (46 

percent, 29 of 63) and lack of expertise and/or the need for technical 

assistance (43 percent, 27 of 63) as the reasons.57 Moreover, 

respondents identified challenges to collecting data on factors that affect 

their ability to provide indigent defense services—information that could 

be used to conduct an evaluation. For example, 50 percent (59 of 118) 

reported that the amount of face-to-face time a public defender spends 

with a client—a potential indicator of effectiveness—is difficult or 

burdensome to collect, and data on client satisfaction are also costly to 

collect (18 percent, 21 of 118), difficult to measure (47 percent, 56 of 

118), and imprecise (32 percent, 38 of 118). However, respondents also 

reported currently collecting data on factors that DOJ and indigent 

defense stakeholders report could affect the quality of indigent defense

services. For example, according to BJA, managing defender workloads 

is important to ensuring that the administration of justice is fair and 

equitable, and quality of service may be impacted when public defenders 

are forced to manage too many clients with inadequate resources.58

According to respondents, data currently being collected includes both 

average caseload per public defender (86 percent, 96 of 111), and the 

number of active cases per public defender (84 percent, 94 of 112). 

Respondents also reported collecting data on average salary or hourly 

rate of public defenders (76 percent, 83 of 109)—a factor that indigent 

defense stakeholders have identified as relevant to the ability to attract 

and retain qualified attorneys.59

 

57Respondents were permitted to select more than one factor influencing their decision not 

to conduct an evaluation. 

Appendix VIII provides additional 

information on the extent to which public defender offices or agencies 

58BJA, Keeping Defender Workloads Manageable (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).

59National Right to Counsel Committee, Justice Denied: America’s Continuing Neglect of 

our Constitutional Right to Counsel (Washington, D.C.: April 2009).
 

Page 44 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

reported collecting data that could be used to conduct an evaluation and 

the associated challenges or limitations of the data.

DOJ has mechanisms that could help to address some of the evaluation 

challenges that indigent defense offices and agencies reported, including 

a lack of expertise or the need for technical assistance. For instance, BJA 

provides technical assistance with evaluation through its Center for 

Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement website, and makes 

technical assistance available to SAAs and BJA applicants, among 

others.

Further, DOJ reported that it has funded more narrowly scoped, 

nongeneralizable, case studies intended to help inform a broader study of 

indigent defense and provide insights, as well as available resources, for 

criminal justice stakeholders. For instance, from fiscal years 2005 through 

2010, the period of our review, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

funded one study that described how outcomes differed when murder 

defendants were represented by public defenders versus court-appointed 

private attorneys in one city.60

In addition, in 2010, OJP held a National Symposium on Indigent 

Defense, which about 500 participants attended, including public 

defenders and state and local criminal and juvenile justice policymakers 

and practitioners. The symposium included presentations by experts on 

topics related to indigent defense, such as managing limited indigent 

defense resources in difficult economic times, among other things.

The study found that, in the city evaluated, 

there were significant differences between the two groups on several 

dimensions. Specifically, defendants represented by the public defender 

office had shorter average sentences, were less likely to receive a life 

sentence, had less expected time served, and were more likely to plead 

guilty.

61

 

60Preliminary findings on RAND’s NIJ grant are available at Henderson, JM & P. Heaton, 

How Much Difference Does the Lawyer Make? The Effect of Defense Counsel on Murder 

Case Outcomes (Dec. 2011). According to NIJ officials, NIJ has been conducting and 

supporting research on issues related to indigent defense since the 1980s. 

Further, in 2011, NIJ collaborated with ATJ to hold a workshop to identify 

61See http://nij.gov/nij/topics/courts/indigent-defense/2010-symposium/welcome.htm for 

information about the symposium. The 2010 symposium was an update to a 1999 

National Symposium on Indigent Defense, after which a report was released. See 

http://www.sado.org/fees/icjs.pdf for this report. 
 

Page 45 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

domestic and international best practices for indigent defense and to 

develop an agenda on criminal indigent defense research. In addition to 

providing suggestions for future research, the workshop produced a 

report containing 40 recommendations to ATJ and NIJ.62 Among the 

major themes highlighted in the report was participant support for 

evidence-based research on indigent defense, including evaluation of 

successful domestic and international practices.63

Further, DOJ has taken steps to identify characteristics of model 

programs, including awarding grant funding to the National Criminal 

Justice Association to identify innovative use of JAG funds to support 

indigent defense, among other criminal justice areas.

DOJ officials stated 

that this report was completed consistent with NIJ’s practice of 

documenting conference proceedings and gathering information from 

stakeholders.

64

Moreover, in addition to the studies it has conducted or funded in the 

past, in February 2012, NIJ issued a solicitation—Social Science 

Research on Indigent Defense—that seeks applications for research on 

the fundamental issues surrounding access to legal services and the 

need for quality representation at the state and local level.65

 

62DOJ, Expert Working Group Report: International Perspectives on Indigent Defense, 

NCJ236022 (September 2011). 

Proposed 

topics include three areas: juvenile and adult defendants’ waiver of their 

right to counsel, the importance of defense team members in indigent 

defense cases—issues indigent defense stakeholders identify as 

impediments to effective representation—as well as other research 

63According to OJP, practices are evidence-based when their effectiveness has been 

demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through outcome evaluations, which 

documents a relationship between an intervention and its intended outcome, while ruling 

out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the outcome. 

64In its 2011 report, Cornerstone for Justice: Byrne JAG and its Impact on the Criminal 

Justice System, the National Criminal Justice Association highlighted the state of 

Minnesota for using JAG funds to support public defenders.

65According to DOJ, the recommendations documented in the report produced by the 

workshop on domestic and international best practices for indigent defense informed this 

solicitation. 
 

Page 46 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

focused on important issues surrounding indigent defense.66 This 

solicitation—which will provide up to $1 million for research projects—will 

fund a rigorous, scientific study that will identify barriers defendants 

commonly face in securing effective representation. DOJ officials stated 

that they developed this solicitation after conducting a review of existing 

indigent defense research, which they used to identify the areas of 

research they believed to be most important. Given that public defenders 

in our survey reported the need for assistance in conducting evaluations, 

NIJ’s study could help provide these defenders with the information, 

framework, and tools to conduct such evaluations, and identify factors 

that may affect the provision of indigent defense services.

Identifying a crisis in the nation’s criminal defense system, DOJ has 

stated its commitment to focusing on indigent defense issues and 

developing and implementing solutions. Moreover, both DOJ and BIA 

have undertaken efforts to assist state, local, and tribal indigent defense 

providers in overcoming barriers to providing effective indigent defense 

services. However, consistent with OJP’s commitment to identify and 

address the most pressing challenges confronting the justice system and 

BIA’s authority to support the development, enhancement, and continuing 

operation of tribal justice systems, they could do more to meet the needs 

of indigent defense providers. Specifically, by increasing awareness 

among JAG, JABG, and JJDP grantees, as well as indigent defense 

providers, that funding is available for indigent defense, DOJ could be in a 

better position to ensure that eligible grantees are aware that they can 

access federal funding to help address their needs. In addition, by 

increasing awareness among recipients of Tribal Courts TPA distributions 

that funding can be used for indigent defense, BIA could better help tribes 

enhance all aspects of their criminal justice system.

DOJ collected data on the amount of funding allocated for indigent 

defense for the Byrne Competitive and TCCLA grants when funding for 

indigent defense was a priority, and has developed mechanisms to do so 

in the JAG program, but does not consistently do so in the JABG and 

 

66Indigent defense stakeholders cite invalid waivers—which, according to stakeholders, 

occur when defendants are not properly informed of their right to counsel—and lack of 

experts, investigators and interpreters as impediments to competent and effective defense 

services. National Right to Counsel Committee, Justice Denied: America’s Continuing 

Neglect of our Constitutional Right to Counsel (Washington, D.C.: April 2009).

Conclusions 
 

Page 47 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

TJADG programs, where indigent defense is also a priority. Since DOJ 

seeks to focus on indigent defense issues and develop solutions, taking 

steps to collect data on allocations for indigent defense would position 

DOJ to better assess if it is meeting its commitment to indigent defense 

and help inform future funding priorities.

To ensure that OJP is best positioned to identify and address critical 

needs in the indigent defense community, determine whether it has met 

its commitment to indigent defense, and improve accountability in grants 

administration, we recommend that the Assistant Attorney General of 

OJP take the following three actions:

• take steps to increase JAG, JABG, and JJDP grantees’ awareness 

that funding can be allocated for indigent defense;

• inform indigent defense providers about grants for which they are 

eligible to apply; and

• take steps to collect data on allocations and spending for indigent 

defense in the JABG and TJADG programs.

To ensure that the Office of Justice Services is best positioned to support 

the development, enhancement, and continuing operation of tribal justice 

systems, we recommend that the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

take actions to increase awareness among recipients of Tribal Court TPA 

distributions that funding can be allocated for indigent defense.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOJ and 

DOI. In addition, we provided relevant sections of the report to The Bronx 

Defenders and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). 

DOI did not provide official written comments to include in our report. 

However, in an email received April 23, 2012, the DOI liaison stated that 

DOI concurred with our recommendation. We received written comments 

from DOJ, which are reproduced in full in appendix IX. In its written 

comments, DOJ concurred with the recommendations in this report. DOJ, 

The Bronx Defenders, and AOUSC also provided technical comments 

which we incorporated throughout the report as appropriate.

DOJ identified several actions that OJP will take to implement the 

recommendations related to increasing JAG, JABG, and JJDP grantees’ 

awareness that funding can be allocated for indigent defense and 

informing indigent defense providers about grants for which they are 

eligible to apply. These actions include updating its “Frequently Asked 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency and Third 

Party Comments and 

Our Evaluation
 

Page 48 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Questions” document for grantees; communicating this information to 

grantees through email, technical assistance websites, and during 

national meetings; and working with national organizations, such as ABA 

and NLADA, to disseminate information on available funding to indigent 

defense providers through conferences, meetings, emails, newsletters, 

and publications. Increasing grantee awareness that funding can be 

allocated for indigent defense could help DOJ better ensure that it meets 

its commitment to supporting indigent defense. OJP’s proposed steps, if 

implemented across eligible grant programs, should address the intent of 

our recommendations.

With regard to the recommendation that OJP take steps to collect data on 

allocations and spending for indigent defense in the JABG and TJADG 

programs, we originally included language in the recommendation that 

described examples of actions OJP could take to collect such data. 

Specifically, we stated that such actions could include increasing JABG 

and TJADG applicants’ awareness of the indigent defense project 

identifier, to ensure more consistent use of the identifiers and allow DOJ 

to collect data on allocations of the grants to indigent defense, and 

requiring JABG and TJADG grantees to select project identifiers. After 

sending the draft report to DOJ for comment, officials from OJP and ATJ 

stated that they plan to work together to determine internally the best way 

to collect data on allocations and spending for indigent defense in the 

JABG and TJADG programs, which could include the actions we 

identified in the original recommendation or other measures. Thus, they 

requested that we remove the language that described examples of how 

OJP could collect this data. We agreed that DOJ was best positioned to 

determine how to implement the recommendation and modified the 

recommendation by removing the language that described such 

examples to address the recommendation. OJP stated that, by 

September 30, 2012, OJJDP will determine the mechanism by which data 

on allocations and spending for indigent defense in the JABG and TJADG 

programs can best be collected. Collecting such data would position DOJ 

to better assess if it is meeting its commitment to indigent defense.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional

committees. We are also sending copies to the Attorney General, the 

Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the AOUSC. In addition, this 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 49 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix X.

Eileen R. Larence

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
 

Page 50 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

List of Requesters

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on the Constitution

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

We addressed the following questions as a part of our review:

1. What type of support, if any, have the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provided for state, local, and tribal 

indigent defense?

2. For fiscals years 2005 through 2010, to what extent was eligible DOJ 

and BIA funding allocated and awarded for indigent defense, what 

factors affected decisions to allocate and award funding for this 

purpose, and what actions have DOJ and BIA taken, if any, to 

address these factors?

3. When fiscal year 2005 through 2010 federal funding was allocated or 

awarded for indigent defense, how did it compare to the total 

allocations or awards made, and how did recipients use the funding?

4. To what extent does DOJ collect data on indigent defense funding 

when the grant program specifies that funds be allocated or awarded 

for this purpose or highlights it as a priority?

5. When a grant program specifies that funds be spent for indigent 

defense or highlights it as a priority, to what extent can DOJ assess 

the impacts of this grant funding, and to what extent have there been 

evaluations of indigent defense programs and has DOJ supported 

these evaluation efforts ?

To determine what DOJ grant programs and BIA funding could be used to 

support state, local, and tribal indigent defense from fiscal years 2005 

through 2010, we reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 

DOJ’s website, and BIA’s annual budget justifications.1

 

1

We selected fiscal years 2005 through 2010 because you requested that we identify 

federal funding that was used for indigent defense during this time frame. The Catalog for 

Federal Domestic Assistance is a government-wide compendium of federal programs, 

projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. 

It contains financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments 

and establishments of the federal government.

In addition, we 

spoke with public defenders and state and local government offices in 

selected states to determine whether there were additional grants they 

had applied for or received related to indigent defense that we had not 

already identified. We selected these states based on geographical 

location, the extent to which state and local government offices had 

received federal funding, and the structure of the state’s indigent defense 

system. We also met with agency officials in DOJ’s Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP), who are responsible for administering the programs, 

and BIA’s Office of Justice Services, who provide support to tribal courts, 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

to discuss the federal funding programs in more detail. Once our 

determinations were made, we sent OJP officials a list of funding 

programs to be included in our review, and asked for confirmation of this 

list. The DOJ grants included in our review were the Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program; the Juvenile 

Accountability Block Grant (JABG); the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Title II (JJDP); John R. Justice Program; Byrne Competitive 

Program; Capital Case Litigation Initiative; Wrongful Conviction Review 

Program; Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance Program; Tribal 

Courts Assistance Program; Juvenile Indigent Defense Clearinghouse 

Grant; Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant; Juvenile Justice 

and Mental Health Collaboration Grant; and Adult Drug Court 

Discretionary Grant. The BIA funding included in our review was the 

Tribal Courts tribal priority allocation (TPA) distributions. We obtained 

records of all recipients of these grants from DOJ and by reviewing BIA’s 

budget documentation. Further, we interviewed knowledgeable agency 

officials about the source of the grant data and the controls in place to 

maintain the integrity of the data and determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. In addition, to determine what other 

assistance DOJ and BIA made available to support indigent defense, we 

interviewed DOJ and BIA officials responsible for training and technical 

assistance to identify assistance other than funding that the agencies 

provide to support indigent defense.

To determine the extent to which state, local, and tribal governments 

allocated federal funding for indigent defense, the factors that influenced 

their decisions, and the amounts allocated, we conducted separate Webbased surveys of all recipients of fiscal year 2005 through 2010 DOJ 

formula grants that could be allocated for indigent defense—the JAG, 

JJDP, and JABG grants—and tribal governments that received BIA Tribal 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Courts TPA distributions from fiscal years 2005 through 2010.2

We developed and administered the web-based questionnaires 

accessible through a secure server. We emailed each recipient a unique 

identification number and password, and a link to the questionnaire for 

their population. See table 4 for further details about the population, 

response rates, and generalizabilty of these surveys.

To 

develop the survey questionnaires, we reviewed existing literature about 

the provision of indigent defense, and interviewed state JAG, JABG, and 

JJDP recipients, local JAG recipients, and tribes. We designed draft 

questionnaires in close collaboration with a GAO social science survey 

specialist. We conducted pretests with five state and local JAG recipients, 

three JABG recipients, three JJDP recipients, two tribal JAG recipients, 

and two recipients of BIA Tribal Court TPA distributions to help further 

refine our questions, develop new questions, and clarify any ambiguous 

portions of the survey.

 

2

An electronic supplement to this report—GAO-12-661SP (available June 2012)—

provides survey results. Amounts appropriated through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) are also included in our review. See Pub. L. No. 111-5, 

123 Stat. 115, 130 (2009). Formula grants are funding programs for which the primary 

grantees do not compete, although they must submit an application and meet other 

specified requirements. These grants are usually administered and managed by State 

Administering Agencies (SAA), and the amount of the grant awards are calculated by a 

formula most often governed or established by statute, which may consider factors such 

as population or crime data. In addition, we identified BIA funding to Courts of Indian 

Offenses (referred to as “CFR courts”) that could be used for indigent defense. We did not 

include CFR courts in our survey of tribal courts because CFR courts constitute direct 

services administered by BIA officials. However, according to BIA officials, every CFR 

court has a law-trained public defender. Also, based on discussions with BIA officials, we 

did not include tribal courts in BIA’s Alaska region.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 4: Survey Distribution, Populations, Respondents and Rates, and Generalizability

Grant program 

Date survey 

distributed

Eligible 

population

Number of 

respondents

Response rate, 

in percent

Considered 

generalizable?

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Title II

September 22, 2011 56 50 89 Yes

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant September 22, 2011 56 46 82 Yes

Justice Assistance Grant (overall state 

and local)

States

Localities

October 17, 2011

3,934

56

a

3878

1,807

50

1757

46

89

45

No

Yes

No

Justice Assistance Grant (tribes) December 22, 2011 b 29 11 38 No

Tribal Courts TPA December 21, 2011 154 105 68 No

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

a

For the state and local JAG survey, we provisionally identified, and on October 17, 2011, attempted 

to contact 3,970 recipients. We later determined that 36 were ineligible or duplicates. Therefore, our 

final eligible population was 3,934.

b

For the purposes of this report, we have combined all the tribal JAG responses with the responses of 

state and local JAG recipients.

Because all recipients of JABG and JJDP funding were included in our 

survey, and our results are therefore not subject to sampling error, and 

we received response rates of 82 and 89 percent, we consider our results 

generalizable to the populations of JABG and JJDP recipients. While we 

also included all eligible members of the target populations in our state 

and local JAG, tribal JAG, and Tribal Courts TPA surveys, because of 

their relatively low response rates and the possibility of other errors all 

questionnaire surveys face, our results represent only respondents 

participating in these surveys and should not be generalized to the 

populations. Specifically, certain members of these populations may have 

been more or less likely to respond to our survey and this may affect our 

data. For instance, our data may overrepresent allocations for indigent 

defense because recipients that allocated funding for indigent defense 

may have been more likely to respond to our survey than recipients that 

had never done so. In addition, on the JAG survey, recipients of larger 

amounts of money and recipients of multiple years of funding were more 

likely to respond, but recipients of funding awarded solely pursuant to 

amounts appropriated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act were less likely to respond. However, the responses provide insights 

into the extent to which JAG and BIA Tribal Courts TPA funding has been 

allocated for indigent defense.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors in 

estimates. For example, difficulties in interpreting a particular question, 

sources of information available to respondents, or entering data into a 

database or analyzing them can introduce unwanted variability into the 

survey results. We took steps in developing the questionnaire, collecting 

the data, and analyzing them to minimize these errors. In addition, as 

indicated above, social science survey specialists designed the 

questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff that had subject matter 

expertise. We then conducted pretests to check that (1) the questions 

were clear and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the 

questionnaire did not place an undue burden on respondents, (4) the 

information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the survey was 

comprehensive and unbiased. We made multiple contact attempts with 

nonrespondents during the survey by e-mail, and some nonrespondents 

were also contacted by telephone. When we analyzed the data, an 

independent analyst checked all computer programs. Since this was a 

web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the 

electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a database, 

minimizing error. We assessed the reliability of funding allocation data 

that was provided by including a series of questions pertaining to the 

accuracy of reported data in our survey and reviewing the data for 

obvious errors. Dollar amounts reported through our surveys, particularly 

by JAG respondents, have limitations and should be treated as estimates. 

For instance, respondents may have had difficulty identifying the precise 

amount of funding allocated for indigent defense in the earlier years of our 

time frame (fiscal years 2005 through 2010), may have been unable to 

determine the exact amount of funding that was allocated for indigent 

defense if grant funds were used for multiple purposes, or may not have 

had sufficient information to provide total amounts allocated to indigent 

defense because they had not yet fully allocated their grant funds. In 

addition, our JAG data may overrepresent allocations to law enforcement 

because it was the first category listed in our survey and respondents that 

were unable to split their funding across purpose areas may have 

reported allocating all funding to law enforcement.

To determine the extent to which DOJ awarded discretionary grants for 

indigent defense, we obtained project descriptions for all discretionary 

grants that could have been awarded for indigent defense in fiscal years 

2005 through 2010 from DOJ. We then reviewed these descriptions to 

determine the recipients of the grant services. In addition to indigent 

defense providers, this included the following categories: civil defenders, 

criminal defenders, prosecutors, law enforcement providers, court offices, 

correctional agencies, crime victims, reentry service providers, juvenile 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

delinquency prevention organizations, appellate defenders, drug 

treatment providers, community and public outreach providers, nonattorney staff, innocence projects, and universities. Many grants had 

multiple recipients of grant services. In these instances, we classified the 

grants to reflect all recipients; as a result, grants may be counted in more 

than one category. For each grant program we determined the number of 

grants used exclusively for indigent defense, the number of grants used 

for indigent defense with another grant recipient category, and the 

number and amount of grants that were not used for indigent defense. 

Two analysts made these classifications in order to verify each other’s 

work.

To determine what factors influenced public defenders’ decisions to apply 

for funding, we conducted a web-based survey of public defenders. To 

develop the survey questionnaire, we reviewed existing literature about 

the provision of indigent defense, and interviewed stakeholder groups 

knowledgeable about the provision of these services. We designed draft 

questionnaires in close collaboration with a GAO social science survey 

specialist. We conducted pretests with four public defenders to help 

further refine our questions, develop new questions, and clarify any 

ambiguous portions of the survey.

We drew our survey sample from 841 public defender offices identified 

nationwide. To identify the population of public defender offices 

nationwide, we started with the Census of Public Defender Offices, which 

was conducted in 2007 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).3

We drew a stratified sample of 253 of the 841 public defenders 

nationwide. From this population of 841 public defenders, we sampled 

100 percent of: 22 state-level offices, 6 territories, 17 tribes, 52 public 

defender offices in major metropolitan areas, and 71 secondary offices 

not in major metropolitan areas. The remaining 85 public defenders were 

drawn within strata defined by region. The six strata are shown in table 5.

This 

Census collected data from all state and county funded public defender 

offices across the country. We further worked in partnership with the 

National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) to update existing 

contact information and identify additional offices that should be included.

 

3

BJS, County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 2010); BJS, State Public Defender Programs, 2007 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 2010).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 5: Public Defender Offices by Stratum and Population, Cases Selected, and Sample Size

Stratum Stratum name Population Number of cases Effective sample Response rate

 Certainty strata 

1 State offices 22 22 22 100%

2 Territories 6 6 4.8 100%

3 Tribes 17 17 13.6 59%

4 Public defender offices—major metro areas 53 52 42.4 50%

5 Secondary offices not in major metro areas 71 71 56.8 41%

 Subtotal certainties 169 169 139.6

 

 Random sample 

6 Primary offices 672 a 85 68.8 29%

 Total sample 841 253 208.4

Source: GAO analysis of survey population.

a

By primary office, we mean the office or agency which has been designated by a local jurisdiction as 

its chief provider of indigent defense services. In general, the primary office will handle the bulk of 

indigent defense services in its respective jurisdiction, with other services being provided by another 

office, agency or individual in accordance with predetermined contractual agreement, capacity 

limitations (where applicable), or compliance with ethical and professional standards relating to 

conflicts of interest.

We developed and administered the web-based questionnaire accessible 

through a secure server, and emailed unique identification numbers and 

passwords to the 253 public defenders beginning December 6, 2011. We 

sent follow-up e-mail messages beginning December 13, 2011, to those 

who had not yet responded. Then we contacted all remaining 

nonrespondents by telephone, starting January 5, 2012. The 

questionnaire was available online until February 29, 2012.

We received 118 responses from the sample of 253, for an unweighted 

response rate of 47 percent. Because of this relatively low response rate, 

our results represent only respondents participating in our survey and 

should not be generalized to the population of public defenders; thus we 

report results based only on the respondents and do not present 

population estimates. However, the responses provide insights into the 

factors that influence public defenders’ decisions to apply for federal 

funding. We took steps similar to those in our grant recipient surveys 

when developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing 

them to minimize errors.

To determine what efforts, if any, DOJ has taken to address factors 

influencing recipients’ decisions to allocate funding for indigent defense, 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

we interviewed DOJ and BIA officials responsible for each type of 

funding. We also reviewed DOJ’s guidance to recipients to determine the 

extent to which DOJ communicated that funding could be used for 

indigent defense programs. We compared this guidance against the grant 

and BIA statutes, and DOJ’s stated commitment to support indigent 

defense.

To determine the allocation amounts and uses of formula grants and 

Tribal Courts TPA distributions that were allocated for indigent defense, 

we asked a question pertaining to funding amounts in our state and local 

JAG, JABG, JJDP, tribal JAG, and Tribal Courts TPA surveys described 

above and also performed follow-up interviews with select grant recipients 

to determine the purposes for which funds were used. We contacted all 6 

JABG and 7 JJDP recipients that reported allocating any fiscal year 2005 

through 2010 funding for indigent defense, all 16 state and local JAG 

recipients that reported allocating fiscal year 2010 funding for indigent 

defense, and 7 recipients of BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions that 

reported allocating any fiscal year 2005 through 2010 funding for indigent 

defense and asked them to describe how they used grants funds that 

were allocated for indigent defense. We conducted interviews with 5 of 6 

JABG, 5 of 7 JJDP, 9 of 16 state and local JAG, and 7 of 20 recipients of 

BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions that reported allocating to indigent 

defense.

To determine the allocation amounts and uses of discretionary grants 

which were awarded for indigent defense, during our review of all project 

descriptions of DOJ discretionary grants that could have been awarded 

for indigent defense from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, in addition to 

determining the recipient of the grant services, we also determined the 

use for each grant. We identified the following possible uses: training, 

technical assistance, personnel, planning and evaluation, technology 

initiatives, equipment, case management, conflict counsel, outreach and 

public education, facilities, codes and legal rules, and representation from 

an outside source. For each grant, two analysts came to agreement on 

the categorization. As with the recipients of grant services, many grants 

had multiple uses. In these instances, we classified the grants to reflect 

all their uses; as a result, grants may be counted more than one time in 

our overall analysis. With this information we were able to provide the 

amount and use for all discretionary grants that were used all or in part for 

indigent defense.

To determine the extent to which DOJ collects data on whether recipients 

allocate funds for indigent defense when such funding is required or 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 59 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

highlighted as a priority, we reviewed all grant solicitations to determine 

whether DOJ required that funding be allocated or awarded for indigent 

defense or identified indigent defense as a purpose area or priority. For 

grants in which we found that it was, we spoke with DOJ officials about 

why they chose to do so. In addition, through document requests and 

interviews with DOJ officials, we asked the agency to provide information 

that describes the extent to which they track how grantees have allocated 

funding, including for indigent defense, and how they do or could do so. 

We analyzed this information to ascertain the status of their efforts and 

the mechanisms available to conduct such tracking.

As part of this analysis, we requested data from DOJ on its fiscal year 

2011 JAG grantees because—beginning in fiscal year 2011—JAG 

grantees were required to select up to five project identifiers to indicate 

how their 2011 JAG funds would be used, and DOJ developed a project 

identifier for indigent defense. We compared this data with our survey 

results from JAG grantees to determine the extent to which grantees that 

indicated in our survey that they are likely to allocate funding for indigent 

defense also selected indigent defense as a project identifier in their fiscal 

year 2011 grant application in order to assess the accuracy of the project 

identifier data. We compared DOJ’s data collection efforts against our 

prior work on implementing the Government Performance and Results 

Act, which states that agencies should collect sufficiently complete, 

accurate, and consistent data to measure performance and support 

decision making at various organizational levels.4

To determine the extent to which DOJ can assess the impact of grant 

programs that specify that funds must be spent for indigent defense or 

highlight it as a priority, we reviewed performance measures outlined in 

DOJ grant solicitations. We compared DOJ’s measures against criteria in 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance5

 

4

GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, 

and our prior work 

on performance measures, which states that leading organizations 

promote accountability by establishing results-oriented, outcome goals 

and corresponding performance measures by which to gauge progress 

GAO/GGD-96-118, (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).

5

OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies (Washington, D.C.: June 

2003). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 60 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

towards attaining these goals.6

To determine the extent to which evaluations have been conducted of 

indigent defense programs, and the extent to which DOJ has supported 

these evaluation efforts, we asked public defender offices and agencies in 

our survey whether an evaluation had been conducted of their office and 

the challenges associated with conducting such an evaluation. We 

reviewed the evaluations of the 9 respondents who reported they were 

willing to share them, but did not assess the quality of the evaluations or 

their results. In addition, we conducted a literature search of peerreviewed journals using databases such as ProQuest, PolicyFile, and 

LexisNexis. In December 2011, we also held a listening session at a 

National Legal Aid and Defender Association conference where public 

defenders described challenges to conducting evaluations, among other 

topics.

Two analysts also independently reviewed 

performance measures DOJ established or is establishing for all grant 

programs in which indigent defense funding is required or a priority to 

assess whether the measures focused on the intended result of the 

program (were outcome-oriented). The analysts then met to discuss and 

resolve any differences in the results of their analysis. In addition, we 

spoke with DOJ officials about the feasibility of collecting performance 

measures for grant programs.

7

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to May 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit 

objectives.

Finally, to identify actions DOJ has taken to evaluate indigent 

defense systems, we reviewed studies funded or conducted by DOJ and 

interviewed DOJ officials about its efforts to evaluate indigent defense 

systems. 

 

6

GAO-10-95. 

7

The 17 public defender office or agency leaders who attended the listening session also 

discussed characteristics of model public defender programs; factors that affect the ability 

of public defenders to provide effective representation; and critical funding needs facing 

public defender programs. We observed their discussion, recorded the information shared, 

and reviewed the information to identify common themes. 
Appendix II: Allocations and Uses of DOJ 

Grants That Required Indigent Defense 

Funding

Page 61 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

As table 6 demonstrates, grantees of the four programs that we 

determined require funding for indigent defense—the John R. Justice 

Program, Capital Case Litigation Program, Wrongful Conviction Review 

Program, and Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse—have 

allocated or used these grants in accordance with grant requirements for 

indigent defense.

Table 6: Number and Amount of Awards for Indigent Defense for DOJ Grant Programs That Required Funding for Indigent 

Defense

Fiscal years in which 

the grant was active 

from fiscal year 2005-

2010

Number of grants 

awarded in all active 

fiscal years

Total amount awarded 

for indigent defense

Awards to indigent 

defense as percentage 

of total funding

John R. Justice 2010 a 51 $5.1 million 50%

Capital Case Litigation 

Initiative

2007-2010 b 33 $3.3 million 63%

Wrongful Conviction 

Review

2009-2010 c 24 $4.6 million 89%

Juvenile Indigent Defense 

National Clearinghouse

2010 1 $500,000 100%

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ data.

a

John R. Justice data include $244,834 (2 percent of total funding) for federal public defenders; the 

remaining amounts were awarded to state and local public defenders. One state obtained a waiver 

from the requirement to allocate funding equally to prosecutors and defenders as it had few eligible 

defenders and no defenders with any outstanding student loans to qualify for the repayment in the 

state, and thus awarded all of its funding to prosecutors.

b

Capital Case Litigation data are greater than the 50 percent required for indigent defense because 

they include 18 grants for $3.2 million that were awarded to indigent defense in combination with 

another purpose, but we were unable to determine the exact amount of funding awarded for indigent 

defense alone.

c

Wrongful Conviction data do not reflect that all grants and funding were awarded for indigent defense 

because, due to our methodology for categorizing grantees, two grantees were categorized as state 

appellate defender offices, which we classified as a separate group from indigent defense providers 

that handle defendants’ initial cases, and one as a nonprofit organization. However, these grantees’ 

project descriptions indicated that they would utilize the grant to provide representation in postconviction claims of innocence, in accordance with grant requirements. 

Appendix II: Allocations and Uses of DOJ 

Grants That Required Indigent Defense 

Funding 
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 62 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figures 13, 14, and 15 show the percentages of Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG); Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 

(JABG); Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Title II (JJDP); and 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Tribal Courts Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) 

Distribution survey respondents who reported allocating funding for 

indigent defense from fiscal year 2005 through 2010.1

 

1

Forty-six percent of JAG recipients (1,818 of 3,963, including 89 percent of SAAs and 45 

percent of localities and tribes) completed the JAG survey; 82 percent of JABG recipients 

(46 of 56) completed the JABG survey; 89 percent of JJDP recipients (50 of 56) 

completed the JJDP survey; and 63 percent (106 of 169) of recipients completed the 

Tribal Courts survey. Because all recipients of JABG and JJDP funding were included in 

our population and we received response rates of 82 and 89 percent, we consider our 

results generalizable to the population of JABG and JJDP recipients. While all eligible 

members of our target population of JAG and recipients of BIA Tribal Courts TPA 

distributions were included in our survey, due to the relatively low response rates and the 

possibility of other errors all questionnaire surveys face, our results represent only 

respondents participating in our survey and should not be generalized to the population of 

JAG recipients or recipients of BIA Tribal Courts TPA distributions. 

As the figures 

demonstrate, the percentage was highest among JAG State 

Administering Agencies (SAA)—the state agencies that administer JAG 

funds—in receipt of grants awarded pursuant to amounts appropriated 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). In 

addition, the percentage of JJDP and JABG recipients that reported 

allocating funding for indigent defense increased and decreased, 

respectively, in fiscal year 2009. Further, the percentage of BIA tribal 

courts survey respondents that reported allocating funding for indigent 

defense has increased over time.

Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts 
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 63 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 13: Percentage of JAG State, Local, and Tribal Survey Respondents That 

Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Note: Because so few localities and tribes reported allocating funding for indigent defense, the 

numbers rounded to zero.
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 64 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 14: Percentage of JJDP and JABG Survey Respondents That Reported 

Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 65 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 15: Percentage of BIA Tribal Courts TPA Funding Survey Respondents That 

Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

As figures 16, 17, and 18 illustrate, among survey respondents who 

reported allocating funding for indigent defense, allocations for indigent 

defense as a percentage of total awards reported by survey respondents 

were generally small, but varied slightly across time. For instance, in the 

JAG program, reported allocations as a percentage of total awards were 

highest among localities and tribes in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. In 

addition, reported allocations as a percentage of total awards are highest 

in the JABG program, but have been decreasing over time. Further, 

reported allocations as a percentage of total awards among BIA Tribal 

Courts TPA recipients have been increasing over time. However, these 

data, particularly the allocation amounts, have limitations and should be 

treated as estimates. For instance, respondents may have had difficulty 

identifying the precise amount of funding allocated for indigent defense in 

the earlier years of our time frame (fiscal years 2005 through 2010), been 

unable to determine the exact amount of funding that was allocated for 

indigent defense if grant funds were used for multiple purposes, or not 

have had sufficient information to provide total amounts allocated to 

indigent defense because they had not yet fully allocated their grant 

funds. In addition, our JAG data may overrepresent allocations to law 

enforcement because it was the first category listed in our survey and 
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 66 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

respondents that were unable to split their funding across purpose areas 

may have reported allocating all funding to law enforcement.

Figure 16: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by Fiscal Year, 

among JAG Respondents Who Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 67 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 17: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by Fiscal Year, 

among JABG and JJDP Respondents Who Reported Allocating Funding for 

Indigent Defense
Appendix III: Percentage of Survey 

Respondents That Allocated Funding for 

Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts

Page 68 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 18: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by Fiscal Year, 

among BIA Tribal Courts TPA Respondents Who Reported Allocating Funding for 

Indigent Defense
Appendix IV: Additional Details on Number of 

Indigent Defense Discretionary Awards and 

Award Amounts

Page 69 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 7 shows, by DOJ discretionary grant, the number of grants 

awarded in whole or in part for indigent defense, this number as a 

percentage of total awards, total allocations for indigent defense, and 

these allocations as a percentage of total awards. These data, particularly 

the award amounts, have limitations. For instance, we reviewed project 

descriptions that were based on grantees’ applications; however, the 

descriptions did not identify the amount of funding specifically planned for 

indigent defense. Therefore, the amounts reported represent the 

maximum possible awards for indigent defense.

Table 7: Awards and Allocations in Whole or in Part for Indigent Defense, by Discretionary Grant that Did Not Require 

Spending for this Purpose

Number of grants 

awarded, fiscal years 

2005 through 2010

Percentage of total 

grants awarded that 

were for indigent 

defense 

Maximum possible 

total allocation to 

indigent defense

Maximum possible 

allocation to indigent 

defense, as percentage 

of total funding

Byrne Competitive 18 6.3% $4,058,585 2.7%

Adult Drug Court 

Discretionary Grant 

Program 9 2.8% $2,088,137 2.5%

Justice and Mental Health 

Collaboration Grant 

Program 2 1.3% $99,955 0.4%

Tribal Courts Assistance 

Program 16 7.9% $3,863,679 8.0%

Tribal Civil and Criminal 

Legal Assistance 2 25.0% $281,400 7.1%

Tribal Juvenile 

Accountability 

Discretionary Grant 0 0% $0 0%

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ data.

Figures 19 and 20 show the percentage of grants awarded in whole or in 

part for indigent defense as well as maximum possible awards for 

indigent defense as a percentage of total grant awards from 2005 through 

2010. As figure 19 demonstrates, the percentage of grants awarded for 

indigent defense was highest for fiscal year 2010 TCCLA grants, and in 

the fiscal year 2009 Byrne Competitive grant program, when indigent 

defense was part of a national initiative.

Appendix IV: Additional Details on Number 

of Indigent Defense Discretionary Awards 

and Award Amounts
Appendix IV: Additional Details on Number of 

Indigent Defense Discretionary Awards and 

Award Amounts

Page 70 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 19: Percentage of Grants Awarded in Whole or in Part for Indigent Defense; 

Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010

Note: DOJ determined that 35 percent of TCCLA funding was awarded for indigent defense in fiscal 

year 2010, and 51 percent was awarded for indigent defense in fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2010 

percentage differs from our analysis due to the differences in the methodologies used to determine 

the percentage of grants awarded for indigent defense. Specifically, DOJ calculated its percentage by 

dividing the grants awarded under Category 2—the purpose of which is to provide criminal legal 

assistance services—by the total awards under the grant. In contrast, we reviewed each of the project 

descriptions submitted by TCCLA grantees to determine whether the descriptions indicated that the 

grantee planned to use the funds for indigent defense. Because the project descriptions may not have 

included all the planned activities of the grantee, our methodology may not have captured all grants 

that were awarded for indigent defense.

In addition, as figure 20 illustrates, awards to indigent defense as a 

percentage of total awards were highest in the Tribal Court Assistance 

Program, although they were decreasing over time.
Appendix IV: Additional Details on Number of 

Indigent Defense Discretionary Awards and 

Award Amounts

Page 71 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 20: Indigent Defense Awards, as a Maximum Possible Percentage of Total 

Awards; Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010

Note: The figure includes grants that were used fully or in part for indigent defense. The Tribal 

Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant Program had no grants awarded for indigent defense and, 

thus, is not included in the figure.
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 72 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figures 21 through 34 display the percentages of their total awards that 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) State 

Administering Agencies (SAA)—state agencies that administer JAG 

funds—and local and tribal JAG recipients that responded to our survey 

reported allocating for all seven JAG purpose areas by fiscal year.1 The 

figures also include the percentage of their total awards that these 

respondents reported allocating for indigent defense.2

As figures 21 through 27 illustrate, SAAs who responded to our survey 

reported allocating the largest proportion of funding to the law 

enforcement purpose area.

However, our data 

have limitations and should be treated as estimates. Specifically, 

respondents may have had difficulty identifying the precise amount of 

funding allocated for indigent defense in the earlier years of our timeframe 

(fiscal years 2005 through 2010, including funding awarded pursuant to 

amounts appropriated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA)), been unable to determine the exact amount of funding that 

was allocated for each purpose area if grant funds were used for multiple 

purposes, or not have had sufficient information to provide total amounts 

allocated to each purpose area because they had not yet fully allocated 

their grant funds. In addition, the data may overrepresent allocations to 

law enforcement because it was the first category listed in our survey and 

respondents that were unable to split their funding across purpose areas 

may have reported allocating all funding to law enforcement. Finally, our 

data may overrepresent allocations for indigent defense because JAG 

recipients that allocated funding to indigent defense may have been more 

likely to respond to our survey than recipients that had never done so.

 

1

Forty-six percent of JAG recipients (1,818 of 3,963, including 89 percent of SAAs and 45 

percent of localities and tribes) completed the JAG survey. While all eligible members of 

our target population of JAG and recipients were included in our survey, due to the 

relatively low response rate and the possibility of other errors all questionnaire surveys 

face, our results represent only respondents participating in our survey and should not be 

generalized to the population of JAG recipients. 

2

Funding for indigent defense can be allocated in multiple purpose areas, as indigent 

defense is not its own purpose area. As a result, to obtain the percentages allocated for 

each purpose area, we subtracted the amount respondents reported allocating for indigent 

defense out of the specified purpose area.

Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 73 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 21: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2005

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 74 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 22: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2006

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 75 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 23: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2007

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 76 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 24: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2008

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 77 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 25: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2009

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 78 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 26: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, ARRA

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 79 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 27: SAAs’ Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent 

Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2010

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 

As figure 28 through 34 demonstrate, localities and tribes that received 

JAG funding and responded to our survey reported allocating the largest 

proportion of their funding to the law enforcement purpose area.
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 80 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 28: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal 

Year 2005
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 81 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 29: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal 

Year 2006

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 82 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 30: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal 

Year 2007

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 83 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 31: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal 

Year 2008 

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 84 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 32: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal 

Year 2009

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 85 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 33: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, ARRA

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents’ 

Allocations across Purpose Areas and for 

Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year

Page 86 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Figure 34: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients’ Reported Allocations across JAG 

Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal 

Year 2010

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs

Page 87 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

For all grant programs in which funding for indigent defense is required or 

prioritized—the John R. Justice Grant Program; the Capital Case 

Litigation Initiative; the Wrongful Conviction Review Program; the Juvenile 

Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse; the Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG); the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 

(JABG); the Byrne Competitive Grant Program; the Tribal Juvenile 

Accountability Discretionary Grant Program; and the Tribal Civil and 

Criminal Legal Assistance Grant Program (TCCLA)—the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) has developed or is developing indigent defense-related 

performance measures. Table 8 identifies these measures and whether 

the measures are output measures, or those that describe the level of 

activity that will be provided over a period of time; outcome measures, or 

those that describe the intended result of carrying out the program; input 

measures, or those that describe the resources used to produce outputs 

and outcomes; or process measures, or those that indicate how well a 

procedure, process, or operation is working.

Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for 

Department of Justice Grant Programs
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs 

Page 88 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Table 8: Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures and Type of Measure for DOJ Grant Programs

Grant Objectives Performance measure Output Outcome Input Process

Byrne Competitive Grant 

Program–National 

Initiative: Adjudication

Increase the number of trained 

public defenders. a

Increase the knowledge of 

criminal justice practitioners 

through in-person training.

Increase the knowledge of 

criminal justice practitioners 

through web-based learning.

Increase the knowledge of 

criminal justice practitioners 

through distance learning using 

CD/DVDs.

Increase a criminal justice 

agency’s ability to solve 

problems and/or modify 

policies or practices.

Increase the knowledge of 

criminal justice practitioners 

through the development 

and/or revision of training 

curricula.

Increase information provided 

to the criminal justice 

community.

Percentage of trainees who 

successfully completed the 

program

X 

Percentage of trainees who 

completed the training whose 

post test indicated an improved 

score over their pre-test

X 

Percent increase in trained public 

defenders X 

Percentage of trainees who 

completed the training who rated 

the training as satisfactory or 

better

X 

Percentage of organizations that 

completed the survey who 

expressed satisfaction that the 

CD/DVD met their training needs

X 

Percentage of requesting 

agencies who rated services as 

satisfactory or better in terms of 

timeliness and quality following 

completion of an onsite visit

X 

Percentage of requesting 

agencies that were planning to 

implement at least some of the 

report recommendations six 

months after the onsite visit

X 

Percentage of requesting 

agencies of other onsite services 

who rated the services provided 

as satisfactory or better

X 

Percentage of advisory/focus 

groups evaluated as satisfactory 

or better 

X 

Percentage of curricula that were 

pilot tested X 

Percentage of curricula that were 

revised after pilot testing X 
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs

Page 89 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Grant Objectives Performance measure Output Outcome Input Process

Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant 

Program 

JAG funds may be used for 

state and local initiatives, 

technical assistance, training, 

personnel, equipment, 

supplies, contractual support, 

and criminal justice information 

systems that will improve or 

enhance such areas as:

• Law enforcement 

programs

• Prosecution and court 

programs

• Prevention and education 

programs

• Corrections and 

community corrections 

programs

• Drug treatment and 

enforcement programs

• Planning, evaluation, and 

technology improvement 

programs

• Crime victim and witness 

programs (other than 

compensation)

Number of cases defended

X 

Capital Case Litigation 

Initiative

Provide training on death 

penalty issues to attorneys who 

litigate death penalty cases.

Increase the knowledge of 

criminal justice practitioners 

through in-person training.

Percent increase in the number 

of capital litigation attorneys 

trained in capital case procedures 

and strategies

X 

Percentage of in-person trainees 

who successfully completed the 

program

X 

Percentage of in-person trainees 

who completed the training 

whose post-test indicated an 

improved score over their pre-test

X 

Number of attorneys trained X 

Percentage of in-person trainees 

who completed the training who 

rated the training as satisfactory 

or better

X 
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs

Page 90 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Grant Objectives Performance measure Output Outcome Input Process

John R. Justice Grant 

Program 

To encourage qualified 

individuals to enter and 

continue employment as 

prosecutors and public 

defenders.

Number and amount of loan 

repayments awarded X 

Percent increase in outreach to 

eligible beneficiaries X 

Average number of days between 

application for repayment 

benefits and the loan repayment 

occurring 

X 

Juvenile Accountability 

Block Grant Programb The goal of the JABG program 

is to reduce juvenile offending 

through accountability-based 

programs focused on the 

offender and juvenile justice 

system.

The objective is to ensure that 

states address 1 or more of 17 

purpose areas and receive 

information on best practices 

from OJJDP. [Note: indigent 

defense is included within the 

purpose area “Hiring Court 

Staff/Pretrial Services.”]

Percent of people exhibiting an 

increased knowledge of the 

program area during the reporting 

period

X 

Number of program policies 

changed, improved, or rescinded 

during the reporting period

X 

Percent of organizations 

reporting improvements in 

operations based on training and 

technical assistance (TTA)

X 

Number of hours per week and 

percent of staff time (including 

defenders) spent directly serving 

clients

X 

Amount of funds awarded for 

system improvement X 

Number and percent of defenders 

hired X 

Number of cases per staff 

member X 

Number and percent of vacant 

positions for defenders X 

Number of training requests 

received X 

Number of technical assistance 

requests received X 

Number of program materials 

developed during the reporting 

period

X 

Number of planning or training 

events held during the reporting 

period

X 

Number of people trained during 

the reporting period X 
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs

Page 91 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Grant Objectives Performance measure Output Outcome Input Process

Percent of those served by TTA 

who reported implementing an 

evidence based program and/or 

practice during or after the TTA

X 

Juvenile Indigent 

Defense National 

Clearinghouse Program

To improve juvenile indigent 

defense; objectives include to 

increase:

• training opportunities for 

juvenile indigent defense

• technical support efforts 

for juvenile indigent 

defense

• publications and resources 

for juvenile indigent 

defense

• policy development and 

leadership opportunities

Percentage of people exhibiting 

increased knowledge of the 

program area

X 

Percentage of organizations 

reporting improvements in 

operations based on training and 

technical assistance

X 

Number of program policies 

changed, improved, or rescinded X 

Percentage of those served by 

TTA who reported implementing 

an evidence-based 

program/practice during/after 

TTA

X 

Number of training requests 

received X 

Number of technical assistance 

requests received X 

Number of program materials 

developed X 

Number of planning or training 

events held X 

Number of people trained X 

Tribal Civil and Criminal 

Legal Assistance 

Program

(Category 2) Provide criminal 

legal assistance services for 

Indian tribes, members of 

Indian tribes, and tribal justice 

systems, pursuant to the 

federal poverty guidelines. 

Criminal legal assistance 

services may include adult 

criminal actions, juvenile 

delinquency actions, guardian 

ad litem appointments arising 

out of criminal or delinquency 

acts.

c

Percent increase in number of 

defendants served

d

X 

Percent of defendants who rated 

the services of their grant-funded 

attorney as satisfactory or better

X 
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs

Page 92 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Grant Objectives Performance measure Output Outcome Input Process

Tribal Juvenile 

Accountability 

Discretionary Grant 

Program

To provide funds to federally 

recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

communities to develop and 

implement programs that hold 

AI/AN youth accountable for 

their delinquent behavior and 

strengthen tribal juvenile justice 

systems.

e

Among the 17 purpose areas is 

the following: “hiring juvenile 

court judges, probation officers, 

and court-appointed defenders 

and special advocates, and 

funding pretrial services 

(including mental health 

screening and assessment) for 

juvenile offenders, to promote 

the effective and expeditious

administration of the juvenile 

justice system.

Percentage of eligible youth 

served using graduated sanctions 

approaches

X f

Percentage of funds awarded for 

system improvement X 

Percentage of program youth 

completing program requirements X 

Percentage of programs 

employing evidence-based 

practices, i.e., a practice shown 

through rigorous evaluation and 

replication to be effective in 

preventing or reducing 

delinquency or related risk factors

X 

Percentage of youth with whom 

an evidence-based practice was 

used

X 

Percentage of program youth 

who reoffend (rearrested or seen 

at juvenile court for a new 

offense)

X 

Number and percent of defenders 

hired X 

Number of cases per staff 

member X 

Number and percent of vacant 

positions for defenders X 

Number of hours per week and 

percent of staff time spent directly 

serving clients

X 

Wrongful Conviction 

Review Programg Provide representation to 

defendants in post-conviction 

claims of innocence cases.

Number of cases in which actual 

perpetrators are identified though 

re-examination of evidence

X 

Percent of cases in which actual 

perpetrators are identified 

through re-examination of 

evidence in post-conviction 

innocence claims

X 

Percent increase in number of 

cases evaluated for potential 

wrongful convictions

X 

Number of people/experts 

consulted. X 

Number of hours of forensic reanalysis services provided X 
Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent DefenseRelated Performance Measures for Department 

of Justice Grant Programs

Page 93 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Grant Objectives Performance measure Output Outcome Input Process

Number of hours of screening, 

evaluation, and litigation services 

provided

X 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant documents.

a

The measures for the Byrne Competitive Grant Program were only for the year and category for 

which indigent defense funding was a priority.

b

Measures displayed for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program include those which are 

related to indigent defense; measures unrelated to indigent defense are not displayed.

c

The measures for the Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance Program were for fiscal year 2010

and only for the category for which indigent defense funding was a priority.

d

A guardian ad litem is an individual, usually a lawyer, appointed by the court to represent the 

interests of a minor or incompetent person in a legal action.

e

Measures displayed for the Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant Program include those 

which are related to indigent defense; measures unrelated to indigent defense are not displayed.

f

For example, the term “graduated sanctions” has been defined as an accountability-based, 

graduated series of sanctions (including incentives, treatment, and services) applicable to juveniles 

within the juvenile justice system to hold such juveniles accountable for their actions and to protect 

communities from the effects of juvenile delinquency by providing appropriate sanctions for every act 

for which a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, by inducing their law-abiding behavior, and by 

preventing their subsequent involvement with the juvenile justice system. See 42 U.S.C. § 5603(24).

g

The Wrongful Conviction Review Program limits eligibility for funding to non-profit organizations as 

well as public defender offices that represent convicted defendants (who, according to DOJ, are 

indigent), in claims of innocence. As a result, we consider the grant to be related to indigent defense. 
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office 

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 94 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Of the 118 respondents to our survey of public defender offices or 

agencies, 9 provided us with, or directed us to, copies of evaluations of or 

reports on their office or agency. Table 9 shows select measures used in 

these evaluations or reports, and their findings and recommendations.

Table 9: Summary of Select Measures, Findings, and Recommendations from Public Defender Evaluations and Reports

Office or 

Agency 

(Random 

Identifier) Measures Findings Recommendations

Reporting 

period Evaluator 

1 • Caseload (for each attorney; 

weighted by case type)

• Training (number of staff that 

attended each offering)

• Cases opened and closed 

(sum totals)

• Length of cases (average 

number of days open)

Active and inactive cases (sum 

totals)

N/A N/A Year Internal

2 • Attorney staffing levels

• Caseloads (office total by 

case type; quarterly caseload 

by attorney for select case 

types as percentage of office 

total)

• Training (attorney attendance 

at continuing legal education 

programs offered during 

reporting period)

• Representation at clients’ first 

appearances

• Timeliness of jail visits

• Client complaints

• Investigator staffing and use 

of investigators (rate)

• Use of experts 

• Supervision

• Motions Practice

• Trials (number and type)

• Use of interpreters

• Overall quality of 

representation

• Conflicts 

Attorney turnover rate is 

high.

Jail visits and use of 

investigators are 

inconsistent across 

attorneys.

Expert witness requests 

are not always handled 

properly.

Supervision of attorneys 

does not provide quality 

control.

Increase use of 

investigators, as 

appropriate; consider 

providing training on this 

topic.

Provide defenders with 

training opportunities each 

quarter.

Supervisor should be more 

proactive in monitoring 

staff.

Address continued 

problems related to sealing 

motions. 

Quarter External 

(appointed 

monitor)

Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender 

Office and Agency Evaluations and Reports
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office 

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 95 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Office or 

Agency 

(Random 

Identifier) Measures Findings Recommendations

Reporting 

period Evaluator 

3 • Number of cases assigned to 

ad hoc counsel over ten 

years

• Debentures received for ad 

hoc cases

a

• Cost per disposed ad hoc

case

b

The ad hoc program is 

the most fiscally 

unpredictable and costly 

method of providing 

public defense services, 

with little or no check on 

the quality of 

representation provided.

Continue to expand the 

assigned counsel contract 

program.

Maintain the Serious 

Felony Units.

Impose firm caps 

consistent with 

administrative order.

Enforce strict standards for 

identifying conflicts.

Refuse payment of 

assignments for frivolous 

post conviction relief 

matters.

Year Internal

4 • Independence

• Attorney qualifications

• Training

• Supervision

• Workload

• Attorney-client relationships

• Parity between prosecution 

and defense

• Involvement of private bar

Agency is a model 

provider of indigent 

defense services, 

meeting or exceeding all 

recognized national 

standards for the 

delivery of indigent 

defense services.

Agency is independent; 

controls caseloads; and 

has sufficient funding to 

represent every client 

competently.

Consider evaluating the 

need to reduce supervisory 

caseload.

Consider formalizing 

rotations to reduce 

turnover.

Consider creating a fulltime training director.

Consider creating the 

position of a full-time 

assigned counsel

administrator.

Draft bylaws.

Snapshot of 

current 

conditions

External 

(consultant)

5 • Professional independence

• Attorney qualifications

• Training

• Supervision

• Workload

• Evaluation, performance and 

discipline

• Support services

• Case management and 

quality control

• Reporting

Provider exceeded the 

contractual requirement. 

Moreover, the 

percentage of felonies 

and misdemeanors was 

sufficiently high as to 

cause that caseload to 

exceed the maximum 

standard in each year of 

the reporting period.

Provider has failed to 

institute a sufficiently 

formalized system of 

supervision and review.

Monitor case intake to 

prevent workload from 

exceeding caseload 

standard.

Meet level of basic 

compliance standard 

regarding attorney 

evaluation and discipline.

Increase the number of 

formal checks of 

management and quality 

controls.

2 years External 

(oversight 

body)
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office 

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 96 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Office or 

Agency 

(Random 

Identifier) Measures Findings Recommendations

Reporting 

period Evaluator 

6 • Office space

• Technology

• Organizational Leadership 

and Structure

• Attorney recruitment, 

retention & staff needs

• Education and development 

programs

Provider has the 

leadership capacity and 

present ability to 

successfully fulfill its 

obligations to its clients, 

to the courts and justice 

systems, to its 

community, and to the 

county. 

Plan ahead for replacement 

and/or upgrading of 

hardware and software, 

and work together to 

sustain the current high 

level of technology 

competence.

Implement management 

reorganization that 

establishes a clear, 

integrated line of 

supervision and authority 

that would, among other 

things, preserve a chief 

defender responsible and 

accountable for all aspects 

of the operation, but also 

include supervisors 

authorized to direct and 

manage particular 

administrative and 

representational 

responsibilities.

Consider adding staff to 

meet current and 

anticipated case and 

workload challenges.

Multi-year External 

(consultant)

7 • Uniformity of the public 

defender system across the 

state

• Performance assessment and 

accountability

• Reliance on part-time public 

defenders

• Strategic planning and 

budgeting

• Management of resource 

reductions

• Size and nature of public 

defender workloads

• Impact of public defender 

workloads on how they do 

their work

• Case outcomes

• Court efficiency

• Statutory framework for 

determining eligibility for

Public defender 

workloads are too high, 

resulting in public 

defenders spending 

limited time with clients, 

difficulties preparing 

cases, and scheduling 

problems that hinder the 

efficient operation of 

criminal courts.

Staff reductions are the 

most immediate cause 

of high workloads, but 

case complexity and 

other factors add to the 

time required per case.

Heavy reliance on parttime public defenders 

presents risks that need 

to be addressed, but the 

public defender’s office 

has few staff resources 

The Board of Public 

Defense (BPD) should 

ensure that district chief 

public defenders’ 

presentations to the board 

focus more on district 

performance and

challenges rather than 

descriptive characteristics 

of the district.

The state public defender 

should establish stricter 

criteria for the structure and 

content of district chiefs’ 

work plans.

BPD and the state public 

defender should establish

standards for and 

measures of quality 

representation of clients.

BPD and the state public 

defender should improve

Multi-year External 

(government 

auditor)
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office 

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 97 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Office or 

Agency 

(Random 

Identifier) Measures Findings Recommendations

Reporting 

period Evaluator 

appointment of a public 

defender

• Application of statutory 

eligibility criteria by judges 

and court staff

• Procedures for determining 

eligibility

• Accuracy of eligibility 

determinations

• Ordering, collection, and 

distribution of 

reimbursements 

available for planning, 

research, and policy 

development activities.

Oversight body has 

strengthened 

accountability in the 

public defender system 

but could do more to 

measure and supervise 

the quality of services.

Standards for 

determining eligibility for 

a public defender are 

not clearly defined in 

law, and judges 

reported wide 

differences in how they 

weigh eligibility factors.

Judges reported having 

little confidence in the 

accuracy of information 

they use to assess 

defendants’ financial 

circumstances, but it 

appears that the vast 

majority of applicants 

cannot afford a private 

attorney.

Law requires 

defendants with some 

financial means to 

reimburse a portion of 

their public defender 

costs, but 

reimbursements are 

inconsistently ordered 

and collected.

management practices that 

ensure active supervision 

of full- and part-time

assistant public defenders 

to monitor their 

performance representing 

clients and litigating in 

court.

BPD and the state public 

defender should complete

long-range planning efforts 

to: estimate future staffing 

needs in light of anticipated 

retirements among long 

time public defenders; 

evaluate the proper 

balance of full-time and 

part-time public defenders 

needed in the future; study 

the costs associated with 

establishing additional 

public defender satellite 

offices; and consider other 

options to recruit and retain 

public defenders.

BPD should seek the 

resources necessary to 

fund a planning and 

analysis position in the 

administrative services 

office.

When funding becomes 

available, BPD should

conduct a caseload study 

that includes methods 

sufficient to develop 

separate caseload 

standards for metropolitan 

area, suburban, and rural 

public defender districts.

The state public defender 

should ensure that the 

office collects and records 

staff counts by position at 

regular intervals during the 

fiscal year.
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office 

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 98 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Office or 

Agency 

(Random 

Identifier) Measures Findings Recommendations

Reporting 

period Evaluator 

8 • Case processing

• Structure and number of 

public defense contractors

• Quality of representation

In juvenile cases, the 

average period from first 

appearance to 

jurisdiction is more than 

90 days.

Attorneys need training 

on how to conform to 

performance standards.

There is a need for 

additional attorneys in 

the county.

Consider structure of 

current public defense 

systems and the need for 

additional attorneys in 

developing a service 

delivery plan.

Consider offering longer 

contracts to indigent 

defense providers who are 

willing to relocate or live in 

remote areas.

Consider supplementing 

insufficient trial-level 

caseloads with appellate 

work.

Consider law school 

recruitment and specialized 

apprenticeship training for 

new lawyers interested in 

relocating.

Consider assisting 

providers with office space 

and initial capital needs.

Snapshot of 

current 

conditions 

External 

(oversight 

body)
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 99 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Office or 

Agency 

(Random 

Identifier) Measures Findings Recommendations

Reporting 

period Evaluator 

9 • Caseloads

• Indigency standards and 

eligibility requirements

• Attorney turnover rates

• Staffing and personnel issues

• Compensation

• Organizational practices 

(overhead, office location, 

technology, resources, etc.)

There has been no 

increase in staff in prior 

6 years while caseload 

has increased by 

12,000 cases.

Attorney turnover rate is 

high.

Attorney supervisors 

carry full caseloads, 

resulting in inadequate 

training, mentoring, and 

supervision.

Office space is 

inadequate.

Research and consider 

specifying circumstances 

that would trigger the right 

to be represented by a 

public defender in probation 

violation cases.

Take efforts to return the 

caseloads to the caseload 

standard.

Contract out certain cases 

involving misdemeanors,

traffic violations, and 

probation violations to 

private attorneys when

economically feasible in 

order to reduce the 

numbers of cases for which 

each public defender is 

responsible.

Promulgate a rule requiring 

prosecuting attorneys to file 

all charges against the 

same defendant arising out 

of the same transaction or 

occurrence in a single 

document.

Eliminate certain 

unconstitutional court costs 

and replace them with a 

lesser court cost to help 

fund the public defender 

system and provide 

revenue to pay contract 

attorneys, fund an increase 

in support staff and fund an 

increase in base salary for 

public defenders.

Research the feasibility of 

creating a student loan 

forgiveness program.

Make technology available 

to the counties of the state 

to allow attorneys to meet 

with their clients via

videoconference or 

teleconference. 

Snapshot of 

current 

conditions

External 

(oversight 

body)

Source: GAO analysis of evaluations and reports from select public defender offices or agencies who responded to GAO survey and 

provided GAO with copies or directed GAO to publicly available copies.
Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and 

Recommendations from Public Defender Office 

and Agency Evaluations and Reports

Page 100 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Note: The evaluations summarized above were conducted by or on behalf of survey respondents; 

GAO has not assessed the quality of the evaluations or their results.

a

Consistent with Office 3 documentation, ad hoc cases are those cases in which representation is 

provided by assigned attorneys who are not staff employees of the public defender office or agency to 

avoid a conflict of interest.

b

In this context, a debenture is a submission by assigned counsel to the public defender office or 

agency to request compensation for time and funding expended in providing representation in ad hoc 

cases.
Appendix VIII: Possible Data Elements for 

Evaluating Public Defender Offices, Extent to 

Which Respondents Collect Related Data, and 

Data Challenges and Limitations

Page 101 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Respondents to our public defender office survey reported collecting data 

that could be used to conduct an evaluation, but also reported challenges 

to collecting this data. Table 10 shows the percentage of survey 

respondents collecting each data element, and the associated 

challenges.

Table 10: Survey Respondents Collecting Data Elements and Associated Challenges

Data element

Percentage

collecting data

Challenges and limitations associated with 

data (based on 118 possible respondents) a

Average caseload per defender 87% (97 of 112) Costly to collect: 6% (7 )

Difficult/burdensome to collect:10% (11)

Difficult to measure: 7% (8 )

Imprecise: 7% (8)

Number of active cases per defender 84% (95 of 113) Costly to collect: 6% (7 )

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 10% (12)

Difficult to measure: 3% (4 )

Imprecise:11% (13)

Average salary or hourly rate of defenders, as 

applicable

76% (83 of 109) Costly to collect: 3% (4)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 6% (7)

Difficult to measure: 3% (3)

Imprecise: 5% (6 )

Whether or not defenders are in compliance 

with professional and ethical standards

67% (74 of 111) Costly to collect:6% (7)

Difficult/burdensome to collect:11% (13)

Difficult to measure:14% (16)

Imprecise: 13% (15)

Whether or not salary is accompanied by 

additional benefits (e.g., loan repayment, health

insurance)

66% (72 of 109) Costly to collect:4% (5)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 6% (7)

Difficult to measure: 3% (4)

Imprecise: 3% (4)

Ratio of attorneys to non-attorney support staff 

(e.g., clerical, paralegal, etc.)

65% (72 of 110) Costly to collect: 3% (4)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 7% (8)

Difficult to measure: 7% (8)

Imprecise: 2% (2)

Whether or not cases are handled using a case 

management system 

62% (68 of 111) Costly to collect: 12% (14)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 8% (9)

Difficult to measure: 3% (4)

Imprecise: 7% (8)

Appendix VIII: Possible Data Elements for 

Evaluating Public Defender Offices, Extent to 

Which Respondents Collect Related Data, 

and Data Challenges and Limitations
Appendix VIII: Possible Data Elements for 

Evaluating Public Defender Offices, Extent to 

Which Respondents Collect Related Data, and 

Data Challenges and Limitations

Page 102 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Data element

Percentage

collecting data

Challenges and limitations associated with 

data (based on 118 possible respondents) a

Whether or not the same defender represents a 

client in all stages of proceedings once he or 

she is assigned the case (vertical 

representation)

61% (69 of 113) Costly to collect: 9% (10)

Difficult/burdensome to collect:13% (15)

Difficult to measure: 5% (6)

Imprecise: 6% (7)

Average number of defenders’ continuing legal 

education (CLE) and/or training hours 

completed per year

59% (66 of 112) Costly to collect: 3% (4)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 6% (7)

Difficult to measure: 3% (3)

Imprecise: 3% (3)

Average caseload per defender, relative to any 

established caseload standard (e.g. some 

percent or number higher or lower than 

whatever standard is used, as applicable)

57% (64 of 112) Costly to collect: 5% (6)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 10% (12)

Difficult to measure: 15% (17)

Imprecise: 15% (17)

Ratio of attorneys to investigators 56% (61 of 108) Costly to collect: 4% (5)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 5% (6)

Difficult to measure: 5% (6)

Imprecise: 3% (4)

Type(s) of cases a defender has ever handled 

(e.g. capital, felony, misdemeanor, juvenile, 

etc.)

54% (60 of 112) Costly to collect: 11% (13)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 27% (3)

Difficult to measure: 10% (12)

Imprecise: 10% (12)

Number of requests for funding for expert 

witnesses

48% (51 of 107) Costly to collect: 8% (9)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 18% (2)

Difficult to measure: 8% (9)

Imprecise: 7% (8)

Number of times expert witnesses are used 42% (46 of 110) Costly to collect: 10% (12)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 22% (26)

Difficult to measure: 5% (6)

Imprecise: 9% (10)

Individual defender performance ratings, as 

determined by a methodology in place at your 

office or agency

40% (44 of 110) Costly to collect: 7% (8)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 19% (22)

Difficult to measure: 31% (36)

Imprecise: 18% (21)

Number of cases a defender has ever handled 41% (45 of 111) Costly to collect: 11% (13)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 34% (40)

Difficult to measure: 18% (21)

Imprecise: 15% (17)
Appendix VIII: Possible Data Elements for 

Evaluating Public Defender Offices, Extent to 

Which Respondents Collect Related Data, and 

Data Challenges and Limitations

Page 103 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Data element

Percentage

collecting data

Challenges and limitations associated with 

data (based on 118 possible respondents) a

Whether or not a defender is present for the 

client’s first appearance 

38% (43 of 113) Costly to collect: 12% (14)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 24% (28)

Difficult to measure: 13% (15)

Imprecise: 10% (12)

Meetings held between defender and client 

(per case) 

38% (42 of 111) Costly to collect: 12% (14)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 39% (46)

Difficult to measure: 11% (13)

Imprecise: 12% (14)

Amount of time defender spends per case 33% (37 of 113) Costly to collect: 12% (14)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 45% (53)

Difficult to measure: 23% (27)

Imprecise: 19% (22) 

Complexity of cases a defender has ever 

handled (e.g. number and/or severity of 

charges)

32% (36 of 112) Costly to collect: 14% (16)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 36% (42)

Difficult to measure: 26% (30)

Imprecise: 27% (32)

Amount of face-to-face time defender spends 

with client 

23% (25 of 111) Costly to collect: 16% (19)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 50% (59)

Difficult to measure: 15% (18)

Imprecise: 15% (17)

Elapsed time between arrest and appointment 

of counsel 

20% (23 of 113) Costly to collect: 15% (18)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 34% (40)

Difficult to measure: 15% (18)

Imprecise: 11% (1)

Satisfaction of other criminal justice partners 14% (15 of 109) Costly to collect: 13% (15)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 27% (31)

Difficult to measure: 36% (42)

Imprecise: 30% (35)

Satisfaction of clients 8% (9 of 106) Costly to collect: 18% (21)

Difficult/burdensome to collect: 38% (44)

Difficult to measure: 48% (56)

Imprecise: 32% (37)

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

a

The number responding to each question varied. 
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 104 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Appendix IX: Comments from the 

Department of Justice
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 105 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 106 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 107 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 108 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 109 GAO-12-569 Indigent Defense 

Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kristy N. Brown, Assistant 

Director; Jill Verret, Analyst-in-Charge; Heather Hampton; Christine 

Hanson; and Alicia Loucks made significant contributions to this report. 

Other key contributors were Michele Fejfar, Cynthia Grant, Thomas 

Lombardi, Lara Miklozek, Karen O’Connor; Carl Ramirez, Christine San, 

Jerome Sandau, and Janet Temko.

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440949)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.