Bojs Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties 1999
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
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populous counties. It also compares the operating expenditures, staffing, and caseloads of the different types of indigent defense services used in these counties.2 The indigent defense programs examined in this report primarily handled felony criminal cases at the trial level. Some of these programs also had responsibility for misdemeanor, juvenile, civil, and appellate cases. The study was not designed to include programs that exclusively handled misdemeanor, juvenile, civil, or appellate cases. State governments exclusively funded indigent defense services in 21 States. About a quarter of the largest 100 counties were in the States that totally funded indigent defense services. This report does not provide State-level data.3 Background The legal mandate The sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes the right to counsel in Federal criminal prosecution. Through a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the right to counsel for indigent defendants to State criminal prosecution. In 1963 the Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that indigent persons facing felony charges must be provided with legal counsel.4 Nine years later in Argersinger v. Hamlin the Court extended a defendant’s right to counsel to all criminal prosecutions, felony or misdemeanor, that carry a sentence of imprisonment.5 2 For information on the characteristics of the defense counsel received by defendants see Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases, BJS Special Report, November 2000, NCJ 179023. 3 For more information on statewide systems see Improving Criminal Justice Systems Through Expanded Strategies and Innovative Collaborations: Report of the National Symposium on Indigent Defense, Office of Justice Programs, March 2000, NCJ 181344, and National Criminal Defense Systems Study, BJS, September 1986, NCJ 94702, table 19. 4 Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963). 5 Argersinger v. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25 (1972). Contract Non-salaried individual private attorneys, bar associations, law firms, consortiums or groups of attorAlthough the U.S. Supreme Court has neys, or nonprofit corporations that mandated States and localities to contract with a funding source to provide counsel for indigents accused provide court-appointed representation of crimes, the implementation of how in a jurisdiction. This does not include such services are to be provided has not been specified. As a consequence, public defender programs primarily funded by an awarded contract. States and localities have devised various systems, rules for organizing, and funding mechanisms for indigent Indigent criminal defense in the defense services. Nation’s 100 largest counties Three primary ways of providing indigent defense services have Among the Nation’s 100 largest emerged throughout the Nation. counties, public defender programs States and localities use these including those primarily funded by an methods of delivering indigent defense awarded contract operated in every services either singly or in combination. county except eight. Assigned counsel The following categories are used to programs were available in 89 counties help describe indigent criminal defense and contract programs in 42 (table 1). services in this report. Local programs In most counties (95) more than one may use different terminology. type of indigent criminal defense services was available (see appendix Public defender A salaried staff of table). full-time or part-time attorneys that render criminal indigent defense County operating expenditures and services through a public or private funding sources nonprofit organization, or as direct government paid employees. During 1999 the Nation’s 100 most populous counties spent an estimated Assigned counsel The appointment $1.2 billion to deliver indigent criminal from a list of private bar members who defense.6 Half of these counties accept cases on a judge-by-judge, reported nearly $7 million or more in court-by-court, or case-by-case basis. operating expenditures (table 2). This may include an administrative 6 In 1990 all States and U.S. localities spent component and a set of rules and $1.3 billion (unadjusted for inflation) on criminal guidelines governing the appointment and civil public defense. See Indigent Defense, and processing of cases handled by BJS Selected Findings, February 1996, NCJ 158909. the private bar members. Types of indigent defense services The Nation’s 100 largest counties Of the approximately 3,100 counties or independent cities, the most populous 100 counties comprised 42% of the 1999 U.S. population.a Of the 36 million Americans that lived below the poverty level in 1995, 44% resided in the Nation’s largest 100 counties.b A majority of all arrests for Part I crimes (52%) and violent crimes (55%) during 1997 occurred in the largest 100 counties.c a 1999 population estimates for the United States and for each county came from Census Bureau websites, http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/countypop.html and http://www. census.gov/population/www/estimates/uspop.html. b The latest poverty estimates came from the Census Bureau website http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/estimate.html. c Arrests by county were taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 1997 [computer file]. ICPSR. ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Arrest data by county were not available for four counties in Florida and the District of Columbia. 2 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties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assigned counsel programs, for interpreter and transcript services by 60% or more, and expenditures for social services by 21%. Contract program expenditures Contracts awarded to provide indigent criminal defense services in the largest 100 counties totaled an estimated $77 million in 1999. Half of the 65 contract programs expended $319,000 or more. Eighty-one percent of the contract programs reported that the contract they administered did not have funds for social services. Expenditures for interpreter (54%) and transcript services (51%) were reported by more than half of the contract programs. Most of the contract programs reported funding for expert (85%) and investigator services (96%). Program caseload Indigent criminal defense programs in the most populous 100 counties received an estimated 4.2 million cases in 1999 (table 7). About 80% of the cases were criminal cases that included felony capital or death penalty cases, felony non-capital cases, Table 6. Estimated total operating expenditures and services in programs that provide indigent criminal defense in the Nation’s 100 largest counties, 1999 Operating expenditures Number of programs Total programs 314 Operating expenditures (in thousands) Total Median Mean Minimum Maximum $1,205,136 1,500 3,850 <1 94,400 Percent of programs where operating expenditures include: Expert services Investigator services Interpreter services Transcript services Social services Type of program Assigned counsel Contract 126 65 Public defender 123 $880,920 4,536 7,221 100 94,400 81.1% 92.9 70.2 65.1 34.0 84.6% 95.9 80.5 81.3 49.6 $247,204 538 1,962 <1 13,143 83.3% 90.5 68.3 60.3 21.4 $77,012 319 1,185 8 9,000 84.6% 95.4 53.8 50.8 18.5 Note: Data were not available for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties. Total expenditure information was estimated for 47 of the 123 public defender programs, 54 of the 126 assigned counsel programs and 24 of the 65 contract programs. Funding for expert services were estimated for 12 public defender programs, 41 assigned counsel programs, and 14 contract programs. Funding for investigator services was estimated for 12 public defender programs, 40 assigned counsel programs, and 14 contract programs. Funding for interpreter services was estimated for 14 public defender programs, 40 assigned counsel programs, and 14 contract programs. Funding for transcript services was estimated for 12 public defender programs, 41 assigned counsel programs, and 14 contract programs. Funding for social services was estimated for 14 public defender programs, 44 assigned counsel programs, and 16 contract programs. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Data rounded to nearest thousand. In Orange County, CA, expenditure information for the public defender conflict and specialty programs is included in the expenditure information provided by the primary public defender program. Table 7. Estimated number of cases received by 314 identified indigent criminal defense programs in the Nation’s 100 largest counties, 1999 Type of case Number of programs Total cases a Criminal Juvenile relatedb Civilc Otherd Total programs Total Median Mean 314 Public defender Total Median Mean 123 Assigned counsel Total Median Mean 126 Contract Total Median 65 Mean 4,174,079 2,351 13,508 3,412,487 13,654 28,919 618,465 1,072 4,908 143,127 993 2,202 3,357,336 381,178 87,258 344,678 1,564 10,865 5 1,234 0 283 0 1,115 2,742,567 12,504 277,995 1,188 78,343 12 313,579 0 23,242 2,356 664 2,657 522,988 61,381 6,755 24,012 1,007 0 0 0 4,151 487 54 191 91,781 41,802 2,160 7,087 500 0 0 0 1,412 643 33 109 Note: Caseload information for programs in the four most populous counties in Maryland was not provided and could not be estimated. Data were not available for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties. The number of total cases was estimated for 50 of the 123 public defender programs, criminal cases for 51, juvenile cases for 53, civil cases for 49, and other cases for 48 programs. The number of total cases was estimated for 63 of the 126 assigned counsel programs, criminal cases for 84, juvenile cases for 85, civil cases for 62, and other cases for 59 programs. The number of total cases was estimated for 31 of the 65 contract programs, criminal cases for 37, juvenile cases for 35, civil cases for 18, and other cases for 17 programs. Detail may not sum to total within program type because some programs only could provide total case information and were not able to break out the information by case category. In most instances, main caseload categories were able to be estimated from the total case information provided. However, for one respondent in Bucks County, PA, and one in Franklin County, OH, the main caseload categories were not able to be estimated from the total case information provided. Respondent programs counted cases in different ways. No attempt was made to standardize case counts. For Marion County, IN, contract caseload information is included with the public defender caseload information. For Pierce County, WA, assigned counsel caseload information is included with the public defender caseload information. For 11 respondents in Harris County, TX, contract caseload information is included with the assigned counsel caseload information. In Orange County, CA, caseload information for the public defender conflict and specialty programs is included in the caseload information provided by the primary public defender program. a Includes felony capital, felony non-capital, misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence, ordinance infraction, appeal, probation, and revocation cases. b Includes juvenile delinquency, delinquency appeals, juveniles proceeded against in adult criminal court, juvenile status offense, and juvenile transfer hearings. c Includes mental commitment, State post-conviction habeas corpus, and Federal habeas corpus. d Includes juvenile dependency, abuse and neglect, paternity, guardianship, contempt, traffic, special proceedings, and other case types. Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 5 Table 8. Public defender program staffing, assigned counsel appointments, and contracts in the Nation’s 100 largest counties, 1999 Type of program Public defender staffing Total a Chief public defender Assistant public defenderb Supervisory attorneysc Managersd Investigatorse Social workers Paralegals Indigency screeners Support stafff Other Assigned counsel private attorney appointments Contracts administered Number of staff, appointments, and contracts Total Median Mean 12,791 80 105 83 6,364 681 292 1,267 314 395 64 2,789 542 1 33 4 1 6 1 1 0 14 0 1 52 6 2 10 3 3 1 23 4 30,751 109 244 1,054 1 16 Note: Data were not available for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties. There are 123 public defender programs in the top 100 counties, 126 assigned counsel programs, and 65 contract programs. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. The number of chief public defenders was estimated for 50 public defender programs, assistant public defenders for 50, supervisory attorneys for 51, managers for 52, investigators for 52, social workers for 52, paralegals for 52, indigency screeners for 52, support staff for 51, and other staff for 55 programs. The number of assigned counsel appointments was estimated for 74 assigned counsel programs. The number of contracts administered was estimated for 31 of the contract programs. In Orange County, CA, staffing information for the public defender conflict and specialty programs is included in the staffing information provided by the primary public defender program. a The term chief public defender was not defined on the program survey and may represent different meanings across programs. Some of the public defender programs in the study are located in statewide systems with one statewide chief public defender. In other programs the person in charge is called something other than chief public defender. b Any employee of the public defender program licensed to practice law or who has applied for admission to the bar, and who primarily litigates cases. Excludes attorneys in non-litigating positions. b Attorneys in managerial positions who litigate cases. d Attorneys or non-attorneys in primarily managerial positions who do not litigate cases. e Includes investigators on contract. f Administrative staff, clerical staff, computer personnel, fiscal officers, and training directors. misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence, ordinance infractions, appeals, probation, and parole revocations. Juvenile-related cases accounted for about 9% of the total. Civil cases such as mental commitment, State post-conviction habeas corpus, and Federal habeas corpus comprised approximately 2% of all cases. An estimated 8% were other types of cases such as juvenile dependency, abuse and neglect, and contempt cases. Half of the 314 identified indigent criminal defense programs received 2,351 or more cases. Public defender program caseload Public defender programs handled 82% of the 4.2 million cases with indigent defendants. In 1999 public defender programs in the largest 100 counties received over 2.7 million criminal cases, 277,000 juvenile cases, 78,000 civil cases, and 314,000 other types cases. In terms of their total caseload, public defender programs (9%) were more likely to receive other types of cases than either assigned counsel programs (4%) or contract attorneys (5%). Half of the 123 public defender programs received 12,504 or more criminal cases and 1,188 or more juvenilerelated cases. 6 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 Assigned counsel program caseload About 618,000 cases were received by assigned counsel programs. Approximately 85% of these cases dealt with criminal matters, 10% with juvenilerelated matters, 1% with civil matters, and 4% with other types of matters. The median number of criminal cases handled by assigned counsel programs was 1,007. Half of the assigned counsel programs received no juvenile, civil, or other types of cases during 1999. Contract program caseload Contract attorneys handled approximately 143,000 cases in 1999, of which almost two-thirds (64%) were criminal cases. As a percentage of their total caseload, contract attorneys were more likely than public defender or assigned counsel programs to receive juvenile cases. Approximately 29% of the caseload received by contract attorneys dealt with juvenilerelated cases compared to 10% for assigned counsel programs and 8% for public defender programs. Public defender program staffing In 1999 public defender programs in the largest 100 counties employed almost 12,800 individuals (table 8). The median total staff size was 80. Approximately 6,400 assistant public defenders were employed by public defender programs and comprised half of all staff employed by these programs. The median number of assistant public defenders was 33. About 4% of all assistant public defenders were employed on a parttime basis. About a quarter of those employed by public defender programs were support staff. Half of the public defender programs had 14 or more support staff. Public defender programs in the most populous 100 counties employed approximately 1,267 investigators in 1999. Half of the programs had six or more investigators on staff. Staffing of the public defenders programs also included 314 social workers and 395 paralegals. Assigned counsel private attorney appointments Assigned counsel programs appointed an estimated 30,751 private attorneys to represent indigent criminal defendants in 1999. Half of the assigned counsel programs had 109 or more private attorney appointments. The largest number of appointments reported by any program was 1,782 private attorneys. Contracts administered Approximately 1,054 contracts were administered by the 65 contract programs. The median number of contracts administered was one. The largest number of contracts administered by one program was 245. Methodology The program survey consisted of 141 questions divided into major sections. The 58 questions in Part A asked about program expenditures and other areas such as indigency determination, cost recovery, standards and guidelines, training, and computer resources; the 27 questions in Part B asked for information about public defender programs such as staffing, caseload, and conflicts; the 26 questions in Part C asked for information about assigned counsel programs such as program administration, caseload, and assigned counsel compensation; the 25 questions in Part D asked for information related to contract programs such as contract administration, awards and monitoring, caseload and contract attorney compensation; and the 5 questions in Part E asked for information about additional programs in the county other than the respondent’s. Respondent selection The universe for this study consisted of indigent criminal defense programs that handled felony cases at the trial level in the 100 most populous counties in the United States. These counties were selected with certainty from a list of approximately 3,100 counties and independent cities in the United States ranked according to 1997 intercensal population estimates. Once the 100 largest counties were selected, the indigent criminal defense programs and county officials in these counties were identified. County and program surveys Data were collected through two surveys. The county survey, which consisted of 16 questions, was used to gather expenditure information and to assist in identifying indigent criminal defense programs operating in the county. The program survey was sent to the identified program respondents to collect specific information about expenditures, staffing, caseloads, policies and practices of public defender, assigned counsel, and contract defender programs within the counties, and to identify any additional programs. All program respondents were required to complete Parts A and E, and Part B, C, or D according to their program type. Most respondents, therefore, needed to answer only the survey parts that were relevant to their type of program. Both survey instruments are available on the BJS website at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. A review of a compilation of existing information determined that 28 of the most populous 100 counties were entirely funded by State governments and 72 all or in part by county governments. County surveys were mailed to counties that provided partial or all county funding for indigent criminal defense programs. For counties located in States that totally fund indigent criminal defense services, only a program survey was sent. Data collection and follow-up The data collection for the study was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). In August 1999, NORC mailed the county and program surveys to identified respondents. For the 28 counties totally State funded, program surveys were sent directly to the State and in a few cases directly to the program as well. If State agencies could only provide data for the entire State, apportionment was used to produce county-level information. Estimated county-level data were provided by only three States: North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. For the remaining 72 counties, both county and program surveys were mailed to appropriate officials. In some instances, multiple mailings were required to different county offices in the same jurisdiction or to multiple offices for the same indigent criminal defense program because different types of cases (non-capital felony, misdemeanors, and juvenile delinquency) were handled by different units or branches of a program. In January to May 2000 the additional indigent criminal defense programs identified by the county or program survey were mailed a program survey. In total 78 county surveys and 345 program surveys were mailed. After the initial mailing, NORC engaged in extensive follow up to obtain a returned survey from each county and program survey respondent. For the program survey, critical information, included the type of program, expenditures, staffing, and caseload. The follow up process involved phone calls, e-mail communication, re-mailing questionnaires, faxing or re-mailing only the critical items, and sending follow-up letters. Staff of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the State coordinators for the study also assisted NORC by providing additional follow up. Both efforts contributed to improving survey response. Each completed survey in the NSIDS study also required a unique follow up procedure to clarify discrepancies with county-level information, discrepancies and duplication of data in programs within counties, and to retrieve missing critical items. Follow up with survey respondents continued until July 2000. An estimated 5,000 phone calls were logged for non-response follow-up and respondent verification. Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 7 Survey response Among the 78 county surveys mailed, 4 were determined to be duplicates and 5 were determined to be ineligible, leaving 69 surveys eligible for the study. Of the eligible surveys, 4 were not returned and 65 were completed for a response rate of 94%. defender or contract program identified within the county but not for the assigned counsel program. Of the returned program surveys, 23 contained information either for an entire State or a multi-jurisdictional program. The data in these 23 surveys were apportioned to the individual counties or jurisdictions within the State based on 1990 Census populaFor the program survey, 345 surveys were mailed to either individual indigent tion data. The 23 source surveys were then deleted from the final program criminal defense programs or State data file leaving 220 returned surveys, agencies for programs located in for a response rate of 92% of the 238 counties with all State funding. Of the eligible surveys. 345 program surveys, 36 were determined to contain duplicate information Since there is no complete roster of already provided on another program indigent criminal defense providers in survey and 48 were determined to be ineligible because the program excluthe largest 100 counties the actual sively handled juvenile-related, misde- number of programs is not known. meanor, or appellate cases. Data used for this report Eighteen known programs did not return the program survey. These All information provided in this report include one program in each of the came from data taken from the following counties: Cook County, IL; program surveys. A comparison Kent, MI; Oakland, MI; Nassau County, between expenditure information NY; Westchester County, NY; reported on the county survey and the Montgomery County, OH; Bexar program survey revealed discrepancies County, TX; El Paso County, TX; two in many counties between the informaprograms in Erie County, NY; and eight tion provided on the two surveys. This programs in Tarrant County, TX. discrepancy was due in part to the fact that many programs received more The Maryland State Public Defender than just county funding. Therefore Program did not provide any informaexpenditure data from the program tion for their four jurisdictions (Baltisurveys were used because they more County, Baltimore City, provided a more accurate accounting Montgomery County, and Prince of what the programs actually spent in George’s County) in this study. Some providing indigent criminal defense. information for the public defender program (e.g., expenditures and staffThe data for the 18 non-respondents ing) was taken from statistics available to the program survey were imputed for from their website. No information was all critical items, and then added to the available for the assigned counsel program data file. program. For nine programs in Riverside, CA, expenditures, funding source, The final program data file contained and program type was obtained from 238 surveys records, but accounted the county. for 314 indigent criminal defense programs since some respondents In fifteen counties (Hillsborough (55 of the 238) provided information County, FL; Honolulu County, HI; for more than one type of program. Jefferson County, KY; Hennepin County, MN; Bergen County, NJ; On 12 surveys, a juvenile or misdeEssex County, NJ; Hudson County, NJ; meanor program was indicated but it Middlesex County, NJ; Monmouth could not be determined if these were County, NJ; Tulsa County, OK; Multno- separate programs or components of mah County, OR; Allegheny County, larger programs. Due to the ambiguity, PA; Davidson County, TN; Shelby these programs were left in the County, TN; and Salt Lake County, UT) program data file. information was received for the public 8 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 While the NSIDS program survey contained many data elements, program type, expenditures, public staffing, assigned counsel attorney appointments, number of contracts administered, and caseload were presented for this report. NORC was instructed that if a respondent refused to complete the entire survey they should at a minimum try to obtain data from respondents for these critical items. Many program respondents only provided the critical items. Even with targeting these variables, there was still a substantial amount of missing data (see notes on tables 7, 8, and 9). Since most of the critical items were interval level data NORC was able to impute these data through various techniques for missing responses. Caseload data The 4.2 million cases received by indigent criminal defense programs in the largest 100 counties is an underestimate of the total number of indigent cases handled in these counties. During the process of compiling the respondent list for the present study, many indigent defense programs that exclusively handled misdemeanor, juvenile-related, or appellate cases were identified but were deemed out of scope for the study. In addition no caseload data were obtained for the four most populous counties in Maryland and for assigned counsel programs in 19 counties. If the specialized programs and these additional programs had been included, the estimate for the total number of cases received would have been higher. Data imputation for critical items in program survey If a program in the most populous 100 counties was known to be missing, NORC logically imputed as much critical information as possible based on information gathered in follow-up telephone calls and questionnaires from related counties and programs. NORC used several different techniques to impute data for selected missing individual survey items (type of program, expenditures, staffing, and caseload). Some items were imputed by hot deck methods in which a value is copied or adapted from a donor case having similar values of related variables. Some items were imputed using a statistical model of relationships among variables. The goal was to create a program data file with complete information on critical items, where the imputed values were plausible given the data relationships among the unimputed data. An indicator variable was added to the file for each critical item. The values of these companion variables indicated whether the critical item was imputed, and if so, by what method. A detailed memorandum describing the imputation process will be archived with the public use dataset. Data allocation for surveys completed by state agencies and multi-jurisdiction programs Some states operate a single indigent defense program covering most or all counties in the state. If the State agency completed one single program questionnaire for the entire State, NORC allocated the statewide data to the counties in that State by prorating the quantitative variables in proportion to 1990 census population. Multicounty programs for which a single program questionnaire was received were allocated to their respective counties in the same way. BJS staff deleted the State and multi-jurisdictional source surveys from the final program data file to avoid duplication of information. Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 9 ) I .&''' * , 1 , 11 % ;. 1N 1 '9)''4' 5&')9)6 9)5-0-0 )46&9'5 )4)-400 :1 J"K B% . )76-'04 ))64)'7 )&75690 )&-60'5 )-6)&-- M"K 1 JB1 1 "+K"K )---60) &66''90 &660406 &6070&' &55&400 + =,1 /1 1 1!1 &595064 &59-659 &0)66-6 &0&76-& &0&554) "K .. /. :; ""K &949407 &94)00) &97)467 &97&7&7 &9-5-57 11 "L /"K !1 :% &)564-6 &)&7&55 &&'0-'' &&40546 &&7''74 ;" ! :; : /L1 &-600&' &-0'0)&-)74)& ''6&4& '057&7 ;* 1 <"K +B% B"K '0-040 '99&0& ')5'57 '-6)04 '-557) % *." ;;% " 4')507 4740'' 479--46057& 457-5) ! G. . ;!:; ; . 45)&70 45-)09 40&990 40-009 4)'67& , I * , 1 , 4&7)-6 4&-'06 4-96&4 7'9)-4 7')-4) ?# 1 </" 1 L1 74&74& 769-6' 707955 706777 705-69 ?1 B1 , .,. !1 7004)7 7946)' 794049 7)7-)) 7)0-47 ! /" "K </1 1 7)9'&0 7&7'0' 7&)0&' 7-00-7 7-)&-) <. B1 JK 1* : 7-&'-4 6444-7 67)'-6570)) 650040 *" " L1 J1 1 :!:J 6040-6095460)0'5 60&6'5 69659' !:= ! % !" J*?1 699))0 69)64& 6&7'75 6&&000 5'6459 !B1 1 B" **?1 ,=% 5'65'4 5'0-07 546'054950& 570&-4 !:; C1 ;" J% .:J 565466 569&49 55)4&' 55-944 504)'6 +1 !!:; ,." " !* 50&5-) 597456 59--55)907) 5&'--- * , : %" !1N "+;,. !*% .&''' &- "@+!* , ! ,! .!* ! .&'4) +&'' ' * %* !! *+ @&'''! ! !+* @II+++ ,II+++I!I ! The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director. This BJS Bulletin presents findings from the National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems, 1999. This report and others from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as well as graphical figures and spreadsheets, are available through the Internet http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ Carol J. DeFrances and Marika F.X. Litras wrote this report. At BJS Greg W. Steadman provided statistical review; Devon B. Adams, Todd D. Minton, and Donna D. Oliphant provided assistance in compiling the respondent lists; and Steven K. Smith provided overall guidance for the project. Data collection was performed by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC); Natalie Suter was the project director. At NORC, project staff included Rachel Harter, Angela Herrmann, Irv Horwitz, Kymm Kochanek, Jayan Moolayil, Gloria Rauens, Joanna Small, Hee Choon Shin, Charles Taragon, and Crystal Williams. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association, (NLADA), as well as various State coordinators, assisted in the follow-up phase of the project. The Project’s Advisory Group provided review of the text. H. Scott Wallace of NLADA provided review and compiled comments from the Project’s Advisory Group members. Ellen Goldberg produced and edited this report assisted by Rhonda Keith. Jayne Robinson administered final production. November 2000, NCJ 184932 Indigent Defense Services in Large Counties, 1999 11