This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-569 
entitled 'Indigent Defense: DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible 
Funding and Better Determine the Extent to Which Funds Help Support 
This Purpose' which was released on May 9, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

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: 

GAO-12-569: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-569, a report to congressional requesters. 

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 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. 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-569]. For more 
information, contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-8777 or 
larencee@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOJ and BIA Make Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance Available 
to Support Indigent Defense: 

Unless Required, Few Recipients Allocated or Planned to Use Any 
Federal Funding for Indigent Defense, in Part Due to Competing 
Priorities: 

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: 

DOJ Could More Consistently Collect Data on the Amount of Funding 
Allocated for Indigent Defense When Programs Identify It as a Priority: 

DOJ Assesses the Impact of Indigent Defense Grant Funding and Has 
Mechanisms to Help Indigent Defense Providers Evaluate Services: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency and Third Party Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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: 

Appendix IV: Additional Details on Number of Indigent Defense 
Discretionary Awards and Award Amounts: 

Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents' Allocations across Purpose Areas 
and for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year: 

Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures 
for Department of Justice Grant Programs: 

Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and Recommendations from 
Public Defender Office and Agency Evaluations and Reports: 

Appendix VIII: Possible Data Elements for Evaluating Public Defender 
Offices, Extent to Which Respondents Collect Related Data, and Data 
Challenges and Limitations: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6: Number and Amount of Awards for Indigent Defense for DOJ 
Grant Programs That Required Funding 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: 

Table 8: Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures and Type of 
Measure for DOJ Grant Programs: 

Table 9: Summary of Select Measures, Findings, and Recommendations 
from Public Defender Evaluations and Reports: 

Table 10: Survey Respondents Collecting Data Elements and Associated 
Challenges: 

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: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Discretionary Grants That Were Awarded Fully 
or in Part for Indigent Defense during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

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: 

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): 

Figure 5: Percentage of Funding That JAG SAA Respondents Reported 
Allocating to Each Purpose Area, Including Indigent Defense, during 
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

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: 

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

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

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: 

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

Figure 12: Uses of Discretionary Grants Awarded for Indigent Defense: 

Figure 13: Percentage of JAG State, Local, and Tribal Survey 
Respondents That Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by 
Fiscal Year: 

Figure 14: Percentage of JJDP and JABG Survey Respondents That 
Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year: 

Figure 15: Percentage of BIA Tribal Courts TPA Funding Survey 
Respondents That Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by 
Fiscal Year: 

Figure 16: Reported Allocations as a Percentage of Total Award, by 
Fiscal Year, among JAG Respondents Who Reported Allocating Funding for 
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: 

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: 

Figure 19: Percentage of Grants Awarded in Whole or in Part for 
Indigent Defense; Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

Figure 20: Indigent Defense Awards, as a Maximum Possible Percentage 
of Total Awards; Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

Figure 21: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2005: 

Figure 22: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 23: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Figure 24: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Figure 25: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2009: 

Figure 26: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, ARRA: 

Figure 27: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2010: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

Figure 33: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients' Reported Allocations 
across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of 
Total Awards, ARRA: 

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: 

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: 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 1]
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. 

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.[Footnote 2] 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—-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.[Footnote 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, and tribal grant and funding programs.[Footnote 4] 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. 

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),[Footnote 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.[Footnote 6] 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 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.[Footnote 
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. 
[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 10] 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. 

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) guidance[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 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. 

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 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.[Footnote 13] 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. 

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. 

Background: 

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 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. 
[Footnote 14] 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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 16] For example, ICRA extends the protections 
of free speech, free exercise of religion, and due process and equal 
protection under tribal laws.[Footnote 17] Among other protections 
afforded 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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-recognized tribes.[Footnote 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 Make Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance Available 
to Support Indigent Defense: 

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.[Footnote 21] For 
instance, one survey respondent explained that their office's best 
attorneys leave to pursue positions offering higher compensation. 

DOJ makes funding available through formula and discretionary grants 
that could be used for indigent defense. Specifically, we identified 
13 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: John R. Justice; 
Purpose: Provides loan repayment assistance for local, state, and 
federal public defenders and state and local prosecutors; 
Requires funding be split between defense and prosecution; 
Type: Formula[A]; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2010: $10 million. 

Name of grant program: Capital Case Litigation Initiative; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2007: $1 million; 
2008: $2.5 million; 
2009: $2.5 million; 
2010: $2.5 million. 

Name of grant program: Wrongful Conviction Review; 
Purpose: Helps ensure high-quality representation for potentially 
wrongfully-convicted defendants in cases of post-conviction claims of 
innocence; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2009: $3 million; 
2010: $3 million. 

Name of grant program: Juvenile Indigent Defense National 
Clearinghouse; 
Purpose: Supports the improvement of juvenile indigent defense; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
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. 

[End of table] 

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 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.[Footnote 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. 

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

Name of grant program: Justice Assistance Grant; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Formula; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2005: $634 million; 
2006: $416.4 million; 
2007: $525.2 million; 
2008: $170.4 million; 
2009: $546 million; 
ARRA: $2 billion; 
2010: $519 million. 

Name of grant program: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant; 
Purpose: Supports states and units of local government in their 
efforts to strengthen their juvenile justice systems. One purpose area 
includes hiring court-appointed defenders; 
Type: Formula; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2005: $55 million; 
2006: $50 million; 
2007: $49.4 million; 
2008: $51.7 million; 
2009: $55 million; 
2010: $55 million. 

Name of grant program: Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary 
Grant; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2005: $1 million; 
2006: $1 million; 
2007: $1 million; 
2008: $1 million; 
2009: $1.1million; 
2010: $1.1 million. 

Name of grant program: Byrne Competitive; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2007: $0; 
2008: $16 million; 
2009: $30 million; 
2010: $40 million. 

Name of grant program: Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
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. 

[End of table] 

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

Name of grant program: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Title II; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Formula; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2005: $84 million; 
2006: $80 million; 
2007: $79 million; 
2008: $74.3 million; 
2009: $75 million; 
2010: $75 million. 

Name of grant program: Tribal Court Assistance Program; 
Purpose: 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; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2005: $8 million; 
2006: $8 million; 
2007: $8 million; 
2008: $8.6 million; 
2009: $9 million; 
2010: $25 million. 

Name of grant program: Justice and Mental Health Collaboration; 
Purpose: Facilitates collaboration among criminal justice and mental 
health treatment systems to increase access to services; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
2007: $5 million; 
2008: $6.5 million; 
2009: $10 million; 
2010: $12 million. 

Name of grant program: Adult Drug Court Discretionary; 
Purpose: Expands the drug court capacity at the state, local, and 
tribal levels; 
Type: Discretionary; 
Appropriated amounts, fiscal years 2005-2010: 
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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 23] 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 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.[Footnote 24] 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. 

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.[Footnote 25] 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 stakeholders.[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 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. 

Unless Required, Few Recipients Allocated or Planned to Use Any 
Federal Funding for Indigent Defense, in Part Due to Competing 
Priorities: 

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.[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 30] See appendix II for additional information about the 
allocation and use of these grants for indigent defense. 

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. 
[Footnote 31] (See appendix III for additional information on the 
percentages of respondents who reported allocating nondiscretionary 
funding for 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph and subgraph] 

Tribal Courts TPA: 
Reported allocating funds from fiscal years 2005-2010: 29%; 
Definitely will or likely to allocate fiscal year 2001 funds: 29%. 

JJDP: 
Reported allocating funds from fiscal years 2005-2010: 16%; 
Definitely will or likely to allocate fiscal year 2001 funds: 12%. 

JABG: 
Reported allocating funds from fiscal years 2005-2010: 13%; 
Definitely will or likely to allocate fiscal year 2001 funds: 11%; 

JAG: 
Reported allocating funds from fiscal years 2005-2010: 2%; 
Definitely will or likely to allocate fiscal year 2001 funds: 3%. 

Subchart of JAG data: 

JAG State Administering Agencies: 
Reported allocating funds from fiscal years 2005-2010: 41%; 
Definitely will or likely to allocate fiscal year 2001 funds: 24%. 

JAG localities and tribes: 
Reported allocating funds from fiscal years 2005-2010: 1%; 
Definitely will or likely to allocate fiscal year 2001 funds: 2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

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 percent for the TCCLA grant.[Footnote 32] 
See appendix IV for additional information on the number of 
discretionary grants awarded for indigent defense. 

Figure 2: Percentage of Discretionary Grants That Were Awarded Fully 
or in Part for Indigent Defense during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Byrne Competitive Grant Program: 6%. 

Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance Grant Program: 25%. 

Tribal Court Assistance Program: 8%. 

Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Grant Program: 1%. 

Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program: 3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Other criminal or juvenile justice areas were higher: 
JAG (N = 963): 83%; 
JJDP (N = 39): 77%; 
JABG (N = 30): 87%; 
Tribal Courts TPA (N = 34): 83%. 

Decrease in available funding[A]: 
JAG (N = 564): 54%; 
JJDP (N = 33): 64%; 
JABG (N = 27): 63%. 

Indigent defense providers did not apply: 
JAG (N = 774): 25%; 
JJDP (N = 32): 69%; 
JABG (N = 26): 73%; 
Tribal Courts TPA (N = 25): 52%. 

Indigent defense adequately funded through other sources: 
JAG (N = 520): 27%; 
JJDP (N = 11): 64%; 
JABG (N = 10): 70%; 
Tribal Courts TPA (N = 25): 76%. 

Concern with sustainability[A]: 
JAG (N = 100): 50%; 
JJDP (N = 8): 75%; 
JABG (N = 6): 100%. 

Indigent defense providers not part of the decision making on use of 
grants: 
JAG (N = 763): 13%; 
JJDP (N = 20): 25%; 
JABG (N = 16): 38%; 
Tribal Courts TPA (N = 43): 26%. 

Unaware funding could be used for indigent defense: 
JAG (N = 837): 11%; 
JJDP (N = 14): 36%; 
JABG (N = 15): 53%; 
Tribal Courts TPA (N = 37): 59%. 

Do not provide indigent defense services[B]: 
Tribal Courts TPA (N = 41): 54%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.     

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] 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. 

[End of figure] 

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): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Unaware of eligibility or applicability of funding: 65; 
Lack of personnel with knowledge and/or expertise required to complete 
the application: 31%; 
Uncertainty about how to use the online Grants Management System to 
apply: 26%; 
Concerns about the cost of managing the grant: 26%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

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 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. 

Figure 5: Percentage of Funding That JAG SAA Respondents Reported 
Allocating to Each Purpose Area, Including Indigent Defense, during 
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 30.7%; 
Prosecution and courts: 7.1%; 
Prevention and education: 5.9%; 
Correction and community corrections: 8.3%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 9.5%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 10.6%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.5%; 
Other: 8.6%; 
Administrative: 5.7%; 
Indigent defense: 1.7%; 
Allocations unknown: 11.3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.    

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. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 49.1%; 
Prosecution and courts: 4.7%; 
Prevention and education: 2.2%; 
Correction and community corrections: 2.8%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 1.4%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 6.2%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.6%; 
Other: 1.5%; 
Administrative: 1.1%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 30.2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.   

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. 

[End of figure] 

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 incarceration, and programs to address the 
disproportionate number of juveniles of minority groups who come into 
contact with the juvenile justice system.[Footnote 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): 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

Law Enforcement: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 95; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 29. 

Courts and Judicial System: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 23; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 20. 

Community and Public Outreach: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 15; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 25. 

Corrections, Prisons, and Jails: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 11; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 17. 

Indigent Defense: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 17; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 1. 

Prosecution: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 6; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 8. 

Reentry Services: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 3; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 6. 

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 5; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 3. 

Drug Treatment Prevention: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 3; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 2. 

University Research: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 3; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 1. 

Probation: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 1; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 2. 

Criminal Defense: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 0; 
Awarded for multiple purposes:  2. 

Crime Victims: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 0; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 1. 

Other: 
Awarded exclusively for this purpose: 55; 
Awarded for multiple purposes: 9. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.   

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. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 35] 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. 

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 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.[Footnote 36] 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. 

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. 
[Footnote 37] For 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Tribal Courts TPA (N=105): 46%; 
JJDP (N=50): 54%; 
JABG (N=46): 50%; 
JAG (N=1,818): 20%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.   

[End of figure] 

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 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.[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 39] 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 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. 

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: 

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.[Footnote 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).[Footnote 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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Tribal Courts TPA: 4%; 
JJDP: 2%; 
JABG: 14%; 
JAG: 2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.   

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. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Byrne Competitive: 3%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 7%; 
Tribal Court Assistance Program: 8%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of grants: 

Use of grants: Technical Assistance; 
JJDP (N=5): 1; 
JABG (N=5): 1. 

Use of grants: Planning and Evaluation; 
JJDP (N=5): 2; 
JABG (N=5): 0. 

Use of grants: Technology; 
JJDP (N=5): 2; 
JABG (N=5): 0. 

Use of grants: Training; 
JJDP (N=5): 3; 
JABG (N=5): 2. 

Use of grants: Support Personnel; 
JJDP (N=5): 4; 
JABG (N=5): 2. 

Use of grants: Attorneys; 
JJDP (N=5): 2; 
JABG (N=5): 3. 

Source: GAO analysis of interview data. 

Note: Grants may be used for multiple purposes; therefore, single 
grants may be counted more than once in the above graphic. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Uses of Discretionary Grants Awarded for Indigent Defense: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

Number of grants: 

Use of discretionary grants: Planning and Evaluation; 
Byrne Competitive (N=18): 0; 
Tribal Court Assistance (N=16): 1; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary (N=9): 1; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration (N=2): 2. 

Use of discretionary grants: Training; 
Byrne Competitive (N=18): 3; 
Tribal Court Assistance (N=16): 1; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary (N=9): 1; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration (N=2): 0. 

Use of discretionary grants: Personnel; 
Byrne Competitive (N=18): 14; 
Tribal Court Assistance (N=16): 12; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary (N=9): 1; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration (N=2): 0. 

Use of discretionary grants: Other; 
Byrne Competitive (N=18): 0; 
Tribal Court Assistance (N=16): 2; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary (N=9): 5; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration (N=2): 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ grant data. 

Note: Grants may be used for multiple purposes; therefore, single 
grants may be counted more than once in the above graphic. 

[End of figure] 

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 defender organizations on the public defense model they use, 
known as holistic defense (see sidebar). 

[Sidebar: The Bronx Defenders: 

In 2009, The Bronx Defenders, a public defender organization located 
in the South Bronx, New York, received a Byrne Competitive grant from 
DOJ. With this grant, it created The Center for Holistic Defense at 
The Bronx Defenders, which provides 6 months of technical assistance 
for selected public defender offices throughout the United States to 
implement a holistic model of defense, a model that targets both the 
causes and consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system. 
The Bronx Defenders operates using interdisciplinary teams of 
criminal, civil, and family defense lawyers, social workers, parent 
advocates, investigators, and community organizers to work with 
clients and their families to overcome the challenges they face. 
According to The Bronx Defenders, whether addressing the root causes 
of criminal justice system involvement such as addiction, mental 
illness, and joblessness or the collateral consequences of their 
criminal case, it works to provide quality legal representation and to 
make a long-term difference in clients' lives. Source: GAO. End of 
sidebar] 

DOJ Could More Consistently Collect Data on the Amount of Funding 
Allocated for Indigent Defense When Programs Identify It as a Priority: 

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.[Footnote 42] 

In addition, DOJ collected data on indigent defense funding for the 
Byrne Competitive and TCCLA grants when funding for indigent defense 
was a 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.[Footnote 43] 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. 

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 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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: 

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), performance 
measurement indicates what a program is accomplishing and whether 
results are being achieved.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 47] For a 
list of performance measures DOJ uses to assess the impact of funding 
used for indigent defense-related activities, see appendix VI. 

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), 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).[Footnote 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.[Footnote 49] In 
addition, OMB strongly encourages the use of outcomes because they are 
more meaningful to the public than outputs.[Footnote 50] As we have 
previously reported, developing output measures is a step toward 
developing outcome measures, and an important initial step in 
measuring progress.[Footnote 51] However, we have also previously 
reported that leading organizations promote accountability by 
establishing results-oriented, outcome goals and corresponding 
performance measures by which to gauge progress towards attaining 
these goals.[Footnote 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 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 defense-
related 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.[Footnote 53] As a result, DOJ decided to require 
these assessments from recipients in order to provide this information 
to the Inspector General, if requested. 

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 and measures linked to the national goals 
that the grantee will address.[Footnote 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 outcome-oriented 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. 

Indigent Defense Providers Generally Reported That Evaluations of 
Their Services Have Not Been Conducted; DOJ Has Mechanisms to Support 
Such Evaluations: 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 56] 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 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. 
[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 59] Appendix VIII provides additional information 
on the extent to which public defender offices or agencies 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.[Footnote 60] 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. 

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.[Footnote 61] Further, in 2011, NIJ collaborated with ATJ 
to hold a workshop to identify 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 63] DOJ officials 
stated that this report was completed consistent with NIJ's practice 
of documenting conference proceedings and gathering information from 
stakeholders. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 
65] 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 focused on important issues 
surrounding indigent defense.[Footnote 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. 

Conclusions: 

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 
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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency and Third Party Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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. 

Signed by: 

Eileen R. Larence: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

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: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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. 
[Footnote 67] 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, 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 Web-based 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 Courts TPA distributions from fiscal years 2005 
through 2010.[Footnote 68] 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. 

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. 

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

Grant program: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Title II; 
Date survey distributed: September 22, 2011; 
Eligible population: 56; 
Number of respondents: 50; 
Response rate, in percent: 89%; 
Considered generalizable? Yes. 

Grant program: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant; 
Date survey distributed: September 22, 2011; 
Eligible population: 56; 
Number of respondents: 46; 
Response rate, in percent: 82%; 
Considered generalizable? Yes. 

Grant program: Justice Assistance Grant (overall state and local); 
Date survey distributed: October 17, 2011; 
Eligible population: 3,934[A]; 
Number of respondents: 1,807; 
Response rate, in percent: 46%; 
Considered generalizable? No; 
States: 
Eligible population: 56; 
Number of respondents: 50; 
Response rate, in percent: 89%; 
Considered generalizable? Yes; 
Localities; 
Eligible population: 3,878; 
Number of respondents: 1,757; 
Response rate, in percent: 45%; 
Considered generalizable? No. 

Grant program: Justice Assistance Grant (tribes)[B]; 
Date survey distributed: December 22, 2011; 
Eligible population: 29; 
Number of respondents: 11; 
Response rate, in percent: 38%; 
Considered generalizable? No. 

Grant program: Tribal Courts TPA; 
Date survey distributed: December 21, 2011; 
Eligible population: 154; 
Number of respondents: 105; 
Response rate, in percent: 68%; 
Considered generalizable? 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. 

[End of table] 

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. 

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 delinquency prevention 
organizations, appellate defenders, drug treatment providers, 
community and public outreach providers, non-attorney 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). 
[Footnote 69] 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. 

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. 

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

Certainty strata: 

Stratum: 1; 
Stratum name: State offices; 
Population: 22; 
Number of cases: 22; 
Effective sample: 22; 
Response rate: 100%. 

Stratum: 2; 
Stratum name: Territories; 
Population: 6; 
Number of cases: 6; 
Effective sample: 4.8; 
Response rate: 100%. 

Stratum: 3; 
Stratum name: Tribes; 
Population: 17; 
Number of cases: 17; 
Effective sample: 13.6; 
Response rate: 59%. 

Stratum: 4; 
Stratum name: Public defender offices--major metro areas; 
Population: 53; 
Number of cases: 52; 
Effective sample: 42.4; 
Response rate: 50%. 

Stratum: 5; 
Stratum name: Secondary offices not in major metro areas; 
Population: 71; 
Number of cases: 71; 
Effective sample: 56.8; 
Response rate: 41%. 

Stratum: Subtotal certainties; 
Population: 169; 
Number of cases: 169; 
Effective sample: 139.6. 

Random sample: 

Stratum: 6; 
Stratum name: Primary offices[A]; 
Population: 672; 
Number of cases: 85; 
Effective sample: 68.8; 
Response rate: 29%. 

Stratum: Total sample; 
Population: 841; 
Number of cases: 253; 
Effective sample: 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. 

[End of table] 

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, 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 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.[Footnote 70] 

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) guidance[Footnote 
71] 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.[Footnote 72] 
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. 

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 peer-reviewed 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.[Footnote 73] 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. 

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. 

[End of section] 

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

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: 

John R. Justice[A]; 
Fiscal years in which the grant was active from fiscal year 2005-2010: 
2010; 
Number of grants awarded in all active fiscal years: 51; 
Total amount awarded for indigent defense: $5.1 million; 
Awards to indigent defense as percentage of total funding: 50%. 

Capital Case Litigation Initiative[B]; 
Fiscal years in which the grant was active from fiscal year 2005-2010: 
2007-2010; 
Number of grants awarded in all active fiscal years: 33; 
Total amount awarded for indigent defense: $3.3 million; 
Awards to indigent defense as percentage of total funding: 63%. 

Wrongful Conviction Review[C]; 
Fiscal years in which the grant was active from fiscal year 2005-2010: 
2009-2010; 
Number of grants awarded in all active fiscal years: 24; 
Total amount awarded for indigent defense: $4.6 million; 
Awards to indigent defense as percentage of total funding: 89%. 

Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse; 
Fiscal years in which the grant was active from fiscal year 2005-2010: 
2010; 
Number of grants awarded in all active fiscal years: 1; 
Total amount awarded for indigent defense: $500,000; 
Awards to indigent defense as percentage of total funding: 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 post-conviction claims of innocence, in 
accordance with grant requirements. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Percentage of Survey Respondents That Allocated Funding 
for Indigent Defense and Allocation Amounts: 

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.[Footnote 74] 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. 

Figure 13: Percentage of JAG State, Local, and Tribal Survey 
Respondents That Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by 
Fiscal Year: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
SAAs: 12%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
SAAs: 4%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
SAAs: 8%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
SAAs: 8%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

ARRA: 
SAAs: 24%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
SAAs: 8%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
SAAs: 16%; 
Localities and tribes: 0%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: Because so few localities and tribes reported allocating funding 
for indigent defense, the numbers rounded to zero. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 14: Percentage of JJDP and JABG Survey Respondents That 
Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
JABG: 9%; 
JJDP: 8%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
JABG: 9%; 
JJDP: 8%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
JABG: 9%; 
JJDP: 10%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
JABG: 9%; 
JJDP: 8%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
JABG: 4%; 
JJDP: 12%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
JABG: 6%; 
JJDP: 7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 15: Percentage of BIA Tribal Courts TPA Funding Survey 
Respondents That Reported Allocating Funding for Indigent Defense, by 
Fiscal Year: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005: 8%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 9%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 10%;
Fiscal year: 2008: 12%;
Fiscal year: 2009: 11%; 
Fiscal year: 2010: 17%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

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 
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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
SAAs: 3%; 
Localities and tribes: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
SAAs: 0%; 
Localities and tribes: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
SAAs: 3%; 
Localities and tribes: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
SAAs: 0%; 
Localities and tribes: 2%. 

ARRA: 
SAAs: 1%; 
Localities and tribes: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
SAAs: 1%; 
Localities and tribes: 5%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
SAAs: 2%; 
Localities and tribes: 5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
JABG: 18%; 
JJDP: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
JABG: 15%; 
JJDP: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
JABG: 14%; 
JJDP: 2%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
JABG: 14%; 
JJDP: 1%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
JABG: 11%; 
JJDP: 3%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
JABG: 12%; 
JJDP: 2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005: 3%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 3%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 3%;
Fiscal year: 2008: 5%;
Fiscal year: 2009: 4%; 
Fiscal year: 2010: 5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Additional Details on Number of Indigent Defense 
Discretionary Awards and Award Amounts: 

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: 

Byrne Competitive; 
Number of grants awarded, fiscal years 2005 through 2010: 18; 
Percentage of total grants awarded that were for indigent defense: 
6.3%; 
Maximum possible total allocation to indigent defense: $4,058,585; 
Maximum possible allocation to indigent defense, as percentage of 
total funding: 2.7%. 

Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program; 
Number of grants awarded, fiscal years 2005 through 2010: 9; 
Percentage of total grants awarded that were for indigent defense: 
2.8%; 
Maximum possible total allocation to indigent defense: $2,088,137; 
Maximum possible allocation to indigent defense, as percentage of 
total funding: 2.5%. 

Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Grant Program; 
Number of grants awarded, fiscal years 2005 through 2010: 2; 
Percentage of total grants awarded that were for indigent defense: 
1.3%; 
Maximum possible total allocation to indigent defense: $99,955; 
Maximum possible allocation to indigent defense, as percentage of 
total funding: 0.4%. 

Tribal Courts Assistance Program; 
Number of grants awarded, fiscal years 2005 through 2010: 16; 
Percentage of total grants awarded that were for indigent defense: 
7.9%; 
Maximum possible total allocation to indigent defense: $3,863,679; 
Maximum possible allocation to indigent defense, as percentage of 
total funding: 8.0%. 

Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance; 
Number of grants awarded, fiscal years 2005 through 2010: 2; 
Percentage of total grants awarded that were for indigent defense: 
25.0%; 
Maximum possible total allocation to indigent defense: $281,400; 
Maximum possible allocation to indigent defense, as percentage of 
total funding: 7.1%. 

Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant; 
Number of grants awarded, fiscal years 2005 through 2010: 0; 
Percentage of total grants awarded that were for indigent defense: 0%; 
Maximum possible total allocation to indigent defense: $0; 
Maximum possible allocation to indigent defense, as percentage of 
total funding: 0%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ data. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Figure 25: Percentage of Grants Awarded in Whole or in Part for 
Indigent Defense; Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 12%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 12%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Byrne Competitive: 1%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 8%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 0%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 8%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Byrne Competitive: 0%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 5%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 0%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 5%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Byrne Competitive: 17%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 7%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 0%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 4%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Byrne Competitive: 9%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 6%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 0%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Figure 20: Indigent Defense Awards, as a Maximum Possible Percentage 
of Total Awards; Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 13.4%;
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 12.3%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Byrne Competitive: 0.5%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 6.8%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 0%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Byrne Competitive: 0%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 5.2%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 3.9%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Byrne Competitive: 6.9%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 8.2%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 0%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 2.4%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 25%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Byrne Competitive: 3.8%; 
Tribal Court Assistant Program: 6.1%; 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration: 1%; 
Adult Drug Court Discretionary: 3.8%; 
Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance: 25%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: JAG Survey Respondents' Allocations across Purpose Areas 
and for Indigent Defense, by Fiscal Year: 

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.[Footnote 75] The figures also include the percentage of their 
total awards that these respondents reported allocating for indigent 
defense.[Footnote 76] 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. 

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. 

Figure 21: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2005: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 37.2%; 
Prosecution and courts: 7.1%; 
Prevention and education: 6.0%; 
Correction and community corrections: 7.0%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 10.4%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 9.6%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.4%; 
Other: 2.2%; 
Administrative: 6.2%; 
Indigent defense: 1.2%; 
Allocations unknown: 11.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.   

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 22: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2006: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 37.8%; 
Prosecution and courts: 7.5%; 
Prevention and education: 6.8%; 
Correction and community corrections: 6.3%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 10.7%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 9.3%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.7%; 
Other: 2.3%; 
Administrative: 6.1%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 11.6%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add 
up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 23: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 36.8%; 
Prosecution and courts: 7.4%; 
Prevention and education: 5.8%; 
Correction and community corrections: 6.0%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 8.8%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 10.4%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.2%; 
Other: 2.8%; 
Administrative: 5.7%; 
Indigent defense: 1.3%; 
Allocations unknown: 13.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add 
up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 24: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 32.7%; 
Prosecution and courts: 4.9%; 
Prevention and education: 5.0%; 
Correction and community corrections: 4.0%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 8.5%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 6.3%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.2%; 
Other: 2.3%; 
Administrative: 5.2%; 
Indigent defense: 0.2%; 
Allocations unknown: 29.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 25: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2009: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 32.1%; 
Prosecution and courts: 4.3%; 
Prevention and education: 4.9%; 
Correction and community corrections: 6.2%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 9.3%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 9.1%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.1%; 
Other: 9.4%; 
Administrative: 5.9%; 
Indigent defense: 0.7%; 
Allocations unknown: 17.0%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 26: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, ARRA: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 24.9%; 
Prosecution and courts: 8.5%; 
Prevention and education: 6.4%; 
Correction and community corrections: 11.8%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 9.8%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 12.9%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.9%; 
Other: 13.4%; 
Administrative: 5.5%; 
Indigent defense: 0.6%; 
Allocations unknown: 4.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add 
up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 27: SAAs' Reported Allocations across JAG Purpose Areas and for 
Indigent Defense as a Percentage of Total Awards, Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 31.3%; 
Prosecution and courts: 5.9%; 
Prevention and education: 4.9%; 
Correction and community corrections: 5.4%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 7.9%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 7.7%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.1%; 
Other: 10.7%; 
Administrative: 5.6%; 
Indigent defense: 1.0%; 
Allocations unknown: 18.5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 54.4%; 
Prosecution and courts: 5.8%; 
Prevention and education: 2.2%; 
Correction and community corrections: 1.7%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 2.7%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 5.4%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.3%; 
Other: 1.3%; 
Administrative: 1.2%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 24.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 50.4%; 
Prosecution and courts: 7.0%; 
Prevention and education: 4.4%; 
Correction and community corrections: 1.5%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 2.8%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 4.9%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.3%; 
Other: 1.1%; 
Administrative: 0.8%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 26.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 53.9%; 
Prosecution and courts: 7.9%; 
Prevention and education: 4.2%; 
Correction and community corrections: 1.9%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 2.6%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 6.7%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.4%; 
Other: 1.2%; 
Administrative: 1.0%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 20.3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 49.1%; 
Prosecution and courts: 6.4%; 
Prevention and education: 4.5%; 
Correction and community corrections: 1.7%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 3.3%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 5.6%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.7%; 
Other: 1.4%; 
Administrative: 1.0%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 26.3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 42.2%; 
Prosecution and courts: 2.6%; 
Prevention and education: 1.2%; 
Correction and community corrections: 2.0%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 1.0%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 5.4%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.6%; 
Other: 0.7%; 
Administrative: 0.6%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 43.6%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 33: Local and Tribal JAG Recipients' Reported Allocations 
across JAG Purpose Areas and for Indigent Defense as a Percentage of 
Total Awards, ARRA: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 47.6%; 
Prosecution and courts: 4.0%; 
Prevention and education: 1.7%; 
Correction and community corrections: 3.8%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 0.8%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 6.6%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 0.7%; 
Other: 1.8%; 
Administrative: 1.3%; 
Indigent defense: 0.1%; 
Allocations unknown: 31.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Other includes funds not yet allocated. Percentages do not add 
up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Law enforcement: 59.6%; 
Prosecution and courts: 6.7%; 
Prevention and education: 2.7%; 
Correction and community corrections: 2.1%; 
Drug treatment and enforcement: 1.5%; 
Planning, evaluation, and technology: 7.4%; 
Crime victim and witness program: 1.2%; 
Other: 1.6%; 
Administrative: 0.9%; 
Indigent defense: 0.2%; 
Allocations unknown: 16.2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

[End f section] 

Appendix VI: Analysis of Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures 
for Department of Justice Grant Programs: 

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. 

Table 8: Indigent Defense-Related Performance Measures and Type of 
Measure for DOJ Grant Programs: 

Grant: Byrne Competitive Grant Program-National Initiative: 
Adjudication[A]; 
Objectives: 
Increase the number of trained public defenders; 
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; 

Performance measure: Percentage of trainees who successfully completed 
the program; Output; 

Performance measure: Percentage of trainees who completed the training 
whose post test indicated an improved score over their pre-test; 
Outcome; 

Performance measure: Percent increase in trained public defenders; 
Output; 

Performance measure: Percentage of trainees who completed the training 
who rated the training as satisfactory or better; Process; 

Performance measure: Percentage of organizations that completed the 
survey who expressed satisfaction that the CD/DVD met their training 
needs; Process; 

Performance measure: Percentage of requesting agencies who rated 
services as satisfactory or better in terms of timeliness and quality 
following completion of an onsite visit; Process; 

Performance measure: Percentage of requesting agencies that were 
planning to implement at least some of the report recommendations six 
months after the onsite visit; Outcome; 

Performance measure: Percentage of requesting agencies of other onsite 
services who rated the services provided as satisfactory or better; 
Process; 

Performance measure: Percentage of advisory/focus groups evaluated as 
satisfactory or better; Process; 

Performance measure: Percentage of curricula that were pilot tested; 
Input; 

Performance measure: Percentage of curricula that were revised after 
pilot testing; Input. 

Grant: Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program; 
Objectives: 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); 
Performance measure: Number of cases defended; Output. 

Grant: Capital Case Litigation Initiative; 
Objectives: 
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; Output. 

Performance measure: Percentage of in-person trainees who successfully 
completed the program; Output. 

Performance measure: Percentage of in-person trainees who completed 
the training whose post-test indicated an improved score over their 
pre-test; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Number of attorneys trained; Output. 

Performance measure: Percentage of in-person trainees who completed 
the training who rated the training as satisfactory or better; Process. 

Grant: John R. Justice Grant Program; 
Objectives: 
To encourage qualified individuals to enter and continue employment as 
prosecutors and public defenders; 

Performance measure: Number and amount of loan repayments awarded; 
Output. 

Performance measure: Percent increase in outreach to eligible 
beneficiaries; Output. 

Performance measure: Average number of days between application for 
repayment benefits and the loan repayment occurring; Output. 

Grant: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program[B]; 
Objectives: 
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"]; 

Performance measure: Percent of people exhibiting an increased 
knowledge of the program area during the reporting period; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Number of program policies changed, improved, or 
rescinded during the reporting period; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Percent of organizations reporting improvements 
in operations based on training and technical assistance (TTA); 
Outcome. 

Performance measure: Number of hours per week and percent of staff 
time (including defenders) spent directly serving clients; Output. 

Performance measure: Amount of funds awarded for system improvement; 
Input. 

Performance measure: Number and percent of defenders hired; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of cases per staff member; Output. 

Performance measure: Number and percent of vacant positions for 
defenders; Input. 

Performance measure: Number of training requests received; Input. 

Performance measure: Number of technical assistance requests received; 
Input. 

Performance measure: Number of program materials developed during the 
reporting period; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of planning or training events held during 
the reporting period; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of people trained during the reporting 
period; Output. 

Performance measure: Percent of those served by TTA who reported 
implementing an evidence based program and/or practice during or after 
the TTA; Outcome. 

Grant: Juvenile Indigent Defense National Clearinghouse Program; 
Objectives: 

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; 

Performance measure: Percentage of people exhibiting increased 
knowledge of the program area; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Percentage of organizations reporting 
improvements in operations based on training and technical assistance; 
Outcome. 

Performance measure: Number of program policies changed, improved, or 
rescinded; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Percentage of those served by TTA who reported 
implementing an evidence-based program/practice during/after TTA; 
Outcome. 

Performance measure: Number of training requests received; Input. 

Performance measure: Number of technical assistance requests received; 
Input. 

Performance measure: Number of program materials developed; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of planning or training events held;Output. 

Performance measure: Number of people trained; Output. 

Grant: Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance Program[C]; 
Objectives: 
(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[D]; 

Performance measure: Percent increase in number of defendants served; 
Process. 

Performance measure: Percent of defendants who rated the services of 
their grant-funded attorney as satisfactory or better; Process. 

Grant: Tribal Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant Program[E]; 
Objectives: 
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. 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; 

Performance measure: Percentage of eligible youth served using 
graduated sanctions approaches[F]; Output. 

Performance measure: Percentage of funds awarded for system 
improvement; Input. 

Performance measure: Percentage of program youth completing program 
requirements; Output. 

Performance measure: 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; Output. 

Performance measure: Percentage of youth with whom an evidence-based 
practice was used; Output. 

Performance measure: Percentage of program youth who reoffend 
(rearrested or seen at juvenile court for a new offense); Outcome. 

Performance measure: Number and percent of defenders hired; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of cases per staff member; Output. 

Performance measure: Number and percent of vacant positions for 
defenders; Input. 

Performance measure: Number of hours per week and percent of staff 
time spent directly serving clients; Output. 

Grant: Wrongful Conviction Review Program[G]; 
Objectives: 
Provide representation to defendants in post-conviction claims of 
innocence cases; 

Performance measure: Number of cases in which actual perpetrators are 
identified though re-examination of evidence; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Percent of cases in which actual perpetrators are 
identified through re-examination of evidence in post-conviction 
innocence claims; Outcome. 

Performance measure: Percent increase in number of cases evaluated for 
potential wrongful convictions; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of people/experts consulted; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of hours of forensic re-analysis services 
provided; Output. 

Performance measure: Number of hours of screening, evaluation, and 
litigation services provided; Output. 

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. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Select Measures, Findings, and Recommendations from 
Public Defender Office and Agency Evaluations and Reports: 

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): 1; 
Measures: 
* 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); 
Findings: N/A; 
Recommendations: N/A; 
Reporting period: Year; 
Evaluator: Internal. 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 2; 
Measures: 
* 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; 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
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; 
Reporting period: Quarter; 
Evaluator: External (appointed monitor). 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 3; 
Measures: 
* Number of cases assigned to ad hoc counsel over ten years[A]; 
* Debentures received for ad hoc cases[B]; 
* Cost per disposed ad hoc case; 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
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; 
Reporting period: Year; 
Evaluator: Internal. 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 4; 
Measures: 
* Independence; 
* Attorney qualifications; 
* Training; 
* Supervision; 
* Workload; 
* Attorney-client relationships; 
* Parity between prosecution and defense; 
* Involvement of private bar; 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
Consider evaluating the need to reduce supervisory caseload; 
Consider formalizing rotations to reduce turnover; 
Consider creating a full-time training director; 
Consider creating the position of a full-time assigned counsel 
administrator; 
Draft bylaws; 
Reporting period: Snapshot of current conditions; 
Evaluator: External (consultant). 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 5; 
Measures: 
* Professional independence; 
* Attorney qualifications; 
* Training; 
* Supervision; 
* Workload; 
* Evaluation, performance and discipline; 
* Support services; 
* Case management and quality control; 
* Reporting; 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
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; 
Reporting period: 2 years; 
Evaluator: External (oversight body). 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 6; 
Measures: 
* Office space; 
* Technology; 
* Organizational Leadership and Structure; 
* Attorney recruitment, retention & staff needs; 
* Education and development programs; 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
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; 
Reporting period: Multi-year; 
Evaluator: External (consultant). 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 7; 
Measures: 
* 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 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; 
Findings: 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 part-time public defenders 
presents risks that need to be addressed, but the public defender's 
office has few staff resources 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; 
Recommendations: 
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 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; 
Reporting period: Multi-year; 
Evaluator: External (government auditor). 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 8; 
Measures: 
* Case processing; 
* Structure and number of public defense contractors; 
* Quality of representation; 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
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; 
Reporting period: Snapshot of current conditions; 
Evaluator: External (oversight body). 

Office or Agency (Random Identifier): 9; 
Measures: 
* Caseloads; 
* Indigency standards and eligibility requirements; 
* Attorney turnover rates; 
* Staffing and personnel issues; 
* Compensation; 
* Organizational practices (overhead, office location, technology, 
resources, etc.); 
Findings: 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; 
Recommendations: 
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; 
Reporting period: Snapshot of current conditions; 
Evaluator: 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. 

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. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Possible Data Elements for Evaluating Public Defender 
Offices, Extent to Which Respondents Collect Related Data, and Data 
Challenges and Limitations: 

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: Average caseload per defender; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 87% (97 of 112); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 6% (7); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect:10% (11); 
Difficult to measure: 7% (8); 
Imprecise: 7% (8). 

Data element: Number of active cases per defender; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 84% (95 of 113); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 6% (7); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 10% (12); 
Difficult to measure: 3% (4); 
Imprecise: 11% (13). 

Data element: Average salary or hourly rate of defenders, as 
applicable; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 76% (83 of 109); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 3% (4); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 6% (7); 
Difficult to measure: 3% (3); 
Imprecise: 5% (6). 

Data element: Whether or not defenders are in compliance with 
professional and ethical standards; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 67% (74 of 111); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 6% (7); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 11% (13); 
Difficult to measure: 14% (16); 
Imprecise: 13% (15). 

Data element: Whether or not salary is accompanied by additional 
benefits (e.g., loan repayment, health insurance); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 66% (72 of 109); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 4% (5); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 6% (7); 
Difficult to measure: 3% (4); 
Imprecise: 3% (4). 

Data element: Ratio of attorneys to non-attorney support staff (e.g., 
clerical, paralegal, etc.); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 65% (72 of 110); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 3% (4); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 7% (8); 
Difficult to measure: 7% (8); 
Imprecise: 2% (2). 

Data element: Whether or not cases are handled using a case management 
system; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 62% (68 of 111); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 12% (14); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 8% (9); 
Difficult to measure: 3% (4); 
Imprecise: 7% (8). 

Data element: Whether or not the same defender represents a client in 
all stages of proceedings once he or she is assigned the case 
(vertical representation); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 61% (69 of 113); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 9% (10); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 13% (15); 
Difficult to measure: 5% (6); 
Imprecise: 6% (7). 

Data element: Average number of defenders' continuing legal education 
(CLE) and/or training hours completed per year; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 59% (66 of 112); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 3% (4); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 6% (7); 
Difficult to measure: 3% (3); 
Imprecise: 3% (3). 

Data element: 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); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 57% (64 of 112); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 5% (6); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 10% (12); 
Difficult to measure: 15% (17); 
Imprecise: 15% (17). 

Data element: Ratio of attorneys to investigators; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 56% (61 of 108); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 4% (5); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 5% (6); 
Difficult to measure: 5% (6); 
Imprecise: 3% (4). 

Data element: Type(s) of cases a defender has ever handled (e.g. 
capital, felony, misdemeanor, juvenile, etc.); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 54% (60 of 112); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 11% (13); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 27% (3); 
Difficult to measure: 10% (12); 
Imprecise: 10% (12). 

Data element: Number of requests for funding for expert witnesses; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 48% (51 of 107); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 8% (9); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 18% (2); 
Difficult to measure: 8% (9); 
Imprecise: 7% (8). 

Data element: Number of times expert witnesses are used; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 42% (46 of 110); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 10% (12); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 22% (26); 
Difficult to measure: 5% (6); 
Imprecise: 9% (10). 

Data element: Individual defender performance ratings, as determined 
by a methodology in place at your office or agency; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 40% (44 of 110); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 7% (8); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 19% (22); 
Difficult to measure: 31% (36); 
Imprecise: 18% (21). 

Data element: Number of cases a defender has ever handled; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 41% (45 of 111); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 11% (13); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 34% (40); 
Difficult to measure: 18% (21); 
Imprecise: 15% (17). 

Data element: Whether or not a defender is present for the client's 
first appearance; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 38% (43 of 113); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 12% (14); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 24% (28); 
Difficult to measure: 13% (15); 
Imprecise: 10% (12). 

Data element: Meetings held between defender and client (per case); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 38% (42 of 111); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 12% (14); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 39% (46); 
Difficult to measure: 11% (13); 
Imprecise: 12% (14). 

Data element: Amount of time defender spends per case; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 33% (37 of 113); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 12% (14); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 45% (53); 
Difficult to measure: 23% (27); 
Imprecise: 19% (22). 

Data element: Complexity of cases a defender has ever handled (e.g. 
number and/or severity of charges); 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 32% (36 of 112); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 14% (16); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 36% (42); 
Difficult to measure: 26% (30); 
Imprecise: 27% (32). 

Data element: Amount of face-to-face time defender spends with client; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 23% (25 of 111); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 16% (19); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 50% (59); 
Difficult to measure: 15% (18); 
Imprecise: 15% (17). 

Data element: Elapsed time between arrest and appointment of counsel; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 20% (23 of 113); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 15% (18); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 34% (40); 
Difficult to measure: 15% (18); 
Imprecise: 11% (1). 

Data element: Satisfaction of other criminal justice partners; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 14% (15 of 109); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
Costly to collect: 13% (15); 
Difficult/burdensome to collect: 27% (31); 
Difficult to measure: 36% (42); 
Imprecise: 30% (35). 

Data element: Satisfaction of clients; 
Percentage collecting data[A]: 8% (9 of 106); 
Challenges and limitations associated with data (based on 118 possible 
respondents): 
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. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Office of Justice Programs: 
Washington, D.C. 20531: 

April 23, 2012: 

Ms. Eileen Larence: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Larence: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Indigent 
Defense: DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible Funding and Better 
Determine the Extent to which Funds Help Support This Purpose" (GA0-12-
569). The U.S. Department of Justice (Department) appreciates the 
GAO's work in planning and conducting this review and issuing the 
report. 

The draft GAO report contains three Recommendations for Executive 
Action to the Department, which are restated in bold text below and 
are followed by our response. 

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: 

1. Take steps to increase JAG, JABG, and JJDP grantees' awareness that 
funding can be allocated to indigent defense. 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) agrees with the Recommendation 
for Executive Action. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will 
continue to build on current efforts to increase grantees' awareness 
that funding in its Edward R. Byrne Memorial, Justice Assistance Grant 
(JAG) program can be allocated to support indigent defense. BJA plans
to update its "Frequently Asked Questions" document, as well as 
increased staff awareness regarding the use of JAG program funding. 
Additionally, BJA will explore other outreach strategies, through its 
own website and the National Training and Technical Assistance Center 
(NTTAC) website, to communicate to JAG grantees that JAG funding can 
be allocated to support indigent defense. 

Further, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
(OTIDP) will explore ways to increase Juvenile Accountability Block 
Grant (JABG) and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant 
Title II (JJDP) grantees' awareness that funding can be allocated to 
support indigent defense in these grant programs. This will be 
accomplished in several ways: 1) OJJDP staff will be reminded to 
advise states of this during routine phone calls, teleconferences, or 
sites visits; 2) OJJDP will remind state grantees, via email and 
through the NTTAC website, that under various purpose areas of the 
JABG and JJDP Acts, indigent defense is an allowable funding area; and 
3) OJJDP will look for opportunities when presenting at national 
meetings to highlight these funding options. One example will be at 
the Coalition for Juvenile Justice meeting, scheduled in June
2012. This meeting is typically attended by many JJDP Title II state 
grantees. 

2. Inform indigent defense providers about grants for which they are 
eligible to apply. 

OR agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action. BJA will 
continue to work with national organizations to disseminate 
information on indigent defense funding at their conferences, 
meetings, and through organizations' LISTSERV, newsletters, and 
publications. For example, BJA worked with national organizations to 
inform indigent defense providers of the April 4, 2012 announcement of 
the solicitation "Answering Gideon's Call: Improving Indigent Defense 
Delivery Systems." This grant program is designed to improve indigent 
defense delivery systems at the state or local level. The following is 
a selection of national organizations which are involved in BJA's 
efforts. 

American Bar Association (ABA) — At BJA's request, the ABA 
disseminated the above solicitation announcement to 600 people 
attending the following training provided by the ABA. 

1. National Training Attendees — Supervisor Track: 

The training attendees for this session included 160 supervisors and 
managers of public defender programs, who also attended the ABA's 
National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) National Training 
series funded by BJA. 

2. ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants Defender
Database Training: 

The training attendees for this session included 450 heads of public 
defender offices and programs across the country; leaders of national 
organizations involved in indigent defense reform activities; ABA 
Leaders interested in indigent defense issues; and state Supreme Court 
justices who have been involved in indigent defense reform (frequently 
the chairs of commissions). 

NLADA disseminated the above solicitation announcement through its 
LISTSERV to the following groups: 

1. American Council of Chief Defenders - this LISTSERV includes 
approximately 230 chief defender members from across the nation. 

2. Defender Policy Group - this LISTSERV includes 18 defenders (chiefs 
and staff), members of the academia community, and other experts 
(e.g., social workers and investigators), who are the policy-making 
body of NLADA governance for the defender membership community. These 
members have a broad reach, inside and outside of the defender 
community. 

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) — At BJA's 
request, the NACDL disseminated the above solicitation announcement, 
as noted below. 

1. On April 17, 2012, NACDL emailed the solicitation announcement to 
the 18,000 NACDL members via their Monthly Electronic Newsletter. The 
link to this announcement can be found at: [hyperlink, 
http://www.nacdl.org/News.aspx?ici=23972&libID-23941]. 

2. The next issue of The Champion magazine, NACDL's flagship 
publication, with a circulation of 12,000, NACDL will include an 
article on the solicitation announcement. NACDL anticipates that the 
next issue of The Champion magazine will be distributed on April 26-
27, 2012. 

2. NACDL sent the solicitation announcement to the executive director 
of every NACDL affiliate organization in the U.S. There are a total of 
91 affiliate organizations, including 80 in the U.S., who comprise of 
35,000 members. 

National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) — At BJA's request, the 
NCJA posted the solicitation announcement on its website, and 
disseminated the solicitation to 450 people through a membership-only 
publication called "Beltway Short Takes." 

BJA will continue to work with relevant national partners to keep the 
indigent defense community informed of funding opportunities, and will 
explore additional outreach strategies through BJA's website and the 
NTTAC. 

OJJDP will also explore ways, as previously stated in OJP's response to
Recommendation 1, to inform JABG and JJDP Title II grantees that under 
various purpose areas of the JABG and JJDP Acts, indigent defense is 
an allowable funding area, in which sub-awards can be made to indigent 
defense providers. 

Additionally, Access to Justice Initiative, which was established by 
the Department in March 2010 to address the access-to-justice crisis 
in the criminal and civil justice system, is preparing a Resource Page 
on its website for courts and indigent defense providers. This 
Resource Page will cover such topics as: funding opportunities, 
training and technical assistance opportunities, links to DOJ grants, 
and resources on Grants Management. Additionally, the Resource Page 
will allow the indigent defense community to sign up for: 1) OJP email 
alerts, which will inform the indigent defense community when OJP 
releases funding opportunities; and 2) a link to Grants.gov, so that 
the indigent defense community can find and apply for grants, and have 
access to the central storehouse for information on over 1,000 funding 
opportunities. Through Grants.gov, the indigent defense community can 
search for, and register to receive, email alerts on specific 
government-wide funding opportunities. 

3. Take steps to collect data on allocations and spending for indigent 
defense in the JABG and TJADG programs. 

OJP agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action. By September 
30, 2012, OJJDP will determine the mechanism by which data on 
allocations and spending for indigent defense, in the JABG and Tribal 
Justice Accountability Block Grant programs, can best be collected. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, you or your staff 
may contact Maureen Henneberg, Director, Office of Audit, Assessment, 
and Management, at (202) 616-3282. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Mary Lou Leary: 
Acting Assistant Attorney General: 

cc: James H. Burch, II: 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Operations and Management: 

Denise O'Donnell: 
Director: 
Bureau of Justice Assistance: 

Melodee Hanes: 
Acting Administrator: 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 

Leigh Benda: 
Chief Financial Officer: 

Maureen HennebergL 
Director: 
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management: 

Louise Duhamel, Ph.D. 
Acting Director, Audit Liaison Group: 
Internal Review and Evaluation Office: 
Justice Management Division: 

OJP Executive Secretariat: 
Control Number 20120399: 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[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. 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

[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--[hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[10] Discretionary grants are awarded directly to eligible recipients, 
most often on a competitive basis. 

[11] OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

[12] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118], (Washington, D.C.: June 
1996). 

[13] 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. 

[14] State-based public defender offices functioned entirely under the 
direction of a central office that funded and administered all public 
defender offices in the state. 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. 

[15] 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. § 1301(2) (defining an Indian 
tribe's power of self-government). 

[16] See Pub. L. No. 90-284, tit. II, 82 Stat. 73, 77 (1968) (codified 
as amended 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-41). 

[17] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(1), (8). 

[18] See 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). 

[19] Other types of funding include congressionally directed awards 
(also referred to as earmarks), cooperative agreements, and payment 
programs. 

[20] Through 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. 

[21] Our 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. 

[22] Hiring 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. 

[23] In addition, BIA provides direct services to tribes that do not 
operate certain programs themselves, such as tribes that rely upon CFR 
courts. 

[24] American Bar Association, ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense 
Delivery System. (Chicago, Ill.: February 2002). 

[25] The 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. 

[26] NTTAC 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. 

[27] The 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. 

[28] The 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. 

[29] The dollar figures are in current dollars not adjusted for 
inflation. Adjusting for inflation does not affect the percentages. 

[30] DOJ 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. 

[31] 60 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. 

[32] 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. 

[33] While 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. 

[34] The 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. 

[35] Total 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. 

[36] These 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. 

[37] We 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. 

[38] These 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. 

[39] 11 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. 

[40] As 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. 

[41] Because 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. 

[42] Data 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. 

[43] GAO, Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant 
Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program 
Requirements, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-353] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2012). 

[44] These 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. 

[45] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118]. 

[46] OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

[47] BJA 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-87]. After 
developing draft revisions to the Performance Measurement Tool, DOJ 
posted the revised measures on its website and received stakeholder 
comments. 

[48] OMB, 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). 

[49] OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

[50] OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

[51] GAO, Warfighter Support: DOD Needs Strategic Outcome-Related 
Goals and Visibility over Its Counter-IED Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-280] (Washington, D.C.: February 
22, 2012). 

[52] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 
1996). 

[53] See 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). 

[54] OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

[55] GAO, Designing Evaluations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G]. Washington, D.C. January, 
2012. 

[56] An 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. 

[57] Respondents were permitted to select more than one factor 
influencing their decision not to conduct an evaluation. 

[58] BJA, Keeping Defender Workloads Manageable (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2001). 

[59] National Right to Counsel Committee, Justice Denied: America's 
Continuing Neglect of our Constitutional Right to Counsel (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2009). 

[60] Preliminary 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. 

[61] See [hyperlink, 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 
[hyperlink, http://www.sado.org/fees/icjs.pdf] for this report. 

[62] DOJ, Expert Working Group Report: International Perspectives on 
Indigent Defense, NCJ236022 (September 2011). 

[63] According 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. 

[64] In 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. 

[65] According to DOJ, the recommendations documented in the report 
produced by the workshop on domestic and international best practices 
for indigent defense informed this solicitation. 

[66] Indigent 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). 

[67] 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. 

[68] An electronic supplement to this report--[hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 

[69] 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). 

[70] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118], (Washington, D.C.: June 
1996). 

[71] OMB, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

[72] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-95]. 

[73] 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. 

[74] 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. 

[75] 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. 

[76] 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. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

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, [hyperlink, 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: 

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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.