U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

JULY 2014	

Revised 10/24/2014

Special Report

NCJ 246684

State Government Indigent Defense
Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 – Updated
Erinn Herberman, Ph.D., and Tracey Kyckelhahn, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

I

n 2012, state governments spent $2.3 billion nationally
on indigent defense. From 2008 to 2012, state
government indigent defense expenditures ranged from
$2.2 billion to $2.4 billion (figure 1).
The majority of state government indigent defense
expenditures were for services directly provided by the state
(92% each year from 2008 to 2012) (table 1). The remainder
of state government indigent defense expenditures were
intergovernmental transfers to local governments to fund
local indigent defense services. While direct expenditures
held steady, intergovernmental transfers declined from
$195 million to $180 million between 2011 and 2012
(down 7.6%). From 2011 to 2012, state government indigent
defense expenditures remained stable at $2.3 billion.

HIGHLIGHTS
„„

In 2012, state governments spent $2.3 billion nationally
on indigent defense.

„„

State government indigent defense expenditures
showed an average annual decrease of 0.2% from 2008
to 2012.

„„

From 2011 to 2012, state government indigent defense
expenditures remained stable at $2.3 billion.

„„

As a share of total judicial-legal expenditures by state
governments, spending on indigent defense held steady
between 9.5% and 10.0% from 2008 to 2012.

Figure 1
State government indigent defense expenditures,
FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)
Expenditures (in millions)

Annual percent change

3,000

8
Annual percent change

2,500

6

2,000

4

1,500

2

1,000

0

500

-2

0

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012

-4

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to
2012 dollars. See Methodology.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances,
FY 2008–2012.

Table 1
State government indigent defense expenditures,
FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)
Direct
Intergovernmental
Total
Expenditures
Expenditures
(in millions) (in millions) Percent (in millions) Percent
$2,310
$2,109
91.3%
$200
8.7%
2,237
2,055
91.8
182
8.2
2,359
2,169
92.0
190
8.0
2,293
2,098
91.5
195
8.5
2,293
2,113
92.2
180
7.8

Fiscal year
2008*
2009
2010*
2011
2012
Average annual percent
change, FY 2008–2012 -0.2%
Percent change,
FY 2008–2012
-0.7%
Percent change,
FY 2011–2012
-0.01%

0.0%

-2.7%

0.2%

-10.2%

0.7%

-7.6%

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012
dollars. See Methodology.
*Data for direct and intergovernmental expenditures were imputed for Georgia.
See Methodology.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances,
FY 2008–2012.

BJS

From 2008 to 2012, state government spending on all
judicial-legal services ranged from $22.8 to $23.6 billion
(table 2). As a share of total judicial-legal expenditures by
state governments, spending on indigent defense held steady
between 9.5% and 10.0% during this period.
The data used in this report are from a larger study funded
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and produced by
the Census Bureau. The study, Indigent Defense Services
in the United States, FY 2008–2012 (NCJ 246683, BJS web,
July 2014), contains information on—
„„

state legislation related to the provision of indigent
defense

„„

the availability, quality, and sources of data for state
government indigent defense expenditures for each state
and the District of Columbia

„„

total, direct, and intergovernmental indigent defense
expenditures by state

„„

limited information on indigent defense expenditures by
some local governments.

For this report, financial data for fiscal years 2008 to
2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 constant dollars
(see Methodology). For the Census Bureau’s Indigent
Defense Services (IDS) study, expenditure data are in
nominal dollars.

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution guarantee that people accused of crimes
who cannot afford an attorney have the right to appointed
counsel. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court mandate
for appointed counsel, states enacted various methods
to provide indigent defense services. Indigent defense
funding, service delivery, and administration differ by state.
Depending on the state, indigent defense expenditures are
funded by the state or local governments, or a combination
of both. Pennsylvania is the only state that does not provide
any state-based funding for indigent defense, leaving all
financial responsibility to the counties. States also have
varying methods of service delivery for indigent defense,
using different combinations of public defender offices,
assigned counsel systems, or contract systems with private
attorneys. In addition, the source of administration at the
state or local levels for indigent defense services varies
across states, including sources of governance, policy
determinations, and operations.
Some state-administered systems are not funded completely
by the state. Some county-administered systems are funded
entirely by the state government. Caution must be taken
when comparing states on the total state government
indigent defense expenditures presented in the Census
Bureau’s IDS study, as the information may not encompass
all resources spent on indigent defense. In addition, as
this report focuses only on state government indigent
defense expenditures, these data cannot be used to compare
spending on indigent defense and prosecution.

Table 2
State government judicial-legal expenditures, FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)
Fiscal year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Average annual percent change, FY 2008–2012
Percent change, FY 2008–2012
Percent change, FY 2011–2012

Total (in millions)
$22,963
23,599
23,514
22,957
22,842

Direct
Expenditures
(in millions)
$21,888
22,427
21,946
21,376
21,328

-0.1%
-0.5%
-0.5%

-0.6%
-2.6%
-0.2%

Percent
95.3%
95.0
93.3
93.1
93.4

Intergovernmental
Expenditures
(in millions)
Percent
$1,076
4.7%
1,172
5.0
1,568
6.7
1,581
6.9
1,514
6.6
8.5%
40.8%
-4.3%

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. See Methodology.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, FY 2008–2012.

State Government Indigent Defense Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 | july 2014

2

Comparing total indigent defense expenditures and spending by public
defender offices
Fiscal year 2008 data from the Census Bureau’s Indigent
Defense Services (IDS) study were compared to calendar
year 2007 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS)
Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO), which collected
office-level data from approximately 950 publicly funded
public defender offices located in 49 states and the
District of Columbia.1 The universe included all public
defender offices principally funded by state or local
governments that provided general criminal defense
services, conflict services, or capital case representation.
The CPDO collected operational expenditure data for
the government-funded public defender offices, which
represented one component of total indigent defense
system. In comparison, the IDS study by the Census
Bureau consisted of all spending on indigent defense,
including contract attorneys, assigned counsel, and public
defender office expenditures.
1In

2007, Maine did not have a publicly funded public defender office.

The CPDO and IDS studies differed in other ways. The
CPDO only contained operational expenditures, while the
IDS study also included capital outlay, generally a small
percentage of spending on indigent defense. The CPDO
reported on calendar year 2007, while the Census Bureau’s
IDS study collected data for fiscal year 2008, which
included some of calendar year 2007.2
Among the 22 states classified as state-administered in
the CPDO, state government expenditures for calendar
year 2007 for (14) states were within 10% of expenditures
from the Census FY 2008 data.3 Of the remaining
seven states, four states contained 17% to 50% more
expenditures than in the Census Bureau’s IDS study, and
three states had 50% more expenditures in the IDS study
than the CPDO (table 3).
2The

degree to which CY 2007 expenditures was included in a state’s
FY 2008 expenditures depended on the start of a state’s fiscal year, which
varies by state.
3In the upcoming BJS 2013 National Survey of Indigent Defense,
29 states are classified as state-administered.

Table 3
Comparison of Indigent Defense Expenditures in BJS’s Census of Public Defender Offices, CY 2007, and Census Bureau’s
Indigent Defense Services Study, FY 2008 (2012 dollars)

State
Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

BJS’s Census of Public
Defender Offices, CY 2007
Expenditures
(in thousands)
$19,388
22,556
42,626
53,558
15,430
9,564
54,608
36,583
87,222
138,847
69,536
38,411
20,995
14,254
111,392
41,725
1,913
9,881
7,695
42,047
90,876
8,568

Census Bureau’s Indigent
Defense Services Study, FY 2008
Expenditures
(in thousands)
$33,750
30,777
86,628
51,461
16,001
10,420
56,132
42,922
95,445
218,775
72,135
36,941
21,105
17,754
118,465
44,213
4,988
13,569
11,217
43,884
89,783
8,026

Expenditure difference
(in thousands)
$14,362
8,220
44,002
-2,097
571
856
1,523
6,339
8,223
79,929
2,599
-1,470
110
3,500
7,072
2,488
3,076
3,688
3,522
1,837
-1,093
-542

Percent
difference
74.1%
36.4
103.2
-3.9
3.7
9.0
2.8
17.3
9.4
57.6
3.7
-3.8
0.5
24.6
6.3
6.0
160.8
37.3
45.8
4.4
-1.2
-6.3

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. See Methodology.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Public Defender Offices, CY 2007; and U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, FY 2008.

State Government Indigent Defense Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 | july 2014

3

Methodology

Imputation

The data used for this report and in the Census Bureau study
were extracted from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey
of State Government Finances for fiscal years 2008 through
2012. This report includes state government indigent defense
expenditures and total judicial-legal expenditures compiled
by U.S. Census Bureau representatives. Data were collected
from government audits, budgets, and other financial
reports. Differences in functional responsibilities from state
to state may prohibit the comparability of expenditure data
across all jurisdictions, and caution should be exercised
when comparing government expenditures. For more
detailed information on the functional responsibilities by
state, see the previously referenced Census Bureau study,
Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008–2012,
(NCJ 246683, BJS web, July 2014).

For 2008 and 2010, expenditure data for Georgia were only
available for total indigent defense expenditures. Totals for
direct and intergovernmental expenditures for Georgia for
those 2 years were imputed by taking the average share for
each category for 2009, 2011, and 2012, and applying it to
2008 and 2010.

Adjusting for Inflation

Terms and definitions

Government expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012
were inflation adjusted to 2012 dollars, as is standard for
state government spending. Annual chain-type price indices
for gross domestic product were employed as divisors, and
unadjusted expenditures were employed as dividends to
produce inflation adjusted expenditures in 2012 dollars.

Expenditures—external cash payments made from any
source of funds, including any payments financed from
borrowing, fund balances, intergovernmental revenue, and
other current revenue.

The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, developed the price indices used in all inflation
adjustments, as published through their interactive data
tool (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). (See
Table 1.1.4, Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product,
March 27, 2014.)

Expenditures for California were compiled using the State of
California Governor’s Budget. However, only partial indigent
defense expenditure information was available; therefore,
California’s expenditures are likely an underestimate.
Census Bureau data from Florida could not be fully
validated. These states’ data were used to impute national
totals. For FY 2009, Tennessee State Budget Publications
were used to provide data for imputation to national totals.

Intergovernmental transfers—the sum of payments
made from one government entity to another, including
grants-in-aid, shared revenues, payments in lieu of taxes,
and amounts for services performed by one government
for another on a reimbursable or cost-sharing basis
(e.g., payments by one government to another for boarding
prisoners). Excludes amounts paid to other governments for
purchase of commodities, property, or utility services.
Direct expenditures—all expenditures except those
classified as intergovernmental. Includes direct current
expenditures (e.g., salaries, wages, fees, and commissions
and purchases of supplies, materials, and contractual
services) and capital outlays (e.g., construction and purchase
of equipment, land, and existing structures). Note that
capital outlays are included for the year in which the direct
expenditure was made, regardless of how the funds were
raised (e.g., bond issue) or when they were paid back.
Indigent defense services—the provision of legal services to
individuals accused of crimes who cannot afford an attorney.

State Government Indigent Defense Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 | july 2014

4

Appendix table 1
State government indigent defense expenditures, by state, FY 2008–2012 (2012 dollars)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgiaa
Hawaiib
Idaho
Illinois
Indianab
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisianac
Maineb
Maryland
Massachusettsb
Michigan
Minnesotab
Mississippi
Missourib
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshired
New Jerseyb
New Mexico
New Yorkb,e
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakotaf
Tennessee
Texas
Utahg
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Total state government indigent defense expenditures (in thousands)
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
72,540
73,973
66,590
66,221
59,707
33,750
35,682
36,794
37,957
40,036
2,796
2,627
2,287
2,189
1,378
30,777
24,046
31,146
34,816
37,600
-----86,628
99,127
98,036
92,324
100,714
51,461
52,087
50,453
51,269
64,002
16,001
15,622
14,804
15,251
18,792
-----76,075
66,457
69,524
68,706
69,539
10,420
10,708
9,491
8,869
9,275
2,197
2,238
2,018
2,018
1,990
26,151
26,984
24,527
23,313
20,266
23,318
24,504
24,920
24,352
24,906
56,132
59,397
58,436
55,492
55,726
25,084
25,252
24,845
23,117
22,714
42,922
41,466
46,061
44,995
43,586
30,360
29,923
71,479
71,349
67,964
14,946
14,104
13,141
13,483
14,448
95,445
97,423
89,869
87,268
87,952
218,775
206,999
208,858
200,136
191,228
14,585
14,549
13,415
12,950
12,866
72,135
72,771
69,241
68,218
64,509
3,009
3,329
3,416
3,638
4,307
36,941
38,239
37,541
36,713
35,739
21,105
21,982
21,259
21,742
23,335
3,573
3,727
3,902
3,662
3,533
2,063
2,314
2,376
2,686
3,234
17,754
19,252
19,316
19,255
18,038
118,465
124,142
118,796
117,501
117,628
44,213
45,882
42,889
41,160
38,519
93,851
85,827
93,075
96,888
109,256
124,308
136,244
137,343
138,097
125,603
4,988
5,523
5,711
5,919
6,140
92,164
69,831
71,128
75,399
70,413
18,589
19,333
17,965
17,105
16,581
114,154
107,994
123,410
110,371
112,269
0
0
0
0
0
13,569
13,543
13,245
13,645
13,805
25,444
29,842
25,822
22,058
21,938
823
806
728
656
624
66,548
/
72,864
72,262
74,032
20,609
28,863
31,754
36,095
26,981
7
103
118
171
108
11,217
11,762
11,772
11,832
12,103
43,884
45,138
42,494
42,101
43,257
28,926
28,811
27,613
26,721
25,564
40,193
41,363
53,858
46,547
42,681
89,783
82,995
90,938
78,586
90,592
8,026
10,451
10,345
9,591
10,258

Average annual
percent change, Percent change, Percent change,
FY 2008–2012
FY 2008–2012 FY 2011–2012
-4.9%
-17.7%
-9.8%
4.3
18.6
5.5
-17.7
-50.7
-37.0
5.0
22.2
8.0
---3.8
16.3
9.1
5.5
24.4
24.8
4.0
17.4
23.2
----2.2
-8.6
1.2
-2.9
-11.0
4.6
-2.5
-9.4
-1.4
-6.4
-22.5
-13.1
1.6
6.8
2.3
-0.2
-0.7
0.4
-2.5
-9.4
-1.7
0.4
1.5
-3.1
:
:
-4.7
-0.8
-3.3
7.2
-2.0
-7.9
0.8
-3.4
-12.6
-4.5
-3.1
-11.8
-0.7
-2.8
-10.6
-5.4
9.0
43.2
18.4
-0.8
-3.3
-2.7
2.5
10.6
7.3
-0.3
-1.1
-3.5
11.2
56.7
20.4
:
:
-6.3
-0.2
-0.7
0.1
-3.4
-12.9
-6.4
3.8
16.4
12.8
0.3
1.0
-9.0
5.2
23.1
3.7
-6.7
-23.6
-6.6
-2.9
-10.8
-3.1
-0.4
-1.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.7
1.2
-3.7
-13.8
-0.5
-6.9
-24.2
-4.9
2.7
11.2
2.4
6.7
30.9
-25.3
66.7
1,340.9
-36.7
1.9
7.9
2.3
-0.4
-1.4
2.7
-3.1
-11.6
-4.3
1.5
6.2
-8.3
0.2
-0.9
15.3
6.1
27.8
7.0

Note: Expenditures for fiscal years preceding 2012 were inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. See Methodology.
/ Not reported.
: Not calculated due to changes in data reporting methods across years.
-- Data are unreliable. For details, see Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008–2012 (NCJ 246683, BJS web, July 2014).
aData from FY 2008 and 2010 are actual amounts from Georgia Budgetary Compliance Reports.
bRetirement and other benefits are not included or only partially included.
cData from FY 2010 to 2012 are the sum of Census Bureau query and judicial district expenditures from the Louisiana Public Defender Board’s Annual Reports. Data from
FY 2008 and 2009 are missing amounts transferred to district courts.
dData from FY 2008 are actual amounts from New Hampshire’s Operating Budget.
eData from FY 2009 to 2011 are the sum of the Census Bureau query and nonpersonal service/indirect costs from New York’s Enacted Budget.
fData from FY 2008 to 2012 are actual amounts from the South Dakota State Treasurer’s Fiscal Report.
gData from FY 2008 to 2012 are actual amounts from Utah’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances, FY 2008–2012.

State Government Indigent Defense Expenditures, FY 2008–2012 | july 2014

5

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and
valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and
participates with national and international organizations to develop and
recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is
acting director.
This report was written by Erinn Herberman and Tracey Kyckelhahn.
E. Ann Carson verified the report.
Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced
the report.
July 2014, NCJ 246684

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov