In July, 2014, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published two reports on state spending on indigent defense across the United States for the years 2008-2012. The data for the studies came from the Annual Survey of State Government Finances, a dataset maintained by the Census Bureau.
Unfortunately, defenders across the country immediately recognized some of the data were faulty. After communication with BJS, the reports were reissued with revised data provided by state defender organizations including ILS.
The original reports contained major errors in New York's data, showing state spending levels to be lower than they actually were, and suggesting erroneously that state spending had declined across the 2008-2012 period. The new reports correct both of these impressions, accounting for almost all state spending and showing very clearly the increase in spending that happened across this period, largely as a result of new funding for caseload caps in New York City.
The alterations to New York's data were so substantial that they played a significant role in changing the conclusion in the original report that indigent defense expenditures had fallen nationally by 1.1% year-on-year across the period. Ultimately, BJS concluded the decline was just 0.2% year-on-year (you can see the change by comparing Table 1 of these two reports.) Significantly, we also understand BJS is planning to add an editorial annotation to the reports, cautioning against using the data to make any policy decisions.
The data that ILS provided to BJS, and which they ultimately used in their report, can be found on the final page of this letter. Three things should be noted about the data.
Unfortunately, defenders across the country immediately recognized some of the data were faulty. After communication with BJS, the reports were reissued with revised data provided by state defender organizations including ILS.
- The two original reports dated July 2014 can be found here and here.
- The two revised reports dated October 2014 can be found here and here.
- The letter that ILS sent to BJS expressing its concerns and providing new data can be found here. Letters expressing concern were also submitted by NAPD and the Sixth Amendment Center, while NLADA encouraged responses from defenders at the state level.
The original reports contained major errors in New York's data, showing state spending levels to be lower than they actually were, and suggesting erroneously that state spending had declined across the 2008-2012 period. The new reports correct both of these impressions, accounting for almost all state spending and showing very clearly the increase in spending that happened across this period, largely as a result of new funding for caseload caps in New York City.
The alterations to New York's data were so substantial that they played a significant role in changing the conclusion in the original report that indigent defense expenditures had fallen nationally by 1.1% year-on-year across the period. Ultimately, BJS concluded the decline was just 0.2% year-on-year (you can see the change by comparing Table 1 of these two reports.) Significantly, we also understand BJS is planning to add an editorial annotation to the reports, cautioning against using the data to make any policy decisions.
The data that ILS provided to BJS, and which they ultimately used in their report, can be found on the final page of this letter. Three things should be noted about the data.
- First, certain expenditure data for programs in earlier years are not known, meaning that those data are still incomplete.
- Second, the data do not include any consideration of juvenile representation, which is entirely a state charge. The attorney for children program has cost the state over $100m annually in recent years, though only a fraction of that amount is for juvenile delinquency representation (estimated by OCA to be about 8.5%).
- Third, the BJS totals include state funding to defense providers, but omit funding to two statewide defense-related organizations (the New York State Defenders Association and Prisoner Legal Services of New York, as well as omitting state spending on representation of indigent persons facing civil commitment of sex offenders, which is one of the many services provided under the auspices of Mental Hygiene Legal Services.
Subscribe: