Since the 1970s, the U.S. Department of Justice has both funded and authored a variety of studies and reports relevant to the provision of indigent defense services. Where possible, links to the reports have been included and more will come on line in the coming months. As we work to make this a comprehensive bibliography of indigent defense materials authored or funded by the Department, please contact the Access to Justice Initiative at 202-514-5312 about any appropriate publications that may be missing from this list.

Title	Author	Year	Funded By	Description
OJP Fact Sheet: Indigent Defense	The Office of Justice Programs	2011	The Office of Justice Programs	This Fact Sheet offers a brief snapshot of the current state of indigent defense in the U.S. as well as links to other indigent-defense-related informational resources. (FS 000381, December 2011, OJP)
Indigent Defense Systems Analysis Project – Final Report (NCJ 043542)	Shelvin Singer, Beth Lynch, Karen Smith (National Legal Aid and Defender Association)	1976	The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration/National Institute Justice	This is a study of defense services for indigents and of plea-bargaining practices as they relate to indigent defendants. The study report offers a description of the staffing, operations, and caseloads of the defense system surveyed and an analysis of plea-bargaining practices in these systems.
Title: Indigent Defense: DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible Funding and Better Determine the Extent to Which Funds Help Support This Purpose (NCJ 238757)	The Government Accountability Office	2012	The Government Accountability Office	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. (NCJ 238757, May 2012)
Who’s Better at Defending Criminals? Does Type of Defense Attorney Matter in Terms of Producing Favorable Case Outcomes	Thomas H. Cohen	2011	The Bureau of Justice Statistics	This paper examines whether there are differences between defense counsel type and the adjudication and sentencing phases of criminal case processing. Results show that private attorneys and public defenders secure similar adjudication and sentencing outcomes for their clients. Defendants with assigned counsel, however, receive less favorable outcomes compared to their counterparts with public defenders. This article concludes by discussing the policy implications of these findings and possible avenues for future research.
North Carolina: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings (NCJ 204538)	Lynn Grindall and Patricia Puritz (American Bar Association and the Southern Juvenile Justice Center in collaboration with National Juvenile Defender Center and the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services)	2003	Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention	This study assesses access to legal counsel and the quality of legal representation for juveniles in delinquency proceedings in North Carolina.
OJJDP Bulletin: Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent Defense (NCJ 171151)	Patricia Puritz and Wendy Wan Long Shang (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)	1998	Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention	Several initiatives in Maryland, New York, and the District of Columbia that provide comprehensive and holistic legal representation for juveniles are profiled.
Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice (NCJ 241389)	Jon B. Gould (American University), Julia Carrano (American University), Richard Leo (University of San Francisco School of Law), Joseph Young (American University)	2012	National Institute of Justice	This study examines why innocent people are wrongfully convicted in certain cases yet acquitted in others. The researchers studied 460 violent felonies that occurred between 1980 and 2012 to identify ten factors that led to a wrongful conviction of an innocent person instead of a dismissal or acquittal. The final report offers recommendations to help prevent erroneous convictions, including recommendations on defense practice, exculpatory evidence, eyewitness identification, false confessions, forensic error, police misconduct, weak prosecution evidence, systemic failures and tunnel vision.
The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision Making – Technical Report(NCJ 240334)	Bruce Frederick (Vera Institute of Justice) and Don Stemen (Loyola University Chicago)	2012	National Institute of Justice	Authors of this report followed two county prosecutors’ offices to examine the impact of legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal factors on case outcomes throughout the prosecutorial process. The report identifies relationships, along with rules and resources, as contextual constraints that can trump prosecutorial evaluations of the strength and seriousness of the evidence and the defendant’s criminal history. While the report finds that prosecutors generally do not alter their decisions simply based on the relationship with the defense attorney, some newer ADAs expressed that a cooperative defense attorney would receive more cooperation from the prosecution, while an antagonistic relationship between the two could result in negative consequences , like less time to prepare, for the defense attorney.
Productivity and Resource Allocation in Prosecution and Public Defenders (NCJ 098920)	Joan E. Jacoby, E.C. Ratledge (Jefferson Institute for Justice Studies)	1983	National Institute of Justice	This report discusses the inadequacy of productivity measures for many public delivery systems and issues associated with labor as an input productivity models and also reports on research that measured the amount of prosecutor and public defender effort in processing cases to completion.
Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine State Criminal Trial Courts (NCJ 178403)	Brian J. Ostrom and Roger A. Hanson (National Center for State Courts)	2003	National Institute of Justice	This study examines the relationship between case processing timeliness and quality, finding that more efficient work orientations attorneys and attorneys’ views about their work environment and toward each other’s activities were linked to the timeliness of their court.