This survey collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the study was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.

The National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (ICPSR 3081) was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services. The 2013 NSIDS was the first census of all state- and county-administered indigent defense systems. It was also the first collection of data focusing on criminal defense and civil, juvenile, and appellate representation. The NSIDS furthers the work of the 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) and the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems.

The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city, sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411 counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.

This data collection and its companion study, PUBLIC IMAGE OF COURTS, 1977: SPECIAL PUBLICS DATA (ICPSR 7704), were undertaken to explore attitudes toward courts and justice. These surveys sought to measure perceptions of and experiences with local, state, and federal courts as well as general attitudes toward the administration of justice and legal actors. The general objectives of the studies were to (1) determine levels of public knowledge of courts, (2) test reactions to situations that might, or might not, prompt recourse to courts, (3) determine the incidence, nature, and evaluations of court experience, (4) describe and account for evaluations of court performance, (5) indicate attitudes toward legal actors, and (6) indicate reactions to alternative means of dispute resolution. Two samples were drawn: a national sample of the general public and a "special publics" sample of judges, lawyers, and community leaders (ICPSR 7704). The 1,931 respondents in the general public sample were interviewed in person by the National Consumer Field Staff of Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc.