Contracting has been endorsed by many as a means of conserving public resources while providing experienced counsel; it has also been criticized as a means of ensuring that minimal public investment, and hence minimally qualified representation, is offered to the poor. This study tests the hypothesis that contracting, particularly competitively bid contracting, is less costly than the alternatives, and offers some observations about variation in type of contract and the consequences of this variation for program costs. The analysis used survey data from all felony court jurisdictions in Michigan. Results suggested that competitive bidding is indeed less expensive than the alternatives, but simultaneously raise questions about the implications of this financial advantage for program quality. Findings also suggested that, paradoxically, contracting is adopted in small jurisdictions with bars that cannot support competitive bidding. As a result, these jurisdictions pay a high price for this type of program. Footnotes, tables, 4 case citations, and 36 references