THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE CONSISTS OF A PUBLIC DEFENDER, AN INVESTIGATOR, AND A SECRETARY AND WAS DESIGNED TO UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES WHILE CURBING COSTS AND EXPEDITING CASE FLOW THROUGH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM WAS BASED ON A COMPARISON OF DATA COLLECTED FROM 35 COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS AND FROM THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FROM JULY 1, 1976 TO MARCH 31, 1977. PERFORMANCE MEASURES, BASED ON THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, INCLUDED DATA ON CONVICTION RATE, SENTENCE SEVERITY, CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS, LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN ARREST AND CONVICTION, AND COMPARATIVE COSTS. BASED ON 275 CASES, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER HANDLED 42 PERCENT OF THE CRIMINAL CASES AS COMPARED TO 58 PERCENT HANDLED BY THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS. CONVICTION RATES FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WERE 54 PERCENT WITH A 33.3 PERCENT SUSPENSION OR DEFERMENT RATE, WHILE FOR THE ATTORNEYS THESE FIGURES WERE 69 PERCENT AND 37 PERCENT RESPECTIVELY. OVERALL, DATA SHOW THAT THE CLIENTS HANDLED BY THE TWO SYSTEMS WERE REMARKABLY SIMILAR WITH REGARD TO SEX, RACE, MARITAL STATUS, EMPLOYMENT, OCCUPATION, AND EDUCATION/STUDENT STATUS, ALTHOUGH CLIENTS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TENDED TO BE MORE FREQUENTLY UNSKILLED, UNEMPLOYED, AND POORER-EDUCATED THAN CLIENTS WITH COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS. WHILE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TOOK SIGNIFICANTLY LESS TIME TO DISPOSE OF CASES THAN DID HIS COUNTERPARTS, THIS COMPARISON IS INVALIDATED BY THE LARGE VARIANCE IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF TYPES OF CASES. PUBLIC DEFENDER COSTS APPEARED TO BE LOWER PER CASE THAN FOR COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL; HOWEVER, UNFINISHED CASES AND VARIANCE IN CASE ASSIGNMENT MAKE A VALID COMPARISON VERY DIFFICULT. OVERALL DATA SUGGEST THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM IS MEETING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, IS AS COST-EFFECTIVE AS THE COURT-APPOINTED SERVICE, AND IS PROVIDING A COMPATIBLE SYSTEM FOR LEGAL SERVICES TO INDIGENT CLIENTS. DATA COLLECTION FORMS AND TABULAR DATA, AS WELL AS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY, ARE APPENDED. (JAP)