The major elements of contract defense programs are the contract negotiation and award process, the parties to the contract, the services provided, and the payment mechanisms. These elements are examined for contract programs in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington. The contract program issues examined are the relationship between cost and quality, the fiscal impact of changing from one system to another, planning for system change, the contract negotiation and award process, procedures and services, cost control, and quality control. The analysis does not support wholesale opposition to the use of contract defense programs. Some programs include useful and important elements that provide high quality services to indigent defendants. Some contract programs have produced modest cost savings without sacrificing quality, when they have replaced ad hoc assigned counsel systems that were experiencing cost increases. Some have provided funding authorities opportunities for control of costs and planning future budgets, and others have provided needed services in relatively inaccessible regions or in conflict cases. Aspects of programs that deserve criticism are not generic to contract defense programs but appear to be unique to certain types of contract programs or result from poor monitoring.