The evaluation focused on the extent and quality of the services rendered by the AAPD, its administration and procedures, and its adherence to standards. The evaluation was based on statistical and historical data provided in AAPD monthly reports, observations at the AAPD office, and interviews with AAPD personnel and State officials. The AAPD did not provide service to all eligible defendants and offered less than the full range of services, partially due to its large caseload. AAPD did not adequately handle the issue of conflict of interest; it should have had a more specific procedure for such instances. The AAPD should have been independently selected, and failure to follow recommended standards may well have damaged the program's future. Highly commendable use was made of available training for staff, and the caseload far exceeded that recommended by national standards and the norm in similar offices. Briefs filed by the AAPD were consistently prepared and filed in an average to above-average professional manner, but oral arguments were not used effectively. The staff met high standards of professionalism despite moderate salaries. The failure of the Arkansas legislature to create and fund an AAPD office appears to have been based on a combination of politics and economics rather than upon the quality of the work performed by AAPD under the grant. Some criticism can be made of the office for its failure to make its own case. The appendixes contain information on the grant budget, relevant court cases, the amended budget bill, a weekly caseload status report form, and newspaper articles on the AAPD.