Responsibility for funding county-level prosecutor positions, including
71 elected district attorneys and their subordinates, was transferred to
the State by 1989 Wisconsin Act 31. As of July 1, 2006, there were
424.65 full-time equivalent (FTE) county-level prosecutors statewide.
Fiscal year (FY) 2005-06 expenditures totaled $44.4 million, including
$40.8 million in general purpose revenue (GPR) and $3.6 million in
program revenue.
Each year, the State Prosecutors Office in the Department of Administration
(DOA) calculates prosecutorial staffing needs in each county using a
formula that considers current staffing levels and the number and types
of cases prosecuted by each county. Concerns have been raised about
the accuracy with which this methodology, known as a weighted
caseload formula, currently measures staffing needs. At the request
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, we analyzed the current
weighted caseload formula, including:
variation in prosecutors’ duties that can change the amount of time
they have available for prosecuting cases;
the extent to which management differences among district
attorneys’ offices affect the formula’s results;
whether the data and time estimates used by the formula are current
and accurate;
the effect that cases involving inmates in state correctional facilities,
changes in law enforcement, and court structures and policies have
on prosecutorial workload; and
the use of State-funded special prosecutors to supplement district
attorneys’ office staffing.
Staffing and Caseloads
The number of FTE prosecutor
positions decreased from 444.35 FTE
positions in July 2002 to 424.65 FTE
positions in July 2006, or by 4.4 percent.
As of July 2006, 376.40 positions
were funded with GPR, while
48.25 positions were funded with
program revenue.
Program revenue is derived primarily
from federal grants that target
specific types of crimes or crime
prevention activities. Federal grant
funds have declined in recent years
and are expected to continue to
decline, which will have the effect of
reducing the number of prosecutor
positions. Milwaukee County relies
most heavily on program revenue–funded positions, which account for
29.8 percent of its prosecutorial staff.
From 2001 through 2005, the number
of criminal cases prosecuted by
district attorneys’ offices increased
by 11.5 percent statewide, and the
number of felony cases increased
by 16.2 percent. Prosecutors with
whom we spoke reported that
increasing caseloads have resulted
in less-timely prosecutions, more
decisions not to prosecute cases,
and settling cases out of court with
lighter penalties.
Weighted Caseload Formula
The weighted caseload formula
measures the number of prosecutors
that each District Attorney’s office
needs, based on the number and
type of court cases for which that
office is responsible. The formula
has never been used to reallocate
positions across counties.
Using the current formula, the State
Prosecutors Office calculated in
August 2006 that 63 counties are
understaffed by a total of 119.16 FTE
positions, while 8 are slightly
overstaffed by a total of 1.83 FTE
positions, for a net statewide need
of an additional 117.33 FTE positions.
The weighted caseload methodology
is generally consistent with
nationally accepted practices for
measuring prosecutorial workloads,
and most of the prosecutors with
whom we spoke believed it was
generally an appropriate method for
measuring staffing needs. However,
prosecutors expressed a number
of concerns with how the formula
measures caseload and how it
weights different factors.
We found that most of these concerns
arise from the fact that the
formula uses incomplete data and
out-of-date measures of the time
required to prosecute cases. In the
short term, limited changes to the
formula could improve consistency
and accuracy. However, effectively
updating the formula would require
a new time study to measure
prosecutors’ work, and statewide
implementation of PROTECT, a
data system that can provide more
accurate information.
Other Factors Affecting Workload
Some prosecutors reported that
cases involving prison inmates take
longer to prosecute than other cases
because some inmates may intentionally
try to prolong the criminal
justice process. However, inmate
cases are rare. Approximately
10.1 percent of assaults committed
by inmates from 2002 through 2005
were referred for prosecution,
and inmate crimes accounted for
less than 1.0 percent of criminal
caseloads in the counties we visited
that house prisons. Improved coordination
between district attorneys
and prison officials could assist in
mitigating the workload effect of
crimes committed by inmates.
The number of judges in state
circuit courts, as well as the courts’
structures and policies, also affect
prosecutors’ workloads. As of
winter 2006, the ratio of prosecutors
to judges ranged from 2.75 in Pierce
County to 0.75 in Oconto County.
Prosecutors reported that when
there are more judges relative to
prosecutors, prosecutors must
spend more time in court and may
not have adequate time for research,
preparation, and other activities.
In some counties, prosecutors and
courts have worked together to
identify structures and policies to
improve efficiency, such as implementing
rotation schedules or court
specialization, initiating regular
meetings between prosecutors and
judges, and reducing the number of
hearings held on each case. While
the effectiveness of specific methods
may vary across counties, the State
Prosecutors Office could work with
district attorneys and the state courts
to facilitate sharing of best practices.
Special Prosecutors
District attorneys may be aided by
special prosecutors, who are not
regular employees but who are
temporarily given the powers and
duties of the District Attorney to
prosecute cases.
Court-appointed special prosecutors
are a type of special prosecutor
paid by DOA on an hourly basis.
Between 32 and 42 special prosecutors
were appointed in each year
from FY 2001-02 through FY 2005-06.
In FY 2005-06, DOA spent $237,000
in GPR to reimburse 42 special
prosecutors in 27 counties.
Statutes define the permissible uses
of special prosecutors and the
procedures for their appointment.
We found that current practice is
not always consistent with these
requirements.
Matters for Legislative Consideration
There are several issues for the
Legislature to consider as it
allocates staffing resources to
district attorneys’ offices. For
example, the Legislature could
consider whether current staffing
levels justify adding new positions.
Alternatively, given current limits to
the State’s resources and its other
funding priorities, the Legislature
could consider ways to lessen
prosecutors’ workloads.
One method for addressing staffing
needs, particularly in smaller
counties, would be to create a pool
of short-term, “floating” assistant
district attorneys in a central or
regional office who could be
assigned to counties experiencing
unexpected increases in workload.
Recommendations
Our report includes recommendations
for DOA to report to the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee by
March 14, 2008, regarding:
its efforts to implement shortterm
improvements to the
weighted caseload formula
(p. 40);
its plans for using improved
referral data in the weighted
caseload formula
(p. 41);
its plans for initiating a new
time study to more accurately
measure prosecutors’ work
(p. 41); and
the feasibility of implementing
floating assistant district
attorney positions or expanding
the use of existing alternative
resources
(p. 67).
We also include recommendations
that district attorneys:
work with prison officials to
develop guidelines for investigating
and prosecuting crimes
committed by inmates
(p. 49); and
work with local law enforcement
agencies to develop guidelines
for referring crimes to district
attorneys’ offices
(p. 55).
In addition, we include recommendations for:
the State Prosecutors Office to
work with district attorneys and
the state courts to facilitate
sharing of best practices for
managing workloads through
court structures and policies
(p. 53); and
the Legislature to consider
statutory changes to clarify
the allowable use of special
prosecutor appointments
(p. 61).