Carol J. DeFrances, Ph.D.

BJS Statistician

In 2001 State court prosecutors' offices

that served districts with a population

of 500,000 or more budgeted over $2.9

billion for prosecutorial functions.

Results from the 2001 National Survey

of Prosecutors (NSP) indicate that

these 114 offices in large districts

closed more than 1 million felony cases

and employed over 40,000 staff during

the year. The median office budget for

prosecution was $14 million, and the

median total staff size was 234. 

The survey found that most offices in

large districts had experience prosecuting computer-related crime (83%) and

had implemented community prosecution by involving the community to help

identify crime and other problem areas

(81%). All the large district offices had

used DNA evidence during felony trials,

and all had prosecuted domestic

violence and child abuse felony

offenses in 2001.

The 2001 NSP collected data on all

chief prosecutors that handled felony

cases in State courts of general

jurisdiction.1

 The survey did not

include municipal attorneys or county

attorneys who primarily operate in

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

National Survey of Prosecutors

State Court Prosecutors

in Large Districts, 2001

 December 2001, NCJ 191206

• In 2001, 114 prosecutors’ offices of

the 2,341 offices nationwide served

jurisdictions with a population of

500,000 or more. These 114 offices

in large districts represented 45% of

the Nation’s population in 1999.

• Over 14,000 assistant prosecutors

and supervisory attorneys who

litigated cases were employed by

prosecutors’ offices in large districts.

Overall there were 11 prosecutors per

100,000 residents in large districts.

• 58% of large district offices

indicated problems with recruiting

new staff attorneys and 72% experienced problems with retaining staff

attorneys. The primary obstacle

reported by a majority of offices with

recruitment (81%) or retention (76%)

problems was the amount of salary.

• Large district offices budgeted $2.9

billion for prosecutorial functions in

2001. The annual amount budgeted

per resident was about $24. About

85% of the offices received grant

funds. 

• About three-fourths of prosecutors’

offices in large districts had, during the

previous 12 months, prosecuted computer crimes involving child pornography (75%) or credit card fraud (73%).

• Annually, prosecutors’ offices in large

districts closed over 1 million felony

cases, with a median conviction rate 

of 85%. Office staff in large districts

participated in over 27,000 felony 

trials with a jury verdict.

• During the previous 12 months,

prosecutors’ offices in large districts

proceeded in almost 11,000 juvenile

cases in criminal court.

• 65% of prosecutors’ offices in large

districts reported a threat or assault

against an assistant prosecutor, 41%

the chief prosecutor, and 22% a staff

investigator.

• Excessive delays in getting DNA

results from a laboratory were 

reported by 70% of large district 

offices and inconclusive DNA results

by 43%.

Felony cases closed in 12 months 6,347 12,079 4,921

Budget for prosecution $14,203,495 $32,114,944 $10,946,771

Salary of chief prosecutor $125,350 $136,700 $118,656

Total staff size 234 456 195

Population served, 1999 772,425 1,478,630 680,854

Median

Number of prosecutors' offices 114 34 80

500,000 to 

999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

Offices serving a population of —

 Highlights

1

The 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996 NSP

data collections surveyed a nationally

representative sample of chief prosecutors

that tried felony cases in State courts of

general jurisdiction.
courts of limited jurisdiction. This

report focuses entirely on the 114

prosecutors' offices that served

districts with a population of 500,000 

or more.2

In 2001, 114 prosecutors' offices out 

of the 2,341 offices nationwide served

districts with a population of 500,000 

or more. Although these 114 offices

comprised only 5% of all prosecutors'

offices nationwide, they served 45% 

of the U.S. population in 1999. About

two-thirds of Part I Uniform Crime

Report (UCR) offenses reported to the

police in 1998 occurred in the prosecutorial districts served by these offices.3

Half of these offices represented a

district with a population of 772,000 or

more. The majority (83%) of

prosecutors' offices in large districts

served one county. Three of the

offices, in which the Attorney General

had responsibility for prosecuting all

violations of state law, had jurisdiction

for their entire State (Alaska, Delaware,

and Rhode Island).

 

While all the offices in this report

served at least 500,000 or more

residents, the size of the prosecutorial

district varied considerably among the

114 offices. For example, the largest

prosecutor's office, Los Angeles

County, California served a population

of over 9 million, while the prosecutor's

office in Camden County, New Jersey,

served a population slightly over

500,000. Since staffing, budget, and

workload often differ according to the

size of the prosecutorial district, this

report presents information in the

aggregate for all 114 offices and then

by categories for offices that served a

district with a population of 1 million or

more and offices that served between

500,000 to 999,999. 

The offices that served 1 million or

more residents were generally different

from the other offices examined in this

report. Prosecutors' offices serving

1 million or more had considerably

more staff and larger budgets and

caseloads. For example, for districts 

of 1 million or more, the per resident

amount budgeted was $28 compared

to $18 per resident of districts between

500,000 and 999,999. In prosecutors'

offices serving 1 million or more, the

number of assistant prosecutors per

100,000 residents was 12.3, compared

to 10.5 for offices serving between

500,000 and 999,999.

Staffing in large districts

In 2001 prosecutors' offices in large

districts employed more than 40,000

staff including assistant prosecutors,

paralegals, victim advocates, investigators, and support staff. About 4% of

the total staff worked part time. Attorneys (assistant prosecutors, civil attorneys, and supervisory attorneys)

responsible for felony prosecutions or

civil litigation comprised about 38% of

total staff (table 1). Support staff,

including administrative staff and clerical staff, comprised about 36% of total

staff. 

The median total staff size for large

district prosecutors' offices was 234,

including the chief prosecutor (table 2).

Half of the offices reported 79 or more

assistant prosecutors and 8 or more

supervisory attorneys. The median

number of support staff was 69 and of

staff investigators was 17. Overall, the

ratio of assistant prosecutors (including

supervisory attorneys) to investigators

was 3.6 attorneys to 1 investigator; 

to victim advocates, 9.7 to 1; and 

to support staff members, 1 to 1. 

2 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% due to

rounding. Data on types of personnel were

available for all 114 offices in large districts.

a

Attorneys in managerial positions who

litigate cases. 

b

Attorneys or non-attorneys in primarily managerial positions who do not litigate cases. 

c

Includes law clerks and paralegals 

d

Includes investigators on contract. 

e

Includes administrative staff, clerical staff,

computer personnel, and fiscal officers.

Number of personnel 40,043

Other 4.0

Support staff 35.9 e

Staff investigators 9.9 d

Legal services personnel 6.6 c

Victim advocates 3.7

Managers 1.8 b

Supervisory attorneys 3.6 a

Civil attorneys 2.4

Assistant prosecutors 31.9

Chief prosecutor 0.3

Total 100%

Percent of total

personnel in prosecutors' offices 

in large districts

 

Table 1. Personnel categories 

for prosecutors' offices in large

districts, 2001

2

A report on all 2,341 State court prosecutors' offices is scheduled for spring 2002. 3

Part I Uniform Crime Report offenses

taken from Uniform Crime Reporting

Program Data: County-Level Detailed

Arrest and Offense Data, 1998, Part 4,

Crimes Reported [computer file].

a

Includes the chief prosecutor. 

b

Attorneys in managerial positions who litigate cases. 

c

Attorneys or non-attorneys in primarily managerial positions who do not litigate cases. 

d

Includes law clerks and paralegals. 

e

Includes investigators on contract. 

f

Includes administrative staff, clerical staff, computer personnel, and fiscal officers.

Number of prosecutors' offices 114 34 80

Support staff 69 145 59 f

Staff investigators 17 43 14 e

Legal services personnel 11 22 6 d

Victim advocates 8 16 8

Managers 4 5 3 c

Supervisory attorneys 8 21 6 b

Civil attorneys 0 4 0

Assistant prosecutors 79 151 59

Total staff size 234 456 195 a

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

 Staff 

members

Offices serving a population of —

Median for prosecutors' offices in large districts

Table 2. Median staff size in prosecutors' offices in large districts, 

by personnel categories, 2001
Term of office, length of service,

and salary of chief prosecutor in

large districts

During 2001 all 114 prosecutors'

offices in large districts reported

employing a full-time chief prosecutor.

Most large district chief prosecutors

were elected or appointed to 4-year

terms (88%), with half serving 8 years

or more (not shown in a table). 

About 25% of chief prosecutors in large

districts had served 15 years or more.

In general, chief prosecutors representing districts with a population

between 500,000 to 999,999 served

longer in office (median of 8.3 years)

than their counterparts representing

districts with 1 million or more (median

of 6.5 years). 

Half of prosecutors' offices in large

districts reported that the chief prosecutor earned $125,000 or more per

year. The chief prosecutor earned an

annual salary of $100,000 or more in

86% of the offices. The annual salary

for chief prosecutors in large districts

ranged from $84,000 to $190,000.

Attorney recruitment and retention

in large districts

Problems with recruiting new staff

attorneys were reported by 58% of

large district prosecutors' offices (table

3). Eighty-one percent of prosecutors'

offices with recruitment problems

indicated that the primary obstacle

was noncompetitive salaries (not

shown in a table).

Problems with recruiting new staff

attorneys was cited more often in

offices serving districts with a population between 500,000 to 999,999 (64%)

than offices serving districts with a

population of 1 million or more (46%) 

(table 3). Retaining staff attorneys also

was a problem for most prosecutors'

offices in large districts (72%). Threefourths of the offices with retention

problems reported that the amount of

the salary was the primary obstacle

(not shown in a table). 

Annual salary for full-time assistant

prosecutors and supervisory attorneys in large districts

 

In 2001 the median minimum annual

salary for entry level assistant prosecutors in offices in large districts was

$40,000, and the median maximum

annual salary was $51,100 (table 4).

For assistant prosecutors with 5 years

of experience, the median minimum

salary was $54,000 and for supervisory

attorneys the median minimum salary

was $70,000. Half of the offices

reported that the maximum annual

salary for assistant prosecutors with 5

years of experience was $68,576 or

more and for supervisory attorneys

$104,260 or more. In general, the

median minimum and maximum

salaries for assistant prosecutors and

supervisory attorneys were higher in

offices serving districts with a population of 1 million or more. 

 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001 3

Note: Data for the problem of recruiting new staff attorneys were available 

for 110 prosecutors' offices in large districts and the problem of retaining 

staff attorneys for 109 offices in large districts.

71.6 66.7 73.7

Retaining staff

attorneys

58.2% 45.5% 63.6%

Recruiting new

staff attorneys

500,000 to 

999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in large

districts

related to 

full-time position

Type of problem Offices serving a population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices in large districts

Table 3. Problems of recruiting and retaining staff attorneys 

in prosecutors' offices in large districts, 2001

Note: Data for minimum and maximum annual salary for entry level assistant prosecutors 

were available for 110 and 77 prosecutors' offices in large districts, respectively. Data for

minimum and maximum annual salary for assistant prosecutors with 5 years' experience 

were available for 102 and 88 prosecutors' offices in large districts, respectively. Data 

for minimum and maximum annual salary for supervisory attorneys were available 

for 99 and 93 prosecutors' offices in large districts, respectively.

Maximum annual salary 104,260 121,720 99,670

Minimum annual salary $70,000 $74,387 $66,834

Median

Supervisory attorney

Maximum annual salary 68,576 76,800 65,000

Minimum annual salary $53,500 $55,503 $51,500

Median

Assistant prosecutor, 5 years' experience

Maximum annual salary 51,100 56,568 50,500

Minimum annual salary $40,000 $44,260 $38,250

Median

Assistant prosecutor, entry level

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000

or more

All offices in

Full-time position large districts

Prosecutors' offices

serving a population of —

Table 4. Annual salary for assistant prosecutors and supervisory attorneys 

in prosecutors' offices in large districts, 2001
Budget of prosecutors' offices in

large districts

 

In 2001 prosecutors' offices in large

districts had total budgets of over $2.9

billion for prosecutorial functions (table

5). Half of the offices reported an

annual budget of $14 million or more.

The budget for large district prosecutors' offices ranged from $1.4 million 

to $373 million. The median annual

budget for offices serving a district with

population of 1 million or more ($32

million) was almost 3 times the median

annual budget for offices serving a

district with a population between

500,000 to 999,999 ($11 million) .

Most of the offices indicated that staff

salaries (99%), expert services (90%),

and investigator services (90%) were

included in their reported budget

amounts. Three-fourths of large district

offices reported that funds for interpreter services and for DNA testing

were included. Funding for social

services (38%) and child support

enforcement (31%) were included by

about a third of prosecutors' offices 

in large districts.

Half of the prosecutors' offices in large

districts received 70% or more of their

funding from the county government

(not shown in a table) . Forty-one

percent of the offices did not receive

State government funds and 17% did

not receive county government funds.

About 11% of the offices reported

receiving some portion of their budget

from the city government. Some

amount of grant funds were received

by 85% of the offices in large districts. 

Types of cases handled by 

prosecutors' offices in large

districts 

Large district offices prosecuted a wide

variety of felony offenses. In addition

to felony criminal cases, 93% of prosecutors' offices in large districts also had

jurisdiction for juvenile matters, 87%

misdemeanor cases, 84% misdemeanor appeals, 64% felony appeals,

59% traffic violations, 46% child

support enforcement, and 34% represented the government in civil lawsuits

(table 6). Felony and misdemeanor

appeals were handled more often in

offices serving a district with population

of 1 million or more (77%, 97%) than

in offices serving a district with population between 500,000 to 999,999 (58%,

78%). 

4 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001

Note: Data on total budget were available for all 114 prosecutors’ offices 

in large districts. Data on percentage of prosecutors’ offices in large districts 

were budget includes staff salaries were available for 111 offices, 

expert services 108, investigator services 109, interpreter services 107, 

social services 101, child support enforcement 102, and DNA testing 107.

DNA testing 74.8 70.6 76.7

Child support enforcement 31.4 37.5 28.6

Social services 37.6 38.7 37.1

Interpreter services 74.8 73.5 75.3

Investigator services 89.9 100.0 85.3

Expert services 89.8 97.1 86.5

Staff salaries 99.1% 100.0% 98.7%

Percent of offices in large districts 

where budget includes —

Number of prosecutors' offices 114 34 80

Maximum $373,000 $373,000 $53,351

Minimum $1,380 $7,200 $1,380

Mean $25,822 $56,223 $12,901

Median $14,203 $32,115 $10,947

Total $2,940,000 $1,910,000 $1,030,000

Budget for prosecutorial functions 

(in thousands)

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 or

more

All offices in

large districts

Prosecutors' offices serving 

a population of —

Table 5. Budget for prosecutorial functions in prosecutors' offices 

in large districts, 2001

Note: Five offices reported both a misdemeanor caseload and prosecuting 

misdemeanors only with associated felonies.

Number of prosecutors' offices 111 34 77

Represent government in civil lawsuit 34.2 41.2 31.2

Child support enforcement 45.9 41.2 48.1

Juvenile matters 92.8 94.1 92.2

Traffic violations 58.6 52.9 61.0

Felony appeals 64.0 76.5 58.4

Misdemeanor appeals 83.8 97.1 77.9

Misdemeanor (only associated with a felony) 10.8 8.8 11.7

Misdemeanor 87.4% 97.1% 83.1%

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 or

more

All offices in

large districts

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices

in large districts

Table 6. Types of cases other than felonies handled 

in prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001
Special categories of felony

offenses prosecuted in large

districts 

All large district prosecutors' offices

reported they had prosecuted domestic

violence and child abuse felony

offenses during the previous year

(table 7). Over 90% of offices

indicated prosecuting illegal possession of a firearm (93%) and stalking

(91%) offenses. Offenses related to

health care fraud were prosecuted in

42% of the offices and telemarketing

fraud in 36%. About 46% of prosecutors' offices in large districts also

indicated that they prosecute use of

excessive force offenses by the police.

Offices serving a district with 1 million

or more were more likely than those

offices serving between 500,000 to

999,999 to have prosecuted police use

of excessive force (65%) health care

fraud (56%) and telemarketing fraud

(50%) offenses.

Computer related crime prosecuted

in large districts

Over the previous year, 83% of large

district offices reported prosecuting

computer related crimes under their

State's computer statutes (table 8).

Three-fourths of the offices indicated

prosecuting misdemeanor or felony

computer related crimes dealing with

the transmittal of child pornography

(75%) or credit card fraud (73%).

Two-thirds of offices prosecuted

identity theft (68%), cyberstalking

(66%), and bank card fraud (66%)

computer crimes. Computer sabotage

(29%), unauthorized copying or distribution of computer programs (25%),

and theft of intellectual property (24%)

computer crimes were prosecuted 

in about a quarter of the offices.

 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001 5

Note: Data on prosecution of any computer related crimes under their State's 

computer statutes were available for 108 offices. Data were available on credit 

card fraud for 105 prosecutors’ offices in large districts, bank card fraud 99 offices, 

forgery 88 offices, sabotage 86 offices, unauthorized access to computer system 

89 offices, unauthorized copying or distribution of computer programs 80 offices, 

cyberstalking 94 offices, theft of intellectual property 81 offices, 

transmitting child pornography 100 offices, identity theft 99 offices.

a

ATM or debit.

b

Alteration of computerized documents. 

c

To hinder the normal function of a computer system through the 

introduction of worms, viruses, or logic bombs. 

d

Hacking.

e

Software copyright infringement. 

f

The activity of users sending harassing or threatening e-mail to other users.

Identity theft 67.7 80.0 62.3

Transmitting child pornography 75.0 87.1 69.6

Theft of intellectual property 23.5 40.7 14.8

Cyberstalking 66.0 76.7 60.9 f

25.0 53.8 11.1

Unauthorized copying or distribution

of computer programse

Unauthorized access to computer system 42.7 60.7 34.4 d

Computer sabotage 29.1 53.6 17.2 c

Computer forgery 53.4 63.0 49.2 b

Bank card fraud 65.7 83.3 58.0 a

Credit card fraud 73.3 93.5 64.9

Any computer related crime 83.3% 97.0% 77.3%

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

Type of computer 

crime prosecuted

Offices serving a population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices 

in large districts

Table 8. Types of computer crimes prosecuted in prosecutors’ offices 

in large districts, 2001

Number of prosecutors' offices 111 34 77

Police use of excessive force 45.9 64.7 37.7

Illegal sale or possession of a firearm 92.8 97.1 90.9

Telemarketing fraud 36.0 50.0 29.9

Bank or thrift fraud 70.3 73.5 68.8

Health care fraud 42.3 55.9 36.4

Child abuse 100.0 100.0 100.0

Stalking 91.0 94.1 89.6

Elder abuse 84.7 97.1 79.2

Domestic violence 100.0 100.0 100.0

Hate crime 71.2% 91.2% 62.3%

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 or

more

All offices in

large districts

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices 

in large districts

Table 7. Special categories of felony offenses prosecuted 

in prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001
Number of cases and convictions 

in large districts

Over the 12 months before the survey,

prosecutors' offices in large districts

closed more than 1 million felony cases

and 3 million misdemeanor cases (not

shown in a table). Approximately 823

felony cases were closed per 100,000

residents. Staff from offices in large

districts participated in over 27,000

felony jury trials that resulted in a

verdict. About 72 felony cases per

assistant prosecutor were closed.4

Half of large district offices closed

6,347 or more felony cases (table 9).

In at least half of the offices, 85% or

more of felony cases resulted in a

felony or misdemeanor conviction. The

median number of felony jury trial

verdicts per office was 160. Half of the

offices serving a population of 1 million

or more closed 12,079 or more felony

or more felony cases compared to

4,921 ore more for offices serving

between 500,000 and 999,999. The

median number of felony jury trial

verdicts for offices serving a district 

with a population of 1 million or more

(354) was almost 3 times the median

number of felony jury trial verdicts for

offices serving a district with population

between 500,000 to 999,999 (130).

Juveniles proceeded against in

criminal courts in large districts

All but one prosecutor's office in a

large district proceeded against

juveniles in criminal court (table 10).

Over the previous 12 months large

district offices reported proceeding

against almost 11,000 juvenile cases 

in criminal court. Half of the offices

proceeded against 38 or more juvenile

cases in criminal court. The median

number of juvenile cases proceeded

against in criminal court by offices

serving 1 million or more residents was

53 and for offices serving between

500,000 to 999,999 residents, 34. 

Forty-two percent of prosecutors'

offices in large districts reported a

specialized unit for handling juvenile

cases in criminal court, and 23%

reported designated attorneys. Half 

of the offices maintained written guidelines about proceeding against

6 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001

4

This estimate was calculated by dividing

the total number of felony cases closed 

by the number of assistant prosecutors,

including supervisory attorneys. An

assumption made in calculating the

estimate is that all assistant prosecutors in 

large districts handled felony cases, which

may not always be the case.

Note: Respondents were asked to provide caseload data for the previous 12 months. 

Accordingly not all data are for 2001. Data on total cases closed were available 

for 91 prosecutors' offices in large districts, misdemeanor cases closed 91 offices, 

and felony jury verdicts for 104 offices. Data on the number of felony cases closed 

were available for 106 offices in large districts and were estimated for the 8 offices 

not providing the information. Data on percentage of total cases convicted were available 

for 80 prosecutors' offices in large districts, percentage felony cases convicted 

97 offices, and percentage misdemeanor cases convicted 81 offices. 

a

Case was defined by the respondent. 

b

Closed case means any case with a judgment of conviction, acquittal, 

or dismissal with or without prejudice, entered by the court. 

c

Each respondent categorized cases as felonies according to their State statute. 

d

Misdemeanor cases refer to cases in which criminal defendants had 

no felony charges against them.

Felony jury trial verdicts 160 354 130

Percent convicted 81.1% 73.6% 83.3%

Misdemeanor cases 20,000 40,033 17,856 d

Percent convicted 85.2% 87.2% 83.8%

Felony cases 6,347 12,079 4,921 c

Percent convicted 80.2% 74.9% 81.2%

All cases 28,943 48,121 22,224 a,b

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

Offices serving a population of —

Median for prosecutors' offices in large districts

Table 9. Criminal cases closed and convicted during an annual period

in prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001

Note: Respondents were asked to provide the number of juvenile cases proceeded 

against in criminal court for the previous 12 months. Accordingly, not all juvenile 

cases reported were proceeded against in criminal court during 2001. Data on 

number of juveniles cases proceeded against in criminal court were available for 

109 prosecutors' offices in large districts and were estimated for the 4 offices not 

providing the information. One large district office reported not proceeding against 

any juveniles in criminal court. Data on percentage of all large districts with a 

specialized unit were available for 111 offices, percentage of all large districts 

with designated attorney(s) 111 offices, and percentage of all large districts 

with written guidelines for handling juvenile cases in criminal court 108 offices.

*Juveniles proceeded against in criminal court include cases that reached 

criminal court by judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, direct filing by a prosecutor's 

office, or any other mechanism available in the prosecutor's State.

51.9% 58.8% 48.6%

Written guidelines for handling

juvenile cases in criminal court

Designated attorney(s) 23.4 35.3 18.2

Specialized unit 42.3% 35.3% 45.5%

Percent of offices 

in large districts with —

38 53 34

Median number of juvenile 

cases, per office

Total of juvenile cases* 10,951 4,581 6,370

500,000 to

999,999

1,000,000 or

more

All offices in

large districts

Prosecutors' offices serving 

a population of —

Table 10. Juveniles proceeded against in criminal court, 

by prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001
juveniles in criminal court. A specialized unit for handling juvenile cases in

criminal court was reported by 46% of

offices serving a district with a

population between 500,000 to

999,999 compared to 35% of offices

serving a district with population of 1

million or more. 

Offices serving 1 million or more residents (35%) were more likely than their

smaller counterparts (18%) to specifically designate attorneys to handle

juvenile cases in criminal cases. 

Work-related threats or assaults

against staff in large districts

Seventy-one percent of prosecutors'

offices in large districts indicated that a

staff member experienced a workrelated threat or assault (not shown 

in a table). The chief prosecutor was

threatened or assaulted in 41% of the

offices, an assistant prosecutor in 65%,

and a staff investigator in 22% (table

11). 

Over half of the chief prosecutors and

over three-quarters of assistant prosecutors in offices serving 1 million or

more received a work-related threat or

assault. About 60% of assistant prosecutors and 34% of chief prosecutors

employed in offices that served a

district between 500,000 to 999,999

experienced a work-related threat or

assault. 

Security measures in prosecutors'

offices in large districts

Prosecutors' offices in large districts

employed a variety of security

measures to protect their building and

staff. Nearly three-fourths of the

offices reported using building guards

for protection, and two-thirds indicated

the presence of metal detectors (table

12). About 57% of offices in large

districts had electronic security

systems. Police protection was used

by 28% of the offices. Police protection was more likely to be used by

offices serving 1 million or more (46%)

than by offices serving between

500,000 to 999,999 (21%).

The chief prosecutor carried a firearm

for personal safety or security in 20%

of the large districts (not shown in a

table). Thirty-seven percent of offices

in large districts reported that an assistant prosecutor carried a firearm for

personal safety, and 81% indicated a

staff investigator did so.

 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001 7

Note: Data on use of DNA any time, during plea negotiations, and during felony trials 

were available for 107 prosecutors’ offices in large districts. Data on FBI performing 

DNA analyses, state operated forensic laboratory, local agency operated forensic 

laboratory, and privately operated forensic laboratory were available for 106 prosecutors’ 

offices. Data on improper collection of evidence by police, inconclusive DNA results, 

excessive delays in getting DNA results, and difficulty in getting DNA results submitted 

in court were available for 104 prosecutors’ offices in large districts.

Difficulty in getting results admitted as evidence 2.9 3.1 2.8

Excessive delays in getting laboratory results 70.2 71.9 69.4

Inconclusive results 43.3 46.9 41.7

Improper collection of evidence by police 24.0% 21.9% 25.0%

Problems with use of DNA evidence

Privately operated 69.8 68.8 70.3

Local agency 45.3 81.3 29.7

State-operated 76.4 65.6 81.1

FBI 24.5% 28.1% 23.0%

Forensic laboratory performing DNA analysis

Trial 100.0 100.0 100.0

Plea negotiations 89.7% 81.3% 93.3%

Stage of case

Used during plea negotiations or felony trials 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

500,000 

to 999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

Use of DNA evidence large districts

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices in large districts

Table 13. DNA evidence used by prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001

Number of prosecutors' offices 110 33 77

Electronic security systems 57.3 63.6 54.5

Metal detectors 66.4 75.8 62.3

Electronic surveillance 38.2 54.5 31.2

Building guards 73.6 87.9 67.5

Police protection 28.2% 45.5% 20.8%

500,000 

to 999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices 

in large districts

Table 12. Security measures used for protection 

by prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001

*Threat or assault includes a threatening letter or call, a face-to-face threat, and battery.

Number of prosecutors' offices 106 32 74

Staff investigator 21.7 31.3 17.6

Assistant prosecutor 65.1 78.1 59.5

Chief prosecutor 40.6% 56.3% 33.8%

500,000 

to 999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices 

in large districts

Table 11. Work-related threats and assaults received by staff members 

in prosecutors’ offices in large districts, 2001
DNA evidence used by prosecutors'

offices in large districts

The use of DNA evidence is a common

practice in large district prosecutors'

offices as 100% reported using DNA

evidence during felony trials and 90%

used it during plea negotiations (table

13). Three-fourths of the offices

reported that a State-operated forensic

laboratory performed the DNA analysis.

A privately operated forensic laboratory

performed the DNA testing for 70% of

the offices, a forensic laboratory

operated by a local agency for 45%,

and the FBI for 25%. Forensic laboratories operated by localities performed

DNA analysis for 81% of the offices in

a district serving of 1 million or more,

compared to 30% of the offices serving

between 500,000 to 999,999.5 

When asked about problems in the use

of DNA evidence, about 70% of large

district offices reported at least one

instance of excessive delay in getting

laboratory results. A quarter of the

offices indicated improper collection of

evidence by the police. Difficulty in

getting the DNA results admitted as

evidence was experienced at least

once by 3% of the large district offices.

Community prosecution in large

districts

 

Community prosecution is a proactive

approach used by prosecutors' offices

to engage in community-based

problem solving. Prosecutors' offices

coordinate their work with law enforcement, residents, and agencies and

organizations to improve public safety

and quality of life.6

Over 80% of prosecutors' offices in

large districts involved the community

to help identify crime or problem

areas and used tools other than traditional criminal prosecution to address

community problems (table 14). 

About two-thirds of the offices indicated

assigning prosecutors to specific

geographic areas in the community.

Three-fourths of the offices in large

districts assigned prosecutors to

handle community-related activities. 

All large district offices reported a

formal or informal relationship with law

enforcement agencies. Most offices

also had formal or informal relationships with other government agencies

(97%) and community associations

(91%). About 84% of the offices

reported a formal or informal relationship with private organizations.

Eighty-six percent of prosecutors'

offices in large districts met regularly

with school groups and with advocacy

groups. About three-quarters of the

offices also indicated meeting regularly

with neighborhood associations (76%),

business groups (76%), and youth

8 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001

Note: Data on involving the community to identify crime and/or problem areas 

were available for 101 prosecutors’ offices in large districts, assigning prosecutors 

to specific geographic areas 99 offices, and using tools other than criminal 

prosecution 104 offices. Data on formal and/or informal relationship with law 

enforcement agencies, other government agencies, private organizations, 

and community associations were available for 110 prosecutors’ offices 

in large districts. Data on whether prosecutors’ offices in large districts meet 

regularly with neighborhood associations, tenants’ associations, youth service 

organizations, advocacy groups, business groups, religious groups, and 

school groups were available for 110 offices. Data on prosecutors assigned 

to handle community related activities were available for 108 prosecutors’ 

offices in large districts.

*Member refers to the chief prosecutor, assistant prosecutors, staff investigators, 

or any other professional staff.

75.0% 84.8% 70.7%

Office assigned prosecutors 

to handle community-related 

activities

School groups 86.4 93.9 83.1

Religious groups 55.5 51.5 57.1

Business groups 75.5 81.8 72.7

Advocacy groups 85.5 87.9 84.4

Youth service organizations 71.8 81.8 67.5

Tenant's associations 40.9 39.4 41.6

Neighborhood associations 76.4% 81.8% 74.0%

Member of office meets regularly 

with local community groups 

or organizations*

Community associations 90.9 93.9 89.6

Private organizations 83.6 90.9 80.5

Other government agencies 97.3 100 96.1

Law enforcement agencies 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Formal and/or informal 

relationships with —

86.5 96.9 81.9

Used tools other than criminal 

prosecution to address 

community problems

63.6 65.6 62.7

Assigned prosecutors to specific

geographic areas

81.2% 87.5% 78.3%

Involved the community to identify 

crime and/or problem areas

Engage in any of the following —

500,000 

to 999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

Community-related activities large districts

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices in large districts

Table 14. Community-related activities engaged in by prosecutors’ 

offices in large districts, 2001

5

For more information on DNA laboratories, see the BJS report Survey of DNA

Crime Laboratories, 2001, December

2001, NCJ 179104.

 6For more information on community

prosecution see Elaine Nugent and Gerard

A. Rainville, "The State of Community

Prosecution: Results from a National

Survey," The Prosecutor, March/April

2001, pp. 26-33, and the Office of Justice

Programs website <http://www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/prosecution/commlinks.htm>.
service organizations (72%). Less

than half (41%) of the offices met

regularly with tenant's associations. 

Of the offices assigning prosecutors to

handle community-related activities,

55% reported that these prosecutors

were located outside of the central

prosecutors' office (table 15). Not

shown in the table, of the offices

placing prosecutors who handled

community-related activities in outside

locations, 47% reported prosecutors

located in the police department and

47% in a community-based office. The

types of offenses handled most often

by prosecutors assigned to community

related activities were property crime

(75%), drug-related crime (74%),

violent crime (63%), and juvenile crime

(59%). Half (51%) of the large district

offices that assigned prosecutors to

community related activities indicated

that these prosecutors carried a full

caseload.

 

 

Methodology

Respondent selection

 

The 2001 National Survey of Prosecutors (NSP) was a census of 2,341 chief

prosecutors in the United States that

handled felony cases in State courts of

general jurisdiction. In 2001 there

were 2,341 prosecutorial districts in the

Nation, each with one chief prosecutor.

The Prosecutor Coordinator Office in

each State was contacted and asked to

provide the names and addresses of all

chief prosecutors in their State and the

counties for which these chief prosecutors served. 

The 114 prosecutors' offices that

served a district with a population of at

least 500,000 or more residents are the

basis of this first report from the 2001

NSP.

Data collection

The data collection for the 2001 NSP

was conducted by the National Opinion

Research Center (NORC) through a

mailed questionnaire consisting of 35

questions on such topics as staffing,

funding, special categories of felony

prosecutions, caseload, juvenile

matters, work-related threats or

assaults, DNA evidence, and community related activities. The 2001 NSP

questionnaire is available at the BJS

website <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

/bjs/pub/pdf/nsp01.pdf>. 

In May 2001 NORC mailed the 2001

NSP questionnaire to the 114 prosecutors' offices that served districts with a 

population of 500,000 or more. The

remaining 2228 prosecutors' offices

were sent questionnaires in June 2001.

After the initial mailings, NORC

engaged in an extensive follow-up to

obtain a returned survey from each of

the prosecutors' offices. The follow-up

process involved phone calls, e-mail

communication, re-mailing questionnaires, and sending follow-up letters.

Staff of the National District Attorneys

Associations as well as the Prosecutor

Coordinator Office in each State

assisted NORC in providing follow-up.

NORC conducted additional telephone,

fax, and e-mail follow-up on completed

surveys to obtain responses to

unanswered items and to clarify

responses to other items.

 

Survey response

The response rate for the 114 prosecutors' offices serving a district of

500,000 or more residents was 100%. 

Data imputations

NORC used the simple hot deck

method, in which a value was copied

from a donor case having similar 

values or related variables, to impute

 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001 9

Note: Data on location of prosecutors were available for 80 of the 81 prosecutors’ offices 

in large districts assigning prosecutors to handle community-related activities. Data on violent

crime, property crime, drug-related crime, public-order crime, juvenile crime, and nuisance

complaints were available for 76 of the 81 prosecutors’ offices in large districts assigning prosecutors to handle community-related activities. Data on full or reduced caseload for prosecutors

were available for 80 of the 81 prosecutors’ offices in large districts assigning prosecutors 

to handle community-related activities.

None had a caseload 18.8 21.4 17.3

11.3 0 17.3

Some had a full caseload, 

others a reduced caseload

All had a reduced caseload 18.8 10.7 23.1

All had a full caseload 51.3% 67.9% 42.3%

Caseload

Nuisance complaints 53.9 50.0 56.0

Juvenile crime 59.2 69.2 54.0

Public order crime 53.9 38.5 62.0

Drug-related crime 73.7 65.4 78.0

Property crime 75.0 69.2 78.0

Violent crime 63.2% 61.5% 64.0%

Types of offenses handled

Outside central office 55.0 50.0 57.7

Inside central office 45.0% 50.0% 42.3%

Location

500,000 

to 999,999

1,000,000 

or more

All offices in

large districts

Prosecutors handling 

community-related activities

Offices serving a 

population of —

Percent of prosecutors' offices in large

districts with prosecutors assigned to handle

community-related activities

Table 15. Location, types of offenses handled, and caseload for prosecutors

assigned to community-related activities in prosecutors’ offices in large

districts, 2001
the data for the number of felony cases

closed for 8 offices and for the number

of juveniles proceeded against in criminal court for 4 offices. Specifically,

NORC used prosecutorial district size

to sort the 114 completed cases 

(prosecutor office surveys) in descending order. A missing value for felony

cases closed was imputed as the value

of felony cases closed on the case that

immediately proceeded the case with

missing data. Missing values for the

number of juveniles proceeded against

in criminal court were imputed in the

same way. 

10 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001

• Between 1994 and 2001 the number

of total staff in prosecutors' offices

serving 1 million or more residents

increased 13%. In terms of specific

staff members, the number of assistant prosecutors increased 14%, and

the number of victim advocates grew

53%. 

• The median number of total staff in

these offices increased from 370 in

1994 to 456 in 2001, an increase 

of 23%.

• When 1994 budget amounts are

adjusted for inflation, prosecutors'

offices serving districts of 1 million 

or more had combined total budgets 

of over $1.1 billion for prosecutorial

functions. In 2001 these offices had

combined total budgets of over $1.9

billion, an increase of 73%.

• Between 1994 and 2001, the median

office budget for these offices, when

adjusted for inflation, increased from

$26 million to $32 million, an increase

of 22%.

• In 1994, 68% of prosecutors' offices

serving a district of 1 million or more

reported that an assistant prosecutor

was threatened or assaulted

compared to 78% in 2001. Similarly,

the percentage of offices reporting

a threat or assault on the chief 

prosecutor grew from 45% to 56%.

• Between 1994 and 2001 the 

percentage of offices serving a 

district of 1 million or more that

reported jurisdiction over traffic 

violations dropped from 69% to 53%.

Note: From 1994 to 1996, Rhode Island dropped from the list of the prosecutors’ offices serving 1 million 

or more and prosecutors offices in Clark County, NV, and Franklin County, OH, were included. 

From 1996 to 2001, St. Louis County, MO, dropped from the list of prosecutors’ offices serving 1 million 

or more and the 15th Judicial Circuit, FL, was included. Overall, data for staffing were available for 32 offices 

in 1994 and 34 offices in 1996 and 2001. Data for total budget were available for 32 offices in 1994 

and 34 offices in 1996 and 2001. Data for total felony cases closed were available for 26 offices in 1994 

and 1996 and 34 offices (estimated for 1 office) in 2001. Data on DNA evidence were available 

for 32 offices in 1994 and 2001 and for 33 offices in 1996. Data on threats or assaults were available 

for 31 offices in 1994, 33 offices in 1996, and 32 offices in 2001. Data on types of cases handled were 

available for 32 offices in 1994 and 34 offices in 1996 and 2001.

a

Total population served for 1994 uses 1992 estimates, the 1996 population uses 1996 estimates, 

and the 2001 population uses 1999 estimates.

b

Includes supervisory attorneys who litigate cases.

c

Staff members refer to the chief prosecutor, assistant prosecutors, and staff investigators. 

Jurisdiction over civil lawsuits 37.5 47.1 41.2

Jurisdiction over child support enforcement 59.4 61.8 41.2

Jurisdiction over traffic violations 68.8% 61.8% 52.9%

Staff investigator threatened or assaulted 41.9 24.2 31.3

Assistant prosecutor threatened or assaulted 67.7 72.7 78.1

Chief prosecutor threatened or assaulted 45.2 51.5 56.3

Threats or assaults received by staff membersc

 77.4% 78.8% 81.3%

Using DNA evidence in felony trials 96.9% 100.0% 100.0%

Percent of offices — 

Total number of felony cases closed 427,563 438,047 498,619

Median budget per office (in 2001 dollars) $26,359,651 $28,865,081 $32,114,944

Total budget (in 2001 dollars) $1,101,004,626 $1,351,251,104 $1,910,000,000

Median number of staff per office 370 414 456

Number of support staff 7,466 7,131 8,413

Number of staff investigators 1,866 1,844 2,127

Number of victim advocates 454 491 694

Number of assistant prosecutors 7,288 7,378 8,324 b

Total staff 20,539 21,084 23,191

Total population served 63,096,671 65,811,198 67,888,444 a

Total number of prosecutors' offices 33 34 34

1994 1996 2001

Prosecutors' offices serving districts with population of 1 million or more

Prosecutors' offices serving districts with a population of 1 million or more, 1994, 1996, and 2001 
 State Court Prosecutors in Large Districts, 2001 11

Note: Population estimates were taken from the Bureau of the Census website

<http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/co_99_1.html>.

*The prosecutor's office is associated with the Birmingham Division of the Alabama 

10th Judicial Circuit. The 2000 preliminary population estimate was obtained from 

the Jefferson County, Alabama Board of Registrars.

MD Prince George's County 781,781 NJ Camden County 503,093

FL 20th Judicial Circuit 782,719 CO 1st Judicial District 513,696

MI Macomb County 792,082 District of Columbia 519,000

AZ Pima County 803,618 MA Bristol District 520,258

IN 19th Judicial Circuit 810,946 AL 10th Judicial Circuit* 521,026*

FL 18th Judicial Circuit 827,755 CO 4th Judicial District 521,222

OH Hamilton County 840,443 NM 2nd Judicial District 523,472

UT Salt Lake County 850,243 TN 20th Judicial District 530,050

MD Montgomery County 852,174 TX Hidalgo County 534,907

NJ Bergen County 857,052 OH Summit County 537,856

HI 1st Judicial Circuit 864,571 PA Delaware County 541,502

TN 30th Judicial District 873,000 GA Gwinnett Judicial Circuit 545,632

IL DuPage County 892,547 OK 14th Judicial District 548,296

NY Westchester County 905,572 MI Kent County 550,388

WI Milwaukee County 906,248 NJ Hudson County 552,819

NY Erie County 925,957 FL 10th Judicial Circuit 553,159

CA Contra Costa County 933,141 CA San Joaquin County 563,183

FL 4th Judicial Circuit 936,647 OH Montgomery County 565,866

FL 13th Judicial Circuit 940,484 FL 12th Judicial Circuit 574,713

FL 9th Judicial Circuit 967,802 GA Cobb Judicial Circuit 583,541

VA Fairfax County 976,358 NC Prosectorial District 10 586,940

RI Entire State 990,819 PA Bucks County 594,047

MO St. Louis County 996,181 WA Snohomish County 596,598

OH Franklin County 1,027,821 GA Stone Judicial Circuit 596,853

FL 15th Judicial Circuit 1,049,420 NJ Monmouth County 611,444

MN Hennepin County 1,064,419 FL 1st Judicial Circuit 611,557

MI Oakland County 1,179,978 IL Lake County 617,975

CA Sacramento County 1,184,586 AK Entire State 619,500

NY Bronx County 1,194,099 CT Hartford Judicial District 630,324

FL 6th Judicial Circuit 1,209,203 MD Baltimore City 632,681

NV Clark County 1,217,155 OR Multnomah County 633,224

PA Allegheny County 1,256,806 OK 7th Judicial District 636,539

NY Nassau County 1,305,057 MA Suffolk District 641,695

OH Cuyahoga County 1,371,717 CA Kern County 642,495

TX Bexar County 1,372,867 MA Norfolk District 643,580

TX Tarrant County 1,382,442 NC Prosectorial District 26 648,400

NY Suffolk County 1,383,847 MO Jackson County 654,484

CA Alameda County 1,415,582 CO 18th Judicial District 664,378

PA Philadelphia County 1,417,601 FL 7th Judicial Circuit 664,611

MA Middlesex District 1,426,606 KY 30th Judicial Circuit 672,900

CA Riverside County 1,530,653 WA Pierce County 688,807

FL 17th Judicial Circuit 1,535,468 CA San Mateo County 702,102

NY New York County 1,551,844 MA Essex District 704,407

CA Santa Clara County 1,647,419 TX El Paso County 708,164

WA King County 1,664,846 NY Monroe County 712,419

CA San Bernardino County 1,669,934 NJ Middlesex County 717,949

NY Queens County 2,000,642 MD Baltimore County 723,914

TX Dallas County 2,062,100 PA Montgomery County 724,087

MI Wayne County 2,106,495 TX Travis County 727,022

FL 11th Judicial Circuit 2,175,634 MA Worcester District 738,629

NY Kings County 2,268,297 FL 5th Judicial Circuit 743,134

CA Orange County 2,760,948 GA Atlanta Judicial Circuit 744,827

CA San Diego County 2,820,844 CA Ventura County 745,063

AZ Maricopa County 2,861,395 CA San Francisco County 746,777

TX Harris County 3,250,404 NJ Essex County 747,355

IL Cook County 5,192,326 DE Entire State 753,538

CA Los Angeles County 9,329,989 CA Fresno County 763,069

1999 

Prosecutorial district population

1999

Prosecutorial district population

Appendix. Prosecutorial districts with 1999 population of 500,000 or more The Bureau of Justice Statistics is

the statistical agency of the U.S.

Department of Justice. Lawrence 

A. Greenfeld is the acting director.

Carol J. DeFrances, Ph.D. wrote this

report. At BJS, Sidra L. Gifford

provided statistical review. David

Carlis, Keonna Feaster, and Dorothea Proctor assisted in compiling the

list of 2,341 chief prosecutors;

Keonna Feaster also assisted in

data collection. 

Data collection was performed by

the National Opinion Research

Center (NORC); Natalie Suter was

the project director and Annmarie

Rosenlund, the assistant project

director. At NORC, other project

staff included Haider Baig, Angeline

Bregianes, Lashanda Carter, Valarie

Cook, Angela Hermann, Robert

Johnson, Ellen Kaplowitz, Adam

Levine, Gloria Rauens, Joanna

Small, Victoria Sudler, and Michael

Yang. 

Paula Wulff of the National District

Attorneys Association as well as 

the Prosecutor Coordinator Office 

in each State assisted with data

collection. Elaine Nugent from the

American Prosecutors Research

Institute, James Polley IV from the

National District Attorneys Association, and Paula Wulff reviewed the

report. 

December 2001, NCJ 191206