Custom Code/Script Container !Keep On Top!
Our office is committed to transparency and accountability. We created this Data Dashboard to provide information about our office and our work to the community we serve. This dashboard is the result of the Prosecutorial Performance Indicators project, a groundbreaking effort by select prosecutors and researchers across the country to redefine prosecutorial success for the 21st Century.
Capacity
& Efficiency
Community Safety
& Well-Being
Fairness
& Justice
Objective:
To ensure the optimization of caseload distributions, staff diversity and retention, and data and clerical support.
| Leadership and Line Prosecutor Diversity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Percent of staff in leadership positions who are racial and ethnic minorities and/or females (b) Percent of line prosecutors who are racial and ethnic minorities and/or females |
| Data elements | 1. Prosecutor gender 2. Prosecutor race/ethnicity 3. Prosecutor position (leadership role, line prosecutor) 4. List of prosecutors at the start of current year |
| Frequency | Annually |
| Desired direction | Increase in leadership and line prosecutor diversity |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors’ offices increasingly serve diverse communities. Office leadership and line prosecutors should reflect this diversity in order to better represent local residents and understand their problems, needs, and priorities. |
Objective:
To enhance community safety through prosecutors’ focus on violent crimes, shootings, gangs, and repeat offenders.
Data Story:
Upon taking office, State Attorney Pryor followed through on his promise to prioritize crimes that negatively impact public safety. A major part of that was to shift more of the office’s limited resources to prioritize vigorously prosecuting violent felonies and expanding the office’s Homicide Unit to handle a spike in that unit’s caseload. There was a corresponding shift against prosecuting adults for stand-alone misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges.
This decision has helped to reduce the backlog of cases in the court system and focused resources on prosecuting defendants accused of violent felonies instead of misdemeanors, with no evidence that public safety is being negatively impacted in any way.
| Violent Crime Prevention | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Number of violent crimes referred for prosecution (Includes arrest and non-arrest cases presented to SAO for prosecution) |
| Data elements | 1. Referral offense type 2. Date of case referral |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in number of violent crimes |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Public safety should remain a prosecutorial priority. Through the use of community prosecution strategies, selective incarceration, alternative sanctions, and rehabilitation and treatment for crimes that do not threaten public safety, the prosecutor’s office plays a critical role in working to prevent violent crime. |
| Treating Serious Crime the Same Across Neighborhoods | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of felony cases rejected or dismissed involving defendants from median household income ZIP codes in: (a) top 20% (b) bottom 20% |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Case disposition type 3. Offense ZIP code 4. Crime rate of each ZIP code in jurisdiction 5. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in difference between percent rejected/dismissed in high and low crime ZIP codes |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutorial efforts should do everything possible to ensure safety and justice should be distributed equally among all communities. |
Objective:
To reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal system, whether they stem from victim or defendant identities.
| Case Filing Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of misdemeanor drug cases that were filed, broken down by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Referral offense type 2. Referral offense severity 3. Defendant race/ethnicity 4. Case filing decision 5. Date of case filing decision |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Racial/ethnic disparities in case filing decisions can adversely affect subsequent outcomes for minority defendants. Case filing is a crucial discretionary decision point at which prosecutors can reduce or worsen disparities introduced at arrest. Misdemeanor drug case processing is especially prone to racial disparities |
| Diversion Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases that were diverted, broken down by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Defendant race/ethnicity 3. Case disposition type 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors are encouraged to investigate whether a defendant qualifies for a diversion program based upon the charge(s) pending, the facts of the case, victim approval, and other entry requirements. |
| Charging and Plea Offer Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of pleas that involved a plea to a lesser charge broken down by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Case disposition type 2. Filing offense severity 3. Disposition offense severity 4. Filing charge count 5. Disposition charge count 6. Defendant race/ethnicity 7. Date of disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | 95% of cases are disposed of via plea negotiations conducted between prosecutors and defense attorneys, and approved and imposed by a judge. Many resolutions are based upon the facts of a case and the weight of the evidence. Equity in plea bargaining ensures that the vast majority of cases receive fair outcomes. |
| Incarceration Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percentage of cases that received a Jail (1yr or <) or Prison (> 1yr) sentence, separated for felonies and misdemeanors. Broken down by sentence, case type and then by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Type of sentence issued 2. Disposition offense severity 3. Defendant race/ethnicity 4. Date of disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Racial/ethnic differences in prosecutorial decision-making can culminate in disparities in incarceration sentences. Prosecutors are able to maximize fairness in sentencing by weighing all aspects inclusive of the facts of a case and public safety when charging and negotiating a case regardless of a defendants racial or ethnic background. |
Objective:
To optimize government resources by making timely and strategic decisions about which cases to dismiss or divert versus to prosecute and seek incarceration.
| Ability to Identify Dismissible Cases at Filing | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Percent of cases rejected at filing, separately by felonies and misdemeanors (b) Percent of cases dismissed after filing, separately by felonies and misdemeanors |
| Data elements | 1. Referral offense severity 2. Case filing decision 3. Case disposition type 4. Date of filing decision 5. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of cases rejected relative to percent of cases dismissed after filing |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Identifying dismissible cases at the case screening stage reduces negative consequences for defendants, victims, and the criminal justice system |
| Prioritizing Cases with the Greatest Public Safety Returns | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Percent of cases filed that had a felony top charge (b) Percent of all felony filings that had 1st/ 2nd/ 3rd degree top charge |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Case filing decision 3. Date of case filing |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent felony or serious filings |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | High volumes of misdemeanor filings can overwhelm prosecutor’s offices and take away time and resources from more serious cases that pose greater public safety risks. |
| Reserving Incarceration for Serious Offenders | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of all incarceration sentences that were issued for 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree and violation of probation felonies. |
| Data elements | 1. Sentence type of prison (i.e. Jail under 1 year, Prison over one year) 2. Disposition offense severity 3. Sentence date |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of incarceration sentences for serious offenders |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Incarceration should be reserved for serious offenders. A lower percentage of incarceration sentences for serious offenders indicates an overreliance on incarceration for non-serious offenders. |
| Accurate Diversion Decisions and Placements | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of all diversions that were successful completed |
| Data elements | 1. Program Category (Drug Court Programs, Non-Drug Court Diversion Programs) 2. Reason for diversion completion (successful or terminated) 3. Date of completion |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of completions |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | The ability for defendants to successfully complete diversion programs depends on a majority of stakeholders in the criminal justice system. An inability for defendants to successfully programs they enter results in wasted resources and does little to reduce crime rates. Tracking diversion success rates is vital so that any barriers to successfully completing a diversion program can be identified and addressed. |
Objective:
To give insight into the rational and methodology behind the data presented
Timeliness of Case Processing:
It is always a priority for the Broward State Attorney’s Office to ensure that cases are resolved as quickly as possible, without sacrificing the rights of victims or defendants. Needless delays are more than an inconvenience to the victims, witnesses, and others, they can negatively affect case outcomes. Continuances are the main cause of cases being delayed. This chart shows why cases take longer than the American Bar Association’s guidelines. The chart also shows continuances by requesting party:
As illustrated in the above chart, more than 90% of continuances are requested by the defense. Defense attorneys have a responsibility to do everything, within the law and legal ethics, to defend their clients and the criminal justice system only works when every defendant gets a vigorous defense. Justice is better served when all parties follow the American Bar Association’s national guidelines. Defendants’ rights should never be violated, but victims have rights too and all stakeholders should work to ensure that justice isn’t needlessly delayed for anyone.
Addressing Serious Crimes:
Upon taking office, State Attorney Pryor followed through on his promise to prioritize crimes that negatively impact public safety. A major part of that was to shift more of the office’s limited resources to prioritize vigorously prosecuting violent felonies and expanding the office’s Homicide Unit to handle a spike in that unit’s caseload. There was a corresponding shift against prosecuting adults for stand-alone misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges.
This decision has helped to reduce the backlog of cases in the court system and focused resources on prosecuting defendants accused of violent felonies instead of misdemeanors, with no evidence that public safety is being negatively impacted in any way.
Addressing Sexual Assault Victimization:
Sexual assaults are some of the most heinous crimes and are among the most traumatic for survivors. It is understandable that some survivors of sexual assault do not want to relive their trauma by pursuing charges against those accused of assaulting them. Prioritizing partnerships with resources that include victim advocates and the Nancy J. Cotterman Sexual Assault Treatment Center creates better relationships between prosecutors and victims. This helps a victim’s brave navigation through a criminal case.
Minimizing Unnecessary Punitiveness:
Objective:
To decrease unnecessary pretrial detention, excessive charges, and unwarranted incarceration without compromising public safety.
| Avoiding Unnecessary Felony Charges at Filing | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percentage of cases with a felony referral that involved only misdemeanor charges filed |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Referral offense severity 3. Filing offense severity 4. Date of filing |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of felony referrals filed as misdemeanors |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors have a responsibility to screen cases thoroughly and ensure charging accuracy. Overcharging and undercharging should be avoided as the main charging criteria should be the law, the facts of the case, and the community’s public safety goals. |
| Diversion as an Alternative to Conviction | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Number of cases that were diverted (b) Number of cases resulting in jail or prison |
| Data elements | 1. Case disposition type 2. Sentence type 3. Disposition offense severity 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in number of diversions relative to number of jail/prison sentences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors should prioritize diversion over incarceration when appropriate and when doing so cannot foreseeably impact public safety in a negative way. Diversion is cost-efficient, reduces prosecutorial caseloads, avoids unnecessary criminal records, and targets underlying causes of crime to reduce recidivism. |
| Disproportionate Punishment for the Poor | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases that resulted in an incarceration sentence among defendants represented by: (a) Public Defender and Regional Conflict Counsel (b) Private Attorney |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Sentence type 3. Defense counsel type 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in incarceration and decrease in differences among counsel types/income groups |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Financial affidavits provided by the courts are utilized to ensure fairness throughout the judicial process and result in the appointment or retainment of an attorney. Bonds are imposed by a judge after assessing the facts of a case at a defendant’s First Appearance or at a bond hearing held in the future. Prosecutors ensure fairness when suggesting a bond by way of presenting to a judge the circumstances existing in a case such as the evidence, a defendant’s criminal history, and any danger to the community. |
| Disproportionate Punishment for the Poor | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases that resulted in an incarceration sentence among defendants represented by: (a) Public Defender and Regional Conflict Counsel (b) Private Attorney |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Sentence type 3. Defense counsel type 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in incarceration and decrease in differences among counsel types/income groups |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Financial affidavits provided by the courts are utilized to ensure fairness throughout the judicial process and result in the appointment or retainment of an attorney. Bonds are imposed by a judge after assessing the facts of a case at a defendant’s First Appearance or at a bond hearing held in the future. Prosecutors ensure fairness when suggesting a bond by way of presenting to a judge the circumstances existing in a case such as the evidence, a defendant’s criminal history, and any danger to the community. |
Objective:
To prevent case processing delays that cause hardship for defendants and victims, additional expenditures, and unnecessary backlogs in the court system.
Data Story:
It is always a priority for the Broward State Attorney’s Office to ensure that cases are resolved as quickly as possible, without sacrificing the rights of victims or defendants. Needless delays are more than an inconvenience to the victims, witnesses, and others, they can negatively affect case outcomes. Continuances are the main cause of cases being delayed. This chart shows why cases take longer than the American Bar Association’s guidelines. The chart also shows continuances by requesting party:
As illustrated in the above chart, more than 90% of continuances are requested by the defense. Defense attorneys have a responsibility to do everything, within the law and legal ethics, to defend their clients and the criminal justice system only works when every defendant gets a vigorous defense. Justice is better served when all parties follow the American Bar Association’s national guidelines. Defendants’ rights should never be violated, but victims have rights too and all stakeholders should work to ensure that justice isn’t needlessly delayed for anyone.
| Time to Felony Disposition | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Average number of days from filing to disposition for cases |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Date of case filing 3. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in number of days |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Lengthy court cases cause additional hardship for victims, witnesses, and defendants. It also requires unnecessary expenditures, and add to backlogs in the court system. |
| Conforming to ABA Disposition Time Standards | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases disposed of within the ABA time standard (felonies within 180 days and misdemeanors within 90 days) |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Date of case filing 3. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent disposed |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Dispositions should be reached in a timely manner. Prolonged case processing takes more criminal justice resources without improving public safety. It is also unnecessarily detrimental to victims, witnesses, defendants, the families of those parties to a case, and other stakeholders as well. |
| Dismissal Timeliness | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Median number of days from filing to dismissal, separately by felonies and misdemeanor |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Case disposition type 3. Date of case filing decision 4. Date of case dismissal |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in number of days |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Dismissals should occur as early in the case process as possible, if warranted. Circumstances within a case, inclusive of factors such as witness cooperation, are reasonably expected to affect the trajectory of a case. Unnecessarily delayed case dismissals result in wasted time and resources and do not serve the interests of witnesses, defendants, or victims. |
Objective:
To support crime victims with timely outreach, to ensure their voices are heard, and to prevent future victimization.
| Addressing Victimization of the Poor | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Violent victimization rate in bottom 20% of median household income ZIP codes |
| Data elements |
|
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in violent victimization rate |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Residents in low-income communities face the greatest risk of violent victimization. If victimization in low-income communities is declining, victimization in wealthier communities is likely following a similar trend |
Data Story:
Sexual assaults are some of the most heinous crimes and are among the most traumatic for survivors. It is understandable that some survivors of sexual assault do not want to relive their trauma by pursuing charges against those accused of assaulting them. Prioritizing partnerships with resources that include victim advocates and the Nancy J. Cotterman Sexual Assault Treatment Center creates better relationships between prosecutors and victims. This helps a victim’s brave navigation through a criminal case.
| Addressing Sexual Assault Victimization | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of all sexual assault referrals that resulted in conviction |
| Data elements |
|
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of convictions |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Through effective partnership with victims, collaboration with other agencies, and the use of sexual assault kits and other forensic evidence, prosecutors can secure convictions that would otherwise be challenging due to evidentiary difficulties. |
Objective:
To avoid prosecutorial errors and violations, promote law enforcement accountability, and ensure conviction integrity.
| Charging Integrity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of cases referred as felonies and disposed as misdemeanors |
| Data elements | 1. Filing Offense Severity 2. Disposition Offense Severity 3. Date of Disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in percent disposed as misdemeanors |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors have some discretion over filing criminal charges. Prosecutors should only charge what they intend to prove based upon the evidence presented by the police agency and the binding law. |
Capacity & Efficiency
Objective:
To ensure the optimization of caseload distributions, staff diversity and retention, and data and clerical support.
| Leadership and Line Prosecutor Diversity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Percent of staff in leadership positions who are racial and ethnic minorities and/or females (b) Percent of line prosecutors who are racial and ethnic minorities and/or females |
| Data elements | 1. Prosecutor gender 2. Prosecutor race/ethnicity 3. Prosecutor position (leadership role, line prosecutor) 4. List of prosecutors at the start of current year |
| Frequency | Annually |
| Desired direction | Increase in leadership and line prosecutor diversity |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors’ offices increasingly serve diverse communities. Office leadership and line prosecutors should reflect this diversity in order to better represent local residents and understand their problems, needs, and priorities. |
Objective:
To optimize government resources by making timely and strategic decisions about which cases to dismiss or divert versus to prosecute and seek incarceration.
| Ability to Identify Dismissible Cases at Filing | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Percent of cases rejected at filing, separately by felonies and misdemeanors (b) Percent of cases dismissed after filing, separately by felonies and misdemeanors |
| Data elements | 1. Referral offense severity 2. Case filing decision 3. Case disposition type 4. Date of filing decision 5. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of cases rejected relative to percent of cases dismissed after filing |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Identifying dismissible cases at the case screening stage reduces negative consequences for defendants, victims, and the criminal justice system |
| Prioritizing Cases with the Greatest Public Safety Returns | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Percent of cases filed that had a felony top charge (b) Percent of all felony filings that had 1st/ 2nd/ 3rd degree top charge |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Case filing decision 3. Date of case filing |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent felony or serious filings |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | High volumes of misdemeanor filings can overwhelm prosecutor’s offices and take away time and resources from more serious cases that pose greater public safety risks. |
| Reserving Incarceration for Serious Offenders | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of all incarceration sentences that were issued for 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree and violation of probation felonies. |
| Data elements | 1. Sentence type of prison (i.e. Jail under 1 year, Prison over one year) 2. Disposition offense severity 3. Sentence date |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of incarceration sentences for serious offenders |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Incarceration should be reserved for serious offenders. A lower percentage of incarceration sentences for serious offenders indicates an overreliance on incarceration for non-serious offenders. |
| Accurate Diversion Decisions and Placements | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of all diversions that were successful completed |
| Data elements | 1. Program Category (Drug Court Programs, Non-Drug Court Diversion Programs) 2. Reason for diversion completion (successful or terminated) 3. Date of completion |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of completions |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | The ability for defendants to successfully complete diversion programs depends on a majority of stakeholders in the criminal justice system. An inability for defendants to successfully programs they enter results in wasted resources and does little to reduce crime rates. Tracking diversion success rates is vital so that any barriers to successfully completing a diversion program can be identified and addressed. |
Objective:
To prevent case processing delays that cause hardship for defendants and victims, additional expenditures, and unnecessary backlogs in the court system.
Data Story:
It is always a priority for the Broward State Attorney’s Office to ensure that cases are resolved as quickly as possible, without sacrificing the rights of victims or defendants. Needless delays are more than an inconvenience to the victims, witnesses, and others, they can negatively affect case outcomes. Continuances are the main cause of cases being delayed. This chart shows why cases take longer than the American Bar Association’s guidelines. The chart also shows continuances by requesting party:
As illustrated in the above chart, more than 90% of continuances are requested by the defense. Defense attorneys have a responsibility to do everything, within the law and legal ethics, to defend their clients and the criminal justice system only works when every defendant gets a vigorous defense. Justice is better served when all parties follow the American Bar Association’s national guidelines. Defendants’ rights should never be violated, but victims have rights too and all stakeholders should work to ensure that justice isn’t needlessly delayed for anyone.
| Time to Felony Disposition | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Average number of days from filing to disposition for cases |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Date of case filing 3. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in number of days |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Lengthy court cases cause additional hardship for victims, witnesses, and defendants. It also requires unnecessary expenditures, and add to backlogs in the court system. |
| Conforming to ABA Disposition Time Standards | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases disposed of within the ABA time standard (felonies within 180 days and misdemeanors within 90 days) |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Date of case filing 3. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent disposed |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Dispositions should be reached in a timely manner. Prolonged case processing takes more criminal justice resources without improving public safety. It is also unnecessarily detrimental to victims, witnesses, defendants, the families of those parties to a case, and other stakeholders as well. |
| Dismissal Timeliness | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Median number of days from filing to dismissal, separately by felonies and misdemeanor |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Case disposition type 3. Date of case filing decision 4. Date of case dismissal |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in number of days |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Dismissals should occur as early in the case process as possible, if warranted. Circumstances within a case, inclusive of factors such as witness cooperation, are reasonably expected to affect the trajectory of a case. Unnecessarily delayed case dismissals result in wasted time and resources and do not serve the interests of witnesses, defendants, or victims. |
Community Safety & Well-Being
Objective:
To enhance community safety through prosecutors’ focus on violent crimes, shootings, gangs, and repeat offenders.
Data Story:
Upon taking office, State Attorney Pryor followed through on his promise to prioritize crimes that negatively impact public safety. A major part of that was to shift more of the office’s limited resources to prioritize vigorously prosecuting violent felonies and expanding the office’s Homicide Unit to handle a spike in that unit’s caseload. There was a corresponding shift against prosecuting adults for stand-alone misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges.
This decision has helped to reduce the backlog of cases in the court system and focused resources on prosecuting defendants accused of violent felonies instead of misdemeanors, with no evidence that public safety is being negatively impacted in any way.
| Violent Crime Prevention | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Number of violent crimes referred for prosecution (Includes arrest and non-arrest cases presented to SAO for prosecution) |
| Data elements | 1. Referral offense type 2. Date of case referral |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in number of violent crimes |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Public safety should remain a prosecutorial priority. Through the use of community prosecution strategies, selective incarceration, alternative sanctions, and rehabilitation and treatment for crimes that do not threaten public safety, the prosecutor’s office plays a critical role in working to prevent violent crime. |
| Treating Serious Crime the Same Across Neighborhoods | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of felony cases rejected or dismissed involving defendants from median household income ZIP codes in: (a) top 20% (b) bottom 20% |
| Data elements | 1. Filing offense severity 2. Case disposition type 3. Offense ZIP code 4. Crime rate of each ZIP code in jurisdiction 5. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in difference between percent rejected/dismissed in high and low crime ZIP codes |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutorial efforts should do everything possible to ensure safety and justice should be distributed equally among all communities. |
Objective:
To give insight into the rational and methodology behind the data presented
Timeliness of Case Processing:
It is always a priority for the Broward State Attorney’s Office to ensure that cases are resolved as quickly as possible, without sacrificing the rights of victims or defendants. Needless delays are more than an inconvenience to the victims, witnesses, and others, they can negatively affect case outcomes. Continuances are the main cause of cases being delayed. This chart shows why cases take longer than the American Bar Association’s guidelines. The chart also shows continuances by requesting party:
As illustrated in the above chart, more than 90% of continuances are requested by the defense. Defense attorneys have a responsibility to do everything, within the law and legal ethics, to defend their clients and the criminal justice system only works when every defendant gets a vigorous defense. Justice is better served when all parties follow the American Bar Association’s national guidelines. Defendants’ rights should never be violated, but victims have rights too and all stakeholders should work to ensure that justice isn’t needlessly delayed for anyone.
Addressing Serious Crimes:
Upon taking office, State Attorney Pryor followed through on his promise to prioritize crimes that negatively impact public safety. A major part of that was to shift more of the office’s limited resources to prioritize vigorously prosecuting violent felonies and expanding the office’s Homicide Unit to handle a spike in that unit’s caseload. There was a corresponding shift against prosecuting adults for stand-alone misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges.
This decision has helped to reduce the backlog of cases in the court system and focused resources on prosecuting defendants accused of violent felonies instead of misdemeanors, with no evidence that public safety is being negatively impacted in any way.
Addressing Sexual Assault Victimization:
Sexual assaults are some of the most heinous crimes and are among the most traumatic for survivors. It is understandable that some survivors of sexual assault do not want to relive their trauma by pursuing charges against those accused of assaulting them. Prioritizing partnerships with resources that include victim advocates and the Nancy J. Cotterman Sexual Assault Treatment Center creates better relationships between prosecutors and victims. This helps a victim’s brave navigation through a criminal case.
Minimizing Unnecessary Punitiveness:
Objective:
To support crime victims with timely outreach, to ensure their voices are heard, and to prevent future victimization.
| Addressing Victimization of the Poor | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Violent victimization rate in bottom 20% of median household income ZIP codes |
| Data elements |
|
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in violent victimization rate |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Residents in low-income communities face the greatest risk of violent victimization. If victimization in low-income communities is declining, victimization in wealthier communities is likely following a similar trend |
Data Story:
Sexual assaults are some of the most heinous crimes and are among the most traumatic for survivors. It is understandable that some survivors of sexual assault do not want to relive their trauma by pursuing charges against those accused of assaulting them. Prioritizing partnerships with resources that include victim advocates and the Nancy J. Cotterman Sexual Assault Treatment Center creates better relationships between prosecutors and victims. This helps a victim’s brave navigation through a criminal case.
| Addressing Sexual Assault Victimization | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of all sexual assault referrals that resulted in conviction |
| Data elements |
|
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of convictions |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Through effective partnership with victims, collaboration with other agencies, and the use of sexual assault kits and other forensic evidence, prosecutors can secure convictions that would otherwise be challenging due to evidentiary difficulties. |
Fairness & Justice
Objective:
To reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal system, whether they stem from victim or defendant identities.
| Case Filing Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of misdemeanor drug cases that were filed, broken down by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Referral offense type 2. Referral offense severity 3. Defendant race/ethnicity 4. Case filing decision 5. Date of case filing decision |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Racial/ethnic disparities in case filing decisions can adversely affect subsequent outcomes for minority defendants. Case filing is a crucial discretionary decision point at which prosecutors can reduce or worsen disparities introduced at arrest. Misdemeanor drug case processing is especially prone to racial disparities |
| Diversion Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases that were diverted, broken down by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Defendant race/ethnicity 3. Case disposition type 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors are encouraged to investigate whether a defendant qualifies for a diversion program based upon the charge(s) pending, the facts of the case, victim approval, and other entry requirements. |
| Charging and Plea Offer Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of pleas that involved a plea to a lesser charge broken down by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Case disposition type 2. Filing offense severity 3. Disposition offense severity 4. Filing charge count 5. Disposition charge count 6. Defendant race/ethnicity 7. Date of disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | 95% of cases are disposed of via plea negotiations conducted between prosecutors and defense attorneys, and approved and imposed by a judge. Many resolutions are based upon the facts of a case and the weight of the evidence. Equity in plea bargaining ensures that the vast majority of cases receive fair outcomes. |
| Incarceration Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percentage of cases that received a Jail (1yr or <) or Prison (> 1yr) sentence, separated for felonies and misdemeanors. Broken down by sentence, case type and then by defendant race: (a) Black (b) Hispanic (c) White |
| Data elements | 1. Type of sentence issued 2. Disposition offense severity 3. Defendant race/ethnicity 4. Date of disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in racial/ethnic differences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Racial/ethnic differences in prosecutorial decision-making can culminate in disparities in incarceration sentences. Prosecutors are able to maximize fairness in sentencing by weighing all aspects inclusive of the facts of a case and public safety when charging and negotiating a case regardless of a defendants racial or ethnic background. |
Objective:
To decrease unnecessary pretrial detention, excessive charges, and unwarranted incarceration without compromising public safety.
| Avoiding Unnecessary Felony Charges at Filing | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percentage of cases with a felony referral that involved only misdemeanor charges filed |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Referral offense severity 3. Filing offense severity 4. Date of filing |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in percent of felony referrals filed as misdemeanors |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors have a responsibility to screen cases thoroughly and ensure charging accuracy. Overcharging and undercharging should be avoided as the main charging criteria should be the law, the facts of the case, and the community’s public safety goals. |
| Diversion as an Alternative to Conviction | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | (a) Number of cases that were diverted (b) Number of cases resulting in jail or prison |
| Data elements | 1. Case disposition type 2. Sentence type 3. Disposition offense severity 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Increase in number of diversions relative to number of jail/prison sentences |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors should prioritize diversion over incarceration when appropriate and when doing so cannot foreseeably impact public safety in a negative way. Diversion is cost-efficient, reduces prosecutorial caseloads, avoids unnecessary criminal records, and targets underlying causes of crime to reduce recidivism. |
| Disproportionate Punishment for the Poor | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases that resulted in an incarceration sentence among defendants represented by: (a) Public Defender and Regional Conflict Counsel (b) Private Attorney |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Sentence type 3. Defense counsel type 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in incarceration and decrease in differences among counsel types/income groups |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Financial affidavits provided by the courts are utilized to ensure fairness throughout the judicial process and result in the appointment or retainment of an attorney. Bonds are imposed by a judge after assessing the facts of a case at a defendant’s First Appearance or at a bond hearing held in the future. Prosecutors ensure fairness when suggesting a bond by way of presenting to a judge the circumstances existing in a case such as the evidence, a defendant’s criminal history, and any danger to the community. |
| Disproportionate Punishment for the Poor | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of filed cases that resulted in an incarceration sentence among defendants represented by: (a) Public Defender and Regional Conflict Counsel (b) Private Attorney |
| Data elements | 1. Case filing decision 2. Sentence type 3. Defense counsel type 4. Date of case disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in incarceration and decrease in differences among counsel types/income groups |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Financial affidavits provided by the courts are utilized to ensure fairness throughout the judicial process and result in the appointment or retainment of an attorney. Bonds are imposed by a judge after assessing the facts of a case at a defendant’s First Appearance or at a bond hearing held in the future. Prosecutors ensure fairness when suggesting a bond by way of presenting to a judge the circumstances existing in a case such as the evidence, a defendant’s criminal history, and any danger to the community. |
Objective:
To avoid prosecutorial errors and violations, promote law enforcement accountability, and ensure conviction integrity.
| Charging Integrity | |
|---|---|
| How it’s measured | Percent of cases referred as felonies and disposed as misdemeanors |
| Data elements | 1. Filing Offense Severity 2. Disposition Offense Severity 3. Date of Disposition |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Desired direction | Decrease in percent disposed as misdemeanors |
| Rationale for measuring this indicator | Prosecutors have some discretion over filing criminal charges. Prosecutors should only charge what they intend to prove based upon the evidence presented by the police agency and the binding law. |