Coping With Limited Prosecutorial Resources: An Assessment of the Case Processing and Community Impact From the Perspective of Prosecutors and Staff in a Southeastern County

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231163070
• Author: Christi Metcalfe,Joseph B. Kuhns
• Date: 01 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231163070

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(4) 337 –360

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034231163070

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Coping With Limited

Prosecutorial Resources:

An Assessment of the Case

Processing and Community

Impact From the Perspective

of Prosecutors and Staff in a

Southeastern County

Christi Metcalfe1 and Joseph B. Kuhns2

Abstract

Counties across the country are experiencing population growth with associated crime

increases while prosecutor offices remain under-resourced. Resource constraints

have implications for case processing and community relations. This study offers a

descriptive assessment of prosecutor and staff perceptions on resource challenges,

using the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office in North Carolina as a

case study—a county where staffing and funding has stagnated over the past decade.

Employing official data, interviews, and surveys, we considered how prosecutorial

resources in Mecklenburg County compared with similar counties within the state,

region, and country, as well as explored perceptions of resource constraints and

the impact on office effectiveness and the community. Results suggested that

Mecklenburg County did not compare favorably with similar counties in the region

and nation, suffered more broadly from criminal justice funding challenges, and faced

staffing shortages and turnover that were perceived as affecting case dispositions,

office morale, and community trust.

Keywords

prosecution, resources, funding, case processing

1University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

2University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christi Metcalfe, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 1305

Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Email: cmetcalf@mailbox.sc.edu

1163070CJPXXX10.1177/08874034231163070Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMetcalfe and Kuhns

research-article2023

338 Criminal Justice Policy Review 34(4)

Prosecutors assume a tremendous amount of responsibility within the criminal justice

system. In their efforts to resolve community crime problems, they are often seen as

policymakers (Pollitz Worden, 1990), and as such, are expected to be responsive to

community values in their decision-making (Cole, 1970). For example, prosecutor

offices may adopt more restrictive policies around case processing methods as a means

of addressing higher crime rates (Pollitz Worden, 1990). More recently, communities

throughout the country have called upon prosecutorial offices to adopt more progres-

sive approaches to prosecution that include fairness, diversion, reducing disparities,

improving community engagement, and using data to increase public safety

(Kutateladze et al., 2018; Meldrum et al., 2021; Richardson & Kutateladze, 2021).

Even with such large expectations placed on prosecutorial offices in terms of commu-

nity needs and safety, many state offices remain underfunded, under-resourced, and

under-staffed (Biener, 2021; Bourgeois et al., 2019; Lawrence et al., 2019).

This lack of resources is coupled with several additional issues faced by prose-

cutorial offices, which have been brought to the forefront in recent reviews of office

practices. First, there is a lack of a national standard for determining the appropriate

allocation of prosecutor resources (Biener, 2021; Bourgeois et al., 2019), which has

resulted in agencies adopting different approaches in determining the appropriate

ratio (Lawrence et al., 2019) and facilitated disparities in allocation across states.

Second, research has pointed to policy changes at the state level, as well as broader

use of forensic evidence and body-worn cameras, which increase the amount of

time that needs to be invested in each criminal case, as well as investigative needs

(Biener, 2021; Bourgeois et al., 2019; Lawrence et al., 2019; Nugent & Miller,

2002). Third, some have argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has further compli-

cated these problems by contributing to substantial case backlogs (Biener, 2021). A

concern, then, is the ability of prosecutor offices to keep pace with crime increases,

particularly in cities and counties where populations are continuing to grow at sub-

stantial rates. The Mecklenburg District Attorney’s Office (MCDAO) in North

Carolina, which is the geographic focus in the current study, is no exception to

these problems and challenges.

The broader Mecklenburg County, which is served by the District Attorney’s Office,

has a population that is growing at a substantial pace, up about 18.5% since 2010 (World

Population Review, 2020). The population of the largest city in the county, Charlotte, has

also risen considerably; it is currently the third fastest-growing major U.S. city. If this

growth continues on the current trajectory, Charlotte’s population may surge by as much

as 47% from 2010 to 2030, increasing from 1.87 million to about 2.74 million over 20

years (World Population Review, 2020). With this growth comes the challenges associ-

ated with maximizing public safety while still ensuring efficiency and equal treatment in

prosecutorial practices. While many factors can affect these practices, available resources

present a challenge. Staffing resources in the MCDAO have remained essentially flat

and unchanged between 2011 and 2021 (internal data provided by the MCDAO, 2022).

District Attorney Office staffing shortages often occur at the state level, where police and

corrections spending tend to stagnate over time, and where North Carolina devotes fewer

resources than many other states (Urban Institute, 2022). Also, a comparison of salaries

in the office to the last census of state prosecutors’ offices conducted by the Bureau of