Overview
The state Legislature began appropriating funding for the retention of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) in fiscal year 2012 and provided over $2.7 million through fiscal year 2017 to the Massachusetts District Attorney Association (MDAA) to allow District Attorney’s Offices to increase the compensation they provided to more experienced ADAs to improve the retention rate for these individuals. Our analysis of staff turnover rates in each District Attorney’s Office found that these additional funds appeared to be a factor in improving the retention rates of these attorneys. For example, as shown in the chart below, in fiscal year 2011, the year before retention funding began, the average turnover rate for all offices combined was 13.5% among experienced ADAs. After the ADA Retention Fund initiative began in fiscal year 2012, the average turnover rate among experienced ADAs declined to 8.1%, and by the end of fiscal year 2017, this average rate had decreased to 5.4%. During this seven-year period, the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office had the highest average turnover rate, at 13%, while the Worcester District Attorney’s Office had the lowest average turnover rate, at 5.8%.
While this funding appears to have had a positive impact in addressing the retention problem, we identified a number of factors that may cause any positive impact from this strategy for reducing ADA turnover to be temporary.
First, the Legislature is not required to appropriate additional funding for the ADA Retention Fund every year, and therefore the District Attorney’s Offices have to distribute this additional funding in the form of one-time bonuses instead of permanent salary increases. Although the MDAA, in conjunction with the District Attorneys, has worked with the Legislature to improve retention rates, the current funding mechanism does not provide a long-term solution to the problem of making ADAs’ compensation competitive. Not ensuring that ADAs’ compensation is competitive can result in excessive turnover, causing logistical problems in terms of prosecuting cases and a potential reduction in the quality of services. In fact, according to the testimony of Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley to the Commission on Criminal Justice Attorney Compensation on March 27, 2014,
My office is a revolving door of prosecutors. We expend scarce resources in this constant cycle of recruitment, hiring, and training, and once prosecutors become experienced and really good at their jobs they are forced to leave the job they truly love. This is not just financially wasteful and inefficient but clearly detrimental to the best interests of justice.
In response to our questionnaire concerning the reasons that the more experienced ADAs leave District Attorney’s Offices, several District Attorneys indicated that the primary reason for resignations was the opportunity to earn a much higher salary in a new job. They noted that several ADAs had left to pursue positions in other state agencies, typically resulting in a significant pay increase.
During our audit, we used data analytics to evaluate information about ADAs with three or more years of experience who had left District Attorney’s Offices during the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. We found that during that time, of the 152 ADAs who left, 42 (28%) went to another state agency and received, on average, a 20% increase in compensation.
Second, District Attorneys can distribute the retention funds in any manner they choose, which could result in some ADAs getting larger annual bonuses than others; this, in and of itself, could have a negative impact on morale and actually cause turnover rather than reduce it.
Finally, according to the District Attorneys with whom we spoke, while compensation appears to be the primary reason ADAs leave, other reasons that are not addressed by the retention funding—such as high caseloads—are causing some ADAs to depart.
In the Office of the State Auditor’s opinion, MDAA and the District Attorney’s Offices should continue to work with the Legislature and develop a more comprehensive long-term strategy for minimizing, to the extent possible, the turnover of experienced ADAs and obtain the funding necessary to implement this strategy.
In response to this issue, the president of MDAA provided the following comments:
On behalf of the MDAA’s members, I would like to thank the auditors for the attention paid to the issue of ADA salaries and the importance of retaining experienced attorneys. The Audit confirms the long held belief that the District Attorneys’ Offices are losing people to other better paying state agencies because we cannot pay an equivalent salary. The current ADA starting salary is $46,000.00, up from a statutory minimum of $37,500.00 only a few years ago, due in large part to the support of the Governor and the Legislature. The District Attorneys are still actively pursuing additional funds to pay our ADAs a starting salary equivalent to a [National Association of Government Employees] Counsel I position, which currently is $60,096.00. Your audit suggests the ADA Salary Reserve, when funded, is a very positive step towards a permanent solution to raise salaries. The District Attorneys as a group would welcome direct appropriation and increases to our individual budgets and line items to achieve the goals of increased salary and retention, but like all members of state government, we are bound to follow the policy and process approved by the Governor and the Legislature.
| Date published: | April 24, 2018 |
|---|