Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Advancing Prosecutorial Effectiveness and Fairness Report Series
September 2019

 1
1
2
3
5

Introduction
What the project is about
What the report is about
Foreword by John T. Chisholm
Study methodology
Part 1: Case Charging
 
Figure 1: Simple percentage of cases charged
 
Table 1: Likelihood of case charging
 
Table 1a: Felony likelihood of case charging
 
Table 1b: Misdemeanor likelihood of case charging
 
Figure 2: Likelihood of case charging

7
8
9
11
11
12

Part 2: Changes in Charge Severity from Arrest to Charging
 
Figure 3: Simple percentage of cases with charge changes at charging
 
Table 2: Likelihood of changes in charge severity from arrest to charging
 
Table 2a: Felony likelihood of changes in charge severity from arrest to charging
 
Table 2b: Misdemeanor likelihood of changes in charge severity from arrest to chargin 
 
Figure 4: Changes in Charge Severity

13
14
15
17
17
18

Part 3: Disposition Type
 
Figure 5: Simple percentage of cases resulting in each major disposition type
 
Table 3: Likelihood of case disposition
 
Table 3a: Felony likelihood of disposition
 
Table 3b: Misdemeanor likelihood of disposition
 
Figure 6: Likelihood of case disposition

19
20
21
25
25
26

Part 4: Changes in Charge Severity from Charging to Disposition
 
Figure 7: Simple percentage of cases with charge changes at disposition
 
Table 4: Likelihood of changes in charge severity from charging to disposition
 
Table 4a: Felony likelihood of changes in charge severity from charging to disposition
 
Table 4b: Misdemeanor likelihood of changes in charge severity from charging to dispositio 
 
Figure 8: Likelihood of charge reduction

27
28
29
31
31
32

Part 5: Sentencing
 
Figure 9: Simple percentage of sentence type
 
Table 5: Likelihood of sentence type
 
Table 5a: Felony likelihood of sentence type
 
Table 5b: Misdemeanor likelihood of sentence type
 
Figure 10: Likelihood of custodial sentence type

33
34
35
37
37
37

Appendices
Appendix A - Racial and ethnic disparity dashboards
Appendix B - Descriptive statistics
Appendix C - Most common person, weapons, property, and drug charges referred for charging

38
38
49
57

About the Authors

Back Cover

 Introduction
What The Project Is About
This project is a groundbreaking partnership between
prosecutors and researchers to promote more effective,
just, and transparent decision making in prosecution. It is a
bipartisan effort to be smart on crime, to think about new ways
to maximize public safety, to enhance fairness, and to create
a new system of accountability to the public. It involves four
forward-thinking prosecutors in Cook County, Il (Chicago),
Jacksonville, Milwaukee County, WI, and Tampa working
with researchers at Florida International University and
Loyola University Chicago to take a new look at prosecutorial
performance and decision making. This partnership is
supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation.

1

Improving prosecutorial performance and decision making
is impossible without data. Data takes center stage in the
project, because it tells prosecutors what problems are the
biggest threats to community well-being, and it points to ways
to tackle those problems. Data helps measure the overall
impact of prosecutors’ work, and it alerts them that a policy
or practice needs to be continued or changed. Unfortunately,
most prosecutors’ offices lack the ability to collect, analyze,
and apply data to these ends. Many offices do not record the
data they need. Others are missing the staff and knowledge
necessary to analyze their data. Still other offices—probably
most—do not have the ability and commitment to use data
to guide their decisions and reforms. This project focuses on
helping our partner offices and other interested jurisdictions
overcome these hurdles.
The project has four distinct objectives:

1

To expand offices’ data and analytical capacity by
assessing case management systems, making better
use of existing data, and exploring options for
capturing new information without creating additional
burdens for prosecutors.

2

To assist prosecutors with tracking their progress
toward greater efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness
using prosecutorial performance indicators at the
office and unit levels (as opposed to the individual
prosecutor level).

3

To identify possible racial and ethnic disparities at
various stages of case processing across offense
categories and to work with stakeholders to develop
specific solutions to reduce them.

4

To establish a practice of using data to measure
monthly or quarterly performance and engage with
their communities.

While the project targets performance in our four partner
jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated
from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution
nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices
in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in
prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically,
most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct
meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection,
performance measurement, and communication practices for
the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that
offices across the country can use to make their own internal
improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach
to prosecutorial office management that will meet every
office’s needs. Writing a prescription for a patient we have
not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model
that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local
partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics
for assessing their own impact.
The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge,
the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and
overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of
America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail
incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families,
communities, and society at large. These costs take their
greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color.
The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are
dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice
systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities.

 What The Report Is About
The fair and just treatment of racial and ethnic minorities at all stages of the criminal justice system
is of significant importance to communities of color, practitioners, and scholars alike. Central to
this discourse is a recognition of the discretionary power that prosecutors wield in shaping the
outcomes of criminal cases. This includes, among other things, the decision to file or drop a case,
amend the severity and number of charges, and dispose of criminal cases through plea bargaining.
This report focuses on the outcomes of prosecutorial decision making in Milwaukee County,
Wisconcin. Specifically, it assesses the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist across the
following five decision points in criminal case processing: (1) Case charging; (2) Charge changes
from arrest to charging; (3) Disposition type; (4) Charge changes from charging to disposition; and
(5) Sentencing.
We encourage the reader to interpret the results while recognizing that criminal case processing can
trigger disparate outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities for a number of different reasons. Some
of these reasons, such as defense attorney role and judicial discretion, are beyond the immediate
control of prosecutors. At the same time, our partners are keenly aware that prosecutors can and
should play a vital role in uncovering and addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal
justice system, and this report stems from that recognition.
The intent of this report is to prompt discussion and raise questions, rather than provide definitive
answers. We also want to stress that the findings presented throughout this report cannot be used
to support or refute possible racial and ethnic biases. Our methodology simply does not permit that.
Rather than serving as an end point, we view this report as a starting point from which to engage in
meaningful discussions concerning policies and procedures that can ameliorate racial and ethnic
disparities in case outcomes. Furthermore, given that prosecutorial decision making does not
operate in a vacuum, certain findings direct attention to ways district attorney’s offices, the defense
bar, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary can galvanize future reform efforts. Even more
importantly, continued efforts to engage with minority communities will be critical for increasing
public trust in and cooperation with the criminal justice system.
This report is part of a series of publications resulting from this partnership. The first report,
Prosecutorial Attitudes, Perspectives, and Priorities: Insights from the Inside, was released in
December, 2018. The second report, Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Hillsborough County,
Florida, was released in July, 2019. The final report in the series, focused on prosecutorial
performance indicators, will be released near the end of 2019.
We also welcome your questions. Our contact information is provided on the back cover.

2

 Foreword from
John Chisholm
District Attorney

The Milwaukee County
District Attorney’s Office
Milwaukee, WI

3

A Vision for Greater
Impartiality and Fairness
Over the last 12 years, I have made reducing racial and
ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system a primary
commitment of my office. And I recognized early on that
before we could devise strategies to address disparities,
we needed to use data to examine our own decisionmaking and to determine whether and where racially
disparate outcomes were occurring. Through partnerships
with several government agencies, non-profits,
foundations, and academics, I have been able to take an
objective look at these outcomes and to take decisive
steps to eliminate disparities when they were found.
This report represents the latest effort by my office to
analyze data on racial and ethnic disparities in case
outcomes. Partnering with academics at Loyola University
Chicago, we looked at roughly 60,000 felony and
misdemeanor cases handled by my office in 2017 and
2018 to compare outcomes for black, white, and Hispanic
defendants at charging, disposition, and sentencing.
The results show that some racial and ethnic disparities
continue to exist in our system. Although most of these
disparities are small, the results indicate that we have work
ahead of us to understand why these differences exist and
how we can effectively address them.

What We Learned
When examining all felony and misdemeanor cases
together, we find few differences across racial and ethnic
groups. After accounting for things like offense severity,
number of charges, or defendant criminal history, the

likelihood of charging, disposition, or charge reduction
for different racial and ethnic groups is very similar, with
differences in the likelihood of specific outcomes ranging
from just 0% to 3.5%. The exception is sentencing, where
the difference in the probability of a custodial sentence
between white and black defendants is 5.4% (the
difference between white and Hispanic defendants is less
than 2%).
Differences in outcomes become more pronounced
when looking at specific offense categories and specific
decision points – something we have found in prior
analyses of our data. For example, the overall difference
between white and black defendants in the likelihood of a
case being charged is nearly identical, but when limited to
person and weapons offenses black defendants are more
likely than white defendants to be charged; however, for
property and drug offenses black defendants are less
likely than white defendants to be charged. We also see
differences in deferral rates for drug offenses across racial
and ethnic groups, with white defendants more likely than
both black and Hispanic defendants to receive deferred
prosecution.

Introduction

We want to better understand what drives these
differences. There may be differences in the specific
crimes for which defendants are arrested or there may
be differences in defendant criminal histories which may
help explain how cases are charged or whether cases are
eligible for deferral.
There are other things we learned beyond racial/ethnic

 differences in outcomes. For example, overall deferral
rates have decreased over the last few years. In 2014,
we deferred roughly 12.6% of cases; but by 2018, we
deferred just 9.4% of cases. Since taking office, I have
made a concerted effort to increase the opportunity and
use of deferred prosecution agreements as alternatives to
traditional prosecution. The findings suggest that we still
have work to do in order to ensure that programs exist
to assist defendants and that resources are dedicated to
making such programs available and sustainable.
Another finding that merits attention regards the
reduction in the use of custodial sentences. In 2014,
55.3% of convictions resulted in a custodial sentence;
however, by 2018, this had declined to 52.3% of
convictions. Although this may seem like a small change,
this reduction translates into 115 fewer people receiving
a custodial sentence in 2018. Moreover, the differences in
the use of custodial sentences between white and black
defendants narrowed during this period, from a 10%
difference in 2014 to just a 4% difference in 2018. We still
have work to do, but these findings are encouraging.

Where Do We Go From Here
We are at a watershed moment for American prosecutors.
Unlike their predecessors, prosecutors today have a
wealth of data available to them to examine outcomes in
their offices. But examining outcomes is just a first step
to developing and implementing changes to address
disparities. Prosecutors need to take what they learn from
such self-examination and create meaningful partnerships
with their constituents to produce policies and practices
that better serve the communities directly impacted by
the criminal justice system.
More importantly, prosecutors have to be problemsolvers. They have an obligation to work with the
community to help solve problems. That means that
prosecutors have to start thinking in terms of root causes
of crime and criminal behavior. When you start doing
that, the relationship you have with the community begins
to change. And it helps to identify those people who
can be safely accounted for using other non-criminal
justice community resources, whether that’s public health
resources or mental health resources, substance abuse
treatment, or opportunities to avoid criminal convictions.
Those are absolutely critical to reducing the very real
issues of racial and ethnic disparity in the system and the
long-term consequences of criminal justice involvement.

4

   

  

Data

Data for this report came from the Milwaukee County District
Attorney’s Office’s case management system (PROTECT) and
the Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation Programs Case
Management  System (CCAP). Analyses of case outcomes across
offense type rely on data for 59,120 felony and misdemeanor
cases referred to, 22,999 felony and misdemeanor cases
disposed of, and 15,528 felony and misdemeanor cases
sentenced by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office
in 2017 and 2018. Trend analyses of select outcomes rely
on data for 137,019 felony and misdemeanor cases referred
to, 60,954 felony and misdemeanor cases disposed of, and
41,874 felony and misdemeanor cases sentenced by the
Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office between 2014
and 2018.

Race and Ethnicity

While PROTECT and CCAP case management systems list
defendants’ race and ethnicity as recorded by law enforcement,
our preliminary assessment suggested that Hispanic ethnicity
was underreported in the dataset. Therefore, we used two
methods to identify Hispanic defendants. First, defendants
were classified as “Hispanic” if the PROTECT or CCAP case
management systems identified them as such. Second, for
the remaining “non-Hispanic” individuals in the dataset,
defendants were identified as “Hispanic” if their surnames
matched the U.S. Census Bureau’s Hispanic Surname List,
meaning that at least 75% of individuals in the United States
with that surname self-identify as Hispanic. Though it is
important to examine case processing outcomes for Asian and
Native American defendants, there were not enough cases to
conduct robust disparity analyses for these groups. Appendix
B, however, includes basic descriptive information for the
cases involving Asian and Native American defendants.

Defining a Case

This report offers a case-level as opposed to charge-level
analysis, which means that many cases in the dataset have

multiple charges and/or counts. The information on multiple
charges and counts is also captured and accounted for when
appropriate. Also, some defendants had more than one case
disposed of within the 24-month period analyzed. Cases at
each stage of the prosecution process (Charging, Disposition,
Sentencing) are tracked by the most serious charge at that
stage. The top charge for Part 1 of the report represents the
primary arrest charge as identified by felony class and charge
type. The top charge for Part 2 represents the highest filed
charge, as identified by felony class and charge type. The
top charge for Part 3 represents the highest guilty charge, as
identified by felony class and charge type.

Decision Points

This report presents results for the following five decisions
points: (1) Case charging; (2) Charge changes from arrest
to charging; (3) Disposition type; (4) Charge changes from
charging to disposition; and (5) Sentencing. A description
of each decision point is provided at the beginning of each
section.

Accounting for Legal and Non-Legal Factors

The results account for differences in case, defendant, defense
attorney, and prosecutor characteristics among racial groups.
However, the results do not take into account case evidence,
pretrial detention, diversion eligibility, plea bargaining details,
or defendants’ socioeconomic characteristics.

Offense Categories

Results are provided for all offenses together, and then broken
down into person, weapons, property, and drug offenses
separately. Public order and traffic offenses, which are the
largest but most diverse category, are not analyzed as their own
offense type. Excluded from this analysis are “operating while
intoxicated” cases and cases flagged as “domestic violence,”
because these two types of cases tend to have unique trends
which would have unduly influenced the overall results. Our
plan is to analyze this large volume of cases separately.

Presentation of Results
Bar graphs

Simple percentages for each decision outcome by racial/ethnic group do not take into account other
differences in defendant or case characteristics. Percentages are provided for all defendants, then for White,
Black, and Hispanic defendants separately.

Tables

Expected rates per 1,000 cases for White, Black, and Hispanic defendants at each decision outcome after
accounting for defendant and case characteristics. The rates are predicted probabilities calculated following
logistic or multinomial logistic regressions.

Line charts

Trends in expected rates for White, Black, and Hispanic defendants at each decision outcome after accounting
for defendant and case characteristics. The rates are predicted probabilities calculated following logistic or
multinomial logistic regressions for all offenses combined for each year of data (2014-2018).

Dashboards

Appendix A
A visual overview of racial and ethnic disparities for all five decision points included in this report, broken
down by offense type.

6

  

Case

 

Charging

 

 

 

 

When a criminal case is referred
for prosecution to the District
Attorney?s Office by law
enforcement, a prosecutor
reviews the available evidence

and decides whether to approve
the case and bring charges
against the defendant (?case
charged?), or to decline to
prosecute (?case rejection?).

 

Figure 1: Simple Percentage of Cases Charged 2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 1 represents simple percentages of cases charged by prosecutors in 2017/2018 for all defendants
together, followed by White, Black, and Hispanic defendants separately. The graph does not take into
account differences in case or defendant characteristics; the graph also excludes domestic violence and
operating while intoxicated cases. As Figure 1 indicates, White and Hispanic defendants were slightly
more likely than Black defendants to be charged. In 2017/2018, roughly 52.6% of cases involving
White defendants, 55.9% of cases involving Hispanic defendants, and 49.2% of cases involving Black
defendants were charged with a misdemeanor or felony offense following referral by law enforcement.

8

 Table 1: Likelihood of Case Charging 2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Numbers in this table represent the expected charging rates per 1,000 cases for White, Black, and
Hispanic defendants after accounting for the influence of: (1) offense severity, (2) offense type, (3)
number of arrest charges, (4) defendant gender, (5) defendant age, (6) defendant custody status, (7)
defendant prior criminal history, (8) defendant residence (Milwaukee City or elsewhere), (9) median
income in defendant’s neighborhood of residence, (10) arresting agency, (11) prosecutor unit, (12)
prosecutor gender, (13) prosecutor race, (14) prosecutor average monthly caseload, (15) prosecutor
felony caseload, (16) prosecutor violent caseload, and (17) prosecutor experience. Results for person
offenses also take into account (18) victim race, (19) victim gender, (20) victim age. Results for drug
offenses also take into account (21) drug type and (22) whether the offense involved possession or sale/
trafficking/manufacturing.

9

 Most influential factors
 
 
 
 
 

Charging: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision. Cases were more likely to
be charged when:
the case involved more arrest charges
the case involved more serious charges
the arresting agency was not Milwaukee Police Department
the defendant had a more extensive criminal history
the prosecutor had a lower monthly caseload

For all offenses combined, charging rates were very similar across racial/ethnic groups, after
accounting for defendant and case characteristics. Hispanic defendants were slightly more likely to
have their cases charged; for every 1,000 cases involving a Hispanic defendant, 536 were charged,
compared to roughly 509 cases involving White or Black defendants. This means there were just 25
more cases charged for every 1,000 cases involving Hispanic defendants than for every 1,000 cases
involving White or Black defendants. The slightly higher rates for Hispanic defendants were driven
primarily by the higher proportion of Hispanic defendants arrested for vehicle-related offenses and
the higher charging rates for such offenses.
For person offenses, charging rates varied slightly across racial/ethnic groups, with Black defendants
the most likely (379 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants the least likely (338 out of 1,000 cases)
to have their cases charged; charging rates for Hispanic defendants fell in the middle at 352 out of
1,000 cases.
The charging rates for weapon offenses displayed the greatest variation across racial/ethnic groups.
White defendants were the least likely (547 out of 1,000 cases) and Hispanic defendants were the
most likely (626 out of 1,000 cases) to have their cases charged; charging rates for Black defendants
fell in the middle at 578 out of 1,000 cases. Given the difference in charging rates for White and
Hispanic defendants, this means there were 79 more cases charged for every 1,000 cases involving
Hispanic defendants than for every 1,000 cases involving White defendants.
For property offenses, Black defendants were the least likely (466 out of 1,000 cases) and Hispanic
defendants were the most likely (511 out of 1,000 cases) to have their cases charged, after controlling
for other defendant and case factors; for every 1,000 cases involving White defendants, roughly 483
were charged.
For drug offenses, Black defendants were the least likely (533 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants were
the most likely (583 out of 1,000 cases) to have their cases charged, after controlling for other defendant
and case factors; for every 1,000 cases involving Hispanic defendants, roughly 558 were charged.
Overall, there were slight differences in charging rates across racial/ethnic groups and across offense
types, with Hispanic defendants the most likely to be charged in Weapon and Property offenses, Black
defendants the most likely to be charged in Person offenses, and White defendants the most likely to
be charged in Drug offenses.

10

 Table 1a: Felony Likelihood of Case Charging 2017/2018, by Defendant Race

11

Table 1b: Misdemeanor Likelihood of Case Charging 2017/2018, by Defendant Race

 Figure 2: Likelihood of Case Charging 2014-2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 2 represents the expected charging rates for all misdemeanor and felony offenses combined for
White, Black, and Hispanic defendants between 2014 and 2018, after accounting for the influence of
defendant and case level factors. As Figure 2 indicates, expected charging rates were nearly identical for
White and Black defendants, with charging rates slightly higher for Hispanic defendants. Charging rates for
all three groups decreased slightly between 2014 and 2018, declining from roughly 54% in 2014 to 49%
in 2018 for White and Black defendants and from 57% in 2014 to 52% in 2018 for Hispanic defendants.

12

 Case
Charging

13

When a prosecutor decides to
charge a case, that prosecutor
must also decide whether to file
the exact charges that were
referred by the police or to alter
the charges. Changes in charge
severity from arrest to charging
are determined by the severity
level of the top arrest charge and
the top filed charge. The top filed
charge may be less severe than
the top arrest charge (“charge
reduction”); the top filed charge
may be more severe than the top
arrest charge (“charge increase”),
or the charge severity may stay
the same (“no change”).

 Figure 3: Simple Percentage of Cases with Charge Changes at Charging by   
 
Defendant Race
Figure 3 represents simple percentages of cases in which charges were reduced, increased, or remained
the same from arrest to charging. The graph examines cases charged in 2017/2018 for all defendants
together, followed by White, Black, and Hispanic defendants separately; the graph does not take into
account differences in case or defendant characteristics. As Figure 3 indicates, changes in charges were
different across racial/ethnic groups. In 2017/2018, roughly 82.4% of cases involving White defendants,
76.2% of cases involving Black defendants, and 83.3% of cases involving Hispanic defendants involved
no change in the severity of charges from arrest to charging. Black defendants (18.3%) were more likely
to receive a decrease in charge severity from arrest to charging, compared to White defendants (14.1%)
and Hispanic defendants (12.5%). In turn, Black defendants (5.5%) were also more likely to receive an
increase in charge severity compared to White defendants (3.5%) and Hispanic defendants (4.2%).

14

 Table 2: Likelihood of Changes in Charge Severity from Arrest to Charging  
 
2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black,
and Hispanic defendants after accounting for the influence of: (1) offense severity, (2) offense type, (3)
number of arrest charges, (4) defendant gender, (5) defendant age, (6) defendant custody status, (7)
defendant prior criminal history, (8) defendant residence (Milwaukee City or elsewhere), (9) median
income in defendant’s neighborhood of residence, (10) arresting agency, (11) prosecutor unit, (12)
prosecutor gender, (13) prosecutor race, (14) prosecutor average monthly caseload, (15) prosecutor
felony caseload, (16) prosecutor violent caseload, and (17) prosecutor experience. Results for person
offenses also take into account (18) victim race, (19) victim gender, (20) victim age. Results for drug
offenses also take into account (21) drug type and (22) whether the offense involved possession or sale/
trafficking/manufacturing.

15

 Most influential factors

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

Reduction in charge severity: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision.  
Charge severity was more likely to be reduced when:
the top arrest charge was more serious
the top arrest charge was not a Vehicle or Weapons offense
the case was reviewed by a general crimes unit
the defendant had a less serious criminal history
Increase in charge severity: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision.
Charges were more likely to be increased when:
the top arrest charge was less serious
the case was reviewed by a specialized unit
the case involved a gun-related offense
the arresting agency was Milwaukee Police Department
the reviewing prosecutor had a lower caseload

For all offenses combined, there were no marked differences by race or ethnicity for either charge
reductions or increases.
Person offenses displayed the greatest variation in changes to charge severity across racial/ethnic
groups. Hispanic defendants were the least likely to have their charges reduced and the most likely
to have their charges increased, after accounting for defendant and case characteristics.
White defendants were the most likely to have their charges reduced (318 out of 1,000 cases),
followed by Black defendants (254 out of 1,000 cases), and Hispanic defendants (245 out of 1,000
cases). Hispanic defendants were most likely to receive a charge increase (64 out of 1,000 cases),
followed by Black defendants (56 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants (35 out of 1,000 cases).
For weapon offenses, Black and Hispanic defendants were the least likely to have their charges
reduced, and Hispanic defendants were the most likely to have their charges increased.
White defendants were the most likely to have their charges reduced (157 out of 1,000 cases)
relative to Black and Hispanic defendants (roughly 95 out of 1,000 cases). In turn, Hispanic
defendants were the most likely to receive a charge increase (55 out of 1,000 cases), relative to
Black and White defendants (roughly 30 out of 1,000 cases).
For property offenses, White defendants were the least likely to have their charges reduced, and
Hispanic defendants were the most likely to have their charges increased.
Black defendants were the most likely to have their charges reduced (190 out of 1,000 cases)
relative to Hispanic defendants (159 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants (148 out of 1,000
cases). In turn, Hispanic defendants were the most likely to receive a charge increase (62 out of
1,000 cases), followed by Black defendants (54 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants (29 out
of 1,000 cases).
For drug offenses, White defendants were the least likely to have their charges reduced, and Hispanic
defendants were the most likely to have their charges increased.
Black defendants were most likely to have their charges reduced (277 out of 1,000 cases),
followed by Hispanic defendants (265 out of 1,000 cases), and White defendants (212 out of
1,000 cases). In turn, Hispanic defendants were the most likely to receive a charge increase (95
out of 1,000 cases), followed by Black defendants (76 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants
(53 out of 1,000 cases).
Overall, there were several differences in charging rates across racial/ethnic groups and across
offense types. Hispanic defendants were the most likely and White defendants were the least likely to
receive an increase in charge severity from arrest to charging across all offense types. In turn, Hispanic
defendants were the least likely to receive a decrease in charge severity from arrest to charging across
all offense types. Black defendants were the most likely to receive a decrease in charge severity for
property and drug offenses, while White defendants were the most likely to receive a decrease in
charge severity for person and weapon offenses.

16

 Table 2a: Felony Likelihood of Changes in Charge Severity
 
from Arrest to Charging by Defendant Race

17

Table 2b: Likelihood of Changes in Charge Severity from Arrest to Charging for  
 
Misdemeanor Offenses 2017/2018, by Defendant Race

Part 2: Chicago Interview and Survey Findings

 Figure 4: Changes in Charge Severity from Arrest to Charging 2014-2018,
 
by Defendant Race
This line graphs below represent the expected rates of charge reduction, charge increase, and no
change in charge severity from arrest to charging for all misdemeanor and felony offenses combined
for White, Black, and Hispanic defendants after taking into account defendant and case characteristics.
As the figures indicate, expected rates were nearly identical across racial/ethnic groups and remained
stable between 2014 and 2018.

18

  

Disposition

Type

 

This report distinguishes three
main ways that a case can be
resolved, or disposed of, after
filing. A case may result in plea
or trial the
prosecutor can drop the case
before it reaches a plea/trial for
reasons such as insufficient
evidence (?dismissed?); or the
case can be deferred by the
prosecutor 

 

Figure 5: Simple Percentage of Cases Resulting in Deferred Prosecution,  
 
Dismissal, or Plea/Trial 2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 5 represents simple percentages of disposition types for all defendants together, followed by
White, Black, and Hispanic defendants separately. The graph does not take into account differences in
case or defendant characteristics. As Figure 5 indicates, dismissal rates were fairly consistent across racial/
ethnic groups – in 2017/2018, 16.4% of cases involving White defendants, 21.4% of cases involving Black
defendants, and 17.4% of cases involving Hispanic defendants were dismissed after charging. However,
deferral and plea/trial rates were significantly different across groups. In 2017/2018, 19.4% of cases
involving White defendants were deferred, compared to just 5.7% of cases involving Black defendants
and 7.3% of cases involving Hispanic defendants. As a result, the percent of cases resulting in a plea/trial
was significantly higher for Black and Hispanic defendants relative to White defendants; in 2017/2018,
72.9% of cases involving Black defendants and 75.3% of cases involving Hispanic defendants were
disposed of through plea/trial, compared to just 64.2% of cases involving White defendants.

20

 Table 3: Likelihood of Case Disposition 2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black,
and Hispanic defendants after accounting for the influence of: (1) offense severity, (2) offense type, (3)
number of filed charges, (4) defendant gender, (5) defendant age, (6) defendant custody status, (7)
defendant prior criminal history, (8) defendant residence (Milwaukee City or elsewhere), (9) median
income in defendant’s neighborhood of residence, (10) arresting agency, (11) prosecutor unit, (12)
prosecutor gender, (13) prosecutor race, (14) prosecutor average monthly caseload, (15) prosecutor
felony caseload, (16) prosecutor violent caseload, and (17) prosecutor experience. Results for person
offenses also take into account (18) victim race, (19) victim gender, (20) victim age. Results for drug
offenses also take into account (21) drug type and (22) whether the offense involved possession or sale/
trafficking/manufacturing.

21

Note: Results do not include Domestic Violence or Operating while Intoxicated (OWI) charges (results
do include other vehicle/driving related offenses). Cases were designated “deferred” if any charge
had a disposition of deferred. Cases were designated as “dismissed” if all charges had a disposition of
“dismissed”. Cases were designated as “plea/trial” if any charge had a disposition resulting from a plea
of guilty or a finding/verdict.

 Deferred Prosecution Findings - Most influential factors

 
 
 
 
 

Deferred: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision.
Deferred prosecution dispositions were most likely when:
the case involved fewer filed charges
the case involved less serious charges
the defendant had a less serious criminal history
the case was prosecuted by a specialized unit
the case was prosecuted by a more experienced prosecutor

For all offenses combined, White defendants were slightly more likely to have their cases deferred, after
accounting for defendant and case characteristics. For every 1,000 cases involving White defendants,
117 were deferred, compared to 82 cases involving Black defendants and 92 cases involving Hispanic
defendants. The slightly higher rates for White defendants were driven primarily by the higher deferral
rates for drug offenses.
For person offenses, a deferred prosecution disposition occurred in roughly 5 out of 1,000 cases for
White, Black, and Hispanic defendants.
For weapon offenses a deferred prosecution disposition occurred in almost no cases; as such, there
were not enough cases to generate predicted probabilities across racial/ethnic groups.
For property offenses, White and Black defendants were the most likely to receive a deferred
prosecution (roughly 125 out of 1,000 cases), while Hispanic defendants were the least likely (69 out
of 1,000 cases).
For drug offenses, White defendants (282 out of 1,000 cases) were the most likely to receive a deferred
prosecution, while Hispanic defendants (238 out of 1,000 cases) and Black defendants (233 out of
1,000 cases) were the least likely.
Overall, there were only slight differences in deferred prosecution rates across racial/ethnic groups, after
accounting for defendant and case characteristics.

22

 Dismissal Findings - Most influential factors

 
 
 

 

 
 

Dismissed: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision.
Dismissals were most likely when:
the case did not involve a weapon or property offense
the case involved fewer charges
the case was prosecuted by a general crimes unit
the case was prosecuted by a prosecutor with lower percentage of felonies
on their caseload
the case inculded only one defense attorney throughout the case

For all offenses, there was very little difference in dismissal rates across racial/ethnic groups, after
accounting for defendant and case characteristics. Hispanic and White defendants were the least
likely to have their cases dismissed (roughly 174 out of 1,000 cases) and Black defendants were
the most likely (185 out of 1,000 cases). This means there were just 11 more cases dismissed for
every 1,000 cases involving Hispanic or White defendants than for every 1,000 cases involving Black
defendants.
For person offenses, there was slightly more variation in dismissal rates across racial/ethnic groups.
Black and Hispanic defendants were the most likely to have their cases dismissed (roughly 224 out
of 1,000 cases) and White defendants were the least likely to have their cases dismissed (190 out of
1,000 cases).

23

Weapon offenses, displayed some of the most variation in dismissal rates. Black defendants were the
most likely to have their cases dismissed (186 out of 1,000 cases), followed by White defendants (141
out of 1,000 cases) and Hispanic defendants (97 out of 1,000 cases).
For property offenses, there was little variation in dismissal rates across racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic
defendants were slightly more likely to have their cases dismissed (148 out of 1,000 cases), than
White or Black defendants (roughly 133 out of 1,000 cases).
Drug offenses exhibited slight differences in dismissal rates across racial/ethnic groups. White
defendants were the least likely to have their cases dismissed (80 out of 1,000 cases), followed by
Hispanic defendants (106 out of 1,000 cases) and Black defendants (112 out of 1,000 cases).
Overall, dismissal dispositions were similar across all racial/ethnic groups. The only exception was
weapons offenses, for which differences in dismissal rates ranged from 50 to 90 out of 1,000 cases across
racial/ethnic groups.

 Plea/Trial Findings - Most influential factors

 
 
 
 
 

Plea/Trial: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision. Pleas/trials
were most likely when:
the case was prosecuted by a less experienced prosecutor
the case involved a weapon or property offense
the case involved more charges
the case was prosecuted by a prosecutor with a higher percentage of person offenses
on their caseload

For all offenses, given their slightly higher deferral rates, White defendants were the least likely
to have their cases disposed through plea/trial (708 out of 1,000 cases) and Black and Hispanic
defendants were the most likely to have their cases disposed through plea/trial (roughly 734 out of
1,000 cases), after accounting for defendant and case characteristics.
For person offenses, however, differences in plea/trial rates were reversed. Black and Hispanic
defendants were the least likely to have their cases disposed of through plea/trial (roughly 772 out of
1,000 cases) and White defendants were the most likely (804 out of 1,000 cases) to have their cases
disposed through plea/trial.
For weapon offenses, Black defendants were the least likely to have their cases disposed through
plea/trial (814 out of 1,000 cases), followed by White defendants (859 out of 1,000 cases) and
Hispanic defendants (903 out of 1,000 cases).
For property offenses, White and Black defendants were the least likely to have their cases disposed
through plea/trial (roughly 740 out of 1,000 cases) while Hispanic defendants were the most likely
(783 out of 1,000 cases).
Drug offenses exhibited differences in plea/trial rates across racial/ethnic groups similar to those
for all offenses combined. White defendants were the least likely to have their cases disposed
through plea/trial (638 out of 1,000 cases) and Black and Hispanic defendants were the most likely
to have their cases disposed through plea/trial (roughly 655 out of 1,000 cases), after accounting for
defendant and case characteristics.
Overall, dispositions through plea/trial were similar across all racial/ethnic groups, with differences in rates
ranging from just 20 to 40 out of 1,000 cases across groups. The only exception was weapon offenses, for
which differences in plea/trial rates ranged from 50 to 90 out of 1,000 cases across racial/ethnic groups.

24

 Table 3a: Likelihood of Case Disposition for Felony Offenses 2017/2018,
 
by Defendant Race

25

Table 3b: Likelihood of Case Disposition for Misdemeanor Offenses 2017/2018,
 
by Defendant Race

 Figure 6: Likelihood of Case Disposition 2014-2018, by Defendant Race
This line graphs below represent the expected rates of deferred prosecution, dismissal, and plea/trial
rates for all misdemeanor and felony offenses combined for White, Black, and Hispanic defendants after
accounting for defendant and case characteristics. As the figures indicate, expected plea/trial rates were
nearly identical for all racial/ethnic groups between 2014 and 2018; moreover, plea/trial decreased
slightly between 2014 and 2018 for all racial/ethnic groups, from roughly 73.0% to 70.0%. This was
due largely to a slight increase in dismissal rates. Between 2014 and 2018, dismissal rates for White
defendants increased the most, from roughly 11.0% in 2014 to 17.8% in 2018; rates for Black and Hispanic
defendants increased from roughly 16.0% to 21.0% during the same period. Deferred prosecution rates
remained relatively stable; however, throughout the period, deferral rates for Black defendants remained
lower than rates for both White and Hispanic defendants.

26

  

27

Changes in
Charge Severity
from Charging
to Conviction

 

The charges recorded at
conviction may differ from the
filed charges, for reasons such as
charge bargaining or newly
uncovered evidence. Changes in
charge severity from charging to
conviction are determined by the
misdemeanor or felony class of
the top filed charge and
misdemeanor or felony class of
the top conviction charge. The
top conviction charge may be
less severe than the top filed
charge (?charge reduction?); the
top conviction charge may be
more severe than the top filed
charge (?charge increase?), or the
charge severity may stay the
same (?no change?).

 

 

Figure 7: Simple Percentage of Cases with Reduction, or No Change
 
in Charge Severity at Conviction 2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 7 represents simple percentages of cases with a charge reduction or no change in charge severity
from charging to conviction in 2017/2018 for all defendants together, followed by White, Black, and
Hispanic defendants separately. The graph does not take into account differences in case or defendant
characteristics. Since there were no cases involving a charge increase in 2017/2018, the graph only
includes outcomes for charge reduction and no charge reduction. As Figure 7 indicates, charge reduction
was relatively rare for all racial/ethnic groups. In 2017/2018, just 8.3% of cases involving Hispanic
defendants, 7.4% of Black defendants, and 6.6% of White defendants resulted in a charge reduction
from charging to conviction.

28

 Table 4: Likelihood of Charge Reduction from Charging to Conviction 2017/2018,
 
by Defendant Race
Numbers in this table represent the expected charge reduction rates per 1,000 cases for White, Black,
and Hispanic defendants after taking into account the influence of: (1) offense severity, (2) offense type,
(3) number of filed charges, (4) defendant gender, (5) defendant age, (6) defendant custody status, (7)
defendant prior criminal history, (8) defendant residence (Milwaukee City or elsewhere), (9) median
income in defendant’s neighborhood of residence, (10) arresting agency, (11) prosecutor unit, (12)
prosecutor gender, (13) prosecutor race, (14) prosecutor average monthly caseload, (15) prosecutor
felony caseload, (16) prosecutor violent caseload, (17) prosecutor experience, (18) method of conviction
(guilty plea or trial). Results for person offenses also take into account (19) victim race, (20) victim gender,
(21) victim age. Results for drug offenses also take into account (22) drug type and (23) whether the
offense involved possession or sale/trafficking/manufacturing.

29

Note: Results do not include Domestic Violence or Operating while Intoxicated (OWI) charges (results do
include other vehicle/driving related offenses).

 Most influential factors
 
 
 
 
 

Reduction in charge severity: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this
decision. Charges were more likely to be reduced when:
the top filing charge was more serious
the case involved more charges
the case did not involve a gun-related offense
the case did not involve a property offense
the defendant was represented by a public defender

For all offenses combined, a reduction in the severity of charges from charging to conviction was rare
for all racial/ethnic groups and showed very little variation across groups. Hispanic defendants were
slightly more likely to receive a charge reduction (87 out of 1,000 cases) relative to Black defendants
(74 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants (67 out of 1,000 cases). This means there were just 20
more cases with a charge reduction for every 1,000 cases involving Hispanic defendants than for
every 1,000 cases involving White defendants.
For person offenses, Hispanic and Black defendants were the most likely to receive a charge reduction
(93 out of 1,000 cases, and 101 out of 1,000 cases, respectively), while White defendants were the
least likely to receive a charge reduction (81 out of 1,000 cases).
The charge reduction rates for weapon offenses were similar to patterns for all offenses combined,
with Hispanic defendants slightly more likely to receive a charge reduction (66 out of 1,000 cases),
followed by Black defendants (40 out of 1,000 cases), and White defendants (30 out of 1,000 cases).
The charge reduction rates for property offenses showed the smallest levels of racial/ethnic
differences, with Hispanic defendants slightly more likely to receive a charge reduction (36 out of
1,000 cases) relative to Black defendants (31 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants (26 out of
1,000 cases)
For drug offenses, Hispanic defendants and Black defendants were the most likely to receive a charge
reduction (roughly 63 out of 1,000 cases) and White defendants were the least likely to receive a
charge reduction (32 out of 1,000 cases).
Overall, charge reduction rates were similarly low and consistent across all racial/ethnic groups, with
differences in rates ranging from just 20 to 30 out of 1,000 cases across groups.

30

 Table 4a: Felony Likelihood of Changes in Charge Severity from Filing to Disposition
 
by Defendant Race

31

Table 4b: Misdemeanor Likelihood of Changes in Charge Severity from Filing
 
to Disposition by Defendant Race

 Figure 8: Likelihood of Charge Reduction 2014-2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 8 represents the expected charge reduction rates for all misdemeanor and felony offenses
combined for White, Black, and Hispanic defendants after accounting for defendant and case
characteristics. As Figure 8 indicates, expected charge reduction rates were similar across racial/ethnic
groups between 2014 and 2018, and remained relatively stable at roughly 8.0% during this period.

32

 33

 

 

Cases resulting in a plea deal or
trial conviction may be sentenced
to either a non?custodial
sentence or a custodial sentence.
Non-custodial sentences include
any sentence in which probation,
fines, court costs, community

service, or other punishments are
assigned but the defendant is not
incarcerated. Custodial sentences
include anyjail or prison
sentence imposed; however,
most of the custodial sentences
involve a prison sentence.

 

 

 

Figure 9: Simple Percentage of Cases Resulting in Non-Custodial and Custodial
 
Sentences 2017/2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 9 represents simple percentages of non-custodial and custodial sentences imposed for all
defendants together, followed by White, Black, and Hispanic defendants separately. The graph does not
take into account differences in case or defendant characteristics. As Figure 9 indicates, Black defendants
were much more likely to receive a custodial sentence relative to both White and Hispanic defendants. In
2017/2018, 54.3% of Black defendants received a custodial sentence following conviction, compared to
46.2% of Hispanic defendants and just 44.1% of White defendants.

34

 Table 5: Likelihood of Custodial Sentence Type by Defendant Race
Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black,
and Hispanic defendants after taking into account the influence of: (1) offense severity, (2) offense type,
(3) number of conviction charges, (4) defendant gender, (5) defendant age, (6) defendant custody
status, (7) defendant prior criminal history, (8) defendant residence (Milwaukee City or elsewhere), (9)
median income in defendant’s neighborhood of residence, (10) arresting agency, (11) prosecutor unit,
(12) prosecutor gender, (13) prosecutor race, (14) prosecutor average monthly caseload, (15) prosecutor
felony caseload, (16) prosecutor violent caseload, (17) prosecutor experience, (18) method of conviction
(guilty plea or trial). Results for person offenses also take into account (19) victim race, (20) victim gender,
(21) victim age. Results for drug offenses also take into account (22) drug type and (23) whether the
offense involved possession or sale/trafficking/manufacturing.

Note: Results do not include Domestic Violence or Operating while Intoxicated (OWI) charges (results
do include other vehicle/driving related offenses).

35

 Most influential factors
 
 
 
 
 

Custodial sentence: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this
decision. Cases were more likely to result in a custodial sentence when:
the top conviction charge was more serious
the case involved a conviction for a drug offense
the defendant was male
the defendant had a more extensive criminal history
the case involved a change in defense attorney

For all offenses, Hispanic defendants were the least likely and Black defendants were the most likely
to receive a custodial sentence, after controlling for other defendant and case factors. For every 1,000
cases involving a Hispanic defendant, 447 resulted in a custodial sentence, compared to 519 cases
involving Black defendants and 465 cases involving White defendants. This means there were roughly
72 more custodial sentences for every 1,000 cases involving Black defendants than for every 1,000 cases
involving Hispanic defendants. These differences were consistent across all offense types.
Person offenses displayed the largest differences across racial/ethnic groups. For every 1,000 person
cases involving Hispanic defendants 469 received a custodial sentence, compared to 570 involving Black
defendants and 520 involving White defendants. This means there were roughly 101 more custodial
sentences for every 1,000 cases involving Black defendants than for every 1,000 cases involving Hispanic
defendants.
For weapon offenses, custodial sentence rates were not as disparate across racial/ethnic groups.
Hispanic defendants remained the least likely (434 out of 1,000 cases) and Black defendants the most
likely (511 out of 1,000 cases) to receive a custodial sentence.
For property offenses, White defendants were the least likely (400 out of 1,000 cases) and Black
defendants were the most likely (458 out of 1,000 cases) to receive a custodial sentence; for every 1,000
cases involving Hispanic defendants, 420 resulted in a custodial sentence.
For drug offenses, differences in custodial sentence rates across racial/ethnic groups were the smallest
among offense categories. Hispanic defendants were the least likely (494 out of 1,000 cases) and Black
defendants were the most likely (534 out of 1,000 cases) to receive a custodial sentence, after controlling
for other defendant and case factors; for every 1,000 cases involving Hispanic defendants, roughly 506
resulted in a custodial sentence.
Overall, custodial sentence rates varied markedly across racial/ethnic groups. Black defendants were
consistently more likely to receive a custodial sentence than either White or Hispanic defendants for all
offense types.

36

 Figure 10: Likelihood of Custodial Sentence 2014-2018, by Defendant Race
Figure 10 represents the expected custodial sentence rates for all felony offenses combined for White,
Black, and Hispanic defendants after accounting for defendant and case characteristics. As Figure 10
indicates, expected custodial sentence rates were nearly identical for White and Hispanic defendants
between 2014 and 2018; custodial sentence rates for Black defendants remained roughly 7 percentage
points higher during this period. Custodial sentence rates for Black and Hispanic defendants decreased
between 2014 and 2018. For Black defendants, custodial sentence rates decreased from 57.0% in 2014
to 52.1% in 2018; similarly, custodial sentence rates for Hispanic defendants decreased from 50.0% in
2014 to 45.9% in 2018. Custodial sentence rates for White defendants decreased through 2017, but rose
slightly in 2018; by 2018, roughly 48.0% of White defendants received a custodial sentence, up slightly
from custodial sentence rates in 2014 (47.4%).

37

Table 5a: Felony Likelihood of a Custodial Sentence 2017/2018, by Defendant Race

Table 5b: Misdemeanor Likelihood of a Custodial Sentence 2017/2018, by Defendant Race

 Appendix A

Racial and Ethnic Disparity Dashboards
These dashboards provide the reader with a visual overview of how outcomes for different
racial and ethnic groups compare across the five decision points detailed in this report.
Dashboards are broken down by offense type: (1) all offenses, (2) person offenses, (3) weapon
offenses, (4) property offenses, and (5) drug offenses.
Differences between Black and White defendants, and between Hispanic and White
defendants, are presented as rates per 1,000 cases. These rates take into account the
influence of defendant and case factors described in the tables throughout the report.
Each bar in the dashboards has three components:

Color - Lighter bars show differences in rates for Black defendants compared
to White defendants, while darker bars show differences in rate for Hispanic
defendants compared to White defendants.
Number - The number at the end of each bar shows the difference in rates for
each outcome. Positive numbers indicate that Black or Hispanic defendants
have a higher rate of the outcome than White defendants, while negative
numbers indicate Black or Hispanic defendants have a lower rate of the
outcome than White defendants.
Direction – The direction of the bar reflects whether Black or Hispanic
defendants are more likely or less likely than White defendants to receive a
specific outcome.

38

 39

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 40

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 41

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 42

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 43

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 44

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 45

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 46

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 47

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

 48

Values that fall within
the gray band have
a minimal difference
in outcomes across
groups of +20 out of
1000 cases.

  

Appendix 

Descriptive Statistics

 

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity
Cases Presented for Charging White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
TOTAL CASES 
Case not charged 54.8% 49.1% 57.5% 50.4% 48.9% 60.7% 47.3%
Case charged 45.2% 50.9% 42.5% 49.6% 51.1% 39.3% 52.7%
White 22.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a 24.1% 19.9%
Black 66.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a 63.4% 70.7%
Hispanic 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a 11.1% 9.7%
Other Race 1.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5% 1.4%
Missing 0.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.1 0.1%
Female 20.9% 27.2% 19.7% 14.9% 21.1% 23.3% 17.8%
Male 79.1% 72.8% 80.3% 85.1% 78.9% 76.7% 82.2%
Age (mean years) 32.1 35.1 31.2 31.3 32.7 33.0 30.9
In custody at charging 52.6% 49.2% 54.2% 49.4% 52.6% 44.8% 62.7%
Milwaukee city resident 78.7% 45.9% 89.8% 79.4% 66.5% 78.1% 79.3%
Suburban Milwaukee resident 12.6% 37.0% 3.9% 15.1% 22.2% 14.3% 10.5%
Wisconsin resident 7.4% 15.2% 5.2% 4.4% 10.4% 6.8% 8.2%
Other state resident 1.3% 1.9% 1.1% 2.2% 0.9% 0.7% 2.0%
Neigh. median income $37,568 $51,174 $32,896 $37,383 $44,521 $38,005 $37,043

Number of prior cases 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.1

Tab e 1 Descriptive Statistics All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

for Cases Brought for Filing White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies

Continued
Class A 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% n/a 1.4%
Class 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.9% 1.2% n/a 2.1%
Class 4.4% 3.1% 4.8% 4.3% 4.9% n/a 10.0%
Class 1.0% 0.6% 1.2% 0.9% 1.3% n/a 2.4%
Class 2.7% 1.6% 3.3% 1.6% 1.8% n/a 6.2%
Class 5.2% 4.0% 5.8% 4.3% 4.7% n/a 11.9%
Class 5.8% 3.5% 6.9% 3.5% 4.0% n/a 13.2%
Class 11.4% 11.3% 11.8% 9.2% 10.1% n/a 26.2%
Classl 11.6% 14.0% 11.1% 9.7% 13.7% n/a 26.6%
Class A misdemeanor 33.0% 27.4% 35.3% 30.8% 29.2% 58.7% n/a
Class misdemeanor 9.5% 10.1% 9.3% 9.1% 9.5% 16.9% n/a
Class misdemeanor 13.7% 23.4% 8.9% 24.0% 19.2% 24.4% n/a
Person 37.6% 27.6% 41.0 35.9% 33.9% 37.9% 37.1%
Property 13.6% 15.3% 13.6% 9.2% 9.3% 11.6% 16.1%
Drugs 9.2% 11.9% 8.4% 8.3% 9.3% 2.7% 17.5%
Weapons 6.7% 2.7% 8.5% 4.2% 6.5% 5.8% 7.8%
Public order/other 21.4% 21.6% 21.6% 19.7% 23.1% 25.2% 16.6% 50
OWI/Vehicle 11.6% 20.9% 6.9% 22.6% 17.8% 16.7% 4.9%
No. of charges (mean) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.9
Gun?related case 11.0% 4.0% 13.9% 7.4% 6.5% 5.6% 17.8%
Arrest by non-MPD 31.4% 61.0% 20.3% 37.5% 46.6% 32.2% 30.4%
Arrest by MPD 68.6% 39.0% 79.7% 62.5% 53.4% 67.8% 69.6%
General crime pros. unit 50.5% 58.7% 46.5% 49.4% 48.9% 52.9% 45.2%
Specialized pros. unit 49.5% 41.3% 53.5% 50.6% 51.1% 47.1% 54.8%
Prosecutor female 39.5% 36.1% 40.8% 38.9% 37.8% 35.4% 44.8%
Prosecutor male 59.4% 62.8% 58.2% 59.9% 60.7% 63.4% 54.4%
Prosecutor sex missing 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2% 0.8%
Prosecutor White 76.7% 78.9% 75.5% 78.3% 79.8% 76.1% 77.4%
Prosecutor BIack/Hisp. 7.7% 7.4% 8.0% 6.8% 6.4% 7.9% 7.5%
Pros. race missing 15.6% 13.7% 16.3% 14.9% 13.8% 15.9% 15.1%
Pros. caseload (mean) 34.0 33.9 30.1 32.7 34.0 41.2 24.9
Disposed 2017 49.9% 50.8% 50.0% 47.8% 49.0% 50.1% 49.6%

Disposed 2018 50.1 49.2% 50.0% 52.2% 51.0% 49.9% 50.4%

TabIe 2; Descriptive Statistics All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

 

for Cases Charging White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
TOTAL CASES 

Case not charged 15.1% 12.4% 16.8% 11.5% 13.5% 3.4% 26.2%
Case charged 78.8% 83.1% 76.3% 82.9% 83.0% 90.0% 68.1%
Increased 6.1% 4.5% 6.9% 5.6% 3.5% 6.6% 5.6%
White 25.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a 29.6% 20.7%
Black 62.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a 55.4% 69.6%
Hispanic 10.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a 13.2% 8.2%
Other Race 1.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.7% 1.5%
Missing 0.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.1% 0.1%
Female 17.6% 24.1% 15.9% 11.7% 18.0% 19.8% 15.4%
Male 82.4% 75.9% 84.1% 88.3% 82.0% 80.2% 84.6%
Age (mean years) 32.1 35.1 30.9 31.5 32.2 33.3 30.9
In custody at charging 57.6% 49.4% 62.4% 48.5% 54.5% 42.5% 72.0%
Milwaukee city resident 75.5% 42.1% 88.7% 77.6% 65.8% 72.6% 78.2%
Suburban Milwaukee resident 14.5% 38.1% 4.4% 16.7% 22.4% 17.7% 11.5%
Wisconsin resident 8.6% 17.9% 5.4% 4.6% 11.3% 9.0% 8.2%
Other state resident 1.5% 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 0.7% 2.2%
Neigh. median income $38,738 $52,204 $33,296 $38,033 $45,309 $40,018 $37,534

Number of prior cases 3.8 3.7 4.0 2.9 2.9 3.8 3.8

Tab e 2; Descriptive Statistics All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

for Cases Charging White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
Continued

Class A 0.9% 0.3% 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% n/a 1.7%
Class 1.0% 0.7% 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% n/a 2.0%
Class 4.9% 2.8% 5.8% 4.5% 6.0% n/a 9.7%
Class 1.5% 0.8% 1.9% 1.2% 2.3% n/a 3.0%
Class 3.4% 1.8% 4.2% 2.0% 2.0% n/a 6.6%
Class 6.6% 4.6% 7.6% 4.7% 5.8% n/a 12.8%
Class 7.5% 4.2% 9.5% 4.1% 4.3% n/a 14.7%
Class 12.1% 11.9% 12.5% 10.1% 10.5% n/a 23.7%
Class 13.1% 14.9% 12.9% 10.1% 14.3% n/a 25.8%
Class A misdemeanor 24.0% 19.9% 26.4% 20.7% 19.0% 49.1% n/a
Class misdemeanor 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 2.9% 4.0% 7.4% n/a
Class misdemeanor 21.3% 34.4% 13.2% 36.9% 29.6% 43.5% n/a
Person 26.9% 17.7% 30.8% 25.4% 26.1% 22.3% 31.3%
Property 13.8% 15.1% 14.0% 9.8% 9.5% 12.1% 15.3%
Drugs 11.2% 11.8% 11.4% 8.5% 9.0% 2.3% 19.7%
Weapons 8.3% 3.0% 11.2% 4.6% 5.3% 8.7% 8.0%
Public order/other 17.6% 15.8% 18.9% 14.5% 16.8% 16.7% 18.5%
OWI/Vehicle 22.2% 36.6% 13.6% 37.2% 33.3% 37.9% 7.0%
No. of charges (mean) 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.5 2.3
Gun?related case 13.8% 4.3% 18.7% 8.3% 8.3% 7.3% 20.0%
Arrest by non-MPD 41.4% 68.9% 28.9% 48.3% 55.9% 47.6% 35.5%
Arrest by MPD 58.6% 31.1% 71.1% 51.7% 44.1% 52.4% 64.5%
General crime pros. unit 57.8% 68.2% 53.1% 60.9% 58.1% 68.4% 47.6%
Specialized pros. unit 42.2% 31.8% 46.9% 39.1% 41.9% 31.6% 52.4%
Prosecutor female 38.2% 33.0% 40.6% 36.9% 35.6% 32.0% 44.2%
Prosecutor male 61.3% 66.5% 58.9% 62.7% 63.9% 67.4% 55.4%
Prosecutor sex missing 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%
Prosecutor White 81.6% 84.7% 79.8% 84.3% 86.2% 73.6% 79.7%
Prosecutor Black/Hisp. 6.5% 5.7% 7.1% 4.8% 4.3% 5.8% 7.2%
Pros. race missing 11.9% 9.6% 13.1% 10.9% 9.5% 10.6% 13.1%
Pros. caseload (mean) 28.0 28.4 27.9 27.8 28.3 32.9 23.4
Disposed 2017 51.4% 53.1% 51.4% 47.6% 49.6% 51.5% 51.3%

Disposed 2018 48.6% 46.9% 48.6% 52.4% 50.4% 48.5% 48.7%

TabIe 3; Descriptive Statistics All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

 

for Cases Disposed White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
TOTAL CASES 
Dismissed by prosecutor 17.0% 17.7% 16.2% 20.4% 23.1% 18.8% 14.7%
Dismissed by admin. order 10.1% 5.1% 12.7% 8.4% 6.6% 12.5% 7.3%
Deferred prosecution 6.7% 12.1% 4.5% 4.0% 6.3% 6.4% 7.0%
Plea/trial 66.2% 65.2% 66.6% 67.2% 64.1% 62.2% 71.0%
White 29.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a 33.5% 24.2%
Black 63.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a 58.3% 70.3%
Hispanic 5.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.0% 4.1%
Other Race 1.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9% 1.1%
Missing 0.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3% 0.3%
Female 16.7% 21.6% 14.7% 11.9% 22.2% 20.1% 12.5%
Male 83.3% 78.4% 85.3% 88.1% 77.8% 79.9% 87.5%
Age (mean years) 31.6 34.2 30.4 31.2 32.7 32.3 30.6
In custody at charging 60.7% 54.5% 64.8% 48.8% 50.6% 51.4% 72.0%
Milwaukee city resident 75.3% 47.1% 88.4% 74.7% 66.3% 73.3% 77.8%
Suburban Milwaukee resident 14.2% 34.5% 4.4% 19.5% 20.6% 17.0% 10.8%
Wisconsin resident 9.0% 16.8% 5.7% 4.8% 11.7% 9.0% 8.9%
Other state resident 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 1.3% 0.7% 2.4%
Neigh. median income $38,800 $50,289 $33,366 $39,123 $45,940 $39,859 $37,516

Number of prior cases 4.0 3.8 4.1 3.3 3.0 3.9 4.1

TabIe 3; Descriptive Statistics All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

for Cases Disposed White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
Continued

Class A 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% n/a 1.6%
Class 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 2.0% 0.9% n/a 2.1%
Class 4.0% 2.4% 4.8% 3.6% 2.2% n/a 8.8%
Class 1.6% 1.1% 1.8% 1.7% 1.3% n/a 3.4%
Class 2.7% 1.3% 3.4% 2.0% 1.3% n/a 5.8%
Class 4.7% 3.3% 5.6% 3.3% 2.8% n/a 10.4%
Class 8.0% 4.1% 10.1% 5.0% 3.4% n/a 17.6%
Class 10.9% 10.4% 11.3% 9.3% 8.4% n/a 24.0%
Class 12.4% 14.1% 11.9% 9.1% 11.9% n/a 27.2%
Class A misdemeanor 31.2% 27.5% 33.7% 24.3% 22.5% 57.3% n/a
Class misdemeanor 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 2.6% 6.9% 8.6% n/a
Class misdemeanor 18.6% 30.0% 11.4% 37.0% 38.4% 34.0% n/a
Person 25.0% 17.9% 28.5% 23.4% 22.0% 22.0% 28.7%
Property 16.1% 17.4% 16.1% 10.7% 8.8% 17.2% 14.8%
Drugs 10.8% 12.5% 10.3% 8.8% 7.9% 4.2% 18.8%
Weapons 9.0% 3.6% 11.9% 5.1% 3.8% 8.5% 9.6%
Public order/other 20.7% 18.0% 22.5% 14.7% 19.5% 21.0% 20.4%
OWINehicle 18.4% 30.6% 10.8% 37.2% 38.1% 27.2% 7.7%
No. of charges (mean) 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.1
Gun-related case 15.6% 6.0% 20.8% 8.6% 4.8% 9.2% 23.3%
Arrest by non-MPD 40.1% 64.1% 27.7% 53.0% 61.3% 44.8% 34.5%
Arrest by MPD 59.9% 35.9% 72.3% 47.0% 38.7% 55.2% 65.5%
General crime pros. unit 53.6% 60.8% 50.0% 55.5% 59.0% 63.0% 42.2%
Specialized pros. unit 46.4% 39.2% 50.0% 44.5% 41.0% 37.0% 57.8%
Prosecutor female 32.9% 29.8% 34.3% 35.7% 25.0% 26.5% 40.6%
Prosecutor male 58.0% 59.5% 57.4% 55.0% 63.1% 57.6% 58.4%
Prosecutor sex missing 9.1 10.7% 8.3% 9.3% 11.9% 15.9% 1.0%
Prosecutor White 73.7% 73.3% 74.0% 73.0% 70.9% 70.0% 77.9%
Prosecutor Black/Hisp. 4.7% 3.6% 5.2% 4.7% 4.3% 2.9% 6.8%
Pros. race missing 21.6% 23.1% 20.8% 22.3% 26.3% 27.1% 15.3%
Pros. caseload (mean) 28.8 32.2 26.9 33.1 32.7 36.3 19.8
Non?Public defender 53.9% 57.4% 51.1% 65.9% 65.7% 49.5% 59.1%
Public defender 46.1% 42.6% 48.9% 34.1% 34.3% 50.5% 40.9%
Case involves attorney withdrawal 27.9% 23.7% 30.0% 26.0% 22.7% 20.0% 37.2%
Disposed 2017 50.8% 51.9% 50.4% 50.3% 50.6% 51.7% 49.9%

Disposed 2018 49.2% 48.1% 49.6% 49.7% 49.4% 48.3% 50.1%

Table 4; Descriptive Statistics for All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

 

Cases Convicted and Sentenced White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
TOTAL CASES 
Reduced 10.0% 8.5% 10.9% 8.4% 8.3% 7.2% 13.0%
No change 90.0% 91.5% 89.1% 91.6% 91.7% 92.8% 87.0%
Non-custodial sentence 48.1% 49.9% 47.2% 47.5% 48.7% 57.0% 38.4%
Custodial sentence 51.9% 50.1% 52.8% 52.5% 51.3% 43.0% 61.6%
White 28.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a 34.8% 22.9%
Black 64.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a 57.1% 71.2%
Hispanic 5.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.0% 4.5%
Other Race 1.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9% 1.1%
Missing 0.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3% 0.3%
Female 15.5% 20.2% 13.7% 10.1% 18.1% 20.3% 10.3%
Male 84.5% 79.8% 86.3% 89.9% 81.9% 79.7% 89.7%
Age (mean years) 31.5 34.6 30.0 31.5 32.1 32.5 30.4
In custody at charging 64.4% 57.0% 68.9% 53.1% 53.2% 55.9% 73.6%
Milwaukee city resident 74.8% 46.3% 88.1% 73.1% 64.5% 71.4% 78.6%
Suburban Milwaukee resident 14.3% 34.3% 4.6% 20.3% 21.2% 17.6% 10.6%
Wisconsin resident 9.6% 17.9% 6.0% 5.4% 13.8% 10.2% 8.9%
Other state resident 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8% 1.9%
Neigh. median income $38,874 $50,561 $33,365 $39,553 $46,679 $40,554 $37,054

Number of prior cases 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.3 3.0 3.8 4.1

Table 4; Descriptive Statistics for All Cases Defendant Race Offense Severity

Cases Convicted and Sentenced White Black Hispanic Other Race Misdemeanors Felonies
Continued

Class A 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% n/a 0.7%
Class 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 2.2% 1.0% n/a 2.0%
Class 4.4% 2.9% 5.2% 4.1% 2.5% n/a 9.2%
Class 2.0% 1.6% 2.2% 2.3% 2.0% n/a 4.2%
Class 3.5% 1.7% 4.4% 2.3% 1.5% n/a 7.1%
Class 5.5% 3.8% 6.4% 4.0% 3.4% n/a 11.4%
Class 9.6% 5.3% 12.0% 6.2% 3.9% n/a 19.9%
Class 11.3% 11.7% 11.3% 9.4% 11.3% n/a 23.4%
Class 10.7% 10.1% 11.1% 10.1% 9.8% n/a 22.1%
Class A misdemeanor 30.5% 28.4% 32.1% 23.5% 23.5% 59.0% n/a
Class misdemeanor 3.9% 4.4% 3.9% 1.5% 5.4% 7.6% n/a
Class misdemeanor 17.3% 29.1% 10.2% 33.8% 35.8% 33.4% n/a
Person 23.2% 18.8% 25.4% 21.1% 22.8% 18.5% 28.4%
Property 17.4% 18.4% 17.6% 12.0% 9.4% 18.7% 16.1%
Drugs 10.6% 8.2% 11.8% 9.9% 7.4% 3.6% 18.1%
Weapons 10.7% 4.6% 14.0% 6.3% 5.0% 10.9% 10.5%
Public order/other 18.9% 16.7% 20.4% 14.1% 15.3% 20.8% 16.9%
OWI/Vehicle 19.2% 33.3% 10.8% 36.5% 40.1% 27.5% 10.1%
No. of charges (mean) 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 2.2
Gun?related case 18.3% 7.4% 24.1% 9.8% 5.4% 11.3% 25.7%
Arrest by non-MPD 41.4% 64.7% 29.2% 56.2% 63.5% 47.4% 35.0%
Arrest by MPD 58.6% 35.3% 70.8% 43.8% 36.5% 52.6% 65.0%
General crime pros. unit 55.6% 64.2% 51.6% 56.9% 57.6% 67.7% 42.5%
Specialized pros. unit 44.4% 35.8% 48.4% 43.1% 42.4% 32.3% 57.5%
Prosecutor female 36.0% 34.2% 36.8% 37.8% 29.9% 29.0% 43.4%
Prosecutor male 55.9% 55.4% 56.3% 53.6% 58.8% 55.5% 56.3%
Prosecutor sex missing 8.1% 10.4% 7.0% 8.6% 11.3% 15.5% 0.3%
Prosecutor White 73.3% 71.1% 74.3% 72.5% 73.0% 68.3% 78.4%
Prosecutor Black/Hisp. 5.1% 4.0% 5.6% 5.2% 3.9% 2.9% 7.4%
Pros. race missing 21.7% 24.9% 20.1% 22.2% 23.0% 28.8% 14.2%
Pros. caseload (mean) 28.2 31.9 26.2 32.7 31.7 36.9 18.9
Non?Public defender 55.6% 60.3% 52.1% 67.5% 69.6% 51.3% 60.1%
Public defender 44.4% 39.7% 47.9% 32.5% 30.4% 48.7% 39.9%
Case involves attorney withdrawal 30.1% 23.9% 33.2% 27.6% 23.5% 20.0% 40.5%
Disposed 2017 52.4% 53.1% 52.2% 52.5% 51.0% 54.7% 50.2%

Disposed 2018 47.6% 46.9% 47.8% 47.5% 49.0% 45.3% 49.8%

57

Appendix 
Most Common Person, Weapons, Property, and
Drug Charges Referred for Charging, 2017?2018

Person offenses:

1. ?940.19 Battery (3,468 cases, excluding domestic violence cases)
?940.20

?943.32 Robbery (1,508 cases)

?948.03 Physical abuse of a child (1,202 cases)

?940.225 Sexual assault (739 cases)

?948.02 Sexual assault of a child (659 cases)

WPWN

Weapons offenses:

1. ?94129 Possession of a firearm (1 ,394 cases)
2. ?941.23 Carrying a concealed weapon (960 cases)
3. ?941.20 Endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon (887 cases)

Property offenses:

?943.50 Retail theft (1 ,366 cases)

?943.23 Operating a vehicle without owner?s consent (1,357 cases)
?943.20 Theft(1,091 cases)

Burglary (1,027 cases)

?943.01 Damage to property (805 cases)



Drug offenses:

1. ?961.41 (1 m) Possession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or deliver
(2,196 cases)

?961.41 (3g) Possession (2,082 cases)

?961.41 (1) Manufacture, distribution, or delivery (458 cases)

?961.42 Maintaining a place for drug use (1 10 cases)

?961.573 Possession of drug paraphernalia (57 cases)

919.09%)

About the Authors

Florida International University

Besiki Luka Kutateladze

Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice
bkutatel@fiu.edu
305.348.4892

Rebecca Richardson

Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice
rebricha@fiu.edu
305.348.5952

Ryan Meldrum

Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice
rmeldrum@fiu.edu
305.348.5849

Loyola University Chicago

Don Stemen

Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology
dstemen@luc.edu
773.508.8505

David Olson

Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology
dolson1@luc.edu
773.508.8594

Elizabeth Webster

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology
ewebster1@luc.edu
773.508.8631

Research Assistants

Maria Arndt

Doctoral Student at Florida International University

Dylan Matthews

Doctoral Student at Florida International University

Sadhika Soor

Doctoral Student at Florida International University

About Florida International University

About Loyola University Chicago

Florida International University is classified by Carnegie as a R1:
Doctoral Universities - Highest Research Activity and recognized
as a Carnegie engaged university. It is a public research university
with colleges and schools that offers 196 bachelor’s, master’s and
doctoral programs in fields such as engineering, computer science,
international relations, architecture, law and medicine. This project
is housed in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
and the Center for the Administration of Justice, which are part of
the Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs.

Loyola University Chicago, a private university founded in 1870 as
St. Ignatius College, is one of the nation’s largest Jesuit, Catholic
Universities and the only one located in Chicago. Recognizing
Loyola’s excellence in education, U.S. News and World Report has
ranked Loyola consistently among the top “national universities”
in its annual publications. Loyola is among a select group of
universities recognized for community service and engagement by
prestigious national organizations like the Carnegie Foundation and
the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Designed by:

pinnaclegraphics.design