MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Council is to strengthen the criminal justice system in Oklahoma by providing a professional
organization for the education, training and coordination of technical efforts of all state prosecutors.
THE COUNCIL
The Council is composed of the following members:
The Attorney General or his designated representative;
The President of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association;
The President-elect of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association;
One district attorney selected by the Court of Criminal Appeals for a three-year term; and
One district attorney selected by the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association for a three-year term.
DUTIES / RESPONSIBILITIES
The 27 District Attorneys are required to prosecute all actions for crimes committed in their respective districts,
and to prosecute or defend all civil actions in which any county in their district is interested, or is a party. District
Attorneys also advise and give opinions to county officers and boards. The District Attorney appoints at least one
Assistant District Attorney in each county in his District. He may appoint additional assistants, investigators, clerks
and stenographers as provided by law. On January 1, 1983, the State assumed full funding of the Office of the
District Attorney. The state money appropriated for the District Attorney system is appropriated to the Office of the
Attorney General. The District Attorneys Council (Council), a special division of the Office of the Attorney General,
administers the District Attorneys' salaries and operating expenses through its fiscal department. The Council also
performs numerous functions intended to strengthen the criminal justice system, and provide education, training,
and coordination of technical efforts of all state prosecutors. In addition, the Council staffs and administers the
Crime Victims Compensation Board and other federal grant programs including Child Support Enforcement and Drug
Enforcement.
STATUTORY REFERENCES
Title 19, Section 215.1 et seq., and Title 21, Section 142.1 et seq., of the Oklahoma Statutes.
EXPENDITURES BY FUND
FY-93 FY-94 FY-95 Type of Fund: Actual Actual Budgeted State Appropriated Funds $24,468,635 $23,291,494 $23,814,173 576 Special Cash Fund 0 348,678 380,000 State Continuing/Revolving Funds: 210 Dist. Attorney's Council Fund 12,516,128 14,098,640 15,481,845 225 District Attorney's Evidence Fund 34,298 48,807 26,500 230 Crime Victims Compensation Fund 1,645,642 1,727,887 1,974,000 240 Sexual Assault Examination Fund 96,325 100,839 152,000 Total Revolving Fund Expenditures 14,292,393 15,976,173 17,634,345 Federal Funds: 410 Federal Grant Administration Fund 8,205,763 6,878,611 5,817,930 Total Expenditures by Fund $46,966,791 $46,494,955 $47,646,448
EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT
FY-93 FY-94 FY-95 Object of Expenditure Actual Actual Budgeted Salaries and Benefits $34,706,136 $35,523,272 $36,945,002 Professional Services 834,673 849,308 981,001 Travel 497,988 491,288 685,182 Lease-Purchase Expenditures 1,837 2,036 0 Equipment 19,202 33,792 65,800 Payments to Local Gov't. Subdivision 4,983,373 5,183,419 4,808,321 Other Operating Expenses 5,923,582 4,411,840 4,161,142 Total Expenditures by Object $46,966,791 $46,494,955 $47,646,448
EXPENDITURES BY BUDGET ACTIVITY / SUB-ACTIVITY
FY-93 FY-94 FY-95 Activity No. and Name Actual Actual Budgeted 10 District Attorneys $23,819,424 $23,039,954 $23,533,855 20 District Attorneys Council 8,958,361 7,597,854 6,589,717 41 Child Support Enforcement 5,189,386 5,829,344 7,067,736 42 Bogus Check 4,307,028 4,967,008 4,889,229 43 Federal Funds 1,629,466 1,773,344 1,518,956 44 County Funds 534,684 530,984 672,399 45 Drug Asset Forfeiture 570,772 599,935 852,937 46 Child Support Incentive 215,703 327,807 328,235 47 Welfare Fraud 0 0 67,384 60 Victim Compensation 1,741,967 1,828,726 2,126,000 Total Expenditures by Activity $46,966,791 $46,494,955 $47,646,448* Data Processing expenditures were absorbed by Activity 20 when the agency began utilizing the ICS subactivity capabilities in FY-92. These expenditures are still tracked independently.
FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES (FTE) and VEHICLES
FY-93 FY-94 FY-95 Activity No. and Name Actual Actual Budgeted 10 District Attorneys 495.3 472.7 462.8 20 District Attorneys Council 13.6 12.5 13.5 41 Child Support Enforcement 165.2 169.8 190.3 42 Bogus Check 149.9 153.6 152.7 43 Federal Funds 47.4 49.2 44.7 44 County Funds 9.4 9.7 10.0 45 Drug Asset Forfeiture 9.4 14.3 10.6 46 Child Support Incentive 7.6 8.0 6.7 47 Welfare Fraud 0.0 0.0 1.0 60 Victim Compensation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total FTE 897.8 889.8 892.3 0.0 Number of Vehicles 0 0 0
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE / REVIEW
The agency has experienced growth in it's operation due to the expansion of non-appropriated programs in the
agency's budget which include; pass-through federal grants for drug enforcement, child support enforcement, bogus
check prosecution and the inclusion of District Attorneys' employees supported by county funds. Actual full-time
employees have increased due to the non-appropriated activities.
In FY-88, the Council, which was originally "The District Attorneys Training Coordination Council", was redesignated as "The District Attorneys Council". And, in the same year, the agency's evidence fund was created to help district attorneys with expenses for pending court cases.
The agency's Child Support Enforcement activity, which had accumulated other diverse programs, was superseded by four separate activities in FY-89; Child Support Enforcement, Bogus Check, Federal Grant Funds, and County Funds. This allowed for expenditure segregation and better audit trails.
In fiscal year 1990, two more subdivisions were created; Drug Asset Forfeiture and Child Support Incentive. And employees of district attorneys, previously excluded from the longevity pay plan for state employees, were allowed to participate in this plan for the first time. Appropriations were made for the administration of the Crime Victims Compensation and Federal Grants. These administrative expenses were previously paid from the Victim Compensation Fund.
During the 1992 legislative session, the funding formula for District Attorneys was repealed from the statutes. The burden for allocating funds and FTE among the twenty-seven districts was placed with the DA's and Council. The method for establishing the new formula is based on a case load study.
In FY-94 the legislature requested the council to recalculate it's funding formula in an effort to address concerns related to recent changes in reported crime statistics which indicated that some districts should be receiving increased funding, however the council had not reassessed it's formula to reallocate current funding consistent with current caseload studies.