Probation, public defender and district attorney cite Prop 36 and other reforms as drivers of higher workloads and staffing requests

Probation, the Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney presented budget workshops stressing that recent legislative changes and new programs are increasing workloads and creating budget pressures.

Probation Chief Vanessa Fuchs said the department is seeing higher intake and supervision needs and is projecting a roughly 10% increase in workload tied to Proposition 36 and related changes. Fuchs told the board that juvenile and adult services together account for roughly $70.8 million of probation expenditures (about $38.5M juvenile, $32.3M adult), and that about 32.5% of probation’s budget is currently supported by general fund dollars. She asked the board to consider funding an unfunded probation officer position and a new Division of Research and Innovation (to be funded from AB177 and SB823 revenue if available) to handle growing reporting and evaluation requirements.

Public Defender Brian Morris outlined requests for permanent defense capacity and one‑time support, and stressed effects of rising felony filings on attorney workload. Morris said workload analysis using national standards shows the office needs “more than double” the number of attorneys it had in 2021 to meet recommended staffing levels; since 2021 misdemeanor filings are up about 38% and juvenile filings about 128%. He asked the board to fund two deputy public defenders (one misdemeanor, one felony), a permanent department analyst (to replace time‑limited grant funding due to expire), and one‑time funding to match a potential $100,000 grant that would add an extra‑help immigration/removal‑defense attorney.

District Attorney Carla Rodriguez told the board her office is also adjusting for Prop 36. She said statewide data and local experience show an increase in filings tied to the reform — she recounted an early spike, a partial settling, but continuing higher volumes — and described the prosecutor’s workload to both review cases and to support mandated treatment and diversion programs. The DA also briefed the board on a recently funded organized‑retail‑theft unit and a wage‑theft intake line; she said the retail‑theft unit has led to more felony prosecutions and cross‑jurisdictional work and urged continued support for that work and for Axon Justice, a digital evidence and transcription platform the office seeks to procure to manage rising volumes of body‑worn camera and other discovery.

Board members asked about the specifics of workload increases, legislative uncertainty, and whether state or federal support would follow these new mandates. Department leaders said they continue to press policymakers in Sacramento for probation‑specific funding and that many funding streams (SB678, AB177, juvenile realignment funds) are being re‑examined, creating uncertainty for planning. Several supervisors and the presiding judge asked for follow‑up briefings with more granular projections and for comparative data used in workload studies.

Why it matters: These offices perform constitutionally mandated functions and high court caseloads or unfunded reform requirements can increase both jail populations and county costs. Staffing shortfalls, insufficient case‑management technology, or rapidly changing statewide rules can delay case processing and affect local jail and court operations.

Next steps: The presenters requested that the board consider the package of program changes and one‑time items during the June budget hearings, and several supervisors asked the departments to return with clearer scenarios showing what would happen under different funding outcomes and timelines.