Travis County approves immediate pay adjustments for junior public defenders; county to return with funding plan

Travis County Commissioners Court on Tuesday approved phased personnel actions to raise starting pay for junior attorneys in the Travis County Public Defender’s Office, a move county officials said is intended to shore up recruiting and retention as the county expands counsel-at-first-appearance (CAFA) services.

The court unanimously approved a motion by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Howard, authorizing phase‑1 personnel actions to be entered effective March 1 and phase‑2 actions effective March 2, with county staff returning in April with a funding plan to cover remaining costs.

The personnel steps approved Tuesday focus on attorney 1, 2 and 3 positions in the Public Defender’s Office. County budget staff said the target monthly or annual levels are roughly $85,500 for attorney 1, $89,000 for attorney 2 and $92,000 for attorney 3; those figures were the basis for the two‑phase adjustments presented to the court.

Why it matters

Public comment at the March 25 meeting brought dozens of residents, public‑defense staff and advocacy groups to the dais to press the court for faster action on CAFA — counsel at first appearance — and to highlight staffing shortfalls and turnover driven by pay gaps with prosecutor offices. Speakers said early counsel improves release outcomes and reduces jail stays, and they urged the county to finish CAFA rollout and to pay public defenders competitively.

The court’s action is a short‑term step meant to close an “internal equity” gap in junior attorney pay while staff work on a multistep funding plan. County officials emphasized this is not a full market catch‑up versus other large Texas counties, but an immediate retention and recruitment measure intended to reduce vacancies that limit CAFA coverage.

Key details from the court record

- Motion and outcome: Commissioner Gomez moved to approve the personnel actions presented for the Public Defender’s Office; Commissioner Howard seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The court approved entry of personnel action forms (PAFs) for phase 1 effective March 1 and for phase 2 effective March 2, and directed staff to return in April with a funding plan to cover the remaining shortfall.

- Dollars and vacancies: County budget staff told the court the Public Defender’s Office was about $363,052 under its target budget for FY2026 when workbooks were prepared. Staff reallocated $216,945 of that to set 17 vacant positions at internally equitable levels. Closing all attorney 1–3 positions to the target pay levels requires an estimated $278,402; after internal reallocations the office remained about $132,295 short. County staff said phase‑1 increases would be covered internally and the court would be asked in April to approve funding to close the remaining $132,295 gap.

- Implementation timing: County staff said PAFs would be entered immediately (phase 1 effective March 1, phase 2 effective March 2). The court also directed staff to seek other funding sources before tapping the county compensation reserve.

What officials said

Jeff Burkhard, County Executive, outlined the legal and national guidance supporting pay parity for public defense, citing Principle 2 of the American Bar Association’s Ten Principles for Public Defense Delivery Systems and saying the county originally intended parity with prosecutors when it established a public defender office. "This is a first step," Burkhard said, adding that the increases for attorney 1–3 positions do not fully equalize pay with larger counties such as Harris or Dallas.

Travis Gatlin, Travis County budget director, walked the court through the numbers and the departmental workbook review used to identify permanent salary savings and the portion available to fund raises. He described the stepwise approach staff used to set vacant positions to internal averages and then to calculate the cost to achieve parity for attorney 1–3 tiers.

Adi Olinkade, chief public defender for Travis County, urged the court to continue and deepen investment: “Public defenders are the ones in the trenches. They are the ones in the jails, in the detention centers… They are the people closest to the issues and therefore closest to the solutions,” she said, asking the commissioners to sustain long‑term funding for the office beyond this immediate step.

Public comment themes and quotes

Dozens of public comments focused on CAFA, language access, and pay and staffing at the Public Defender’s Office. Speakers repeatedly said early attorney representation materially improves pretrial outcomes and reduces unnecessary detention.

Several members of the Austin Sanctuary Network described what they observed in local magistration and CAFA shifts and urged accelerated rollout. Alicia Danzey, identifying herself as a researcher of self‑representation, said that “around two thirds of all magistration shifts still do not have public defenders at initial hearings,” a figure she attributed to ACLU observations referenced during public comment.

Other staff from the Public Defender’s Office — attorneys, investigators, social workers and legal secretaries — described high caseloads, frequent turnover and the financial realities of working in Austin on public defender salaries. “Experienced investigators are not a luxury; they are a necessity,” said Amalia Beckner, a supervising public defender who compared pay and retention to neighboring counties.

Separate from pay and staffing, commenters urged continued attention to language access for Spanish‑speaking defendants and to making CAFA available across all shifts; county staff said CAFA coverage has been phased in and that the goal is full implementation of counsel at first appearance by July 1.

Discussion vs. decision

The record shows three distinct tracks in the court’s handling of the item: (1) discussion and testimony — a substantial public comment period and staff briefings by county executives, budget and HR staff and the chief public defender; (2) direction — the court voted to enter personnel actions in two phases and directed staff to return in April with a funding plan for the remaining shortfall; and (3) formal decision — the court’s unanimous approval of the phased PAF entries (phase 1 effective March 1, phase 2 effective March 2) with a requirement to report back on funding.

What the action does not do

The court’s approval covers the personnel actions and the immediate PAF entries. It does not fully close the market gap between Travis County public defenders and comparable positions in the state’s largest counties; county executives said more work on career ladders, classification and budget requests will be required. Commissioners and staff also flagged the need for a broader discussion of county compensation policy and long‑term funding options for the public defender's office.

Looking ahead

County staff said they would return in April with a funding plan to cover the $132,295 shortfall for attorney 1–3 parity. Commissioners asked staff to seek alternatives before using the county compensation reserve and to bring back the career‑ladder and classification work needed to address long‑term market competitiveness and retention across the office.

Ending

For the court, the vote was a near‑term answer to mounting pressure from community advocates and public defender staff. Commissioners framed the action as an important but partial step, and asked for a funding and classification road map in the weeks ahead so that the county’s public defender office can stabilize hiring and build toward a competitive, sustainable career structure.