Budget cuts shift public defender staffing mix; 32 NCC‑funded positions curtailed, 27 positions added from restricted sources
Loading...
Summary
The adopted budget curtails 32 net county cost (NCC) positions in the Public Defender's office while adding 27 positions funded by restricted grants and Measure A; supervisors and the CEO debated salary‑savings options and the distribution of curtailments.
Los Angeles County’s final budget adopted June 23 includes a net staffing reduction for the Public Defender’s office after the board approved curtailments that eliminate 32 NCC‑funded positions while adding 27 positions funded by restricted grants, juvenile justice block grant monies and Measure A — a net loss of five positions in that office under the changes adopted in this phase.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell and Supervisor Lindsey Horvath raised concerns about impacts to public defense capacity and urged the CEO and department heads to explore alternatives that prioritize prevention and diversion services. Hutching to those concerns, CEO Fesia Davenport explained that some added positions are funded by restricted revenue sources and therefore do not increase the county’s ongoing net county cost, while the curtailments reflect a broader county effort to meet settlement and labor‑cost obligations without creating a structural deficit.
Key details: Davenport told the board the Public Defender faces a recommended curtailment of 32 NCC‑funded positions, while the office would receive 27 positions funded outside NCC; of the 27 positions, the CEO later clarified that 18 are newly funded and 9 are funding for existing positions. Several of the positions added in this phase are tied to juvenile justice realignment block grant programs intended to staff secure youth treatment facility programs; examples cited included deputy public defender classifications and psychiatric social worker positions.
On salary‑savings as an alternative, Davenport explained that relying on salary savings (leaving positions on the books but unfilled) is not a sufficiently reliable tool for the county’s financing plan linked to AB 218 debt commitments. She said salary‑savings is a year‑by‑year mechanism that can be reversed by later hiring pressure, which would undermine the county’s long‑term 25‑year financing plan for the settlements. Davenport also noted precedent concerns: in past fiscal crises, departments that had relied on salary savings later sought to fill approved vacancies.
What the board did: in adopting final changes, the board approved the staffing adjustments as part of the broader budget package and directed departments to refine curtailment plans in advance of the supplemental budget phase. Supervisors asked the CEO to continue working with the Public Defender to prioritize statutorily required work and to identify which programs are core mission and which could be scaled or delayed.
Why it matters: public defender capacity affects the timely delivery of constitutionally required legal representation for indigent defendants. Supervisors and public speakers during the meeting urged care in shifting staffing so as not to undercut essential legal services, juvenile diversion and other prevention programs.
Ending: the CEO and the Public Defender will coordinate on implementation details and return with supplemental proposals; the board emphasized equity and prioritization in any further curtailments.
