Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defender Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Defender Council seeks juvenile conflict manager and parity with prosecutors
Summary
Public Defender Council asked the subcommittee to restore a juvenile conflict division manager position, reiterated requests to expand regional conflict offices and urged pay parity with prosecutors after explaining their prior raises included county supplements in a different way than prosecutor figures.
The Georgia Public Defender Council (PDC) appeared before the House appropriations subcommittee on May 20 to request reinstatement of a juvenile conflict division manager position and to press for pay-scale parity with prosecutors.
PDC leaders said the council’s recent funding and staffing changes made the starting-salary numbers appear different from prosecutorial figures; PDC clarified that its published starting-pay numbers already account for county supplements so direct comparisons require the combined, normalized pay tables that both sides are compiling. The PDC asked both the committee and PAC to work toward an agreed, comparable step-based scale for prosecutors and public defenders.
The PDC asked the committee to restore a juvenile conflict division manager position that had been funded in the amended budget but not carried into the baseline. The council argued the juvenile conflict role is necessary because juvenile matters have compressed timelines and require rapidly deployable, trained conflict counsel in legal “deserts” where private coverage is scarce. The PDC said the juvenile conflict manager should coordinate juvenile defense coverage statewide and reduce reliance on costly per‑diem contractors.
Other PDC points included continued funding of the regional conflict offices that handle heavy caseloads; council officials said the conflict program has grown from an initial $2 million to roughly $8 million as demand increased and offices expanded to multiple regional hubs. The PDC also reiterated its need for funding to maintain low vacancy rates and to ensure parity to retain experienced defenders.
Committee members pressed the PDC on means-testing and eligibility for public defender representation; the PDC said it follows statutory poverty guidelines, validates income where needed and would provide a formal summary of its eligibility process to the committee.
The subcommittee did not vote on the requests; PDC representatives said they would provide a timeline and documentation comparing supplements and pay scales with prosecutorial proposals so legislators could evaluate parity options.
