DA says new workload from Prop 36 and racial-bias analyses requires more prosecutors
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District Attorney Nathan Hockman told the board Prop 36 and new statutorily required analyses (racially blind charging and Bridle/Bridal Justice Act-type motions) have created large mandatory costs and staffing needs; he estimates long-term recoveries from fraud prosecutions could offset budget pressures.
District Attorney Nathan Hockman told supervisors that legal and policy changes since 2020 have added significant workload to his office and that staffing needs have grown accordingly.
Hockman said the DA’s office was funded for about 950 prosecutors in 2020 but is now “just over 800,” and that a $24 million curtailment last year reduced the office’s capacity to respond to rising case volumes. "We are down literally from 950 prosecutors down to just over 800 in the last 4 years," he said.
He identified multiple drivers of the request: Proposition 36 adjustments that allow theft cases to be prosecuted as felonies in some circumstances; a racially blind charging review that has required analysis of tens of thousands of cases (he cited a process started March 2025 and figures for cases screened in 2025); and new defense motions under state law requiring additional data and scientific analyses. Hockman described an $85.1 million figure in the DA's "mandatory and unavoidable" budget category and said part of it reflects staff- and data-driven workloads.
Hockman also emphasized an enforcement priority: prosecuting allegedly fraudulent claims arising from prior settlement programs. He said reclaimed monies could be substantial if fraud can be proven. "We estimate to be in the hundreds of millions, if not the billions of dollars going forward based on our efforts in a b 2 18 types of prosecutions," he said, requesting resources to investigate and prosecute these cases.
Supervisors pressed for more detail about the $85.1M category and requested a fuller breakdown of what counts as "mandatory and unavoidable" costs and which items represent permanent positions rather than one-time costs. Hockman said he would provide the board with a detailed breakdown.
Next steps: DA to provide a line-by-line breakdown of mandatory costs and positions tied to Prop 36, racially blind charging, and the justice-act motion workload so the board and the public can assess ongoing vs. one-time needs.