District Attorney Dan Dow asks board to restore five positions, citing caseload and digital evidence surge

District Attorney Dan Dow told the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on June 8 that his office needs five positions restored or added to address sharply rising workloads and victim‑service demand.

"Over nearly 12,000 last year, 11,900 criminal cases were referred to our office," Dow said, adding that per‑trial deputy caseloads have climbed toward about 600 cases per attorney in the most recent year. He described five critical roles his office seeks to fund: a deputy district attorney, a paralegal, a victim‑witness advocate, an administrative assistant and an elder‑abuse vertical prosecutor. Dow said restoring those roles would return the office to prior staffing levels and reduce untenable caseload pressure.

Dow also highlighted the growth of digital evidence as a driver of staffing need. "In 2018, less than 1 terabyte of data was submitted to the D.A. office in an entire year... last year 36 terabytes of data," he said, noting that paralegals perform the first intake and processing of large multimedia files and that the volume multiplies workload across prosecutors.

On victim services, Dow said advocates served nearly 9,880 victims in one recent year and now handle roughly 823 cases each — an increase he characterized as a 51% jump in the victim‑advocate caseload. He framed the staffing request as both a capacity and legal‑obligation issue, citing constitutional duties to public safety and arguing the positions would support prosecutions and victims' rights.

Dow proposed a mix of one‑time funding sources: opioid settlement funds for one deputy D.A. and Prop 172 reserves to fund a paralegal and a victim‑witness advocate, with the remaining positions potentially covered by contingency or other general‑fund options. County staff told the board they had identified these non‑general fund options as possibilities but emphasized the recommended budget had been finalized and that sustaining ongoing positions would require longer‑term funding planning.

Public commenters including Dan Hathaway and Ramona Phillips urged supervisors to fund the DA's request, emphasizing elder vulnerability to scams and the importance of victim services. Several supervisors expressed sympathy for the DA's workload but raised competing public‑safety priorities — for example, staffing for the new Nipomo Sheriff Substation and county fire staffing goals — and asked for a broader strategic review before adding ongoing positions.

Supervisor Pechock moved to fund the DA positions using opioid settlement money, Prop 172 reserves and general‑fund contingency; the motion failed. The board did not authorize the full set of requested positions during the June 8 hearing and instead adopted the executive office's recommended budget while directing staff to fold Prop 172 and opioid funding decisions into the county's upcoming strategic planning process.

Dow thanked board members and said he would continue to work with the executive office on funding options and operational solutions to the workload challenge.

Next steps: The DA's office and executive staff will continue exploring funding options and may return as part of the strategic planning and budget follow‑up process to seek sustainable support for any ongoing positions.