Title
District Attorney, Public Defender, and Alternate Public Defender recommending the Executive Committee allocate the following Community Corrections (AB 109) funding in FY 2026/27 for staffing AB 109 cases;
1. Allocate $248,764 to the District Attorney;
2. Allocate $248,764 to the Public Defender;
3. Allocate $248,765 to the Alternate Public Defender.
Body
Since the enactment of the 2011 Public Safety Realignment initiative, the county’s criminal justice partners have absorbed substantial new responsibilities that are now core to the effective operation of the AB 109 framework. Both the District Attorney and Public Defender / Alternate Public Defender offices have experienced sustained increases in workload as realigned individuals remain in the local system for longer periods, cycle through multiple phases of supervision, and require repeated court interventions.
A conservative analysis of Deputy District Attorney (DDA) caseloads confirms that no less than 10% of all prosecutorial workload is directly attributable to AB 109-realigned offenders. This includes the filing and litigation of new felony charges for -Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) violations, mandatory supervision violations, split- sentence- hearings, and the ongoing review of cases involving individuals who, prior to Realignment, would have been committed to state prison rather than managed locally.
The Public Defender’s Office also has significant impacts from AB 109 realignment, as currently 21% of their felony caseload consists of clients with Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) violations, mandatory supervision violations, split- sentence hearings, and the ongoing review of cases involving individuals who are the realignment population. These cases require Deputy Public Defenders to remain engaged with clients far beyond the timelines typical of ordinary pre-Realignment cases. In addition, the recent Proposition 36 statute has created an additional workload that did not exist in prior years. Attorneys and staff must identify and screen eligible cases, litigate petitions, conduct mitigation-based advocacy, coordinate with probation and reentry partners, and provide representation through release and transition. Even in its first year, Prop 36 already accounts for 6% of the felony caseload, and this number is expected to grow as implementation continues. As Prop 36 is a new statutory mandate, these duties did not previously exist and require dedicated realignment resources.
The Alternate Public Defender’s Office has experienced parallel impacts. Representation of realigned clients requires increased attorney time, repeated court appearances, additional investigation, and expanded post-sentencing advocacy. The Alternate Public Defender’s Office caseload numbers mirror that of the Public Defender’s Office in that approximately 6% of their felony caseload is directly tied to Prop 36 cases.
All three offices have experienced significant impacts from realignment. Despite substantial and ongoing workload, the offices have historically received only $6,000 annually from the Community Corrections Partnership, far below what is needed to meet their constitutional obligations and far below what most other counties allocate for realignment-related representation.
These responsibilities are not ancillary to the Realignment statute-they are integral to its execution at the county level. The District Attorney, the Public Defender, and the Alternate Public Defender must each have adequate staffing and resources to manage the full lifecycle of AB 109 cases, ensure due process, maintain public safety, and support the overarching goal of reducing recidivism through consistent accountability and engagement.
For these reasons, the allocation of CCP funding to support both prosecutorial and defense functions is essential. For Fiscal Year 2026-27, each department is requesting an additional $248,764 in CCP funds to directly support salaries and benefit costs and applicable contracted attorney fees, for the purpose of adequately sustaining the increased workload resulting from mandated changes in law, as outlined. Without sufficient resources dedicated to the workload generated by Realignment, the county’s ability to uphold the statutory intent of AB 109, and to maintain a balanced, effective, and constitutionally sound local justice system, would be compromised.