Budget and Appropriations Committee Hearing on District Attorney Staffing Levels - May 7, 2025
Budget and Appropriations Committee Hearing on District Attorney Staffing Levels - May 7, 2025
On May 7, 2025, the San Francisco Budget and Appropriations Committee, chaired by Supervisor Connie Chan, held a hearing to assess staffing levels and resource needs within the District Attorney's Office (DA's Office). The hearing, requested by Vice Chair Matt Dorsey, focused on the office's capacity to handle rising caseloads, implement Proposition 36, address recruitment and retention challenges, and the potential impact of a proposed $5.4 million budget reduction in the face of a citywide $817.5 million shortfall. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins presented data showing 7,100 pending cases, high attorney caseloads (e.g., 186 cases per misdemeanor attorney), and underfunded mandates, while public comment and supervisor discussion highlighted both support and opposition to increased funding.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Greg Johnson (Tenderloin resident) supported maintaining funding, saying cuts would reverse progress.
- Rosie (PG and EM) and Marissa Rodriguez (Union Square Alliance) expressed full support for funding the DA's Office to sustain economic recovery.
- Lily Ho (DCC member, Stop Crime SF) supported the DA's Office, citing effective prosecution and victim services.
- Frank Noto (Stop Crime Action) urged prioritizing DA funding over other departments, noting the office generates revenue by improving safety.
- Jackson Nepier (San Francisco Chamber of Commerce) strongly supported full funding, warning cuts would undermine public safety gains.
- Justin Saw (concerned citizen) urged rejection of cuts, highlighting 7,000 pending cases and delayed justice.
- Sylvia (DTU resident) voiced support for DA Jenkins’ work on drug cases and repeat offenders.
- John Atlos opposed a budget increase, calling it authoritarian and arguing for investment in housing and mental health instead.
- Diana Bloch (California Coalition for Women Prisoners) opposed funding increases, criticizing the DA's Office for overcharging and insufficient concern for racial justice.
- A Soma resident opposed the increase, suggesting funding should support sanctuary city policies, not deportation staff.
- Michael Siracusa (Stop Crime SF) strongly supported full funding, calling the DA's Office balanced and effective.
- Kyle (District 1 resident) supported full staffing to reduce court backlogs and ensure justice.
- A speaker opposed funding, citing racial bias in policing and prosecution.
- Scotty Jacobs (District 5 resident) supported full funding, warning against backsliding on public safety.
- Forrest Liu (Stop Asian Hate activist) urged no cuts, citing safety for Asian elders.
- Melissa Buckingham Adams (D1 resident) shared a personal story of assault and praised the DA’s Office for pursuing accountability.
- Daniel Casanova (Eviction Defense Collaborative) opposed funding, arguing mass incarceration is not evidence-based.
- Joel Haila (ACLU NorCal) opposed the request, citing Prop 36 will reduce funding for successful programs and the DA's ethical issues.
- Kelvin Chan (nonprofit in Visitation Valley) supported the DA, saying public safety remains a concern.
- Griffin Lee (Connected SF) supported the DA’s request, calling her presentation a "master class."
- Tanisha Humphrey (ACLU NorCal) opposed the increase, advocating for violence prevention programs and diversion.
- Renora Monroe (Youth First) supported both DA and Public Defender, saying no cuts to any service.
- Matt Beltramo (Assistant DA, union rep) urged against cuts to protect retention and ethical prosecution.
- Lucas Illa (District 9) opposed funding, arguing Prop 36 was not mentioned and that prosecuting homelessness is harmful.
- Flo Kelly (District 9) noted the DA already receives 60% more than the Public Defender and asked for parity.
- A speaker urged investment in youth and public defenders over district attorneys.
- Alexandra Prey (Public Defender) corrected the record on Prop 36 implementation, citing priors from the 1980s, and argued for budget parity.
- Justice (Truman on Demand Coalition) opposed the increase, saying it funds reactionary measures instead of root causes.
- Dr. Dennis Chen (CYC) supported the DA for partnership in serving AAPI victims.
- Carlos Alors (Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) urged full funding, noting safety improvements help small businesses.
- Anya Worley Sigman (People’s Budget Coalition) opposed, calling increased arrests ineffective.
- Alex Pashion (Hotel Council) supported investments for recovery.
- Lanier Coles (SF Democratic Party, Drug-Free Sidewalks) supported funding, noting 64% of voters passed Prop 36.
- A final speaker supported Prop 36 and DA funding to restore San Francisco's reputation.
Discussion Items
District Attorney Presentation:
- DA Brooke Jenkins presented the office's $96.5 million proposed budget for FY25-26 (3% increase, driven by salary and lease costs). 80% of expenditures are salary/fringe. The office has 324 positions, 317 filled, 19 vacancies. Pending cases have risen to 7,100 (from 5,000 in 2022). Felony case filings increased to 4,299 in 2024 (from 3,000 in 2020). Misdemeanor filings also rose. Average time to resolution has more than doubled: felonies 591 days, misdemeanors 574 days (from 213 and 219 in 2014). Attorney caseloads: misdemeanor unit 186 cases each, preliminary hearing unit 104, general felony trial unit 70, narcotics unit 90, domestic violence 81, vulnerable victims 51, homicide 17. Victim services served 9,966 victims in 2024. The office faces a potential $5.4 million reduction equivalent to 25 prosecutors, which would gut the misdemeanor and preliminary hearing units. Underfunded areas include Racial Justice Act mandates ($125,000 for software/staff), Be the Jury program ($125,000), legal research software ($135,000), litigation expenses ($150,000 shortfall), shuttle service ($126,000), and other non-personnel items. Recruitment is hampered by the fourth-lowest pay among Bay Area counties and lack of incentives (e.g., free parking). Retention issues are exacerbated by high caseloads and ethical risks.
Supervisor Questions and Discussion:
- Vice Chair Dorsey asked about the impact of a $5.4 million cut, especially on misdemeanor and narcotics cases. DA Jenkins said it would force dismissal of cases and backslide on public safety gains. Dorsey also asked about Prop 36 impact; Jenkins noted it has not yet caused a spike in filings in SF due to conservative charging policies. Dorsey asked about non-personnel efficiencies; Jenkins welcomed citywide contracting for legal research.
- Supervisor Walton asked about reallocating police funds; Jenkins clarified she didn't suggest that, but emphasized the DA's office is lean. Walton asked the Public Defender, Manoj Rajagopal, about his office's caseload and budget. Rajagopal stated his office has 60% of the DA's budget, represents 75-80% of defendants, and has caseloads of 65 felonies and 145 misdemeanors per attorney. He highlighted their vertical representation, expanded duties (immigration, expungement), and programs (college prep, MAGIC, social workers). He said a fully funded DA without parity would undermine defense. Jenkins responded by disputing comparisons, noting the Conflicts Panel handles 40% of cases not covered by the Public Defender, and that her office restructured for vertical prosecution. She also said the Public Defender second-chairs most trials, which she cannot afford.
- Supervisor Engardio asked about caseload sustainability. Jenkins said 186 misdemeanor cases is at the edge; optimal would be around 100. For felony trial units, 70 cases is too high.
- Supervisor Chan asked about the general operations fund and clarified that grant programs (neighborhood courts, etc.) are separate. She also asked the Public Defender how parity would affect his office's work. Rajagopal reiterated that his office does more with less and contributes to public safety through alternative programs.
- Chair Chan raised the issue of sanctuary city commitment after public comments. Jenkins affirmed her support for sanctuary policies, stated her office respects them, and said her agreement with federal prosecutors only cooperates when federal cases are adopted, without violating city law. She criticized those who oppose enforcement in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin, where immigrants suffer from drug dealing. She also rejected allegations of mass incarceration, noting under 500 San Franciscans are in state prison.
Key Outcomes
- The committee voted unanimously (5-0) to hear and file the hearing (motion by Vice Chair Dorsey, seconded by Chair Chan). No specific budget actions were take; the hearing served to inform upcoming budget deliberations.
- The filing motion passed with ayes from Vice Chair Dorsey, Members Engardio, Walton, Chen, and Chair Chan. Supervisor Mandelman was excused.
- The committee will continue budget hearings in the coming weeks, including further testimony from the DA’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the May 7, 2025 meeting of the Budget and Appropriation Committee. I am Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee. I'm joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Matt Dorsey, and Supervisors Member Joe Ingardio, Shaman Walton, and we welcome I think Supervisor Chen is going to join us shortly to substitute for President Raphael Mendelman. Our clerk is Brent Haliba. I would like to thank Kalina Mendoza again from SFGov TV for broadcasting this meeting. Mr. Clark, do you have any announcements? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones, hand electronic devices to prevent interruption and start proceedings. Should you have any documents to be included as part of the file, they should be submitted to myself, the clerk. Public comment will be taken on each item on the item on this agenda. When public comment is called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left along those curtains. And while not required to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by the television to your left by the doors. If you wish to be accurately recorded for the minutes, alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. Email them to myself, the budget and appropriations committee clerk. At B R E N T dot J A L I P A Hat S F G O V dot O R G. If you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file. You may also send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall at one. Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102. And Madam Chair, that I concludes my announcements. Thank you. And colleagues, before we call item number one, um, I would like to have move to excuse uh President Raphael Mendelman. Move by Supervisor Walton. Second by Vice Chair Dorsey and a roll call, please. And on that motion by Member Walton, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey to excuse Supervisor Mandelman from attending today's meeting. Vice Chair Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, I. Member Ingario. And Guardio, I. Member Walton. Walton, aye. Member Chen. Chen absent. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan, I. Will you have four eyes? With Member Chen absent. The motion passes. Uh and with that, um, Mr. Clerk, please call item number one. Yes, item number one is a hearing to assess staffing levels and needs within the district attorney's office, including an evaluation of the department's capacity to expand in coordination with other public safety agencies. How the resources necessary for full implementation of Proposition 36, as well as any other resource gaps, challenges related to recruitment and retention, and recommending any legislative or budgetary actions to support these efforts. Madam Chair.
openpublica.com