Public defender and workload experts tell Alameda supervisors the county needs dozens more investigators, social workers and attorneys

Chair Elisa Marquez on Thursday convened the Alameda County Public Protection Committee to hear presentations on public defense workloads and state recommendations that county leaders say will be relevant to an upcoming county budget hearing.

Malia Brink, policy director at the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at SMU Dedman School of Law, summarized the 2023 National Public Defense Workload Study, which estimates the attorney hours required to provide reasonably effective assistance across 11 criminal case types. Brink said the study uses “case weights” — average hours per case by activity — to estimate office-wide staffing needs.

“More than 82% answered that question no,” Brink said when asked whether jurisdictions have enough trial attorneys, citing a chief-public-defender survey the study team used in its California analysis. She told supervisors many offices reported that filling vacancies alone would not be enough to meet staffing needs because there are not enough authorized attorney positions in the system.

Brink also highlighted support‑staff shortages. Using national and California data, she said almost no California public‑defender offices meet recommended investigator and social‑worker ratios and recommended that California consider a higher investigator ratio (one investigator per two attorneys) because of the volume of digital and video evidence that multiplies review work.

Alameda County Public Defender Bridal Woods applied the national and AB 625 study findings to local data and told the committee his office would need an additional 104 attorneys under a strict application of the national study (a figure he previously estimated in a budget presentation at roughly $39,500,000). Removing certain probation‑violation work from the calculation, he said the office would need about 75 additional attorneys. Woods also said his office is short roughly 45 investigators, 21 social workers, 32 paralegals and one administrative staffer when compared with AB 625 staffing mixes.

Woods described near‑term, fiscally phased steps: adding 6 attorneys, 3 investigators, 2 social workers and a legal secretary over three years would cost about $3.7 million and move the office partway toward the recommended staffing mix.

Woods warned staffing problems are already affecting practice. He said five attorneys resigned in April and another in May, and described trial caseloads that include numerous high‑complexity matters; for example, he told supervisors he personally is reviewing more than 145 body‑worn camera videos on a single homicide matter. “We are mandated to provide the service. We have to,” Woods said, emphasizing the constitutional obligation to provide counsel.

Supervisors asked for follow‑up details on historical caseloads, retention data and the feasibility of phased hires; Brink recommended using 3‑ to 5‑year rolling averages (dropping distorted COVID years) to smooth projections. Woods said the office maintains a near‑zero attorney vacancy rate because hires occur quickly, but that retention is worse than he has seen in 14 years and that support‑staff vacancies are harder to fill.

What happens next: the county budget hearing is scheduled for May 28, and presenters and committee members said the workload findings will inform budget requests and longer‑term planning for public defense staffing.

Provenance: presentation and Q&A from the National Public Defense Workload Study and AB 625 application (topicintro SEG 065, topfinish SEG 1120).