By David M. Greenwald
In early July, Supervisor Don Saylor submitted a number of questions to DA Jeff Reisig about their funding requests (see here). The night before the Board of Supervisors Budget Workshop, the DA finally posted the response on his website.
The DA posts: “The comprehensive 29 page report, submitted far in advance of the September 29, 2020, Board of Supervisors (BOS) Budget meeting, was prepared with the input from numerous District Attorney staff in response to a multitude of questions posed by Board of Supervisors member Don Saylor in preparation for the September 29th BOS budget meeting.”
In response to the increased expenditure, the DA responds as follows:
First, “It should be noted that many of the questions regarding the DA’s budget made comparisons between actual expenditures in FY 18/19 to estimated budgets in FY 19/20 and 20/21. Comparing actual expenditures (FY18/19) with estimated budgets (FY19/20 & 20/21) is not a scientific way to measure changes in budgets (e.g., not apples to apples). During DA Reisig’s tenure as DA, this office has always stayed within its allocated budget.
“Unforeseen events occur throughout a year that are not within a department’s control. Positions becoming vacant and are not filled or there is a delay in filling the position. Budget crises 
happen, such in FY 19/20 and FY 20/21, which often result in a county hiring freeze. Accordingly, fiscally conservative departments’ actual expenditures are often significantly less than estimated budgets.
“With respect to the office, in FY18/19, among other things, two DDA IVs resigned. We did not hire for one position and the other was hired at a lower level resulting in salary savings. We budgeted for both positions in FY19/20 and we chose not to hire the position we left vacant in FY18/19 due to budgetary constraints caused by COVID.
“Although departments do their absolute best in planning and preparing a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it is impossible to completely and accurately anticipate unpredictable events in the upcoming year (e.g., unplanned resignations, budget crisis caused by COVID-19, etc.). As a result, it does not make sense from a fiscal standpoint to compare actual expenditures from one fiscal year to an estimated budget in another fiscal year.”
So the question is what caused the increase in the DA’s budget over the three-year period from FY 18/19 to FY 21/22?
- From FY18/19 to FY20/21, Consumer Fraud/Environmental budget has increased by $1.2 million, which accounts for more than 1/3 of the $3.3 million increase. The DA’s budget has increased in grant funding by $952,000 which accounts for 29% of the increase.
- Additionally, there was an increase of $361,000 in area of criminal prosecution services and supplies. Public Liability is not a cost a department can control. From FY18/19 to FY20/21 (recommended budget), this cost has increased by $105,046. With FY20/21 adopted budget, this cost will actually increase by $176,742 as a correction has been made to these cost after approval of recommended budget.
- The remaining $787,000 is in Salaries and Benefits for employees not included in Consumer Fraud/Environmental budget or grants.
- PERS costs have increased our budget over the past 3 years as the cost for public safety staff increased by 7.74% and miscellaneous members increased by 5.15%.
“In FY 19/20, the District Attorney requested $9.3 million in General Fund dollars, but at recommended and adopted budget, we were allocated a little over $8.2 million,” he continues. “To reduce the general fund contribution by 1.1 million, we were asked by the Chief Budget Official to use fund balances we had in special revenue funds to balance our budget. Though nearly all special revenues fund balances cannot be used for this purpose, we were able to budget $863,000 towards salaries and benefits. We also held an attorney position vacant to reduce the gap by another $180,000.
“We have multiple grants that fully fund their programs. Victim Services is the only unit in which its primary grant does not fund their entire program. General funds/public safety funds contribute to Victim Services’ operating expenses such as landlines, cell phones, mileage to meet with victims, and to fund their benefits.”
The DA does present some interesting data.
The DA argues that his primary charge “is criminal prosecution.” Here the chart shows an interesting pattern.
The cases received has largely dropped since 2015, but the cases filed, with the exception of 2018, have remained steady. What seems to have dropped is the number of cases rejected by the DA.
There is also the issue of racial disparity.
The DA writes: “Based on the data presented by the Sheriff, DA and Probation at the Board Workshop on racial disparity in Yolo County on July 21, 2020, the disparity of race/ethnicity is consistent across all three departments and is also very notable in that the percent of criminal justice involving black individuals exceeds the percentage of black residents in the county.”
As he did in April, he offers, “One must keep in mind that many individuals committing crimes in Yolo County are not County residents so comparing the census numbers to individuals who are criminally justice involved are ‘predictably inaccurate’ and unscientific.”
He does allow, “That being said, this data is informative and troubling and must be explored further.”
The DA’s data shows cases received, cases filed, and cases rejected. But that may actually underestimate the racial discrepancies. When Tracie Olson looked at the jail population on a day in April, it was 28 percent Black. The DA’s chart shows about 14 percent Black and over 30 percent Hispanic. By merely looking at cases filed it ignores other components—severity of charges and percentage of people in custody pre-trial, either due to severity of charges or inability to pay for bail.
The DA has consistently downplayed the discrepancies by arguing that many of the population are from out of the county. It is not clear how relevant that fact actually is. However, the Black population in Sacramento County is about 9.5 percent of the total population while in Solano County, it is a bit higher at 13 percent. Even taking that factor into account, there would seem to be a disproportionate number of Blacks charged with crimes and, in particular, being held in custody.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
“fiscally conservative departments’ actual expenditures are often significantly less than estimated budgets.”
Question: What happens to funds that are not used with a fiscal year?
“The DA argues that his primary charge “is criminal prosecution.”
An alternative point of view:
I would argue that the primary charge of a DA is ensuring the safety of the community through an equitable process of fact-finding and prosecution.
Honestly could not make any sense of the DA’s explanation of the pay increases – it’s almost like he’s trying to argue it you incidentally land on a 25 percent increase during a pandemic. There is also the fact that crime is down, but they are still prosecuting the same number. Wish people would pay more attention to this article.
I don’t think there was an explanation- rather, there was justification for the position taken that there needs to be more money for more uses. I couldn’t make sense out of the basis for asking for more, especially in light of the decrease in crime, and especially with regard to the effects of COVID19. I made this comment at the BOS meeting this morning: without accounting for the effects of COVID on the way criminal law is practiced, there’s confusion as to why the budget looks the way it does, at least from my perspective as a member of the general public. For example, take just one item: victim services. There are costs budgeted for things like: grieving rooms (is that staffed? is that an extra addition to the building? isn’t everything virtual now anyhow?) transportation to/from court (this is problematic given COVID19); jail tours and parole hearing accompaniment. But the reality is that people are appearing for court hearings via Zoom; we’re down to one trial a week, Covid is not going away any time soon- at least for the next fiscal year. So with that said, I would like to understand why there is not a DECREASE in need for funding for these services. Who is going on a jail tour in the near future in Covid Season? Who is accompanying someone to a parole hearing that is not being held on zoom? I also wish more people would pay attention to the conversation, this article included. . . . .
Not sure about Yolo county, but I saw last night (on the national news) that violent crime is surging across the country. I believe that one of the statistics included a significant increase in San Francisco.
In any case, here’s the first article that popped up:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/police-violence-defund-debate-trnd/index.html
Here’s another one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-violence-surging-cities-hitting-communities-color-hardest-n1233269
Kind of puts things in perspective (e.g., regarding what these communities as well as the police have to deal with). I wonder where all of THESE videos are.
I assume that David intends this as definitive evidence of systemic racism. I’m sure that some would automatically agree.
If you read the article – I believe that the evidence is actually understated by quite a bit. Also surprised that the DA in three months hasn’t been able to marshall a stronger case other than the nebulous and non-statistically backed assertion of out of county defendants – they don’t quantify that, they don’t quantify how many or what percentage of Black defendants are from out of the county, and they don’t even cite the Black populations in Sac and Solano County – both of which are well below the incarceration rate for Blacks.
I’m not sure that doing so would prove anything one way or another – except to those who have already have an opinion.
But yeah, I could read the article more carefully to see what the concern actually is. If the concern is that a higher percentage of one group is arrested, you’ve already lost me.
If he wants to argue the lack of scientific basis – then he should put forward one. The analysis by the DA in the 29 page document is pretty woeful, they would benefit from hiring a new analytics person.
It looks like your concern is this:
Might it be that the police are bringing “higher-quality” cases to the DA? Just a theory.
A lot of what you’re trying to do with this type of analysis might lead to conclusions that you’re not necessarily trying to prove.
Objective data can lead to different (more than one) conclusion. The conclusion is where an error can be made, or at least not the full explanation.
Unlikely.
Maybe.
But perhaps “systemic racism” (however that’s defined) is just as unlikely, in regard to the differences you cite.
I’d be shocked if any group (past, present, or future) is “proportionately represented” in arrest and conviction rates.
What I find surprising is the conclusion that some automatically attribute to that. (At least, I used to find it surprising.)
And what I find downright frightening is the proposed (or implied) “solutions” that some may advocate regarding an incorrect conclusion.
If the purpose is to gain more representative proportionality, perhaps the DA should be prosecuting more women and old people, for example.
Or, fewer men and young people.
Sounds like a “plan”.
And I suspect that whites might be “over-represented” in the criminal justice system, compared to Asians (though I’m not sure of that). If true, you know what to do to “fix” that (two options). 😉
That doesn’t achieve the purpose of decarcerating people of color
As long as they’re white Ron, as long as they’re white.
That’s an interesting goal. Why only “decarcerate” them? (I didn’t even know that was a word.)
Why not all colors, ages, genders, etc.? I believe there’s quite a few people of no color, in prisons.
And I’ve forgotten – are you addressing Asians in this? (For example, “decarcerate” them – even if they’re under-represented?)
Just keep the whites in prison? Or, it’s o.k. to let them go for the purpose of achieving no disproportionate representation, in prison?
Apparently, I have so much to learn about this effort.
The thought occurs to me that this is sort of like Affirmative Action, in reverse.
And, just as with Affirmative Action, Asians don’t necessarily fit into the agenda/narrative that some might want to present.
The thought has also occurred to me that there appears to be what is essentially an “industry” arising around dismantling perceived systemic racism (including, I assume – involvement of attorneys, possible lawsuits, etc.). And as part of that, there will also be a continuing need to prove and verify its existence.
(Including what some might perceive as “forced education” regarding the issue to begin with, in schools. But, that’s a rather cynical point of view, I suppose.)
And on a social level, what’s being referred to as “cancel culture” appears to be an effort to keep people in line with the agenda. Along with publications to help enforce that, and tell us how to think and communicate in an “acceptable” manner.
I’m starting to see this as similar to an industry, with more than one component.
Heck, I’m now starting to be impressed, albeit in a rather cynical manner.
But on a broader level, it might actually be contributing to political divisiveness, for those who fall into the trap.
And, you’d really have to include large, national media organizations as part of that industry. Night-after-night, “suddenly” reporting on systemic racism as their lead stories. As if it’s an entirely new thing to begin with, and there’s nothing else going on in the world.
Not to mention the political systems.
I’ve never heard of that word either, nor has my spell check. I think that’s when the police take people-of-color’s cars and give them to white people. I’m not sure why the Vanguard would support such a practice.
Google it Alan – it’s pretty common usage in criminal justice reform circles.
There’s even an org – Decarcerate Sacramento.
I’m not in criminal justice reform circles. Oh wait, I read the Vanguard. Nevermind.
But seriously, this is the first I’ve heard the word, or the concept of ‘decarcerating people of color’. I ask this quite seriously — what does this mean? Is the idea to release all people of color from incarceration? To release those who have committed certain crimes? To have all races represented in prison as they are seen in the population? To only lock up white people? To close all prisons? I really don’t know what the fleshed-out idea is behind “achieve the purpose of decarcerating people of color”. I do acknowledge that “people of color” are almost certainly incarcerated at much higher rates than “white” people for similar crimes. Even without direct racism, lower rates of access to quality lawyers due to — on average — much lower access to lots of money would explain a part of this.
Basically the big criticism of the criminal justice system since Michelle Alexander came out with “The New Jim Crow” … and probably before … has been the concept of mass incarceration. That the US is a relatively small percentage of the overall world population and yet has one-quarter of its incarcerated population. So “decarceration” is the reduction of the incarcerated population in jails and prisons.
And then the other big criticism is the notion that Blacks and Latinos are overrepresented in the incarcerated population. Some of that is because Blacks and Latinos commit crimes at a higher rate – but not all of it. Some of it – like drug – offences has to do with police patterns. Moreover, detailed statistical analysis shows even once Black and Brown are arrested they are more likely to be charged, more likely to plead or be found guilty and more likely to be sentenced to prison and for longer periods of time.
That’s really what I was getting at here. You don’t achieve that by arrested more white people, you get that by looking at alternatives to incarceration where you can (obviously you need to put certain classes of crime into custody) and you achieve it by making sure that everyone has equal access to justice (which is difficult when the DA has nearly three times the resources as the public defender’s office).
OK, that’s the most reasonable and measured explanation of these kinds of things I’ve heard from you. On that basis, I’ll be more open to what is said here on these matters.
I certainly want to see policing / justice brought to/towards a place of equality, and the current movement (and the prevalence of video cameras on everyone) has helped open my eyes to injustices I had not previously considered. I am often cynical to many of the ideas as presented here because when the approach presented is ‘too’ extreme (and I understand the reason some people feel it needs to be), it can lead to alienating the very people one needs to convince – the conceivable. Too often the progressive strategy seems to be showing other progressives how woke they are – instead of bringing in those as yet unconvinced. That may feel good for the ego, but can lead to unintended consequences — like the election of President Donald Trump.
With the violence on the streets and the messages in the media – I fear a similar result. Actually either party winning is a result to be feared in my book, but Donald Trump is clearly not the man we need leading this country right now, so even a change from horrific to terrible-but-different may be an improvement.
I believe almost all the people commenting here who people see as ‘conservatives’ wouldn’t pass muster as anything short of California liberals at an Arkansas BBQ. I’m virtually certain that nearly everyone here wishes to see a more racially-just justice and policing system. Where I think there is divergence is when we gets to matters of a more-socialist-leaning economic system as a solution to racial economic disparities. And I’m not going down that road . . . just pointing out that is, I believe, more of where the divide in ideals is found.
Just wondering what this component does. Never heard of it, and the title seems like an odd combination.
(Sure – I can look it up, but thought you might want to explain it to your readers, yourself.)
Ah, yes – our old fiscal friend – “retirement benefits”. Sounds familiar.