SACRAMENTO, CA – A new report from the Indigent Defense Improvement Division (IDID) of the California Office of the State Public Defender reveals a stark and persistent imbalance in the state’s investment in prosecution versus public defense. The report, titled Unequal Scales: California’s Investment Disparity Between Prosecution and Public Defense, analyzes six years of budget data, grant distributions, and revenue streams and concludes that California has allocated more than $1 billion to bolster prosecution efforts—while directing just $150 million in state-administered grants to indigent defense during the same period.
The findings raise serious concerns about whether the state is meeting its constitutional obligation to ensure a fair trial for every person accused of a crime—particularly those who cannot afford legal representation. Despite state and federal constitutional mandates requiring the appointment of counsel to indigent defendants, California’s funding practices have created an adversarial system in which the public defense function is chronically under-resourced.
The report highlights the state’s failure to invest equitably in defense, especially in contrast to the resources made available to prosecutors. Between 2019 and 2025, the state administered 12 prosecution-only grant programs totaling approximately $1.007 billion. These funds supported a wide range of initiatives including insurance fraud prosecution, drug-impaired driving cases, vertical prosecution models for retail theft, and specialized violent crime units. By contrast, the state issued only three grant programs specifically for indigent defense, totaling just over $150 million—all of which are temporary and scheduled to expire by 2026.
This enormous disparity, the report argues, is not only unjust but unsustainable. The consequences are most acutely felt in California’s 58 counties, where public defenders are tasked with handling increasingly complex and voluminous caseloads without a corresponding increase in resources. “A well-functioning criminal legal system requires functional parity in the resources allocated to the prosecution and the defense,” the report states. “Imbalanced resourcing risks skewing the adversarial process and undermining the constitutional promise of equal justice.”
The disparity is visible not only in state grants but also in the broader county-level budgets. For the 2022–2023 fiscal year, counties allocated approximately $2.2 billion to their District Attorney’s Offices, compared to just over $1.2 billion for public defense. This nearly $1 billion gap in local spending mirrors a longer-term trend. Since at least 2017, California counties have consistently outspent on prosecution over defense by margins ranging from $809 million to $940 million annually.
While counties bear the primary responsibility for funding trial-level public defense, the state plays a significant role in shaping local budget priorities through its allocation of grants and control of key revenue streams. The report identifies several state-controlled funding sources—such as Proposition 172 funds, the Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS), and CalWRAP—that funnel hundreds of millions of dollars annually to law enforcement and prosecution without offering any access to public defenders. Proposition 172 alone generated $4.74 billion in one year, yet its ambiguous language and implementation practices have largely excluded defense offices from benefitting.
Even when state programs are intended to support both prosecution and defense, the funds are often unevenly distributed. In a striking example, 32 counties received between five and 10 times more grant funding for prosecution than for defense. In another 12 counties, prosecutors received at least 20 times more than their public defense counterparts. These disparities compound over time, reinforcing systemic inequities and straining public defenders’ ability to meet their ethical and legal obligations.
The structure of these grants further favors prosecution. Most of the 12 identified prosecution-focused grant programs offer stable, annually renewing support that allows prosecutors to build out specialized units, hire new staff, and develop long-term strategies. Meanwhile, all three defense-focused grants—such as the Public Defense Pilot Program and the Racial Justice for All Implementation Grant—are time-limited and non-renewing, with no new funding streams currently available for defense offices beyond 2026.
The result is an uneven playing field. Prosecutors are empowered to expand and specialize, while public defenders are left to react with fewer staff, less training, and diminished access to expert witnesses, investigators, or treatment resources. The report notes that many state-funded prosecution initiatives focus on complex crimes that require significant defense work—such as insurance fraud and organized theft—but provide no corresponding funds to defense offices to meet the resulting rise in caseloads.
Despite this bleak picture, the report points to several programs that show promise for achieving greater equity. Three grant programs—the Proposition 47 Grant Program, the County Resentencing Pilot Program, and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)—are structured to provide funding to both prosecution and defense. These programs collectively awarded $30.5 million to prosecutors and $36.3 million to public defenders between 2019 and 2024. Although not initially designed to promote funding parity, their more balanced structure demonstrates that equitable investment is achievable when both sides of the legal system are considered.
The Proposition 47 Grant Program, for instance, funds mental health and substance use disorder treatment for justice-involved individuals and requires collaboration between public agencies and community-based organizations. The County Resentencing Pilot Program, launched in 2021, supports prosecutor-initiated resentencing efforts but includes mandatory participation from public defenders. The Byrne JAG Program, administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections, funds a range of justice initiatives and in its latest cycle awarded more to defense than prosecution—$18.4 million compared to $6.4 million.
IDID concludes the report with a call for structural reform in state funding. To correct the imbalance, the report recommends expanding dual-eligible grant programs, ensuring that new prosecution-focused grants include a defense counterpart, and establishing funding mechanisms that directly support the constitutional right to counsel. “Without equal resources, public defenders operate at a structural disadvantage in an adversarial system—required to perform parallel functions with fewer tools, smaller staff, and rising workloads,” it states.
The report stresses that failing to address this disparity not only harms individuals accused of crimes but undermines public trust in the legal system. When justice depends on wealth or political influence, the legitimacy of the courts is compromised. The authors urge California lawmakers to recognize that investment in public defense is not just a matter of budgetary fairness—it is a constitutional imperative.
As the Legislature finalizes the 2025–2026 state budget, advocates hope that Unequal Scales will serve as a wake-up call. For California to live up to its legal and moral obligations, it must ensure that the promise of justice for all is not reserved for those who can afford it.
