This report presents findings and recommendations from an evaluation of California's Public Defense Pilot Program, which made funding available to counties to support the provision of legal counsel to those who might be eligible for postconviction relief. This report details how counties used grant funds, how many clients were served, and whether grantees made progress toward their goals and explores broader lessons learned about the program.

Evaluation of the California Public Defense Pilot Program

Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Nicholas M. Pace, Mallika Bhandarkar, Lucy Shearer, Nastassia Reed, Laura Whitaker

ResearchPublished Aug 4, 2025

This report presents findings and recommendations from a statewide evaluation of the Public Defense Pilot Program (PDPP), a grant program that made funding available to counties in California to support local public defense offices (entities that provide attorneys at no or low cost to represent those accused of criminal offenses) in the performance of postconviction relief (PCR) work related to several specific sections of the California Penal Code. These statutes allow people who have certain convictions on their records to seek various forms of PCR that could, for example, result in a new trial, revisions of the original sentence, or inclusion of new information to be considered at a future parole hearing. Funds were allocated for every county in the state, with available funding levels determined by the size of each county's population. This report details how offices were using grant funds, how many clients were being served, and whether grantees were making progress toward the goals they established when they applied for funds. It also explores the broader lessons learned about this grant program, including challenges to using the funds, facilitators to using the funds, and how offices are planning for postconviction services after the end of the grant program. The report additionally includes recommendations for any future state-sourced grant programs that would also be focused on the provision of counsel in furtherance of PCR.

Key Findings

  • The program clearly enhanced counties' ability to provide counsel to people who might be eligible for the types of PCR that were the subject of the PDPP.
  • Applications for PDPP funds were submitted by 42 of the 58 counties in California and subsequently approved. Six of those counties did not spend any program funds during the evaluation.
  • Many offices used the funds to hire personnel, reassign personnel, or create new units to focus on PDPP-related PCR.
  • Funding was frequently used for client-focused and case-support services. Many grant-funded staff received training to increase their PCR skills.
  • Tens of thousands of people came to offices' attention by reaching out for assistance, through independently screening for potential eligibility, or through identification by external entities. Ultimately, thousands were granted relief during the evaluation period.
  • Offices indicated that it took considerable time to develop the requisite expertise and processes to handle PCR cases, given the legal complexity of the issues and procedures and need to obtain records.
  • Because funding was allocated annually, there was uncertainty about the ongoing availability of state financial support, in turn leading to challenges in planning.
  • Grantees said that the funds enabled them to provide PCR more systematically and with a more highly skilled workforce.
  • Some offices expressed a desire for PDPP to have covered more PCR types.
  • Offices were uncertain about how they would continue to engage in postconviction work under the PDPP-relevant statutes after the program ends.

Recommendations

  • Establish a minimum grant level across all offices.
  • Provide guidance to counties with contracted defender offices or consortium models.
  • Provide more flexibility in the type of PCR that is covered.
  • Allocate grant funds in full at the beginning of the grant program, or provide more guidance to grantees on budgeting in an uncertain funding climate.
  • Continue to draw on the Office of the State Public Defender's expertise for implementation.
  • Create a forum for information-sharing across offices.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Holliday, Stephanie Brooks, Nicholas M. Pace, Mallika Bhandarkar, Lucy Shearer, Nastassia Reed, and Laura Whitaker, Evaluation of the California Public Defense Pilot Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3984-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

This research was sponsored by the California Board of State and Community Corrections and conducted by the Justice Policy Program within RAND Social and Economic Well-Being.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.