New Reporting Mandate Threatens to Cut Funding for DAs Who Decline Half of Serious Crime Cases

The “Preventing Prosecutors from Protecting Predators Act of 2026” is essentially a massive data collection and accountability measure aimed squarely at local District Attorneys and other chief prosecutors. If a prosecutor’s office serves a jurisdiction of 100,000 or more people and receives specific federal funds (Part T of the Omnibus Crime Control Act), they must now file an incredibly detailed annual report with the Attorney General.

The Data Dump: What Prosecutors Must Track

Think of this as a deep dive into prosecutorial discretion, focusing entirely on a long list of “covered offenses”—which includes everything from rape and sexual assault to child abuse, sex trafficking, and even nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. For every single case involving these serious crimes, the prosecutor’s office must report on the outcome. This isn’t just about convictions; it’s about transparency regarding the decisions that happen before trial.

Specifically, the reports must detail how many cases were referred for prosecution versus how many were declined, including the precise reason for each declination. They must also track the defendant’s prior criminal history, including arrests, convictions, and whether they are on the Sex Offender Registry (Section 2). This is a huge lift for local offices, requiring them to cross-reference multiple databases and document every step of the process, adding significant administrative overhead to already stretched budgets.

Bail Decisions Under the Microscope

For those of us concerned about repeat offenders, the bill shines a spotlight on pretrial release decisions. The reports must meticulously track bail requests: how many defendants were released on their own recognizance, what the prosecutor requested for bail (type and amount), and what the court actually imposed. Crucially, they must also report on the outcomes of those releases, specifically tracking any failure to appear or rearrests while the defendant was out pending trial (Section 2).

This data could be invaluable for citizens trying to understand why certain high-risk individuals keep cycling through the system. It moves the conversation past anecdotes and toward hard data on how pretrial decisions affect public safety. However, it also adds another layer of mandatory, time-consuming reporting for local staff who are already juggling heavy caseloads.

The 50% Cliff and Federal Leverage

Here’s where the rubber meets the road—and where local prosecutors might start feeling the heat. If a covered office fails to submit its required report, the Attorney General must withhold between 25% and 50% of the office’s Part T grant funds for the next year. That’s a serious financial penalty for a missed deadline.

But the real leverage comes from the declination rate. If an office declines to prosecute more than half of its referred covered offense cases in a fiscal year, the Attorney General gains the power to intervene. They can require the office to submit a corrective action plan and condition future grants on implementing that plan (Section 2). For repeated issues, the AG can suspend the office’s grant eligibility entirely for up to two years.

This provision is designed to ensure accountability, but it’s a blunt instrument. A high declination rate might signal an office that is soft on crime, but it could also mean the local police department is referring a huge volume of cases with weak evidence. By setting a hard 50% threshold, the bill risks pressuring prosecutors to pursue cases that might be flimsy just to keep their declination rate low and avoid federal intervention and funding cuts. This could lead to unnecessary trials and strain court resources, potentially compromising the quality of justice in the pursuit of a favorable statistic.