SACRAMENTO, CA – In November, California voters will vote on Proposition 36, an initiative that would cut millions of dollars from reentry and prevention services in favor of more prison sentences for theft and drug charges, and is part of a larger national movement in the US to bring back “tough-on-crime” laws, according to a Prison Policy Initiative analysis.
Prop. 36, supported primarily by major retail brands like Walmart and Target, increases penalties for people who use and sell drugs and makes small scale thefts eligible for felony charges, PPI charges.
This project aims, said PPI, to undo changes that have been made in the last 10 years that successfully lowered the number of prisoners and the rate of recidivism, and, if passed, by 2029, Prop. 36 could fully undo hard fought progress in reducing California’s prison population.
Proponents of criminal justice reform contend the measure has the potential to reverse substantial advancements made in the state’s judicial system and implore voters to reject it.
Advocates are urging caution to stop the comeback of punitive laws that might have a detrimental effect on communities across the country, as more states implement measures along the same lines.
While the text of Prop. 36 does not explicitly state it will defund prevention and reentry services, critics like PPI argue it effectively does so.
According to the Prison Policy Initiative, reviewing Prop. 47, which was approved by 60 percent of California voters in 2014, is crucial to comprehending the effects of Prop. 36.
Prop. 47 is a transformative initiative that reduced certain drug possession and theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, which decreases the long-term impact of criminal convictions on people’s housing and employment, reported PPI. Overall, Prop. 47 dramatically lowered the prison population.
Prison Policy Initiative notes a key feature of Prop. 47 was its reinvestment provision.
Savings from reduced incarceration would be redirected to a grant program for local reentry, diversion, substance and mental health treatment and crime prevention programs. Prop. 47 has saved the state around a billion dollars since it was put into effect, and those savings have been used to fund these vital services, claims PPI.
In contrast, Prop. 36 is projected to reverse the sentencing policy changes achieved by Prop. 47, leading to increased prison populations, said PPI.
And PPI said because Prop. 36 lacks a financing source of its own, it threatens to divert funds from the savings made possible by Prop. 47, leaving local communities with less money to deal with issues like homelessness, recidivism, and job difficulties, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.
According to data from the Prison Policy Initiative, participants in Prop. 47 reentry programs have significantly lower re-conviction rates—15.3 percent, which is 2-3 times lower than the average for those who have served prison sentences.
Additionally, homelessness among these participants decreased by 60 percent, and unemployment dropped by 50 percent, writes PPI, adding Prop. 36 counters these programs, ultimately undermining public safety efforts that address the root causes of crime.
Prop. 36 poses serious risks for Californians, particularly those struggling with drug use, maintains PPI, by increasing prison populations by enforcing stricter penalties for low-level theft and drug possession, while draining critical resources from community programs.
Prop. 36 allows prosecutors to pursue “treatment mandated felonies” for individuals charged multiple times for drug possession, but lacks funding for the necessary treatment, PPI contends.
This unfunded mandate could leave cash-strapped counties to cover the costs, potentially leading to more individuals facing felony convictions without proper support, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.
Prop. 36 places judicial oversight over treatment decisions, instead of medical professionals, said PPI, adding community-based voluntary programs understand relapse as a part of recovery, while people in court-mandated programs would label relapse or other broad reasons, such as unsatisfactory performance, as “failed.”
Research indicates that such mandatory programs have higher relapse and overdose rates, with individuals released from these settings experiencing overdose deaths at 27 times the rate of the general population in the first two weeks post-release, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.
In fact, the PPI reported that only 24 percent of jails provide medication assisted treatment.
The Prison Policy Initiative also notes Prop. 36 enhances sentencing for those involved with fentanyl, a substance often mixed with other drugs without users’ knowledge, citing a recent study that found that while 83 percent of participants tested positive for fentanyl, only 18 percent intended to use it. As a result, the measure risks disproportionately affecting many drug users rather than targeting high-level traffickers.
Supported by retailers like Walmart and Target, Prop. 36 seeks to address rising retail theft, but critics argue the initiative will exacerbate California’s already-punitive theft laws by imposing harsher penalties for low-level theft.
According to the Prison Policy Initiative, if passed, Prop. 36 would classify thefts under $950 as a “strike,” meaning even minor offenses, such as stealing a candy bar, could lead to enhanced felony charges in the future.
This could disproportionately affect young Black individuals, said PPI, who are overrepresented among those arrested for retail theft, despite data showing that white individuals are more likely to shoplift. And, transforming more theft and drug charges into felonies may increase deportation risks for immigrant communities, including those legally residing in the U.S.
California already has one of the lowest thresholds for felony theft in the nation, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, but Gov. Gavin Newsom signed another series of retail theft bills last month, allowing businesses to aggregate losses from multiple thefts to meet felony charging thresholds.
Critics argue Prop. 36’s severe penalties for non-violent offenses driven by poverty are unnecessary and counterproductive.
After all, this proposition, PPI charges, is a broader trend of “tough on crime” measures being considered across the country which critics say fail to improve public safety or address root causes like drug use and homelessness.
According to the Prison Policy Initiative, organizations like California United for a Responsible Budget are mobilizing resources to oppose Prop. 36, urging Californians—and citizens nationwide—to reject policies that would perpetuate mass incarceration in favor of proven solutions.
