California’s Proposition 36, passed by voters in 2024, is rapidly becoming the crisis many predicted—a costly, unfunded mandate wrapped in tough-on-crime rhetoric.
This week, The Daily Journal published stunning testimony from San Bernardino County Superior Court Presiding Judge Lisa Rogan, who called the situation what it is: “a train wreck coming.”
“When you’re talking about adding thousands of cases, this is a train wreck because there are not sufficient resources to give those people the treatment that has been promised,” Rogan told lawmakers. “There’s not the judicial resources to oversee those cases.”
Rogan, who chairs the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, warned that Prop. 36 doesn’t just increase caseloads—it fundamentally changes how long cases take and what resources they require.
“Each case could take longer,” she said. “And the required drug treatment facilities may not be available.”
What Rogan laid bare is the reckless design of Prop. 36—a measure that promised both harsher penalties and expanded drug treatment, but which included no way to pay for either. Instead, Republican lawmakers and business interests pushed Prop. 36 through the ballot without funding, relying on voter anger over property crime and the fentanyl crisis. Now, those same politicians are demanding Democrats clean up the mess.
“It’s a mess, that’s all I can say,” said Committee Vice-Chair Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale. “There was a very clear message that was sent by our public that we need to do a better job. In order to do a better job, you have to fund it. That’s what we’re failing to do.”
The audacity here is staggering: Prop. 36’s proponents spent millions to convince voters this was the solution to crime—without ever providing a funding mechanism.
As Assemblymember Nick Schultz put it, “the proponents of Prop. 36 also failed to answer that critical question of how we actually pay for the treatment programs that many people voted for.”
Now, the fiscal reality is hitting. According to state analysts, Prop. 47 previously saved nearly $95 million annually, funneling much of that into substance use and mental health programs. Prop. 36 shreds those savings—reducing them to just $24.7 million by 2027, while creating at least $70 million in new costs tied to incarceration and court oversight.
But the cost is not just financial. Schultz and others warned Prop. 36 turns the promise of equal justice into “justice by geography.” Wealthier counties might afford treatment programs. Others will simply warehouse people in jails. “It is really tied to where you live,” Schultz said.
That disparity will only grow as counties implement the law differently—a point underscored by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Their fiscal expert Anita Lee warned that “different counties are implementing the law in varied ways” and that the long-term impacts will be unpredictable.
Prop. 36’s backers sold voters a fantasy—harsher laws, more treatment, less crime—but delivered none of the resources required to make it real. Judge Rogan’s warning should be a wake-up call: “Cases that typically would have in the past taken us perhaps four to six months to resolve will now take two years,” she testified. “It does impact our cases. Our caseloads are already overextended. We have funding issues.”
Unless/until a “better” system has proven itself, I’m actually for “mass incarceration” of criminals – regardless of skin color or gender. I don’t believe in discrimination.
By the way, if this is an “equality issue”, shouldn’t the proportion of incarcerated men and women (however that’s defined) be “equal”?
” I’m actually for “mass incarceration” of criminals ”
Of course you are
Right – and you’re for releasing criminals so that they can harm others, again-and-again. There are actual statistics regarding that.
It’s not about “punishment” – it’s about keeping innocent people (future victims) safe.
And you can see the danger posed even BETWEEN inmates.
Personally, I’d rather live next to Scott Peterson (whom I doubt would harm me) vs. the guy who attacked him (during a pickleball game). Of course, that guy concluded that he was an agent of God, regarding that.
We had a very good discussion last night on this issue during the film screening. This (not Peterson per se, but the rapid rise of prison violence in California) is a complete mismanagement by CDCR. Unfortunately too many people see this stuff and react as you do without actually knowing what’s going on. And unfortunately as well, that’s not the topic for this article. But as the judge warns here, this problem is about to get far worse.
The problem is that neither CDCR (nor anyone else) controls criminals outside of prison.
You have a tendency to blame “society”, rather than “individuals”. That’s why you think that every problem can be traced back to societal failure.
(That is the core difference between someone like you, vs. much of the rest of the population. It is at the heart of the “liberal/conservative” divide.)
That’s because we don’t treat the problem, we just throw people in a cage, limit their ability to get jobs, housing, schooling when released, and then are shocked when they fall back into the same habits.
That’s blaming society, again. These people ended up in prison even though they had such opportunities before ending up there.
But I do agree that once they’re in there, the system could work better.
There are programs in prison – I was just watching a video the other day regarding a program which makes a popular line of clothing “Prison Blues”.
https://www.prisonblues.com/
It’s a good reminder after last night’s event to talk about this stuff with you, I have a lot of work to do. Just remember the recidivism rate for people who get college degrees while incarcerated is effectively zero. That should tell you what the focus needs to be.
That could be a case of correlation, again. The “Scott Petersons” of the prison world attending college.
But one question I would ask is whether or not educational and work programs are sufficient in prison, and I (like you) doubt that’s the case.
Petterson is an outlier anyway, as he had college before going to prison.
Educational programs are not sufficient, but they are improving greatly. It is remarkable to see what they are doing in places like San Quentin. I see a lot of promise here, but agree we aren’t there yet. The great thing I think is there is now buy in from the wardens and CO’s that there wasn’t maybe ten years ago.
Glad to hear that it’s changing.
But I suspect that the biggest opportunity for inmates is in the trades, not college. We already have enough college-educated baristas who don’t even have prison records.
In any case, it’s a real loss (for inmates and society) to restrict positive contributions from inmates. There is latent talent and capability in there. (I guess I actually do have some interest in this, and see a lot of potential.)
We call them incarcerated people. And really you start with GED’s because almost half of incarcerated folks don’t have a high school degree. A RAND study from a decade ago found that getting a GED or high diploma while in prison cuts the recidivism rate dramatically. One study found that only 26 percent of those who completed their degree while incarcerated were re-incarcerated within three years compared with more than half of those who did not complete such a program.
“We had a very good discussion last night on this issue during the film screening.”
*THE* film screening? There was a film screening? What film screening? Was I invited? Should I have been there?
You should have been there.
RO say: “(That is the core difference between someone like you, vs. much of the rest of the population. It is at the heart of the “liberal/conservative” divide.)”
Not true RO. I know *loads* of people who would describe themselves as liberals who lean more towards what you and I are saying and think DG is way off base with defundthepolice & “decarceration” issues.
David says: “And really you start with GED’s because almost half of incarcerated folks don’t have a high school degree.”
Yes – they need to have basic scholastic skills even in the trades.
But I now have a suggestion regarding “where” employees of oversized school districts in California might find meaningful opportunities. (I’m not entirely kidding.)