- “Prop 36 is straining our community and state budgets in a time of unprecedented financial uncertainty, without improving community safety or public health.” – Claire Simonich, associate director of Vera California
- “Proponents of Proposition 36 said the measure would result in millions of Californians finally getting the treatment they desperately need. They lied.” – Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – One year after Proposition 36 went into effect, the Prosecutors Alliance and criminal justice reform advocates say the ballot measure has failed to deliver on promises of safety, accountability, and mass treatment—charging instead that it is fueling incarceration, straining local budgets, and deepening racial disparities across California.
The measure’s supporters, including the Yolo County District Attorney, counter that Prop 36 is providing accountability and treatment options and has produced positive local outcomes.
A new report from the Vera Institute of Justice and a preliminary data analysis from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Californians for Safety and Justice, and UC Berkeley researchers show increasing arrests, longer sentences, and rising jail and prison populations statewide.
In Los Angeles County alone, Prop 36 is projected to cost nearly $80 million this year, while thousands of Angelenos, disproportionately older and Black, face incarceration under the new law rather than treatment promised by the measure.
Data compiled by statewide researchers further show wide disparities by geography, with counties applying Prop 36 differently, resulting in uneven outcomes, increased drug felony filings in small rural counties, and unequal treatment based on where a person lives.
Critics argue these outcomes contradict the message of the measure’s backers, which included major retailers and law enforcement organizations.
“Prop 36 is straining our community and state budgets in a time of unprecedented financial uncertainty, without improving community safety or public health,” said Claire Simonich, associate director of Vera California, a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice.
Simonich added, “Prop 36 is exacerbating the very public health and safety problems it purported to address, removing funding from proven, effective programs and services like substance use and behavioral treatment and supportive housing. As California faces tough financial choices, it must invest in solutions that work — healthcare, services, and treatment — not just more punishment and mass incarceration.”
“Prop 36 is eroding safety and justice in California,” said Maureen Washburn, senior policy manager for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. “Over the past year, it has siphoned tens of millions from effective Prop 47 treatment programs, created stark differences across county justice systems, deepened racial disparities, and failed to make good on its central promise — getting people into treatment.”
“Proponents of Proposition 36 said the measure would result in millions of Californians finally getting the treatment they desperately need. They lied,” said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice. “The truth is, Proposition 36 prioritized incarceration over access to treatment, and diverted funding away from the programs we rely on, leaving courts overwhelmed, behavioral health systems under-resourced, and vulnerable people trapped in a cycle of incarceration instead of care.”
“California has a large, proud immigrant population — it is home to more immigrants than any other state. Prop 36 is harming our communities and fueling the jail-to-ICE detention and deportation pipeline,” said Merle Kahn, senior contract attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Khan continued, “All Prop 36 adjudications, even those that are not supposed to be convictions, are convictions under federal immigration law. Green card holders and other noncitizens who are charged with Prop 36 crimes are being placed in deportation proceedings, often subject to mandatory detention and mandatory deportation.
“This is true regardless of the person’s ties to the U.S., how long they have been living here, or the harm to their families. Individual circumstances often cannot even be considered by the immigration authorities if they are charged with a Prop 36 crime. Families are being torn apart, employers are losing valued employees, and entire communities are being destroyed by Prop 36.”
According to the Vera Institute of Justice, Los Angeles County has seen spending on jailing people under Prop 36 climb over the course of 2025, with Prop 36 charges contributing to rising jail populations. The Institute reports that Black people make up just 8 percent of the county population but account for 23 percent of Prop 36 bookings. Older people are also disproportionately impacted.
Statewide fact sheets show similar disparities, including stark increases in felony drug filings in small counties, and uneven use of Prop 36 theft and drug provisions in counties such as Contra Costa, San Mateo, Sutter, Sacramento, and Kern.
While the Prosecutors Alliance and advocates argue that Prop 36 is driving incarceration, diverting funds from treatment, and undermining public health and equity goals, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office claimed success – at least locally.
The office states that Proposition 36 passed with 60 percent of the vote in Yolo County and took effect on December 18, 2024.
Over the first year, the office reported filing 130 complaints alleging felony violations of Health and Safety Code section 11395 and 187 complaints under Penal Code section 666.1.
At the end of the first year, defendants in 73 of the new Prop. 36 cases failed to appear in court and had warrants issued for their arrest.
According to the office, 23 defendants have resolved their cases, with 12 choosing to participate in Prop. 36 mandated treatment. The remaining defendants rejected mandated treatment, choosing traditional punishment instead. Three were placed on probation, and eight received county prison sentences. Four cases resolved for misdemeanor dispositions.
The Yolo County District Attorney also reports that under Penal Code section 666.1, 26 felony cases have been resolved, including six resulting in probation, 17 in county prison sentences, and four in state prison commitments, alongside 28 misdemeanor resolutions.
“Proposition 36 was designed to address repeat drug possession in a way that recognizes addiction as a health issue as well as a legal one,” said District Attorney Jeff Reisig. “These cases show that when treatment is appropriate, we are using it. Accountability matters but so does giving people a real opportunity to get help and break the cycle of addiction.”
“With theft cases, our responsibility is to protect the community while making sure the response fits the conduct,” said District Attorney Reisig. “The outcomes in these cases reflect a careful, case-by-case approach that uses probation, local custody, or state prison, when necessary, rather than a one-size-fits-all response.”
However reform advocates don’t see it that way.
“Prop 36 is taking us backwards — cycling people through jails instead of getting them into treatment,” said Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance. “It’s yet another reminder that real safety comes from policies that actually invest in our communities, address root causes, and create meaningful second chances.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The most important question for Prop 36 proponents is whether the crime rate trend in California has changed compared to other states, and whether disparate application of Prop 36 across counties has resulted in changed crime rate trends? We know from empirical evidence the following facts:
– Use of the death penalty has no impact on differences in homicide rates across states.
– The Three Strikes Law made no difference in crime rates across states.
– Increased jury trials in Yolo County has made no difference in Yolo crime rates compared to other counties.
I suspect we’ll see the same lack of impact from Prop 36 because higher incarceration rates really have no effect because property and violent criminals don’t consider those consequences. (White collar criminals do but we generally give them a free pass.)
“I suspect we’ll see the same lack of impact from Prop 36 because higher incarceration rates really have no effect because property and violent criminals don’t consider those consequences.”
Pretty sure that I’ve seen criminals (those committing either/both property crimes and violent crimes) running from the police (and taking steps to be discovered while committing crimes), in order to avoid “consequences”. Also pretty sure that no one inside of prison is continuing to commit crimes outside of prison (unless they’re directing others to do so.)
It certainly would be easier to stop them, if they weren’t concerned about consequences. Heck, they could call the police in advance themselves, and let them know when/where they’re planning to commit their next crime if they’re not concerned about consequences.