SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration is pushing back against criticism that California has failed to fund voter-approved Proposition 36, arguing the state has already committed substantial resources toward implementation despite the measure containing no dedicated funding mechanism.
The dispute emerged Thursday after the California District Attorneys Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, and Chief Probation Officers of California issued a joint statement accusing the governor of “once again” refusing to fund Proposition 36 in his May budget revision.
But the administration countered that characterization directly, noting the ballot measure itself provided no revenue source while the state has nevertheless directed hundreds of millions of dollars and broader county funding streams toward implementation efforts.
“Prop 36 included no funding mechanism — but California funded implementation anyway, with $100 million upfront, and billions available to counties,” the governor’s office stated in response.
The administration also circulated a graphic rebutting what it described as the “MYTH” that “The state isn’t funding Prop 36.”
According to the governor’s office, California has already committed “$100 million to launch,” “$127 million in BSCC grants,” and “$4.4 billion available to counties (Prop 1)” to support treatment, behavioral health, and implementation-related needs.
The debate underscores a central tension surrounding Proposition 36 since its passage in 2024: voters approved expanded penalties and treatment mandates without creating a permanent funding structure to support counties expected to carry out the law.
The law increased penalties for some repeat theft and drug offenses while also creating treatment-mandated felony provisions tied to substance use and rehabilitation programs.
In their statement Thursday, the law enforcement organizations argued the administration has not provided adequate support to local agencies responsible for implementing the measure.
“Californians overwhelmingly passed Prop 36 to crack down on repeat retail theft and the state’s deadly drug crisis while delivering proven, court-supervised treatment,” the organizations stated. “Yet Governor Newsom has again turned his back, denying communities across the state the resources they need to enforce the law and save lives.”
The groups argued that a lack of additional state funding is limiting implementation efforts at the county level.
“With their hands tied by a lack of funding, law enforcement, prosecutors, and probation officers cannot fully hold offenders accountable or steer them into the treatment they desperately need,” the statement continued.
The coalition further asserted that counties are already seeing positive outcomes where funding and infrastructure exist.
“Proposition 36 is working where it’s funded: it reduces repeat crime, breaks the cycle of addiction, and helps people reclaim their lives and families,” the organizations stated.
Still, the administration’s May Revision budget documents suggest the state has already begun incorporating Proposition 36’s fiscal impacts into long-term corrections and treatment planning.
According to the May Revision, “Proposition 36, passed in November 2024, is expected to increase CDCR’s population by 592 in 2025-26 and 1,547 upon full implementation.”
The budget further acknowledges that Proposition 36 will reduce savings previously generated under Proposition 47, the 2014 criminal justice reform measure that reduced penalties for certain low-level theft and drug offenses.
“Proposition 36, passed in 2024, established a treatment-mandated felony for drug possession that can be charged under specified circumstances,” the budget document states. “Proposition 36 is projected to increase the state prison population and therefore decrease savings associated with Proposition 47 in future years.”
The same budget documents also indicate that Proposition 47 savings may continue funding treatment and wraparound services connected to Proposition 36 implementation.
“Remaining Proposition 47 monies may be used to fund court-ordered treatment programs to address the new treatment-mandated felony offense,” the May Revision states. “Allowable uses may include expanding or enhancing court-ordered substance use disorder and/or mental health treatment or providing case management and wraparound services that facilitate successful reintegration, including housing, employment support, and job training.”
The administration’s broader criminal justice budget proposal reflects continued investment in rehabilitation, treatment, mental health services, and alternatives to incarceration even as the state prepares for modest prison population increases associated with Proposition 36.
The May Revision includes approximately $14.6 billion in total funding for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, including about $4.2 billion dedicated to prison health care programs.
The state also continues emphasizing rehabilitation-oriented reforms associated with Newsom’s “California Model,” including expanded programming, honor housing initiatives, mental health services, and reentry-focused correctional strategies.
Separate from the district attorneys’ and sheriffs’ organizations, Chief Probation Officers of California President Esa Ehmen-Krause also criticized the May Revision over reductions to existing pretrial and probation-related funding.
“Pretrial programs have increasingly become the dumping ground for nearly every state court-ordered community release, yet the state continues to reduce the funding needed to safely monitor those cases,” Ehmen-Krause stated. “That is not sustainable.”
Ehmen-Krause connected the issue to a recent California Supreme Court ruling encouraging courts to rely more heavily on alternatives to monetary bail.
“Especially at a time when the California Supreme court just issued a ruling that requires courts to rely heavily on alternatives to monetary bail, the fact the state would double down on harming the only alternative to pretrial detention is mind boggling,” Ehmen-Krause said.
The probation chiefs’ statement warned that local agencies are being asked to shoulder expanding responsibilities without corresponding support.
“The state continues to build a myriad of offramps from incarceration but is failing to support the corresponding safeguards necessary when looking at people in the communities,” Ehmen-Krause stated. “It is easy to see the public safety crisis ahead with these policies, yet the state continues to drive towards it.”
Still, critics of the law enforcement organizations’ position note that Proposition 36 itself was passed without a dedicated funding stream, placing the Legislature and administration in the difficult position of absorbing implementation costs into an already strained state budget environment.
The May Revision reflects broader fiscal pressures across California government, with agencies throughout the state facing reductions, restructuring, and ongoing budget constraints.
Even so, the administration maintains that California has already directed substantial funding toward behavioral health, treatment infrastructure, local grants, and implementation support connected to Proposition 36 and related public safety programs.
The disagreement now appears likely to continue through the remainder of the state budget process as lawmakers negotiate final spending priorities ahead of the June budget deadline.
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.
