SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Two years after California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, the tough-on-crime measure intended to pair addiction treatment with tougher penalties for repeat drug and theft offenses is producing far more arrests than recoveries, with thousands facing felony prosecution and potential incarceration while only a small fraction of those tracked have successfully completed treatment, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles Times.
The Times reported this week that Proposition 36 has resulted in about 40,000 new felony arrests statewide for drug and theft offenses, while available court data show relatively few people have successfully completed the treatment pathway that supporters promoted as a central component of the measure.
Proposition 36 passed with nearly 70% support in 2024 amid widespread frustration over retail theft and open-air drug dealing in cities such as San Francisco. Backers pitched it as a way to steer people struggling with addiction toward treatment while imposing greater consequences on repeat drug and theft offenders.
Two years later, the Los Angeles Times analysis found that the treatment component has fallen far short of that promise.
The measure created a new charge known as the “treatment-mandated felony” for people possessing specified drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, who have at least two prior convictions for certain drug offenses.
Under the law, eligible people may enter treatment instead of immediately facing incarceration. Those who successfully complete treatment can have their charges dismissed, while those who do not complete treatment can face incarceration, including up to three years in state prison.
Proposition 36 also expanded felony penalties for certain repeat theft offenses, increased some criminal sentences and imposed additional penalties for specified drug offenses.
Since taking effect, the measure has resulted in roughly 40,000 new felony arrests statewide for drug possession and theft, many involving repeat offenders, according to the Times.
The Times cautioned that available data on treatment outcomes are incomplete and flawed because not all California courts have reported comparable information and implementation varies significantly among counties.
Of 10,937 felony drug cases tracked across 29 courts reporting data to the state, 1,305 defendants elected to receive treatment. Of those, just 36 successfully completed treatment and had their charges dismissed, according to the Times.
Maureen Washburn, senior policy manager at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, told the Times that the treatment pathway voters were promised has barely materialized.
“The big promise of Proposition 36 was that folks struggling with addiction could have access to treatment, complete that treatment, and then it wouldn’t impact their record,” Washburn told the Times. “But what we’re seeing is like less than 1% of people have realized that benefit. Instead, many, many more are getting arrested.”
Thousands of defendants remain in county jails as their cases move through a new system that varies widely from county to county, with no uniform statewide standards governing how treatment mandates are defined or enforced, the Times reported.
Some counties have established court departments dedicated to Proposition 36 cases, hiring staff and developing procedures as cases move through the system.
Individual counties have also been left to answer fundamental questions about the treatment process, including what constitutes successful completion, how long treatment should last, who pays for services and who ultimately determines whether someone has succeeded or failed.
More than 1,000 people have already been sent to state prison under the new law, with older Black defendants bearing a disproportionate share of the punishment, according to the Times. The newspaper reported that some of those defendants have likely struggled with addiction and homelessness for years.
The law’s funding gap traces back to its origins. Sheriffs and district attorneys initially pushed the Legislature to enact similar reforms but were rebuffed by lawmakers wary of reversing years of efforts to reduce incarceration among Black and Latino residents, according to the Times.
After failing to secure similar legislation in Sacramento and facing opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, Proposition 36 proponents turned to the initiative process and took the measure directly to voters without including a dedicated funding mechanism.
That has left funding dependent on annual decisions by the governor and Legislature.
Newsom and the Legislature initially approved $100 million, split between county behavioral health programs and courts, after Proposition 36 passed. This year’s budget cuts that amount to $50 million, while Republican legislators sought $400 million, according to the Times.
Proposition 36 supporters argue the funding shortfall has prevented counties from establishing the treatment infrastructure necessary to fulfill the measure’s promises.
In a joint statement cited by the Times, the Chief Probation Officers of California, the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the California District Attorneys Association argued the shortfall is undermining the law’s intent.
“Without adequate resources for probation and sheriffs, the only treatment provided is a revolving door of suggestions,” the organizations said. “Treatment doesn’t work without support, and second chances are not real without consequences.”
Critics counter that California already funds addiction, behavioral health and housing services through other programs and question whether the state should construct a parallel treatment system administered through the criminal legal system.
The Times pointed to Project Homekey, which has allocated nearly $1 billion toward supportive housing and created 2,749 affordable homes for people with behavioral health challenges who are at risk of homelessness.
Money generated through savings associated with Proposition 47 has also been directed toward community-based organizations addressing addiction, trauma, homelessness and related issues.
Critics argue Proposition 36 is asking taxpayers to build a duplicate system that ultimately ends in incarceration for people who fail to satisfy treatment requirements.
George Galvis, executive director of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, told the Times that law enforcement agencies are being asked to assume responsibilities traditionally handled by treatment providers and social service agencies.
Law enforcement agencies are “now trying to reinvent themselves as social workers, as drug counselors, as this and that,” Galvis said. “But they’re also the jailers, and so it just does not work.”
Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association, told the Times that the law’s vague standards have created a system rife with “punitive and vague consequences” and make it difficult for defense attorneys to advise clients about whether they should pursue the treatment option.
Questions remain about what defines successful treatment, how long someone must remain drug-free, who pays for treatment and whether judges, probation officers, law enforcement officials or treatment professionals should determine whether someone has successfully completed the program.
Chatfield said the uncertainty can make accepting the Proposition 36 treatment pathway a significant decision for defendants because failure can ultimately expose them to incarceration.
Just because Proposition 36 exists “doesn’t mean that we have to fund a failing program,” Chatfield told the Times.
With the Legislature and governor facing pressure to honor the ballot measure’s mandate while avoiding a return to the costly incarceration policies of past decades, officials and advocates on both sides say the current arrangement is unsustainable.
Galvis warned that substantially expanding funding for the criminal justice infrastructure surrounding Proposition 36 risks returning California to “this antiquated mass incarceration dynamic that nearly bankrupted the state of California back in the day, right?”
At the same time, declining to provide additional funding leaves Newsom and the Legislature vulnerable to criticism from Proposition 36 supporters who argue state leaders are failing to implement a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters.
Meanwhile, advocates warn that low-income Californians struggling with addiction are absorbing the consequences of a law that promised a pathway toward recovery but has so far produced tens of thousands of felony arrests, more than 1,000 prison commitments and only 36 documented successful treatment completions among the cases reported by participating courts.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
