Two years after California voters approved a tough-on-crime overhaul aimed at steering drug offenders into treatment rather than prison, a review of court and county data shows the promise behind Proposition 36 is running headlong into a treatment system that simply isn’t equipped to deliver.
The measure, approved statewide in 2024 and closely watched here in the Inland Empire and across Southern California, created a new “treatment-mandated felony” for repeat drug offenses. Defendants can avoid up to three years behind bars by pleading guilty and completing court-ordered treatment. Complete the program, and the felony disappears from the record.
But an analysis of data from 15 California counties with the heaviest caseloads under the new law found that only a small share of people arrested on these charges ever make it into treatment — and fewer still finish it. Statewide, of nearly 18,700 felony drug cases filed under Prop. 36 last year, only 17% of defendants opted into treatment, and just 57 cases statewide ended in dismissal after someone graduated a program.
In Orange County, which logged more Prop. 36 referrals than any other county examined, 1,311 people were referred for drug treatment as of February. Only 314 agreed to enter a program. Fewer than half of those were actively receiving care, and just 15 had graduated.
The findings raise questions for Inland Empire residents and officials alike, since Riverside and San Bernardino counties — like their counterparts statewide — are grappling with the same fundamental problem: Prop. 36 arrived with big promises but little money to back them up.
**A law without a budget**
Proposition 36, championed by district attorneys and sheriffs including several from Southern California, was sold to voters as a way to combat homelessness, addiction and retail theft simultaneously. It rolled back parts of a 2014 measure that had reduced many drug and theft crimes to misdemeanors in an effort to ease prison overcrowding.
Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the initiative, warning it amounted to an “unfunded mandate” that risked reviving the excesses of the War on Drugs. That prediction has, at least partially, borne out. Voters approved the policy with no dedicated funding stream, and while the Legislature has since allocated money, advocates say it falls far short of what’s needed.
This year’s state budget included just $50 million for pretrial services, behavioral health programs and court workloads tied to Prop. 36 — a fraction of the $650 million that lawmakers pushing for full implementation had sought.
“The statute basically said, ‘We will fix everything for you’ — we’ll come up with a mental health plan, a drug addiction plan, a job plan, a housing plan,” said Tracie Olson, chief public defender in Yolo County. “And none of that happened.”
**Inconsistent rules, inconsistent outcomes**
Perhaps most striking is how differently counties have chosen to apply the law. The length of time someone must remain in treatment before charges are dropped ranges from as little as three months in Ventura County to as long as two years in San Luis Obispo County. Some counties, such as San Francisco, have made almost no arrests under the new provisions at all.
Because Prop. 36 does not include a “washout period” for old convictions, some public defenders report seeing felony charges built on drug convictions dating back decades — sometimes to the 1980s — even when a defendant has been sober and out of the system for years.
That’s what happened to Nicco Pierstorff, a 40-year-old Orange County resident who had already beaten a methamphetamine addiction and rebuilt his life, landing steady work and an apartment in Buena Park. After police found drugs in a backpack in his car last year — one he says belonged to someone else — his history of arrests from nearly a decade earlier qualified him for a new felony charge under Prop. 36.
Pierstorff completed six months of treatment, including twice-weekly drug testing, group counseling and regular court appearances, and had his charge dismissed this past spring. Despite his initial anger at being swept up in the system, he now credits the program with helping him understand the trauma behind his past addiction.
“At first I thought it would be a waste of time because I was already sober,” he said. “But being in Prop. 36 really did help me a lot.”
**Treatment beds in short supply**
Even defendants eager to get help often find the system unable to accommodate them. In Orange County, which has fewer than 300 residential treatment beds, wait times have stretched from about a week before Prop. 36 to as long as six weeks now, according to Ian Kemmer, the county’s director of behavioral health services. In the meantime, people are placed in sober living homes that don’t offer the clinical treatment they need — a dangerous gap, since addiction specialists say swift intervention is critical to keeping people from relapsing.
In Santa Clara County, Judge Stephen Manley, who oversees drug and mental health cases, said the shortage extends across every diversion pathway the county offers.
“We are simply out of treatment in my county,” Manley said. “Whether you’re Prop. 36 or probation or mental health diversion, you have to wait a long time to get into treatment.”
Housing remains another unmet piece of the puzzle. In several counties studied, more than half the people referred for evaluation were homeless — 61% in Santa Clara County and 62% in Orange County. Most counties don’t even track how many participants ultimately find stable housing while in treatment.
**Mixed results, mixed opinions**
Not everyone views the rollout as a failure. San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan points to her county as a bright spot, noting that 71% of defendants who pleaded guilty to a Prop. 36 drug felony began the path toward mandated treatment, with fewer than 5% receiving jail or prison sentences. Still, county data show that only a third of people referred for evaluation ultimately accepted treatment, and just two had graduated as of December.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, one of the measure’s most prominent Democratic backers, argues the core policy isn’t at fault — the state’s failure to invest in treatment infrastructure is.
“People are waiting and dying on the streets for lack of a proper treatment system,” Mahan said. “The state has refused to take ownership of building a robust treatment system.”
Others, including Greg Totten of the California District Attorneys Association, maintain the law is functioning largely as designed, with the biggest obstacle being a shortage of treatment capacity at the local level rather than any flaw in the statute itself.
**Success stories amid the gaps**
For some participants, the program has proven life-changing despite its shortcomings. Gustavo Meza, arrested last year in San Mateo County on a Prop. 36 drug charge, says he likely would have died from his addiction had he not been swept into the justice system. He had overdosed multiple times, including days before his arrest, and was homeless at the time.
It took nearly 10 months for the courts to formally enroll him in the program — during which time Meza had already sought out treatment on his own and gotten sober. Today he works two jobs, attends group counseling and hopes to eventually become a substance abuse counselor and reconnect with his young daughter.
“I’m sober, clear-minded, not doing the stuff I used to be doing,” Meza said. “I just want to start nice and slow.”
As lawmakers weigh whether to direct more funding toward Prop. 36 implementation, local officials across the region say the law’s underlying goals remain sound — but without a substantial investment in treatment beds, housing and mental health services, they warn that many defendants who want help will continue to find the system unable to provide it.
Original source: CalMatters
