California’s Tough-on-Crime Shift Hits Roadblock: Who Will Pay for Proposition 36?

[This column was reported for Political Breakdown, a bi-monthly newsletter offering analysis and context on Bay Area and California political news. Click here to subscribe.]

We hate to say we told you so, but we did.

Before voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, I wrote a story detailing the concerns of opponents of the tough-on-crime measure who said its supporters were making a lot of promises — such as holding drug users accountable and providing them treatment — they didn’t have the money to back up.

Not even three months after the initiative took effect, there’s evidence on the ground that more resources are needed. San Francisco sheriff’s officials said last month that they reopened two dormitories at one of the city’s jails to accommodate an 8% increase in inmates compared to the same time last year.

On March 1, Kunal Modi, San Francisco’s new chief of health, homelessness and family services, wrote on X that treatment capacity is one of the major challenges the city is facing as it rolls out a pilot program to improve conditions on Sixth Street in the South of Market neighborhood, one of the city’s most challenging areas.

“What worked well: improved street conditions, cross-department collaboration, service placements and arrests,” Modi wrote. “What didn’t work as well: ran out of shelter/treatment bed capacity daily, struggled with journey home completions, displacement.”

There’s a burgeoning debate in Sacramento about the best way to fund Proposition 36, which makes it easier for prosecutors to charge repeat drug users and alleged thieves with felonies while also offering the option of treatment.

The ballot measure is being implemented unevenly in the state’s 58 counties, with some district attorneys filing dozens of felony cases in recent months while others have filed practically none at all. Still, at a recent hearing at the state Capitol, judicial officials told lawmakers that they expect tens of thousands of new felony cases this year — cases that will require not only jail beds or spots in treatment programs but also more court and probation resources.

That’s part of the reason Democratic Orange County state Sen. Tom Umberg authored legislation that would open up existing state grant funding to the drug courts and probation programs envisioned under Proposition 36.

“What I know is that this must get funded. It’s something passed overwhelmingly by voters,” Umberg said, adding that the grant money is only “one part of the puzzle,” and lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom also need to identify other funding sources.

“This does not fulfill the Legislature’s obligation to fund Prop. 36. This is a step in funding it,” he said.

The irony is that the grant funds Umberg wants to tap come from Proposition 47 — the ballot measure Proposition 36 targeted — and that funding pool will likely shrink in the years ahead.

That’s because Proposition 47, which Proposition 36 amended, resulted in far fewer people going to prison and jail for drug and theft crimes. The measure redirected money saved from incarcerating fewer people to fund community programs like drug treatment. Now, with more people facing felonies under Proposition 36, the savings are expected to decline.

Will Matthews, communications director for Californians for Safety and Justice, the nonprofit that wrote Proposition 47, said the funding battle highlights the central tension in the debate: People want less drug use and theft and for offenders to be held accountable, but the more the state spends on incarceration, the less money is available for treatment and rehabilitation.

“It lays bare the truth, which is that the only way we are going to free up the necessary resources for treat-and-prevention infrastructure that this state has needed for generations is by reducing the size and scope of the prison system, by reducing the number of people flowing into the system,” he said. “We know what works, and we know what we need to do.”

But with Proposition 36, voters threw their support behind letting prosecutors lock more people up if they refuse to get help. Voters did not, however, give state leaders a roadmap, which means there are going to be some tough conversations ahead in Sacramento.