California lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are seeking hundreds of millions of state dollars to support the implementation of the state’s new theft and drug treatment law.

Proposition 36 went into effect in December after a landslide victory at the ballot box. Among other things, the new law raises the stakes of everyday street crime: instead of misdemeanors for theft and drug crimes, some petty thefts — especially for repeat offenders— can now be felonies, and a third drug offense can yield an option of either a felony or drug treatment. While posters and mailers in support of the measure vowed to “make crime illegal again,” proponents emphasized the treatment portion, claiming it would help address homelessness.

Since the ballot measure passed, Republican lawmakers in the state have railed against Gov. Gavin Newsom for not including any funding for the law in his proposed budget. They said Newsom, who opposed the measure, is ignoring the will of the people.

On the county level, local sheriffs, public defenders and judges have testified the law is jamming up courts, straining a thin treatment infrastructure and stranding some people in jail. Many county representatives say they need significant funding for more treatment and judicial manpower.

Now, the lawmakers’ asks are in: the proposition needs a funding stream that some characterize as enormous and others say is miniscule to work as advertised. But no one – not the proposition’s authors, not members of the Legislature, nor the state’s financial, nonpartisan budget experts at the Legislative Analyst’s Office – knows exactly how much is needed.

Democrats and Republicans try to get the job done

State Sen. Thomas Umberg, D-Santa Ana, who supported the measure last fall, is requesting $250 million annually for the law’s implementation, and Senate Republicans, led by state Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, are requesting $400 million per year for the measure. Both sent their letters to Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, in advance of an April 1 deadline, according to sources familiar with the process.

“The people of California sent a very clear message with overwhelming passage of Proposition 36,” said Umberg in his letter. “The time for the Legislature to debate the merits of any of these directives has long since passed.”

The rough breakdown of Umberg’s ask includes: $85 million for law enforcement to continue targeting retail crime, $47 million for county probation departments, $50 million for a behavioral health grant program and about $50 million for county administrative costs. Senate Republicans, who made a number of other requests in their letter, did not get into specifics about where the $400 million they were requesting would go.

The requests will be considered by the Senate as they communicate with the governor about the Legislature’s budget priorities. However, in a tight budget year, it’s not certain any funding will be allocated to the measure.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office said Newsom will “ensure the law is operationalized,” but did not indicate where he stands on additional funding.

Both Niello and Umberg spoke of their requests during an event to mark “100 Days of Progress” since the passage of Prop. 36 in Sacramento Wednesday. There, district attorneys, law enforcement officers and business leaders from across the state discussed the state of crime and treatment since the law passed, though notably absent were county treatment facility staff members or administrators.

Law enforcement in the state has filed approximately 3,500 Prop. 36-related theft cases and more than 5,000 drug cases that qualify as “treatment-mandated felonies,” said Greg DeAngelo of Sicuro Data Analytics, at the Wednesday event. Treatment-mandated felonies are cases where a judge can give someone a felony conviction if they refuse to accept treatment for their drug dependency. If they finish treatment they can have their charge dismissed.

DeAngelo couldn’t say how many people have actually received treatment, but Orange County could provide a window.

Of 1,200 treatment-mandated felonies filed there so far, only 135 people have pleaded guilty and wanted to go to treatment, according to the county’s Senior Assistant District Attorney Robert Mestman.

Twenty-nine of those people are in a residential treatment program. Mestman said about 90% of people charged with treatment-mandated felonies in the county are experiencing homelessness, and the county is helping them find housing.

“(It’s) too early to really have any success stories,” Mestman said.

A contested cost for Prop. 36

Both Umberg and Niello’s estimates reference a report by the independent and nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. The report’s findings, which went out with ballots, figured the measure could cost between tens of millions to hundreds of millions for the state, and would cost all California counties tens of millions of dollars combined.

The LAO’s estimate is far from conclusive. Before Prop. 36 passed, the criminal justice advocacy group Californians for Safety and Justice pegged the price tag of the measure to be much higher — over $4.5 billion for the state and counties combined.

According to Caitlin O’Neil, the analyst who prepared the LAO report, her agency’s estimates were informed by historical data from the state Department of Justice and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

“It’s still very early,” she said. “We don’t have a good sense of how this is getting implemented, how the courts are going to manage the process.”

O’Neil said the LAO “didn’t contemplate start-up costs” of creating new drug treatment programs or infrastructure in counties, and the estimate was of projected “steady-state costs,” once the program started.

The vast discrepancy between the LAO’s estimate and the one from Californians for Safety and Justice is due to different assessments of how many people will be arrested and charged, the costs associated with processing arrests, and the unknowns of how district attorneys will wield the law. There is also the question of whether sufficient substance use disorder and mental health treatment capacity even exists now in counties.

Some other estimates are also on the higher end. An October report from the San Diego public administrator estimated it could cost more than $58 million in initial years for San Diego County alone to administer Prop. 36, with the bulk of costs coming from hiring more staff for the Sheriff’s Office.

Expansion of law enforcement spending is a controversial topic in California. In February, a coalition of 100 criminal justice reform and community advocacy groups, including Californians for Safety and Justice, signed on to a letter requesting the Legislature direct no additional funding to “expand jails, enlarge police forces, increase the number of criminal penalties, grow District Attorney offices, or add new prison beds,” in their implementation of Prop. 36.

In an April 3 letter, many of the same groups requested $120 million in the state budget to supplement the defense of people charged with these crimes. They requested the money for the hiring of social workers, mental health professionals and housing specialists.

Both sides of the aisle are eager for more data on how the proposition is implemented and how much treatment will cost.

Late last month, state Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, took a step in getting that data.

She announced a new bill, sponsored by Californians for Safety and Justice, that would track the costs associated with implementing the treatment portion of Prop. 36. SB 319, which has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, would direct the Superior Courts or Department of Justice to collect data about expenses and outcomes related to treatment-mandated felony programs.

“Voters have given California a strong mandate to achieve Prop. 36’s goals and improve public safety through treatment, but have not outlined a roadmap or funding source to get there,” said Ashby.

“SB 319 is a transparency bill that will ensure the voters’ will is implemented.”

_____

©2025 The Sacramento Bee. Visit sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.