< The Latest 2025-10-17T15:00:42+0000
The Pasadena Star-News | Fri 10/17 08:00am PST | The Editorial Board
Sometimes plans made with the best intentions don’t pay off when you do the numbers.
The thing to do then is not to throw your hands up in despair, but to analyze what has gone wrong, and fix it.
Such is the case for California’s tough-on-crime ballot measure Proposition 36, passed last November as voters aimed to create what was called a “mass treatment” program for offenders convicted of certain kinds of drug crimes, with the intention of reducing other crimes and helping with anti-addiction efforts.
Problem is, the “mass” part hasn’t been very massive almost a year after its passage.
In a look at its implementation in the first six months since it took effect by the state’s Judicial Council, a report shows that about 9,000 people have been charged with what is termed a treatment-mandated felony, about 15% of them — or 1,290 people — elected to seek treatment. And some of those didn’t go through with it.
An analysis of the report by the investigative news site CalMatters puts it bluntly: “So far, of the 771 people placed into treatment, 25 completed it.”
We don’t think that’s the kind of success rate the millions of Californians who voted for Prop. 36 in hopes of cutting down on crime in their state were hoping for.
Literally a couple of dozen people in a state with 40 million residents have made it through a treatment program.
Here’s how the program is intended to work, CalMatters explains: “Prop. 36 gave prosecutors the ability to charge people convicted of various third-time drug offenses with a so-called treatment-mandated felony, which would give them a choice between behavioral health treatment or up to three years in jail or prison. If they accept, they would enter a guilty or no contest plea and begin treatment. Those who complete treatment have their charges dismissed.”
It sounds good, on paper, and yet it is not working at scale in real life.
“It’s not acceptable that so few people are actually going into treatment,” said Jonathan Raven, an executive at the California District Attorneys Association, which supported the measure. “The goal of this ballot measure was to take that population of people who have a substance use disorder and get them help, find them a pathway out of the criminal justice system and dismiss their cases. And that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening across the state.”
Here’s the thing: the ballot measure did not include any funding to implement what voters had passed. That’s one reason Gov. Gavin Newsom had for opposing it.
On the campaign website of proposition proponents, it said, “By requiring treatment for those with a pattern of repeat drug convictions, we can save lives and help bring everyone indoors, Prop. 36 represents a tool to help us address the crisis of homelessness because people who receive treatment have a much greater chance of staying housed.”
But it turns out most California counties don’t have enough behavioral treatment facilities or professionals to staff them to carry out the goals of the measure.
Related Articles Sacramento won’t show us bill for new wing Finally, a challenger to Karen Bass emerges Charlie Kirk’s deserved Medal of Freedom honor Newsom’s bill signings and vetoes are mostly bad news for Californians María Corina Machado’s fight for liberty San Jose mayor and proposition backer Matt Mahan said during the campaign: “It’s why I think Prop. 36 ultimately will be a great forcing function for the state and all of our counties to invest in inpatient treatment systems at scale, which is something we’ve desperately needed for years.”
That investment has yet to happen. Counties — especially Los Angeles, the largest county in the state — already are grappling with budget crises before adding more new programs.
There will be some new funding that could up the lousy numbers from the study period. Newsom announced last month that the state has given $127 million in grant funding to build more behavioral health treatment capacity. But so far, critics are right to say that the program has failed. If counties want to give Prop. 36 a chance to work, they need to prioritize spending in different ways. Because overtaxed Californians are in no mood to open our wallets and pay out more than we already do.