After more than two-thirds of California voters approved Proposition 36 last year to crack down on drug and theft crimes, Governor Gavin Newsom and the state legislature remain divided over funding its enforcement.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has raised concerns that Newsom’s budget may overallocate funds for prison costs while underfunding courts and treatment programs. However, it notes that behavioral and substance abuse treatment is available through Medi-Cal and other state-funded programs.
With Prop. 36 now in effect, repeat offenders involved in theft and drug-related crimes can now face felony charges rather than misdemeanors, as was common after the passage of Prop. 47 in 2014. The measure also created a new category of “treatment mandated felonies,” allowing convicted individuals to complete substance abuse or mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration.
Republicans argue that Newsom, who initially opposed Prop. 36 but later promised to implement it, has failed to provide adequate funding for enforcement. The California State Senate Republican Caucus criticized the governor, stating that funding the measure is an obligation, not a choice.
The LAO’s review of Newsom’s 2025-2026 budget proposal suggests that prison funding may exceed actual population needs, while courts and treatment services remain underfunded. Estimates indicate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation could receive tens of millions of dollars more than necessary. The LAO recommended that the legislature require a progress report during spring budget hearings to determine the appropriate funding levels.
While the state could allocate additional funds to treatment programs, the LAO cautioned that doing so might come at the expense of other budget priorities, given California’s ongoing multiyear deficits.
Some lawmakers and law enforcement officials argue that without proper funding, Prop. 36 will be ineffective in reducing crime and repeat offenses. Critics warn that underfunding courts and treatment programs could lead to backlogs in prosecutions and insufficient rehabilitation services, ultimately undermining the measure’s intended impact.
Proponents of Prop. 36 insist that without immediate financial support, the cycle of repeat offenders exploiting legal loopholes will continue, frustrating both law enforcement and the public. With California already facing budget deficits, the debate over where to allocate funds is expected to intensify in the coming months as policymakers weigh public safety against fiscal constraints.
