You might also like
EL DORADO COUNTY, Calif. — One year after California voters approved Proposition 36 to expand court-mandated treatment for people with repeat hard-drug and theft convictions, local officials in El Dorado and neighboring counties say the measure’s central promise — broad access to treatment instead of repeated short jail stays — is being undercut by a failure in Sacramento to provide sustained, dedicated funding.
The initiative, which voters approved in November 2024, creates a new category of “treatment-mandated felonies” and gives courts the authority to order drug and mental-health treatment (including for fentanyl and other hard drugs) with the possibility of dismissal after successful completion. The ballot text explicitly ties the law to providing treatment, shelter, job training and other services for people with substance use and co-occurring disorders.
But implementation across California has been uneven, and county officials say the problem isn’t the law on paper — it’s the absence of stable state funding to expand beds, hire counselors and build the supervision and accountability infrastructure Prop. 36 assumes. Placer County’s information page on Prop. 36 notes that the state budget deal included only modest, one-time funds and that counties and associations pressed for far larger, ongoing investments.
Local officials: capacity limited, wait lists grow
El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson — who co-authored an opinion piece with Placer County DA Morgan Gire calling on Sacramento to finance Prop. 36 — told county readers that
“the promise of Prop. 36 cannot be fulfilled without resources.”
They argue that courts can order treatment, but without money to expand residential beds, outpatient programs and probation supervision, many defendants face wait lists or no meaningful treatment option at all.
Placer County officials describe an early model that connects eligible defendants to inpatient and outpatient care through its Adult System of Care; county statements say early participants have successfully completed residential phases and moved into outpatient care and housing, but residential programs remain at capacity and cannot be expanded without additional funding.
Critics and supporters clash over outcomes
Not everyone agrees on where the blame lies. Anne Irwin, founder and director of Smart Justice California, wrote in an Oct. 28, 2025, Sacramento Bee op-ed that Prop. 36 “failed to deliver mass treatment” and has risks of re-criminalizing addiction rather than expanding care. Her column says that—so far—most Californians targeted by Prop. 36 have not yet been steered into treatment at the scale voters may have expected.
State lawmakers and proposals
Some state lawmakers have pushed for larger budgets to support implementation. Sen. Thomas Umberg has proposed a funding package on the order of $250 million to $400 million to help counties stand up courts, treatment and supervision programs tied to Prop. 36; proponents say that level of investment would be closer to what is needed for meaningful statewide rollout. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration, however, initially signaled limited new funding in its May Revision and emphasized reliance on existing streams such as opioid settlement money, bond funds and Medi-Cal reimbursement — sources that counties say are restricted, temporary or already committed.
A statewide picture mirrors local struggles
Reporting and analysis from statewide outlets and data trackers show wide variation in how counties are using the law and how many defendants are being referred into treatment. Critics point to low treatment referral rates in some population centers and to confusion over supervision and accountability roles; supporters counter that where counties have invested in coordinated systems, early successes are visible. The San Francisco Chronicle and others have documented uneven enforcement and implementation in the months after the law took effect.
What local leaders want now
County leaders — including probation chiefs, district attorneys and behavioral-health directors — are urging the governor and Legislature to create a dedicated Prop. 36 implementation fund similar to earlier one-time or ongoing carve-outs for other statewide initiatives. “Counties stand ready to implement the will of the voters,” Pierson and Gire wrote, calling for sustained, dedicated funding so courts can order treatment that actually exists and is accessible.
If Sacramento provides only one-time or reallocated funds, county officials say the result will be patchwork programs, capacity bottlenecks and continued cycling of people through jails and emergency rooms — the very outcomes voters sought to end.
