Can Tough-on-Crime Proposition 36 solve theft, drug use and homelessness despite no new resources?

At a Sept. 10 hearing at the Capitol, Haley identified those problems as increasing homelessness and retail theft, as well as “a staggering increase in opioid-related deaths.”

“Prop. 36 incentivizes drug treatment for addicts by giving them choices and agency in their own lives. … It allows prosecutors to treat a single-theft offender differently than someone who is a serial offender,” said them. “And it allows prosecutors to treat fentanyl like the scourge that it is.”

But experts say those promises could be difficult to keep without a huge influx of resources given the state's limited drug treatment capacity, police officer shortages and ongoing housing crisis. The ballot measure, meanwhile, is expected to increase jail and prison spending, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office.

The LAO estimates that Proposition 36 would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, including by increasing the state prison population “by about a few thousand people,” which is roughly the capacity of a state prison. It would also increase the number of people in local jails and under probation supervision and reduce Proposition 47 funding for treatment programs by tens of millions of dollars each year.

All of this comes as the state and many local governments face budget deficits. San Diego County supervisors recently declined to support Proposition 36 after conducting an analysis that concluded the ballot measure would cost the county $58 million a year, exceeding its prison population system capacity and would reduce funding for Proposition 47 programs.

Law enforcement staffing

Proponents of Proposition 36 argue that making shoplifting and other petty theft a misdemeanor undermines the ability of police officers to hold people accountable for these crimes. But nothing currently stops police from arresting criminals — except, many law enforcement officials say, their own resources.

Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, a former lawmaker and longtime critic of criminal justice reforms, told lawmakers at the September hearing that his department doesn't “have the resources to prosecute every offender” – and that's before the The decision is to react. In the event of a violent crime or a property crime, they decide on the more serious incident.

“We don’t have the resources for the misdemeanors, the day-to-day things because of Prop. 47,” he said. “We only have limited capacity.”

Cooper blamed Proposition 47 for limiting police response to minor crimes. However, according to the Police Officers Research Association of California, this measure had no direct impact on police staffing, which in California reached its lowest level in 30 years, with 3,600 officers lost between 2020 and 2022.

Proposition 36 would do nothing to address this workforce crisis, said Tom Hoffman, who led the state's parole board from 2006 to 2009 and served as a police officer for more than 30 years. The measure does not include any new money for police departments — and in most cases, police officers have no way of knowing whether a shoplifting call is a crime.

“These cases are the lowest priority,” he said, adding that they should be. “There are 35,000 (misdemeanor) arrest warrants for people in Sacramento County alone for violations of these crimes. And the sheriff openly admits that he won't look for them, that he won't arrest them, and that he won't accept them being sent to his jail. And (Proposition) 36 won’t change that.”

San Joaquin Probation Officer Steve Jackson supports Proposition 36, saying it would “restore balance to the criminal justice system” by allowing harsher sentences for repeat offenders. However, he acknowledged that some of his promises may not be easy to fulfill.

“There is no money earmarked to fund any of this,” he said.

A solution to fentanyl and homelessness?

Supporters of Proposition 36 are leaning heavily on the ballot measure's provisions regarding drug possession and use — and what they see as its connection to homelessness.

They note that since the passage of Proposition 47, there has been a sharp decline in participation in drug courts and other diversion programs, which offer someone facing criminal charges the opportunity to enter treatment and have the charges dropped. They link this decline to the rise in homelessness.

“Since the passage of Prop. 47, we have seen a massive increase in drug addiction, particularly fentanyl, in California over the past decade. And that also comes with a massive increase in homelessness,” Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who helped draft Proposition 36, said at an Oct. 23 news conference.