California’s Proposition 36, officially known as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, was sold to voters as a compassionate alternative to the state’s previous approach to drug crimes. Rather than simply cycling repeat offenders through jail cells and saddling them with felony records, the measure promised to connect people struggling with addiction to treatment services that could address the root causes of their criminal behavior. However, a comprehensive examination of the law’s implementation in San Diego County reveals a troubling disconnect between the campaign promises and the reality on the ground, highlighting systemic failures that have left hundreds of offenders without the treatment they were promised.
Since Proposition 36 became law in mid-December, the implementation has been marked by significant delays, inadequate planning, and a concerning lack of coordination between law enforcement, the courts, and treatment providers. The numbers tell a stark story: while police countywide have made more than 1,130 Proposition 36-related jail bookings, with over three-quarters involving drug offenses, only 50 defendants have been referred for treatment assessment since the county finally established a formal process last month. This represents a massive gap between the law’s stated intentions and its practical application, raising serious questions about whether the measure is achieving its primary goal of diverting people from incarceration to treatment.
The District Attorney’s Office, led by Summer Stephan, has filed more than 670 Proposition 36 treatment-mandated felony cases against alleged repeat drug offenders. Stephan was among the most vocal supporters of the ballot measure, consistently emphasizing the treatment opportunities it would create as she campaigned for its passage. She argued that the law would represent a fundamental shift in how California addresses drug addiction, moving away from purely punitive measures toward a more rehabilitative approach that could break the cycle of addiction and crime.
However, the reality of implementation has been far more complicated than supporters anticipated. For the first four months after Proposition 36 took effect, San Diego County lacked a formal process to connect offenders with treatment services and defer their felony charges. This absence of infrastructure meant that many people who could have benefited from treatment were instead processed through the traditional criminal justice system, often spending days or weeks in county jail before having their charges reduced through plea agreements.
A detailed review of Superior Court records examining more than three dozen city of San Diego Proposition 36 cases revealed the extent of this implementation failure. As of late last month, more than half of the accused drug offenders had not been referred to treatment or were still waiting for referrals. Seven individuals had already pleaded guilty to reduced charges, effectively bypassing the treatment pathway that Proposition 36 was designed to provide. Only five were referred to the county’s drug court system, including the newly established Proposition 36 process.
The law itself contributed to these implementation challenges by failing to provide specific guidance on how counties should operationalize its provisions. While Proposition 36 outlined the general framework for connecting treatment-mandated felony offenders with drug addiction experts for evaluation and potential treatment, it left the practical details to individual counties. This lack of specificity has forced jurisdictions across California to develop their own systems, leading to inconsistent implementation and significant delays.
San Diego County’s response to these challenges has been reactive rather than proactive. It wasn’t until April that the county established a system to evaluate drug offenders’ treatment needs, and the downtown Superior Court didn’t hold its first hearings to oversee treatment connections until April 28. By that point, hundreds of cases had already moved through the system without accessing the treatment services that were supposed to be the law’s primary benefit.
Superior Court spokesperson Emily Cox noted that San Diego County was positioned to become one of the first counties in the state to implement a comprehensive Proposition 36 process, but this distinction came only after months of delays that affected hundreds of potential beneficiaries. The county has now assigned three behavioral health clinicians with experience working with justice-involved populations to conduct evaluations, but this capacity may prove insufficient given the volume of cases.
District Attorney Stephan estimates that approximately 70 percent of Proposition 36 drug offenders, equivalent to about 25 individuals each week, will express interest in treatment. While she maintains confidence that the assessment and referral system can handle this demand, the county acknowledges ongoing challenges in ensuring adequate treatment options are available. The implementation has highlighted existing gaps in the region’s treatment infrastructure, particularly the weeks-long waiting lists for residential treatment that people with Medi-Cal insurance have faced for years.
Some treatment providers have reported increased demand since Proposition 36’s implementation. The Salvation Army’s 120-bed rehabilitation center in Otay Mesa has seen an uptick in intakes, with beds filling during a season when capacity typically sits unused. Paul Swain, a pastor and administrator at the facility, confirmed that these increases aligned with the law’s implementation, though he couldn’t provide specific numbers of Proposition 36-related admissions. Organizations like Apex Recovery of San Diego, which provides comprehensive addiction treatment services, are likely experiencing similar increases in demand as the county works to connect more offenders with appropriate treatment options.
The funding challenges surrounding Proposition 36 implementation have become increasingly apparent as counties grapple with the costs of providing mandated services. Stephan and other officials are now advocating for state funding to support what they describe as “unfunded mandates,” a significant departure from the original campaign messaging that suggested existing resources would be sufficient. State legislators, including Senator Tom Umberg and Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, are working on proposals to provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually for Proposition 36 programs.
Sharp-Collins, who represents San Diego and convenes bimonthly meetings with Proposition 36 stakeholders, has been particularly critical of the implementation process. She argues that the proposition was “pushed out without any adequate planning” and that counties should have been better prepared to link offenders with treatment before the law took effect. Her assessment reflects broader concerns among criminal justice advocates who warned during the campaign that Proposition 36 would drive more people into jails than treatment programs.
The experiences of defense attorneys and advocacy organizations have validated many of these pre-implementation concerns. Heather Boxeth of the San Diego Criminal Defense Bar Association and Geneviève Jones-Wright of Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance both argue that neither the county nor the state was adequately prepared for Proposition 36’s requirements. Their observations align with the data showing that hundreds of offenders have moved through the system without accessing promised treatment services.
Looking forward, the success of Proposition 36 in San Diego County will depend largely on the system’s ability to scale up treatment capacity and streamline the referral process. While Stephan has pledged to release comprehensive data later this year to evaluate the law’s effectiveness, the initial months of implementation suggest that significant improvements are needed to fulfill the measure’s promise of prioritizing treatment over incarceration. The gap between Proposition 36’s ambitious goals and its practical implementation serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of thorough planning and adequate funding when implementing major criminal justice reforms.
