Polling is looking favorable for Proposition 36 — the statewide tough-on-crime ballot measure that would increase punishments for certain drug and theft crimes. The measure also offers some repeat drug offenders a choice, between treatment or incarceration.
But many behavioral health officials across the state say they don’t have the resources to make the Prop. 36 vision of “mass treatment” a reality.
KVCR spoke to CalMatters reporter Cayla Mihalovich who has been following this story .
Cayla, give listeners a quick refresh on Prop. 36.
Prop. 36 is trying to address concerns people have about increases in retail theft and commercial robbery…by ramping up penalties. But my reporting focused in on another part of the measure that would allow people on their third-time drug offense to go to substance use disorder or mental health treatment instead of going to jail or prison. If they finish that behavioral health treatment, their charges would be dismissed.
And when I say ‘behavioral health,’ I mean substance use disorders or mental health.
How did these concerns from behavioral health folks get on your radar?
As I was listening to an assembly hearing earlier in the fall, there was a lot of back and forth about this treatment part of the measure. The big question that kept coming up was: If all these people are going to now be channeled into treatment via Prop 36, do counties have the resources to provide it since Prop. 36 doesn’t come with any new funding to pay for it?
Cristine Soto DeBerry with the Prosecutors Alliance of California shared during a hearing: ”I'm not aware of a county in the state that the minute someone says they want outpatient treatment, they're enrolled in that treatment. They're getting tested. They're coming back to court. I'd be happy to see that. I'd be happy to see that in all 58 counties in the state. But Prop 36 is not going to create that.”
I talked to a wide range of officials all over the state…from Sacramento County’s behavioral health director to Plumas County’s under-sheriff. What I found in my conversations is that most counties don’t have sufficient behavioral health treatment facilities, services or workforce to accomplish what the measure aims to achieve.
Is there research that backs up what you heard in your conversations?
A 2022 report by California’s Department of Health Care Services found that 70% of the state’s 58 counties reported “urgently needing” residential addiction treatment services. On top of that…some treatment facilities in the state don’t even accept patients with prior involvement in the criminal justice system. That’s according to a study from earlier this year from the research institute RAND.
In the counties that say they don’t have enough resources to support treatment, what is likely to happen to people if they can’t get into a program?
I heard different things from different sources. Some people, including Dr. Ryan Quist, who’s the behavioral health director of Sacramento County…and also some public defenders…say that, currently – they have seen people waiting – sometimes for months – in jail if they cannot get treatment. I was told, in Plumas County, people would be sent to the hospital.
Jeff Reisig, a Yolo County DA and big backer of Prop 36, says it’s unconstitutional to hold people in jail in these cases and every county has some level of treatment to offer.
And San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who’s also backing Prop 36, did say there are limited treatment options in his own community but he thinks the measure will force counties to really start prioritizing beefing up these resources.
