Ever since California voters overwhelmingly approved a tough-on-crime measure last year to crack down on retail theft and compel homeless drug users into treatment, local officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom have been at odds over how to pay for it.
Newsom, who opposed Proposition 36, was initially reluctant to set aside any new state funds for the law, suggesting cities and counties should come up with the money themselves. But in June, he agreed to earmark $100 million to help cover the costs of locking up more offenders and sending them to treatment programs.
Still, measure backers, including San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, have accused the governor and Democrats in the state Legislature of flouting the will of the voters by not earmarking the hundreds of millions of dollars they say are needed to phase in the law.
Late last week, however, Newsom announced $127 million to support addiction and mental health programs, including those aimed at treating drug users charged under Prop. 36.
But some local officials argue that money — to be distributed to local governments through an existing state grant program — was already going toward treatment services and will have only a limited impact on helping more homeless drug offenders into care. Early results show Prop. 36 has gotten off to a slow start placing users in programs, in part due to a lack of beds and resources.
“This is existing money, already allocated to existing services, Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, said in a statement. “Simply saying it can also be spent to implement Prop 36 doesn’t magically give counties more money to pay for new, voter-approved mandates on top of existing services.”
In response, Newsom’s office said in a statement the governor has “committed billions of dollars to building the state’s behavioral health infrastructure” through the latest grants, the state budget and Proposition 1, a voter-approved mental health bond he campaigned for last year.
The state awarded the new round of grant funding to two dozen cities and counties, local agencies and tribes. In the Bay Area, Berkeley, Hayward, Vallejo, Santa Rosa and San Francisco received awards of $2 million to $8 million for various treatment and diversion programs.
Absent from the list was San Jose, which did not apply for the funding — even as Mahan has criticized Newsom for ignoring Prop. 36 and other “real world” issues in favor of a “blind leap into meme land” with his frequent social media posts taunting President Donald Trump.
Mahan said that San Jose officials didn’t apply for the funds because the city does not have any eligible programs. He noted that Santa Clara County, which is responsible for overseeing addiction and mental health programs in the South Bay, applied for a grant but did not receive funding. The county also missed out on a recent round of mental health grants through Prop. 1.
“It just doesn’t make sense to set up redundant programs and compete with our own county for a limited amount of funding,” Mahan said.
In response to Mahan’s criticisms, the governor’s office said Newsom “cannot force local actors to apply for and use this money — that is up to them.”
“San Jose is doing a lot of things they can be proud of — making excuses should not be one of them,” Newsom’s office added.
Proposition 36, which passed with nearly 70% of the vote, allows county prosecutors to bring felony charges against people caught with drugs or stealing property of any value if they have been convicted of similar crimes in the past.
The new law also increases sentencing requirements for fentanyl dealers. And it gives repeat drug possession offenders the option to enter treatment and have their charges wiped away, or face up to three years in jail or prison if they don’t complete a program.
A majority of voters in all of the state’s 58 counties approved the measure, which reversed parts of a voter-approved 2014 crime reform law, after mounting public frustration over brazen smash-and-grab robberies and public drug use in the wake of the pandemic. Law enforcement officials and retailers argued that the increased penalties were needed to deter repeat offenses.
Criminal justice advocates and public defenders have denounced the law, contending it will lead to overcrowded prisons and jails, and that it’s ill-equipped to help people succeed in treatment.
Treatment providers have raised concerns that as the state spends more to incarcerate people convicted under Prop. 36, it could mean less money for the very grant program Newsom’s office is now touting for funding addiction care.
Robb Layne, executive director of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, said in a statement that those funds have supported programs that “have been building safer, stronger communities for nearly a decade.”
“Prop 36 diverts funds from what works,” Layne said, “to support a framework rooted in forced treatment.”