A tough-on-crime measure California voters overwhelmingly approved last year promised to usher in an “era of mass treatment” for the tens of thousands of homeless drug users across the state. But so far in the Bay Area, Proposition 36 has only succeeded in compelling a few dozen people into addiction or mental health programs.
The early results are calling into question whether the stricter drug possession penalties imposed under the new law will propel users into care, and if the region’s already overburdened treatment centers can make enough space for even the limited number of people agreeing to programs.
A drug user lights a pipe in San Francisco in May of 2025. Many are in the Tenderloin District, but also in the SOMA and Mission districts near downtown. (Photo by Teun Voeten/Sipa USA via AP Images)
Some of those directly involved in carrying out Prop 36 are skeptical that the measure can follow through on its pledge to address voters’ growing frustration over homelessness and public drug use.
“There’s simply not enough treatment capacity to accommodate the number of people referred into treatment,” said Robb Layne, executive director of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, a group advocating for addiction care providers.
Robb Layne, executive director of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, is photographed outside the State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., on Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group)
Measure backers lay much of the blame for the Prop 36’s slow start at the feet of Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers, whom they contend have refused to put enough money toward treatment, courts and law enforcement to support the measure’s implementation.
“It’s kind of sad and disappointing that the governor and legislature opted not to provide the funding necessary to do what the voters want to see done,” said Jonathan Raven, assistant chief executive with the California District Attorneys Association, one of the measure’s main supporters.
Prop 36 empowers local prosecutors to bring felony charges against repeat petty drug and theft offenders, but drug defendants can have the charges dismissed if they complete a treatment program.
In the six months after the measure took effect in mid-December, Bay Area prosecutors filed roughly 600 felony drug possession cases, according to a county-by-county review of charging data requested by this news organization. As of last month, however, only about 60 homeless people and others had agreed to treatment under the law across the nine-county region, according to a survey of local officials.
Santa Clara County accounted for almost half of the new drug possession felonies filed in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, the district attorneys’ offices in Alameda County and San Francisco – two places at the heart of the region’s homelessness crisis – brought only a handful of cases, highlighting the discretion prosecutors have in charging decisions.
Some Southern California counties have been far more aggressive in prosecuting drug users, this news organization found. Still, only a minority of Prop 36 defendants there have chosen to enter treatment on drug possession charges, mirroring the trend locally.
In the Bay Area, judges have instead permitted many defendants to plead to lesser charges, often handing out relatively short jail sentences and allowing drug users to go on probation rather than wait sometimes weeks in custody for a treatment bed, prosecutors and public defenders said.
“Prop. 36 cases are procedurally complicated and take a lot of time and create great incentives for defendants to just plead out for a short sentence,” David Angel, an assistant district attorney in Santa Clara County, said in an email. “Of course, if there were no wait list and robust services, their decisions might be different.”
A new ‘treatment-mandated felony’
Prop 36 reversed a key facet of a 2014 crime reform measure that had reduced simple drug possession and low-level theft offenses to misdemeanors, which generally carry little jail time. It also added stricter punishments for those dealing fentanyl and other hard drugs, and for “smash-and-grab” robberies that cause significant damage or losses.
San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller speaks during a press conference supporting Proposition 36, in Redwood City, Calif., on Monday, Aug. 26, 2024. Other Bay Area officials, including San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, fourth from the left, also backed the law. (Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group)
Supporters say the stiffer penalties are needed to combat a recent surge of retail theft and reinstate a stronger incentive for drug users on the street to accept treatment. Measure backers point to a steep decline in defendants choosing to enter drug courts, which most counties already use to refer people to treatment.
Under the new law, anyone convicted of at least two prior drug possession offenses can now be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony.” The charge instructs local courts to work with addiction experts, generally in county health agencies, to assess and refer repeat drug offenders to treatment.
Those who decline to enter programs can face up to three years in jail or prison. However, the law allows prosecutors to enter plea deals with defendants and grants judges broad discretion in sentencing, including reducing felony charges to misdemeanors that can carry similar penalties as before Prop 36 took effect.
Local courts and district attorneys’ offices did not provide complete data on sentencing outcomes, saying the work would be cumbersome and the state’s public records law does not require them to do so.
In addition to a limit on beds and services, court officials and measure backers said judges’ sentencing decisions play a crucial role in determining whether more drug offenders agree to treatment.
“If the sentences aren’t lengthy, or a person is allowed to serve (their sentence) in the community, then they may not be as apt to accept an intensive treatment program,” said Sacramento County Judge Lawrence Brown. Brown is chair of the drug court advisory committee for the state court system’s policy-making arm, the California Judicial Council, which is tracking the law’s implementation statewide.
Among those swept up by the new law is Craig McClarnon, who is facing a drug possession felony after an officer found a half-ounce of methamphetamines during a search of the van he was living out of in the city of Santa Clara, according to a police report.
McClarnon, 42, first began using drugs as a teenager growing up in a tough neighborhood in Santa Clara. He’s agreed to enter treatment, hoping to get clean and build a new life together with his girlfriend, Rebekah Jessen, whom he met through a friend a few years ago when he was off the streets and working for a local homeless outreach group.
“I don’t talk to her for weeks or months at a time on the street,” McClarnon said. “She’s still with me no matter what.”
Craig McClarnon, with his girlfriend, Rebekah Jessen, in around 2023, during a period when he was off the street and not using drugs. (Photo courtesy of Rebekah Jessen)
But with so few addiction beds available, McClarnon has been stuck behind bars for weeks, despite agreeing to treatment. He’s among about 200 other inmates booked on various charges and also waiting for a slot in a residential drug or mental health program.
For now, McClarnon, who is also facing a felony vandalism charge for allegedly damaging a fence while trespassing at an abandoned building, said he has no plans to ask a judge for probation or seek a quicker release.
But his patience is waning. If the wait proves much longer, he said he may consider declining treatment and instead serve out a full sentence.
“If I just sit for months, then I’m going back to the streets,” he said.
An overwhelming mandate
Officially titled the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, Prop 36 reflects a growing demand for more forceful responses to rising homelessness and open-air drug use in nearly every corner of the state. The measure won nearly 70% of the vote and carried each of California’s 58 counties.
A pedestrian walks past a homeless encampment along 47th Avenue near San Leandro Street on Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024, in Oakland, Calif. The city’s homeless population rose 9% last year. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)
It came as cities statewide began adopting new restrictions on public camping after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer made it easier to clear homeless camps. In the wake of the ruling, Newsom, citing boiling public frustration, has repeatedly pressured local governments to move faster to close unsafe encampments.
Additionally, Newsom has pushed for new laws and programs, such as CARE Court, that aim to compel homeless people into mental health or addiction programs through civil rather than criminal proceedings.
“It is time to take back the streets,” Newsom said at a news conference earlier this year urging cities to adopt camping bans.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signs legislation establishing CARE Court on Sept. 14, 2022, at Momentum for Health Crossroads Residential Village in San Jose, Calif. The new civil court aims to compel homeless people and others into mental health and addiction treatment. (Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group)
California has some 187,000 homeless residents, a more than 60% increase over the past decade, according to the most recent estimate. Roughly two in three live in encampments, tents or vehicles, while the rest stay in shelters.
So far, Prop 36 hasn’t put a meaningful dent in homelessness. And its slow start is raising doubt among court officials, health agencies and addiction providers that the law can succeed without more investment in treatment, as well as the court and administrative services to help people secure it.
While the state is now distributing billions of dollars in voter-approved bond money to potentially add thousands of treatment beds in the coming years and address a longstanding shortage, Prop 36 itself came without any dedicated funding.
Some state lawmakers and local officials have been pushing for the state to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to implement the law. But Newsom — who opposed Prop 36, describing it as an “unfunded mandate” — and the State Legislature agreed to just $100 million for the law in the state budget in June. The money will support local behavioral health agencies, courts, public defenders, pre-trial services and probation departments.
Many local officials and measure backers maintain it’s not nearly enough.
“This budget deal forces counties to implement Prop 36 for pennies on the dollar,” the California State Association of Counties said in a statement. “Californians deserve better.”
In an email, Newsom’s office responded to the funding criticisms by pointing to the $100 million approved for the law this summer.
‘Maybe that misdemeanor is the best thing for you?’
After more than a decade of using meth and bouncing between county jails, group homes and the street, McClarnon, a wiry redhead with a close-cropped buzz cut, said he’s ready to turn his life around for good.
McClarnon said he’s tried addiction programs before, which helped him stay clean for stretches, but they never quite stuck.
“When you’re around people, like-minded people, you achieve more,” he explained during a collect call from county jail. “If I’m around people in the streets, unfortunately, I turn to what most people on the streets do.”
McClarnon, however, is an outlier in his desire to return to treatment. In Santa Clara County, more than 270 people were charged with drug possession felonies under Prop 36 during the law’s first six months. But just 24 had agreed to enter treatment as of July.
Court officials in the county and elsewhere in the state said defendants often turn down treatment because they don’t want to wait for a bed, or simply wish to put the case behind them as quickly as possible.
It’s not uncommon for defendants to wait more than a month for a residential facility, officials said. Some are allowed to wait out of custody, typically depending on whether they have additional charges or recent bench warrants for missing court dates. Judges sometimes hold defendants in custody if they have nowhere else to wait but the streets.
In Santa Clara County, there are 187 addiction beds for patients who can’t afford treatment on their own. Most of the beds are managed by private companies and nonprofits, which receive state funding that could be at risk if more money is spent locking people up under Prop 36.
Michael Ybarra in a community room at the Muriel Wright Recovery Center in San Jose on Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. “It’s a great option, and it’s unfortunate there’s not enough programs,” said Dr. Michael Ybarra, a program director at the center. (Shae Hammond/Bay Area News Group)
“Santa Clara County has probably one of the best services available,” said Michael Ybarra, a program director with the Muriel Wright Residential Facility in San Jose. “It’s just that we have too many people here needing that treatment.”
But not everyone charged under the law requires a bed, and some defendants can be referred to outpatient treatment, which, like residential care, can include group classes, therapy, help finding a job or housing, and potentially medication.
Another reason Prop 36 defendants may be reluctant to enter treatment is that they must first plead guilty or no contest to the felony charge, which can only be wiped away after completing a program.
That means if they fail to comply, they could face jail time and a felony on their records. And if they’re convicted of a subsequent treatment-mandated felony, it could lead to a stricter sentence, including time in state prison.
It poses a real dilemma for those who want treatment but worry they may struggle to complete a program.
“Do you want to flunk out with that felony, or do you decide that you’re not ready, and maybe that misdemeanor is the best thing for you?” said Gabriella Olivarez, a division director with Santa Clara County’s behavioral health department.
But pleading to a lesser charge still carries risk. Violating probation can also mean jail time, which can make it that much harder to escape the cycle of homelessness and addiction, public defenders said.
“It really flies in the face of taking a harm reduction approach to drug and alcohol treatment,” said Ellen McDonnell, the lead public defender in Contra Costa County, where prosecutors have filed at least 30 treatment-mandated felonies, none of which had led to treatment as of last month.
Related Articles
Alleged Tijuana drug cell leader, 2 others expelled from Mexico appear in California federal court
California school district to start voluntary, random drug tests for middle, high school students
‘Nice and chunky’: Feds arrest man in San Jose over $120,000 meth deal
California drug lab explosions that killed 5 people lead to 6 arrests
Mother charged with bringing fentanyl into California juvenile facility
Charging decisions vary widely by county
In Southern California, some county officials have pushed much harder to use Prop 36 to get people into treatment.
San Diego County prosecutors, for instance, have brought more than 900 felony drug possession cases. Still, only around 140 drug users had consented to treatment under the new law as of July.
In neighboring Orange County, prosecutors have charged roughly 3,000 treatment-mandated felony cases, the most of any county included in the review by this news organization.
As of last month, about 130 defendants there had decided to enter a program, according to Veronica Kelley, director of the county’s OC Health Care Agency. Of that total, only around half were active in a program, she said.
Part of the reason why defendants who agreed to treatment aren’t receiving care is a shortage of beds and limited staff to assess them for a program, Kelley said. Others who are supposed to be in treatment are not because they have new bench warrants or criminal charges, or have failed to comply with a program.
Kelley said those outcomes reflect how it can take some drug users multiple attempts to achieve recovery, acknowledging the reservations some behavioral health professionals have about the effectiveness of court-ordered treatment.
“As a clinician, I understand that the research is pretty clear about what might be considered coercive treatment,” she said. “Also, as a clinician, any chance someone has for just a small taste of recovery is a win.”
A resident’s clothes hang from the door of his room at the Muriel Wright Recovery Center in San Jose, Calif., on Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. The Muriel Wright Recovery Center is a residential treatment facility accepting patients referred through Prop 36 in Santa Clara County. (Shae Hammond/Bay Area News Group)
Despite those concerns, prosecutors in Santa Clara and Orange counties said they’ve chosen to enforce Prop 36 to carry out the will of the voters.
“We’re hoping that by bringing these charges, it will signal to the court and the treatment providers how seriously we want to get people into treatment,” said Angel, with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office.
And even though the law has proven slow in getting people into programs, some Prop 36 defendants are still receiving treatment by other means, whether through separate felony or misdemeanor charges, the terms of their probation or in jail or prison, Angel said.
In Alameda and San Francisco counties, meanwhile, prosecutors have brought almost no drug possession charges under Prop 36. Alameda filed six felony cases during the law’s first six months, while San Francisco brought just one.
In an emailed statement, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office did not directly answer why it has filed so few charges, but noted it continues to use its drug court program and other avenues to refer defendants to treatment. The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office did not provide an explanation for its charging decisions despite multiple requests for comment.
The reason for the lack of charges in San Francisco and Alameda County may lie with the recently recalled district attorneys in both jurisdictions, said Raven, with the state district attorneys association.
Now-ousted progressives Chesa Boudin in San Francisco and Pamela Price in Alameda County chose not to prioritize prosecuting misdemeanor drug possession during their time in office, Raven said, meaning there’s now less opportunity for prosecutors to stack the necessary prior convictions to charge felonies under Prop 36.
Charging data obtained by this new organization through a public records request indicates that Price brought hundreds of drug possession misdemeanors in 2024, though it was unclear how many of the charges resulted in convictions.
“If you look again in the next few years with the two new DAs, you will see a different story and you’ll see many more of these treatment-mandated felonies filed,” Raven said.
New Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson looks on before being sworn in by former Alameda County Judge Charles Smiley at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025. Jones Dickson replaced Pamela Price, who was recalled last November. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)
‘I see that you’re here for us people’
As Santa Clara County moves forward with Prop 36, it’s using its drug court system, among the first in the nation, to connect defendants with care.
Superior Court Judge Erica Yew, who presides over the county’s drug courts, said that, unlike most judges in traditional criminal proceedings, her goal is to actively support defendants in completing treatment programs – often giving them second chances if they relapse, a common part of recovery.
Judge Erica Yew, center, presides over hearings in Santa Clara County’s drug court at the Family Justice Center Courthouse on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in San Jose, Calif. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)
Her courtroom offers care packages with snacks and overdose reversal medication, and even a play area with toys for defendants’ children during hearings.
“The more frequently you bring people to court, the longer they’ll stay in treatment and the more likely they’ll have a recovery that lasts,” Yew said.
Judge Erica Yew with a collection of toys, diapers, clothing and food available in Santa Clara County’s drug court at the Family Justice Center Courthouse on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in San Jose, Calif. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)
Narcan is available along with snacks, toiletries, toys, and clothes in Santa Clara County’s drug court at the Family Justice Center Courthouse on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in San Jose, Calif. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)
But not every county has the same level of resources. Starting in 2011, the state began redirecting funding from local drug courts to behavioral health agencies. That forced some counties to scale back their drug courts, presenting another challenge for phasing in Prop 36.
Last month, McClarnon arrived at Yew’s court in a green jail uniform and handcuffs, along with about a dozen other defendants in custody.
Yew asked him how he was feeling and thanked him for coming to court that day, before he agreed to sign up for the wait list for a treatment bed.
“I see that you’re here for us people,” McClarnon told her.
But if McClarnon makes it off the waitlist and eventually completes a program, he worries about what will come next.
After finishing one program a few years ago, he landed an apartment and a construction job, but lost both after his mother died and he became overwhelmed with grief. It wasn’t long before he began using drugs again regularly and ended up back on the street.
County officials say they work with defendants in court-ordered treatment programs to help them into transitional housing once they leave a residential facility and then eventually find a lasting home.
For McClarnon, succeeding in recovery could depend as much on finding and keeping low-income housing in one of the state’s most expensive rental markets as it does on getting into treatment.
“If I go back to the streets,” he said, “I already know what it is.”
This article was produced as a project for the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism’s 2025 California Health Equity Fellowship.