Where's the Proposition 36 money?

(Prop.) 36 Questions

How much money is in the California state budget for Proposition 36? That depends on whom you ask -- and what funds you count.

Last month, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, touted $375 million for the tough-on-crime voter initiative in his budget deal with the Senate. But the budget Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday includes only $50 million in direct funding.

Why the $325 million discrepancy?

Hint: It is not that lawmakers made a bunch of last-minute changes.

What's what?

According to the news release from Rivas' office, the total includes funds for "court workload, substance use and mental health treatment, victims support, rehabilitation and pretrial services."

At least some of that appears to be money that would have been in the budget even without Proposition 36.

Rivas' office did not respond on the record. But sources speaking on background said the total includes $90 million in Proposition 47 savings for substance use and mental health treatment, $20 million each for behavioral health and pretrial services, and smaller amounts related to collaborative courts, workload, human trafficking and crime data tracking.

Pick your metaphor

"I will be generous and characterize the speaker's intention as massaging reality," said Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks. "This is an almost Rube Goldbergian type of approach to justify that much funding."

For instance, Niello said, the money appears to include around $90 million in savings realized from Proposition 47. That is the 2014 voter initiative that lowered some criminal penalties and helped create the backlash that led to Proposition 36 a decade later.

"That's designated for substance abuse disorder and mental treatment," Niello said. "It's money that certainly can be used for that portion of Prop. 36, but it's already there. This isn't any new money dedicated specifically to Proposition 36."

California District Attorneys Association President Greg Totten used a different metaphor, calling the $375 million claim a "shell game."

"This is money they're pulling from other sources, and they're saying it's (Proposition) 36 money," he said.

Totten added, "Make no mistake about it, they are starving the funding of the initiative."

Can I speak to the manager?

According to an April report from the UC Berkeley Law Criminal Law & Justice Center, there has been a major difference between what people voted for and what they got with Proposition 36.

It goes back to the initiative's original sin.

"The measure contained what turned out to be a fatal design flaw: while mandating new treatment programs, it provided zero new funding to build or operate them," the report found.

That left funding in the hands of people who never wanted Proposition 36 in the first place: Newsom and most legislative Democrats. Predictable nickel-and-diming ensued.

Totten said the association and other Proposition 36 supporters may have been "naïve" when they assumed lawmakers would fund a measure passed with "overwhelming" support -- 68% yes. But declining to dedicate money was also a strategic decision that let voters pull the lever for yes without specifically agreeing to a specific price tag.

Healthy boundaries?

When Rivas and other Democrats cram millions into a rhetorical bag marked "Proposition 36," they may have a point.

The initiative was so pervasive -- affecting sentencing, mental health, substance abuse, and homelessness policy, with corresponding burdens on courts and counties -- that lots of money spent in these areas could plausibly be labeled "Proposition 36 funding."

It becomes a sponge, soaking up time and money while making its full reach hard to measure. Experts can estimate, for example, the added court time for a felony case that would have been a misdemeanor in 2023. But across a state as large as California, translating those ripple effects into firm budget numbers is difficult.

Never enough

Some closest to the ground say these debates miss the point.

According to the California State Association of Counties, only half of the $100 million allocated for Proposition 36 in the last budget year went to counties. Money also went out late and was plagued by a complex distribution process, the group said.

"We appreciate this recognition of local needs," said CSAC CEO Graham Knaus in an emailed statement. "But the funding falls far short of what counties need to expand treatment and recovery services. Without sustained investments across all impacted county departments, voter expectations will not be met."