Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The State Senate Public Safety Committee and State Senate Budget Subcommitee 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation will now come to order. Good morning. Welcome. Today's hearing, we will be hearing from all the panels on the agenda prior to taking any public comment.

Once we have heard from all the panelists, we'll have a public comment period for those who wish to comment on the topics on today's agenda. And for my colleagues, we will hear from all the speakers on a particular panel before we ask questions of those panelists.

There will also be an opportunity for opening comments as we begin today's hearing as well. We will maintain decorum during the hearing as is customary, and any individual who is disruptive will be removed by the sergeants from the hearing room.

And so, as we begin today's informational hearing, I want to open up with some introductory comments and then pass it on to my colleague Senator Richardson, who chairs Budget Sub 5. Good morning, and thank you to everyone for joining us for today's joint informational hearing on the implementation of Proposition 36.

I'm Senator Jesse Arreguín, the newly appointed chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, and I'm joined by my colleague, Senator Laura Richardson, the Chair of the Senate Budget Subcommitee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation.

Our committees have convened today to discuss the implementation of Proposition 36, which was supported by over 68% of voters who voted in the November 2024 election.

Proposition 36 increased criminal penalties for retail theft and drug crimes and also created a treatment mandated felony allowing defendants charged with some drug crimes to complete a treatment program instead of serving prison time.

Today we'll hear from a variety of stakeholders who will discuss the impact that Proposition 36 has had since it went into effect several months ago and the impact it's expected to have on individuals, treatment providers, local governments, state and local budgets.

Specifically, we will hear from individuals who will share the perspectives of law enforcement, district attorneys, public defenders, the courts, probation, county, behavioral health, substance abuse disorder treatment providers, and the Newsom Administration. A few points I want to emphasize as we start today's hearing:

California voters passed Proposition 36 by an overwhelming margin last November, and the voters sent a clear message to the Legislature. They want action on addressing retail theft and the drug addiction crisis on our streets.

Scenes of organized groups of people robbing stores, including in my Senate district in Oakland, are becoming too common and it's hurting the businesses in our state. That's why the Legislature took action last year to pass a package of laws to increase penalties for retail theft and the reselling of stolen goods.

The voters are also concerned about the growing drug crisis on our streets and want people to get connected to needed treatment. The voters have spoken and we are committed to fund and to implement Proposition 36. The goal of today's hearing is to provide an overview of Proposition 36 and the projected state and budget implications.

Today will also help both committees begin to flesh out the details related to implementation. The proponents of Prop 36 presented the measure as a solution to the challenges of organized retail theft and also suggested that it will provide treatment for people with with serious drug addiction challenges.

Yet the Proposition did not appropriate funding, and the budget commitments are trailing behind implementation as prosecutors and judges are using the provisions of the measure in the prosecution of crimes. What we do know is that the Proposition may increase our state prison population by roughly 4,000 additional inmates and increase prison populations at the county level as well.

The savings derived from Prop 47 by reducing prison population will reduce as more people are sentenced to prison sentences, reducing funding for mental health and drug treatment programs which the state will need to backfill. This will impact the availability of treatment programs proposed by proponents. What we will hear about are the budget implications of implementing Prop.

36 on our courts, on our county level probation services and on treatment programs. At the end of the day, the Legislature is working to develop a state budget and I want to thank the leadership of my colleague Senator Richardson who chairs Budget Sub 5, who will be leading the budget discussions - we'll be having the policy discussions here -

we need to develop a plan for implementation, not just for the first year but also in subsequent years, when the budget implications will be more significant with a likely decrease of Prop 47 savings as more people are charged under Prop 36.

Partnership between state and local governments in this process is also critical and we need to ensure a fair sharing of costs between state government and local governments.

It's my hope that in having this hearing today, we will all leave with a better understanding of how Proposition 36 is working in practice and what steps the state should take next. Thank you again to our panelists and thank you everyone for joining us today. I'll pass it along to my colleague Senator Richardson.

Thank you. Senator Arreguín. First of all, I want to say to commend you for your leadership with this committee, of pulling us together in such a timely fashion. We've only been here six weeks, but we're already hitting the ground running.

So I commend your leadership and thank all the staff that worked to get us here and get going on this very important issue before us today. Likewise, as has already been stated in November, voters overwhelmingly approve Proposition 36.

We all want to feel safer in our neighborhoods, to reduce theft and help businesses to stay open and also, of course, to help those among us who struggle with mental health illnesses to receive the care that they desperately need.

Prop 36 has given us tools to address these problems, but whether we make progress depends on how we use these tools. We know, and the voters know, that safer communities don't happen through incarceration alone, but it's also access to services and treatment that's critical and a component of Proposition 36.

Implementing Proposition 36 will take ongoing engagement with multiple partners and I look forward to the conversation and beginning that task today. Finally, I just want to let you know at about 9:30 I also serve on government organization, so if I step away for a few minutes, I'll be right back. Thank you, Senator.

Great. Thank you very much. I want to open up to my colleagues if they'd like to make any opening statements. Let's begin today's hearing. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much and thank you for having this hearing to give us an opportunity to talk about what we're going to do with Prop 36.

Prop 36, whether you like it or not, the 30% that did not, I understand the consternation on some of these, the aspects of Prop 36, but you also have to understand that it was the result of years of inaction by the legislative body, and in fact a lot of times action in the wrong direction from what people were concerned about.

And when you have inaction, eventually people step up to fill that void. And in this case they stepped up with Prop 36 and it wasn't put out there easily. We didn't have just the vote of the majority Legislature to put it on the ballot for people. They made them go out and get signatures.

So they had to do the hard work of getting the signatures. And once the hard work of getting the signatures were done, I want to remind you that every trick in the book was used to try to get it off the ballot, but it went on the ballot. It polled at 70%.

People were sick and tired of what was going on in our public safety services. So today what I want to glean from this hearing is not so much why we can't or what all of the obstacles are that's not going to let us incorporate Prop 36,

or Prop 36 into action, but I want to know what from each of these facilities, from the prison facilities to the courts, to the treatment facilities, all of them. What you need to be able to do the job that Prop 36, the mandate from -

And it is a mandate, when 70% of people tell you to do something with their tax dollars, that means find your tax dollars, pull that amount of their tax dollars together and do it. And we need to know what it is and how much it costs so that we can allocate that in the budget.

Because my stance is going to be, once we have a grasp on that, it needs to be allocated. It's not a question of, ooh, you know, that might be too much. We need to do it. And the citizens of California have spoken, just as the chair has said.

And if we don't, if we do anything short of that, then we are not honoring their request. And I fully intend to honor their request. So thank you very much again for having the hearing and I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments.

And also, like the good Senator from Los Angeles said, we're going to be a little bit in and out here. We have other meetings. I have to step out at 10 minutes till, but my staff is also listening to this hearing. And I will come back right after I'm done with this other obligation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll go next to Senator Durazo, followed by Senator Niello.

Thank you. Chair Arreguín and Chair Richardson. I appreciate very much your leadership on this. I've served on the Budget Subcommittee 5 for several years now.

We, we've worked hard, all my colleagues, to address the issues in our communities as they impact both those who are incarcerated, the victims who are hurt by crimes, and our entire communities and worked very, very hard. And we've gotten results.

Not the results that we all need and that we're looking for, but to have a recidivism rate that is two times lower than it had been, I think is quite important and important part of what we need to look at. There are numerous programs and panel after panel of programs that really have made a difference to everyone,

and I would not want to see that the progress that we made on those fronts be lost because of our responsibility on Prop 36. So let's make sure that the progress doesn't get left behind. We forget about that or we set it aside.

We need to do all of this and especially look at the ways in which we helped victims. We've also worked really hard for victims, programs for the families of incarcerated, for the families of victims. Many, many programs that have worked really well, served our community.

Let's make sure there's a way of holding on and moving forward with the progress as well as addressing the issues of crime. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair. I'm an interloper here. I'm not on either one of these committees, but I am Vice Chair of the Budget Committee and I'm vitally interested in this Proposition.

I was a enthusiastic supporter of it and I indeed wrote a letter to Governor Newsom in December, signed also by many of my Senate colleagues, requesting specifically that the budget fund Proposition 36 and the more expensive part of the funding is for drug treatment and mental health services, and this is more than just crime prevention.

This is personal rehabilitation of people that have serious issues with regard to drug abuse. It is a resurrection, if you will, of drug court, which was very successful prior to the passage of Proposition 47, and I see this as an essential part of the implementation and that is exactly what the current budget does not fund.

It is something on the order of five one hundredths of a percentage point of our General Fund. It almost seems like a deliberate statement that we are not going to fund this measure supported by almost 70% of the voters because the Governor doesn't like it. That's very frustrating to me,

and I just want to stress that I think it is imperative that we follow the wish of the voters.

And by the way, on the issue, the criticism that the funding isn't in the Proposition, I would submit the last thing we need is more dictates in the Constitution relative to where budget funding goes, that the one of the reasons that it makes it very difficult for us to write a budget is that there's portions of the General Fund that is mandated in the Constitution to go to things whether it is a priority of that amount or not,

so I would suggests that it was entirely appropriate for that Proposition not to include the funding to include the will of the voters and leave it up to the budget writers to implement that will of the voters. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Unless there are any other additional opening statements, I'll pass it over to Senator Richardson to begin the next panel.

Thank you, Senator Arreguín, we're going to start. Let's now start with our first panel. We'll hear from our first panelist, Rick Owens, Senior Staff Counsel with the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code

Thank you. Good morning and thank you for the invitation to participate in this important hearing. My name is Rick Owen. I'm Senior Staff Counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code and I'm here to give a brief overview of of the changes Prop 36 made to California criminal laws,

and more details about each of these changes are provided in the handout that we provided. The changes that Prop 36 made can be grouped into three general categories.

One: created a new treatment mandated felony offense for repeat drug possession. Two: it increased penalties and expanded sentencing enhancements for drug sale offenses, particularly those related to fentanyl, and three: it increased punishment for certain thefts, including expanding California's petty theft with a prior offense.

The common thread for all these changes is that they enhance the power of prosecutors to bring felony charges and to impose harsher sentences for drug and theft offenses. Starting with the treatment mandated felony,

this offense can be charged when a person is arrested for drug possession and has two or more prior convictions for drug offenses, regardless of when those prior offenses occurred. The offense is a wobbler, meaning that prosecutors can choose whether to charge the offense as a misdemeanor or a felony.

If charged as a felony, the person can be sentenced to up to three years in county jail for a first offense, and three years in state prison for any later offense. The misdemeanor punishment is one year in county jail.

When a person is charged with a treatment mandated drug offense, they must be given the opportunity to participate in a treatment program approved by the court as a way to get their case dismissed, and people who choose to accept treatment must first plead guilty or no contest to the offense and then attend regular court dates to show their progress in the court ordered program.

The law does not specify the length or conditions of the treatment. If the person agrees to treatment and completes it successfully, the drug possession charges will be dismissed. However, if treatment is terminated due to unsatisfactory performance or the commission of a new crime, the court must proceed with sentencing.

While the law doesn't allow courts to sentence a person to jail unless they first determine that the person is not eligible or not suitable for treatment, Prop 36 does not directly address what should occur if treatment is unavailable at that time.

Moving next to offenses related to drug sales, several provisions of Prop 36 gave prosecutors the ability to seek longer sentences and apply more enhancements to drug sales offenses. For example, the law expanded the drug weight enhancement by lowering the weight requirement for substances containing fentanyl.

Additionally, fentanyl was added to the list of drugs that could form the basis of the felony offense of possession of drugs with a gun, and a four year enhancement for grave bodily injury caused by selling drugs to another was established.

The law also required courts to advise people convicted of certain drug offenses that they could be charged with murder if someone dies as a result of taking the drugs that they sold.

Finally, moving to the third category of offenses, theft. Prop 36 gave prosecutors more power to charge felonies for low value thefts that were previously treated as misdemeanors. More specifically, the law allows people who commit theft of items valued under $950 to be charged with a felony if they have two or more prior convictions,

theft convictions on the record. Like with the drug offenses, there is no limit on how old the prior convictions can be.

Petty theft with a prior is a wobbler offense and when charged as a felony is punishable by up to three years in county jail for a first offense, and up to three years in prison for any later offense.

In addition to allowing felony charging for people with theft priors, Prop 36 also expanded the state's aggregation rule, which allows the value of items stolen during multiple acts of theft to be added together in order to reach the $950 threshold required to charge felony grand theft.

Unlike previous law, there is no requirement that the thefts occur close in time to one another or be part of the same common plan or scheme.

In addition to these changes, the law also created sentence enhancements for acting in concert, to take or damaged property during a felony, and for taking or damaging property over a certain dollar amount. So, that covers the three main areas of law that Prop 36 made changes to.

And again, the common thread for all these changes is that they increase prosecutors ability to charge more serious offenses and to seek longer sentences, often in state prison instead of county jail.

And with all these changes, they also interact with other aspects of California law, including the three strikes law, which can double the length of any felony sentence when a person has a prior strike, and our consecutive sentencing rules which allow additional punishment for any additional offense, including those related to drugs or petit theft. Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thank you. We're going to hold for questions after the first panel, correct? Yes. So next we'll hear from. Thank you sir. Thank you for the great presentation, Mr. Owens. Next we'll hear from Caitlin O'Neill, our. Principal fiscal and Policy Analyst with the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Thank you. Caitlin O'Neill with the Legislative Analyst Office. My colleague and I will be presenting from a handout called overview of Proposition 36 fiscal impacts and Selected Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs. The first couple pages provide an overview of the measure and are just here for reference.

I'm going to start my comments on Page 4 which provides an overview of our office's estimates of the impacts of Prop 36 on the state and local governments that was included in the statewide voter information guidelines. And I want to flag here that these are estimates of the measures fiscal impacts at full implementation, meaning once the impacts have fully ramped up, which could take several years.

So first, we estimate that Proposition 36 will increase state criminal justice costs by tens of millions of dollars to Low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily by increasing the state prison population by around a few thousand people and increasing state court workload.

In addition, we estimate that Prop 36 will increase local criminal justice costs by tens of millions of dollars by creating a net increase in the county jail and community supervision population and increasing local court related workload which includes workload for county agencies that are involved in providing the services for people going through the treatment mandated felony process.

So that could be, for example county probation or behavioral health departments. Turning to page five, the third of the major fiscal impacts that we identified was that by reversing portions of Proposition 47, Proposition 36 reduces the state savings attributable to that measure that are required to be spent on certain grant programs under Prop.

47, and we estimate that that reduction could be in the Low tens of millions of dollars annually. This concludes the portion of our comments regarding our office's estimate of the fiscal impacts. And now I will move on to, starting on page six, several pages discussing how the Governor's Budget treats the impacts of Proposition 36. And I'm going to start by discussing the state prisons, parole and state courts.

So specifically, the Governor's Budget assumes that Prop 36 will increase the state prison population by several hundred people in the current year and a few thousand people in the budget year, and will increase the parole population by a few hundred people in the budget year. It does not provide dedicated funding related to Prop 36 implementation for the state courts. Moving to page seven, our assessment of the Governor's these aspects of the Governor's proposed budget.

In short, we found that the methodology that CDCR used to estimate the prison and parole population estimates or impacts has various flaws that likely cause it to overestimate the impact of Prop 36 in the current and budget years, which could result in CDCR being over budgeted by tens of millions of dollars in 202526 and then regarding the courts, it's understanding that the Judicial Council is currently determining how to implement Prop.

36 and collecting data and assessing the impacts of the measure. So without specific Prop. 36 funding, the trial courts would need to prioritize the use of their discretionary funding, potentially resulting in impacts to other court services. On the other hand, it is possible that some amount of the workload could be absorbable, such as within existing drug court programs.

Moving to page eight, we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to address the flaws in its population impact estimates and revise budget adjustments at the May Revision accordingly, and that the Legislature consider directing the judicial Branch to report in spring budget hearings on its progress in implementing Prop. 36 as well as the impacts of Prop.

36 that it is expecting on its workload. Moving to page 9 this table provides an overview of the Administration's current assumptions about or estimates of the Prop 47 savings.

It's the administration's estimating $88 million in savings will occur in 2425, which are budgeted to be transferred in 25-26, and as you can see, the estimated savings declines fairly significantly after that moving. And that decline is primarily due to the impacts of Prop the estimated impacts of Prop 36 on the savings amount.

Moving to page 10, we find that the methodological problems that I mentioned in the prison population estimate carry over here and result in the Administration likely underestimating the Proposition 47 savings by around a few $1.0 million in the near term, growing to tens of millions of dollars in the out years.

So again, we recommend directing the Administration to revise its methodology and update its estimates at the May revision. And Moving to page 11, the final aspect of the Governor's Budget's treatment of Prop 36 that we discuss. As the Committee is aware, it does not include dedicated funding for the treatment component of the treatment mandated felony.

Moving to page 12, we don't have a recommendation on this, but just a couple comments. The first is that while the actual treatment that is provided under the measure will depend on decisions made ultimately by courts, the General types of services that seem to be contemplated here are are typically have historically been a county responsibility.

For example, as my colleague will describe in a moment, substance use disorder treatment services for Medi Cal Enrollees is a county responsibility. The second comment is that the state is not required to pay for increase for cost county or local cost increases that result from ballot measures.

That being said, it could of course choose to provide support to counties for treatment costs. However, doing so would likely come at the cost of other existing state programs given the multi year deficits facing the state.

If the Legislature is choosing is considering choosing to provide funding for counties, it may want to ask counties how they plan to treat this population and whether sufficient provider capacity exists. And now I'll pass it to my colleague to provide a brief overview of selected SUD treatment programs.

Hello. Thank you. My name is Will Owens with the Legislative Analyst Office. I'll be talking a little bit about some of the major substance use disorder SUD treatment programs as well as the funding mechanisms that currently exist.

Specifically, I'll be talking about SUD treatment for Medi Cal patients as well as some of the SUD funding that will be available under the recently passed Proposition 1 and some other SUD treatment funding sources. So first, under Medi Cal, as my colleague stated, counties are responsible for providing SUDs services to MEDI Cal Enrollees.

So nearly all Medi Cal enrollees are eligible for an enhanced set of services kind of for SUD treatment. These services include things like case management, withdrawal management and several forms of medication assisted treatment. To give you some context, the total drug Medi Cal Funding Source is about $1.2 billion annually.

About 3/4 of that is federal funding, with the remainder coming from counties primarily realignment funding making up that non federal share of costs. Also, I'll be discussing, like I said, Proposition 1.

So in March 2024 voters approved Proposition 1, which made broad changes to the Mental Health Services act or MHSA that changed how counties used existing funding for the mhsa. So I'll note that most of these changes will be taking place in July 2026.

As far as the availability of funding specifically so individuals with SUD issues prior to Proposition 1's passage could receive treatment from services funded by the MHSA with the millionaires tax if they had a co occurring SUD or mental health issue.

However, Proposition one changes that so individuals with SUD only and no co occurring mental health issue could receive services funded by this. So how individual, you know, counties have some flexibility in how they use this funding from Proposition 1 and currently are in the process of beginning kind of their planning for the funding.

I'll note again, this is existing funding. There was nothing in Proposition 1 that expanded the amount of revenue that came in from the millionaires tax. Rather this is just an expansion of uses to include SUD only treatment.

I will note that there was also a bond included in Proposition 1 that included about $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities. Some of these could include substance use disorder facilities or facilities that could treat substance use disorder. I'll note, however, that this funding is for the actual facilities themselves and not necessarily for ongoing treatment. Oper.

Lastly, the state has a handful of other substance use disorder programs. In your handout, we note the opioid settlement funds. These have primarily been used for overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, harm reduction. So not necessarily ongoing SUD treatment. But relatedly with that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you to the presenters of our first panel. Now we'll turn to Members who might have any questions or comments. Also, we'd ask all Members to please keep in mind that we have several panels today and you may also follow. Up with questions after the hearing. We'll defer first to the chair of. Our Budget Committee, Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to both of our chairs for convening this important hearing and thank you for the, for the overview. You know, I just want to say that when we, you know, the voters spoke on Prop 36, it is the law of the land and whatever one's view, that's how democracy works.

And I'm glad that we at least right now have a democracy. So let's keep that democracy going. And so we will of course, honor the will of the voters.

I will also say that what was interesting about the Prop 36 campaign and the dialogue about was interesting when the LAO came out with its cost estimate for incarceration, increased incarceration costs, they were quite Low, at least in terms of what I had anticipated.

And so and that was consistent with the proponents messaging during the entire campaign, like all on my TV and on my digital advertising, it was all this isn't about incarceration, this is about treatment. We don't want to put anyone in prison. We just want to get people treated.

It was all treatment, treatment, treatment, treatment, treatment the entire campaign. Well, I'm all for treatment of behavioral health. And so I think that we to me it makes a lot of sense and we should have been doing this for years, providing more support to our counties and providing mental health addiction treatment.

And so since the proponents were so insistent that this was about treatment and not about incarceration, it does make sense to me for us to take a really hard look what supports we can provide to counties to provide that effective behavioral health treatment.

Because I think the voters very much want that behavioral health support and we should, in my personal view, I'm not speaking for the Senate Democratic Caucus, I'm speaking for me. We should be doing that. And that's going to be an important conversation in the Budget.

One thing I will say, speaking for me as Senator Scott Wiener from San Francisco, is that I have a strong objection to the state starting to provide operational to support support for local law enforcement agencies. That is a county responsibility. It's a city responsibility.

You know, as much as I, because we want to increase, we have our Police Department in San Francisco is understaffed and has been for many years. The state doesn't provide that support to Fund more police academy classes in San Francisco that the city does that.

And so, you know, I know I am confident that there will be a push to get the state to start funding local law enforcement. Local law enforcement always has to make choices in terms of what they prioritize for enforcement.

But I do think that it does make sense for the state to take a greater role in behavioral health treatment capacity at the county level since the proponents of Prop 36 were so clear that this was about treatment, not incarceration.

And I think the polling showed that the vote or we saw that the voters very much want that treatment. So that's my two cents and thank you for being here today.

Thank you. Any additional questions, Senator Caballero? Then we'll go down this side.

I want to thank the panel for your presentation today. It's always hard to get something the morning of and then try to digest it. But in terms of if I could start with and I'll make these really quick and maybe it's there's further follow up conversation.

There's no question that we're going to implement this and it's just, it's a question of getting good data and having information that we can actually build a budget on with some assumptions and then we test them next year. Year. As far as I'm concerned, we have to spend the money to do this and I want to see us do it right. So that's my goal.

In terms of the analysis from the Lao's office regarding the governor's assumptions and for lack of a better word, the flawed conclusions, could you tell us real briefly what those the assumptions are that create that situation and how we can get maybe more accurate data?

Sure. So it's from conversations with the Administration, it's our understanding that to estimate the impacts of Proposition 36 on the prison population, they essentially assumed that everybody who they took the number of prison admissions the year before Proposition 47 went into effect and, and said and looked at those, the number that were eliminated by Prop 47 and then essentially assumed that that same number of people would come back to prison at an 11 month length of stay.

However, there's three kind of main problems with that approach in our view. The first is that that doesn't account for key features of the treatment mandated felony which prior to Prop 47, just drug possession in General could be treated as a felony and someone could go to prison, however or for personal use.

However, Proposition 47 made that a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 sort of rolls that back a little bit by allowing the treatment mandated felony for people who have two prior drug convictions. So we're already shaving off some portion of the people there, but then it requires them to be offered treatment first. So the chances that somebody gets to prison means they have to not only have the two priors, they have to also not be suitable for or fail treatment.

So we think that that means that the number of people who will actually go to prison under the treatment mandated felony will be somewhat, to some unknown degree lower, probably significantly lower than the pre Prop 47 level. The second piece is that there were various crimes that Proposition 47 affected that Proposition 36 did not affect.

And then the third piece is that there are a lot of crimes that Proposition 36 did affect that are outside the realm of Prop 37. In that case, the administration's estimation methodology has the effect of underestimating the impact.

But because those crimes have longer lengths of stay in prison, we think that flaw is really more of an issue for the out year projections in the near term. We think it's really more the short length of stay pieces that cause the methodology to underestimate.

So basically their methodology essentially just assumes a reversal of Prop 47, which is not what Prop 36 did, which is not technically correct. Right. And we think it's sort of a conceptual flaw and that can be addressed by reasonable assumptions.

Of course, we certainly acknowledge that it's very, it's very uncertain at this time and there just isn't real, you know, actual data quite yet, or at least very much of it. So any estimate at this point is going to involve a lot of assumptions, but we think that the assumptions that were used just don't make sense.

Great. Well, I really appreciate that explanation. The reality of the situation is that there are times when it's very difficult to estimate exactly the impact of something. And what we do is we made adjustments mid year and we have that capacity to do that.

So as long as we can get everybody to agree on what methodology we're using and have it be taken into consideration, some of the factors that you outlined, we can always make adjustments. As we move along. So I appreciate that.

And then in terms of the mental health funding and Proposition one, I just hadn't thought about that in a long time. I just need to understand, I think what you were saying is that the, because of the way that Proposition 36 was written in terms of services and accessing mental health and substance abuse resources, that the.

Now, I can't remember how to put it is, it expands who can access services, is what I understood. So in other words, there may be a bigger call for those mental health services.

And I, I'm very sensitive to this because we're going to have testimony in terms of where, where the counties are at trying to finalize a contract for mental health services in the jail facilities. And they don't get good service because it's a, it's a contract that's outside of the behavioral health departments, as I understand it. And so there's going to be more of a call for mental health service. We, we don't have enough services is my point.

Yeah. So specifically, kind of what I was saying with the, the changes to the funding. Right. Structure, it's not a change in overall funding. Right. But rather a change in what services are offered and to what kind of varying levels. Right.

There are different categories of funding that, that counties have to kind of meet with the, the money that they get from, from the then mhsa, now bhsa. And so yes, there's a couple different things happening. Proposition 1 that kind of shift the funds of what they can be used.

And in addition, it's this, like I said, it's this kind of expansion of the population that could be treated with services that are funded by the bhsa. Right. So that expansion to not only be SUD with co occurring mental health issues, but also SUD only issues to the degree that the population impacted by Proposition 36. Right.

Would be eligible for those services that are funded by counties that could be funded through this. Right. That, that would be additional. That would potentially be additional individuals that are receiving treatment and this is a source of that funding. But again, this is Proposition one.

It didn't expand the amount of funding, it just changed what it used for. So a lot of this funding for years now since the MHSA has, has been around, has been used for certain things. And counties are currently in the process of kind of adjusting that funding for services to kind of fit under Proposition 1. And I know there's another panel later on that counties will talk about a little bit of the work that they're doing to implement that, but to acknowledge.

That it's oversubscribed now and that more people may qualify for it in the future.

Yeah, I think that would be a fair way.

All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.

Thank you. I'm going to try to simplify the math a little bit on this. So I think it's fair to say we have two problems here. One is the drug treatment problem. Correct. And that's very complex as far as the funding and where it goes and who's doing it and how it's supervising things.

But then there's the retail theft component of it. While there might be a little bit of overlap in there, I think when we're talking about jail expansion, you know, more incarcerated persons, I think the idea on the retail theft part of it was, was where that was focused. And isn't that where most of the.

The numbers of incarceration increase incarceration and therefore increased cost, Isn't that where that component would be coming from? Because I'm hoping that because the easiest way and the cheapest way to do this is for people not to do retail theft crimes anymore and then we don't have to worry about any of this.

But if they do, that's the part that is going to create the increased incarceration because what we were doing before did not, it did not deter that at all. And in fact it increased it.

So the Proposition has 10 different components, 10 different sentencing changes. And I don't off the top of my head, remember exactly like what according to our model was driving the bigger, you know, relatively more so I could certainly follow up with your staff about it.

But I will say yes, there's certainly other parts of the measure beyond the substance use portion. Right. There's provisions around selling drugs, selling large quantities of drugs, selling drugs to someone who then either dies or suffers a great bodily injury that add prison time to felony sentences. There's also provisions around large scale theft.

So I think I would just, I guess I would say that. And the other, sorry, the other piece is that there's also a shifting going on between jail and prison. So some of the people who are some.

A portion of the increase in the prison population are people who would previously have served their time at the local level. So in some ways it's like the increase, a portion of the prison population increase is actually savings for the locals. So there's a lot of different dynamics. I don't know if that at all answered your question.

At the end of the day, we're going to need the high number of what we will probably need to implement all of this and do it effectively. And part of that effectiveness has come from years and years of not doing it effectively. So that's a cost that we should be incurring anyway.

And to my colleagues comments about law enforcement not paying at the local level, a lot of the laws that we make push a lot of costs down onto the local agencies. And I think that's where the local agencies feel like there should be some state participation in implementing and paying for the laws that are created from here.

And so, you know, and we'll work with you on this with our office is I want the high number so we know what should, what we need to, to be safe allocate in the budget to make this work. And, and, and I know there's a lot of estimates and stuff going on.

Well, let's not estimate Low, let's estimate on the high side so that the money is there as we go along and find what it is that all these hidden costs are going to be. And that way we can effectively put this into practice. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for the panelists? I have A question for Mr. Owen. Could you elaborate on how Prop 36 interacts with other laws, specifically the three strikes law?

Right. Thank you for the question. Our three strikes law requires the doubling of any felony sentence for any person who has a prior strike offense, no matter how old it is.

And so when we talk about a treatment mandated felony having a three year maximum sentence for a person with a strike prior, that's a six year maximum sentence. Three strikes law also requires that any person sentenced to prison serves that time in the state prison instead of the county jail.

So even though the treatment mandated felony drug charge as well as the petit theft with prior offenses say that for a first offense you could stay local. For any person with a prior strike, that person is going to serve the sentence in state prison.

And that also interacts with our consecutive sentencing laws because a person who has multiple offenses pending can get the full, let's say six years if they have a strike prior on a felony drug charge or theft charge.

But in addition, for any additional offense, they're getting 1/3 of the midterm, which is eight months for these offenses, or if they have a strike prior, an additional 16 months for each offense that they could be sentenced to.

Again, in my portion of the presentation, I emphasize that a lot of this comes down to the discretion of prosecutors and what they charge, what they plea bargain to. But our three strikes and consecutive sentencing laws have the effect of increasing the punishment even more for that segment of the population who is impacted by those laws.

And then I also just wanted to add that while the treatment mandated felony option may not, you know, send that chunk of folks to prison because they are participating in treatment, I think it is important to keep in mind that arrests for drug offenses have been the most common arrest for years.

And so even though, you know, while the enhancements related to theft, related to drug sales may be what sends people to prison for longer, the amount of people impacted is higher on the drug possession side because that is the most common offense that people are arrested for.

And on the retail theft piece, there's no time period about how far you look back. Right. For prior offenses. So if you did, if you had committed some theft like 1015 years ago, that could count toward the counting of the prior offenses and the. And the imposition of stiffer sentencing, correct?

That's correct. That's correct. For both the retail theft piece as well as the drug offenses. And importantly, it's not just. We're not just talking about a petty theft prior or a commercial theft prior, a retail theft prior. We're talking about any form of theft, which can include a robbery, which can include any type of fraud. Those are all included. If it's a theft offense, it counts as a prior, and there's no washout period.

Before I ask for any additional questions, just want to lift up a few of the recommendations that LAO had emphasized, directing CDCR to address the population estimates so that the Legislature has, I think, more correct assumptions as we're budgeting in the June budget, the idea of having the judicial branch report back on implementation progress and impacts, I think is a really good idea.

And then lastly, having counties report on how they're planning to address the treatment piece and whether there's sufficient provider capacity and resources, I think are all very thoughtful recommendations that we should certainly advance. Any additional questions for this panel before we go to the next panel?

Okay, thank you all so much for coming and thank you for your presentation. We'll proceed now to the next panel, which is specifically focused on enforcement and prosecution. And our first panelist is San Benito County Sheriff Eric Taylor.

And then we'll hear from Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley and Alameda County Public Defender Brendan woods and Stanislaus County Public Defender Jennifer Jennison. Thank you for joining us today. And we'll go first to Sheriff Taylor.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Eric Taylor. Hello, Senator. Twice in two weeks, I am the sheriff and coroner of the County of San Benito, which Senator Caballero knows well, as well as Senator Laird. And our esteemed speaker is from our neck of the woods.

I'm here to represent my rural county and nearly 71% of my constituents who passed this Proposition. I'm also a part of the California State Sheriff's Association and I do sit on the board of the state and community corrections.

But really I'm here to represent my county and answer any questions that you have as far as the impacts it's having on us. And I can speak more broadly to the other sheriffs as well. My number one priority, along with the other 57 sheriffs in the State of California, is to protect the people of our communities.

We have a dual role as sheriffs. We have an enforcement role. And almost more importantly for this conversation, we have an issue with custody and programming of people that find themselves in our facilities. As the, as the county sheriff and the other state sheriffs with me, we oversee in the jails that we oversee.

We've really become the primary delivery system for substance use disorder treatment in the State of California and really mental health delivery as well. Our jails have become a De facto medical step down unit for the behavioral health and substance use disorder portion of our community that we serve.

And it's my opinion and the opinion of other sheriffs that we must work together to find some type of off ramping, off ramping to get these folks an opportunity for the realization of sustained sobriety before they end up in the criminal justice system and end up in our jails where they're not getting the treatment that they should be getting, that we should be delivering for them to help them with these problems.

And that's really more on the substance abuse side. I do have some facts and figures for San Benito county, but it likely varies from other counties as district attorneys and frontline law enforcement are collaborating to determine the most efficient and appropriate way for us to deliver Proposition 36. Cases and case type vary by county.

Some places retail theft is much more of a problem. Not in my community. In my community, drug offenses are more common. The reinstatement of the felony possibility is vital for not just it's vital, but for the restoration of drug court model which we know has been successful, is also would also be advantageous.

Proposition 36 will certainly drive more bookings and custodial stays. But it's not just a direction for our staff to arrest more people. The tools that that we are given will restore discretion at multiple levels to best deal with the issues facing our individual communities. Resources will be needed to continue this work for treatment, frontline law enforcement work, jail stays, court proceedings and other needs.

And I know it was touched on a little bit earlier by Senator Caballero, but one of the things that we really need to work on as a state and as our communities is really the delivery of mental health services and substance abuse disorder services, ideally not in the jails, much sooner than it comes to that point. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll go next to Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley and Good morning, Madam District Attorney.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Allison Haley. I'm Napa County's District Attorney and I was in support of Prop 36 along with, it turns out, almost 70% of California. And I like that it carves out the possibility of meaningful treatment for drug addicts. Meaningful treatment.

I had a drug and alcohol addicted father growing up and I like to think that we are doing better now as criminal justice professionals rather than cycling people through jail and prison, which created an incredible amount of instability in my own childhood.

I think offering quality evidence based treatment is long overdue considering what we now know about the illness of addiction and the long term ripple effects of trauma. And I'm so delighted to hear from all of you about a commitment to funding this important piece for our Californian family. For our California families.

I like that Prop 36 gives prosecutors flexibility to treat serial theft offenders differently and frankly, more severely than one person who stole something on one occasion. I think that that kind of proportionality is just and right.

I like that all the diversion programs are still available for defendants to find a pathway completely away from the criminal justice system if appropriate. I can imagine disagreeing sometimes with defense counsel about who's appropriate and who's not, but that's part of the system.

I like that Prop 36 gives prosecutors wide discretion and flexibility to meet the needs of their own constituents. So in Napa, I implemented washout periods. So we aren't charging these cases unless the priors were committed within roughly the last 10 years. This is a practice I know that has been implemented by other district attorneys.

And we don't have to do that. The law doesn't require it. But I know that the citizens of Napa who voted me in and I'm accountable to, and unsurprisingly, other counties want Prop 36 to. To be surgically and thoughtfully implemented with an eye toward hardened repeat offenders.

And I know that the residents of my county expect that each of these cases are reviewed Individually and that if a treatment program is designed that it is created for that individual. This is not designed to be a one size fits all approach, but rather something that caters to the individual needs.

Would my approach work in every county so a carved out General 10 year washout period? Not necessarily. Some counties are taking a phased approach to implementation in order to keep caseloads manageable for either the District Attorney's office or the public defender's office.

Other counties, however, are such highways of drug trafficking that the community is demanding as much accountability as possible. And Prop 36 allows district attorneys to have that kind of flexibility to meet the needs of our own communities.

In Napa, we are prepared to use, and I want to be clear, I have in the two months and what, seven days since Prop 36 has been available, we have not in Napa County. My tiny county have not had a defendant opt for treatment. So I want to be very clear and not mislead you in any way.

But what is possible in Napa is a full array of treatment options. Once that happens. So treatment and outpatient programming, drug courts. Yes, some overnight or residential programming in Napa. I'm very fortunate to have excellent working relationships with our HHS, our probation.

And I can tell you that in Napa, everyone is coming to the table with a commitment to making treatment meaningful for the defendant. Everyone at that table wants defendants to be successful. And we don't ever want to see them in court again. And the reason why is because these defendants are parents. They're someone's child.

Successful treatment and sobriety for them are joyful goals for all of us. For many people, it is the answer to prayer, a sin celebration for the people who love them. My father's series or periods of sobriety contained some of the best memories I have of him and of my childhood.

Those periods of sobriety are the dream of any child of an addict. Californians voted for Prop 36 for surely many reasons, but as its core, as quoted by you, it's a crescendo of what we've been doing hasn't been working. And the proliferation of blatant theft was demoralizing. And the plight of the unhoused was deeply inhumane and cruel.

And funding treatment for those who are ready to address their illness is a reflection of our common values. It reflects our commitment to honor the wishes of the voters and provide meaningful options for those battling addiction. Thank you for having me here today.

Thank you very much. We'll go next to familiar face, the public defender for my county, Alameda County. Brendon Woods, Good morning.

Good morning. There we go. Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Brendan Woods. I'm the public defender of Alameda County. I'm going to be presenting information about what has occurred in Alameda County and maybe some other counties that are similarly situated.

So since January the last six weeks, our county has had about 31 Prop 36 cases. And I'm referring to violations of penal code Section 666.1, which is the petty theft for the prior. So that's 31 new felonies that we did not have last year.

And so just to give you some context, the way our county is set up, we have a felony courthouse hub in North County and one in South County. North County is Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, south counties, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and other counties or other cities in our North County courthouse.

Up until last week, 90% of the cases that were charged with 666.1 our clients were black.90%. Alameda County is 10% black. Countywide, the number of people charged with violation of 666.1 have been 84% people of color.

Another client charged with a felony for stealing a $16 bottle of wine. This isn't just happening. In Alameda County and neighboring Contra Costa County. 71% of the people charged there have been people of color. So Prop 36 from the theft related lens has not just increased the 666.1 charging, it's increased theft charging across the board.

So In January of 2024 last year our office had about 200 theft related charges. And I'm talking about petty theft, grand theft, receiving stolen property, not including robberies or burglaries, just those kind of basic theft cases. We had 200 in January of 2025. We opened nearly 300. That is a 50% increase.

And what's kind of illuminating is that there was a large increase in misdemeanor petty thefts that were charged. Those same petty thefts that we were being told that police were not arrested people for or the prosecutors were not charged. They're now being prosecuted and they're being prosecuted because they want the priorability.

They want to be able to send people to prison or charge them with felonies for petty theft. That's why they're being charged now. So when it comes to the treatment mandated felonies, our offices had just one case, one case filed. Contra Costa had three. Sacramento's had two. San Francisco and Miranda have had none.

Now I'm going to turn it over to Jennifer soon because her county has different experience with regards to the 11th of 95, the treatment mandated felonies. But before I do that, I want to talk about some data was recently shared by Orange County. Their District Attorney presented this data publicly.

They have filed 757 cases under 11 through 95. That's a treatment mandated felonies. They've filed 160 cases under penal code Section 66.1, which is the petty theft for the prior. I talked to a colleague in Orange County, the public defender there. They've had about 11 clients, 11 opt into treatment.

About 95% of the people in Orange County charged with 11 violations do not have permanent housing. 95%. So why are clients refusing to do treatment? Because there are no resources available and they have to sit in custody for a tremendously long amount of time to get treatment. Four, 56 weeks in custody.

If you give them the option, they will plead to a felony probation and get released that day. The program, number two, it's designed as a failure to set up in a way, because there is no limitation, there's no tail with regards to how long the treatment needs to take place.

So we're talking to a client, say, go to treatment, but can't say how long it's going to be. And finally, you cannot force someone to complete treatment if they are not ready. Now, there are so many things wrong with Prop 36. Number one, there's no washout period.

You've heard that priors can be charged back as 24 years or longer. There is no funding for treatment. That's been discussed earlier today. Mandated, coerced or forced treatment does not work. You have to meet people where they're at. So I'm going to say I was not a fan of Care Court when I first heard about it.

I was not. And I'll be the first person to admit that I'm wrong because it doesn't happen often. But when I'm wrong, I will admit it. We are Cohort 2 County. We just started cure court a little over a month ago. And it's working. It is working because we are meeting clients where they're at.

We're meeting them in homeless encampments. We're being repeated and we're going out there with questions over and over and over again. We're earning trust. One lady came into court last week and her big thing was she wanted conditioner. I mean, conditioner for her hair. She hadn't washed her hair with conditioner and used conditioner in 11 years.

Care Court works because our clients recognize there's a community of care on their side. And our goal is to hold the county responsible for providing services. So substance abuse is a public health crisis. It really is. It can't be addressed through our criminal legal system. Poverty is an economic crisis.

It cannot and should not be addressed through our criminal legal system. Housing is a humanitarian crisis. It cannot and should not be addressed through our criminal legal system. Our system has so few tools available to. It has arrest, has prosecution, has probation, has incarceration. Incarceration is a tool that we use most often.

It is destabilizing, it is traumatizing. When you incarcerate someone who is unhoused, or if they're living out of their car, they lose their car.

Even incarcerated for a couple days, they lose their car, they lose their possessions, and you release them five days later, they are in A worse situation when you incarcerate someone who's working or employed just for 567 days, they end up losing their job. Incarceration is traumatic. It is traumatizing.

The more a person is traumatized, the harder it is for them to heal. So I'm going to wrap up here. But we do need to move to the next panel. So respectfully ask if you can, please. I'll wrap up. My. My concluding remarks. No, I.

I've heard a lot about the proponents of popular six things was about treatment. It was about treatment. And, and I don't believe that it was about incarceration. If it was about treatment, they would have been more deliberate. They would have slowed down the process with regards to planning.

If it was about treatment, there would have been funding provided for treatment. If it was about treatment, there wouldn't be someone charged with a felony for stealing a $16 bottle of wine. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now go to our last panelist, Stanislaus County Public Defender Jennifer Jennison.

Thank you and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.

I don't think the mic is on. Is that better? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. My name is Jennifer Jennison and I am the Stanislaus County Chief Public Defender where I've worked as a public defender for 26 years. As we heard this morning, Prop 36 established a treatment mandated felony for people with two or more hard drug convictions.

The reality is that two simple drug possession cases at any time in your life gives the DA the discretion to file a felony drug possession charge against you. There are no age or time limits on prior convictions that qualify for felony charges.

While this law does not define treatment, we know that treatment is complex and requires individualized plans tailored to the specific needs of an individual. As we said earlier, there is not a one size fits all solution. In Stanislaus County, over 140 mandated treatment felonies have been filed since January 1st.

All of these individuals were arrested and booked into jail and many of them remain in jail.

Right now we are seeing zero discretion as to age of priors in these cases and in some cases the DA has alleged priors that are over 30 years old, including a case where two drug priors alleged were for simple possession from 1993.

It's been three months since voters approved Prop 36 promising treatment, but there is no plan in place and no strategy for referrals. No assessments have been done and not a single treatment plan has been developed for these individuals.

Individuals who are charged with felonies under Prop 36 are sitting in jail unable to afford bail, in need of treatment, waiting for the promise of Prop 36 to be fulfilled Stanislaus county had a major shortage of treatment even before voters approved Prop 36. Our behavioral health Department is already overburdened and understaffed.

They will be tasked with conducting these assessments and creating individualized treatment plans.

Considering its limited resources, it will need at some point to pivot to accommodate all of these new cases requiring resources and staff be pulled from existing programs such as Care Court and PC 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion cases, and the existing backlog of pending criminal cases requiring assessments and treatment plans will just continue to grow.

Stanislaus county doesn't have the resources, the treatment, the housing or the shelter beds to accommodate these cases. In a county with a population of over 550,000 people, there are a total of 120 medical beds and only 12 of those beds are currently available.

No housing options have been identified upon completion of treatment and no housing options have been identified for those who will receive outpatient services. In our public defender's office, we rely on caseworkers and social workers who are uniquely positioned to connect our clients to services and are already doing this daily.

But our team of eight client support specialists and four social workers already supports a Department that opens 14,000 cases a year. They work tirelessly to reduce recidivism, improve lives and protect public safety, but they too are limited by the lack of existing resources available in our county.

Our Drug court has always been very limited in space and for decades we have turned away those who are ready to accept treatment. At its peak, our drug court had 60 to 70 participants a year, but staff was repurposed and resources for Drug Court at that capacity no longer exist.

While we worked with our DA to modify our eligibility requirements for Drug Court to allow more individuals into the program over the past year, it is again at capacity due to our limited resources. Prop 36 as it's rolling out is not compassionately compelling treatment for mental health and drug addiction.

This is actually a return to a failed plan to attempt to incarcerate our way out of drug addiction. This is not giving people agency and choices, it is sending more people to jail and prisons with a false promise of treatment.

When we use a change in the law to imprison individuals with mental health and addiction problems to force them into treatment for their own good, we have a responsibility to first Fund and establish that treatment.

Incarcerating individuals causes Social and psychological harm, triggering and worsening mental illness, ruining relationships and families, deepening distrust in the legal system and increasing the likelihood of a future arrest.

Before filing additional cases under this law, we need to Fund and identify the treatment resources, shelter, job training and other services designed to break the cycle of addiction and homelessness. With proper funding, as well as funding for indigent defense, we can stop favoring those who cannot afford legal representation and drug treatment over those who cannot. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Thank you to all of our panelists for your very thoughtful testimony. I want to bring it back to the Committee and ask if there are any questions from our Committee Members. Yes, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to the panelists. I really appreciate this robust discussion. Brand new Member to Public Safety Committee. So I'm coming in strong here. First, my first question.

I mean, obviously, as we're, we had just been talking about treatment and I know this is not new news to anyone, but, you know, I believe as of 2022, there had been only 22 counties reported not having any residential treatment facilities at all. 22 counties out of the 58.

I'd like to know, I mean, obviously since there needs to be more support, obviously in this space, given Prop 36 and our continued focus there, what do we do with these counties that have absolutely no residential facilities? It's a big question, but how are we supporting. Obviously more funding will be needed. The state.

It's very clear we absolutely want to do everything we can to invest in this Proposition as it is the will of the voters. But this is a, it's a stark data point here, so I'd love to open it up to the panel for.

I'll, I'll jump in real quick on that one, Senator. So coming from a rural county that is not resource rich, we lack a lot in San Migo county. We do have some residential treatment. It's privatized and it's expensive. And when I was spreading, speaking a little bit about that, our jails have become the De facto treatment centers.

It's because of the lack of bed space. Not only mental health bed space for people that are in crisis, but for treatment bed space as well. They're not being treated in our facilities, at least not in facilities like mine that are small and understaffed.

So really I think that that's a big part of this lift is how can we create more bed space for the people that are opting in to get treatment or, you know, or bringing the treatment into our facilities, which Like Senator Caballero kind of briefly brought up is that it's really difficult for us to find contracted services that are adequate.

And I think that, you know, I speak for myself and for the other 57 sheriffs. I wholeheartedly believe that we want to do it correctly. We do want people to leave our custody better than when they came in. And we are fighting an uphill battle because we just don't have the support.

I spoke in my Senate confirmation hearing for the board of State and Community Corrections, and I said some things that were upsetting to our behavioral health staff in the County of San Benito, because I made reference to that they don't care about the people that are incarcerated. And I told our behavioral health Director, I didn't say that.

And then watch the video, and I actually did say that. So I have to own that. I got to own that one. I did say that. And it's because we do have one psychiatrist in the County of San Benito that is not comfortable servicing the population that are incarcerated.

So we've been scrambling for the last number of weeks to try to find one person that will service the people in our custody. It doesn't mean that our behavioral health staff and our county and our Director don't want to or don't care. They don't have the funding. They don't have the support. They can't keep staff.

And so it's just this. It sounds like an excuse, and I don't mean it to sound that way, but it's a huge problem when you have people that are captive in our custody that want treatment and want help, and there's nowhere for us to send them.

So they do end up sitting in our jail for extended periods of time waiting for those beds to open.

Any other answers from panelists? Thank you, Sheriff.

I think I. I do agree with the sheriff. We don't have these moments too often publicly, but I'm joking. We've. We've discussed before. It's hard for me to speak as to what should happen in smaller counties because I'm not in one of them. But I think it just comes down to funding.

They do face issues that are different in hours. Mean sometimes there are large geographic spaces with very small populations, and so covering that area can be difficult. But if there is a goal for the state, I mean, every county should have a residential treatment facility. That seems like that should be a goal.

Most certainly. Thank you. And I just have one more question, If I can, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that. Certainly would be happy to continue Working with my colleagues here in that respect. And many of them have been working on this for some. Some time. So, hailing from Long Beach, southeast Los Angeles, Louisiana County.

Our county jails are, you know, 14,250 inmates plus over 16% over capacity. And it's still very ambiguous as to what, even through the Laos report, there's a few thousand people that might be added to state prisons. We don't know. It's really hard to determine right now.

But we do know that given some of the numbers from Orange County that the Mr. Dau provided, you know, are stark, 757 cases, treatment mandated felonies, 160 cases, petit theft with prior. I don't know what this is going to look like for Los Angeles County, which scares me a bit. We're again over 16% capacity.

Do we have any. Can we get a clearer picture on what these increased state prison population and LA County populations would look like? Do we have any idea, any sort of scenario planning?

Because I would say the only thing that I can maybe jump in a little bit is that. So for our small county, we really haven't seen an increase in daily population. But it's so early. Right. But I did have a nice conversation with my good friend Don Barnes, who's the sheriff of Orange County.

And just going through some of their numbers that I have here, they look like their bookings were up about 5%, their transports were up about 4%. Their length of stay didn't seem to increase. Hold on, let me just grab it for you real quick. Their weekly bookings and daily bookings are up 4 and 5% respective.

Their average daily population is up 3%. And this is post Prop 36 passage. Their transports are up 4%, but somehow their numbers of their daily Prop 36 bookings are down 44% in Orange County. Again, very small snapshot.

We can get this information to you, but we're not seeing much of a change as far as bookings in San Benito county. And they're somewhat slight, but I would have to work with the other sheriffs to get you the numbers for.

I could talk to Sheriff Luna with LA and see what we can do to get that information to you.

Yeah, I mean, we have, you know, Los Angeles County, it's a behemoth, as I'm sure you all know. And it's just trying to figure out to the General public as to what this will look like. If you're already over capacity, where are these folks going to go? I mean, we have treatment facilities in Los Angeles County.

But you know, I just think of other counties that don't have either. They're over capacity and with no treatment facilities. So what that will look like for those counties, certainly more funding needed. Hear you loud and clear on that.

But I think as we move forward, understanding more numbers from each of the counties as to the bookings and capacity levels would be helpful.

I think it. Zero, good. Okay. I think it'd be valuable as well. In Napa County, we have not had a single assessment come back with a recommendation for what a particular defendant might need. I think that it'll be interesting to see the variety of treatment plans that start coming back from the drug addiction expert.

That would give us more information about the state scope of different varieties of recommendations that are coming and give me as a District Attorney a little bit more of an idea of what I can project in the future in terms of our needs for beds versus how many drug courts versus how much outpatient.

We just don't have that yet because we don't have, at least in my county, I don't have that assessments. I don't have them starting to come back in for us to analyze.

I was just going to say one thing is you're going to have different implementation by different counties. There's going to be, depending on the prosecutor in that county, you could have a ton of petty thefter priors being charged and very few treatment mandated.

You've seen other counties, there are a lot of treatment mandated felonies being charged and not as many petty thefter priors. It really is going to depend a little bit on the prosecutor and how they want to implement Prop 36. I, I commend you of having a washout period from our quick poll.

A lot of counties don't have a washout period. And so people are coming in with priors that are 20 years old. And that seems somewhat problematic in my view.

Thank you.

Thank. We're going to go down the the deer here. We're going next to Senator Caballero, then Senator Richardson. Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it's. Let me just say I really appreciate this panel. There's a variety of different counties represented and I think that's really important. A couple of things is that propositions are always problematic because you don't get to control some of the details once they're in law.

And when we do legislation, they go into effect down the road so that you have a little bit of time to react to it. I'm concerned that every single county is going to do something a little bit different, because then it depends on which county you get arrested in as to what kind of treatment you get.

And by treatment, I mean in terms of whether it's considered a petty with a prior or whether there's mental health resources and services. One, the number one issue when I go to talk to teens, and I've been talking, I've been going into classrooms for a long time, and it is.

I am shocked that the number one issue among teens is mental health services. That it is overwhelming. It doesn't matter what community that I go into. And they're very, very serious about it. And many of them get very, very emotional about it.

So that this is a crisis not just in our jails, but also in the population because they can't get services. And so we don't have the staff to be able to do the kinds of wraparound that we. I want to second what my colleague said.

Every county ought to have a residency program, an in residency program, and it's never existed. When I was practicing myself, I had to find places outside of the counties that I. That I worked in, San Benito and Monterey County, in order for people to actually get treatment and treatment through the drug courts at the time.

So I don't. So let me just say that I don't have a question as much as I really think that we're going to be flying this plane and fixing it at the same time. Bad analogy right now. I'm sorry. Too many plane crashes. Sorry.

But that's how I feel is that our budget has to focus on trying to create revenue opportunities for some of this to actually be actualized. Because what I see happening is you're absolutely right. People are going to sit in jail, which is going to add to the overcrowding, which then adds to the taxpayer burden.

Is it still $35 a day for incarcerated individuals? I don't know if it's higher than that, but in state prison, it's significantly higher than that. And the interest is going to be on the arrested individual for them to resolve the case as quickly as possible because they're not seeing an opportunity for them to go into any.

And that means getting on felony probation or being sent to incarcerated someplace where they start getting credits. Right? Better credits. And that's going to clog not only our local county jails, but also the prison system as we start sending them to prison when what they really need is treatment.

So I want to encourage collaboration and discussion because we're going to need to figure out how to Fund things Very, very quickly. And to do it in a way that is a proven, accepted program with the details in place so that people know what the expectations are.

I mean, you're not going to go into a program if you don't have housing and you don't know how long it's going to last. It's just, it's impossible. It's a recipe for failure. So we're going to need some really good models and they may be out there. I don't know, maybe some counties are doing.

Have the resources and have been doing this really quickly because we've got people in custody already that need to find a place to go and we need to be able to.

It's got to be clear to us so that by may, as we're negotiating with the Governor about budgets, we know what the pieces are that we need to start funding.

What is the county going to Fund, what is the state going to Fund and how are we going to set up the infrastructure to create some successes, because I don't hear them. And some agreement among the Das as to how far you're going to look back just to look at. Right.

Question and what kind of petties you're really looking at in my mind why people voted for this with the smash and grabs, because those are just outrageous. But what you're looking at coming through the door are not the smash and grabs. They're not the ones that were creating terrible destruction in some of the retail establishments.

I mean, you're not going to see them in San Benito County. They're just not going to be there. But the drug addiction issues are really real and it's really connected to the decriminalized people because they're homeless and then they've got a drug addiction. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So if I can add to that, Senator, I think that Mr. Wood's point is very well taken about the length of time being in custody, that the answer to that needs to be both agile and immediate so that we can meet the needs where they are so that we don't have that warehousing.

And I think that that point was very, very well taken.

I agree. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for going to Senator Richardson. I think one thing I heard is different Das in different counties are implementing the law differently. And I think that's a concern. I mean, obviously there'll be different types of cases that you'll be dealing with in your county. But to the extent, and I know you're part of cdaa.

There could be some discussion about some unity amongst the different counties about how we're implementing this. You know, whether it's wash up periods or other approaches, I think that would be helpful. So I just wanted to just emphasize that because it's going to create some challenges. So we'll go next to Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in the spirit of time, I know we do have a hard stop of this Committee right before 12. So most of my questions I'll submit for the record. However, I want to make one statement and one brief question. A statement.

I want to say that frankly, California, if we had everyone in each one of your positions that had your attitudes and your approaches, we would do quite well. But unfortunately we don't. And so I'm glad we had an opportunity to hear from you.

And I hope that as we share this information and it eventually gets out throughout the state, we have examples such as yourselves of how you approach it. I want to echo the comments and I think you're going to hear it consistently, however, with Ms.

Haley, that I think the real challenge is going to be which it seems like the crux of all of this is going to be the discretion that your position holds and that not everyone is going to have. I think the heartfelt opinions that you expressed. And so my question to you is what is the process?

Does anyone evaluate your position as a District Attorney and say, okay, how many cases and what did you recommend? And is there any way or someone in the cloud there that evaluates consistency amongst district attorneys at this point other than I would assume the Attorney General?

So comparing elected district attorneys to each other, no, there is almost a desire of elected district attorneys to be able to handle implementation to meet the needs of their particular community. I'm from Napa County.

I am not going to continue to receive the trust of my constituents if I pulled back a prior from 2000 or 1990 and charged it as a prior. That's not what my constituents.

My constituents have been very clear with me that they want this surgically applied to repeat offenders who may be at a place of a time when they're ready to make a change in their life. That's a very specific type of defendant.

And I agree with you and I commend you. But unfortunately not everyone is like you. So my question is, is there any point within your role where you have to provide statistical data that says I received X amount of cases, this is the percentage of what I recommended.

Is there any accountability within your position where you actually submit what you're doing. So at some point we're going to need to look at is there a consistency of how this law is applied?

There's more anecdotal collection of how different disruptions district attorneys are implementing it. And notwithstanding the stories that have been provided here today, I have heard I'm not unique in having a 10 year washout period. And I know that certainly implementation for very large counties is going to look quite different than my tiny 140,000 residents in Napa County.

So I. There is anecdotal sharing of information. I feel uncomfortable telling another District Attorney in a different community how it should be implemented. But that's, you know, that's how I feel about that.

Thank you.

Of course, ma'am.

Senator Umber, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and the panel Members. And I think this illustrates how useful it would have been had we had hearings on Prop 36 or actually the legislation that mirrored Prop 36 Last Year when it was pending in the Legislature.

Some of these issues could have been addressed, but that's just, you know, water under the bridge. Let me ask a question to the panel. Do you think that the treatment that's now mandated in Prop 36 requires residential treatment? In other words, a bed?

You can answer that. I think that completely depends on the individual. So for many people, yes, given their history for some outpatient treatment could be the right solution. I mean, there's a huge variation in what is gonna work for each person.

So the limitation on beds is not the it doesn't preclude implementation of the treatment mandated felony kind of thing, is that right?

Yes. Assuming that the individuals who were charged under the treatment mandated felony did not need the residential program and I suppose they could go into another and be placed there. But yes, in order for it to be successful, their treatment is going to need to be whatever fits the level of their addiction. Right.

So if these individuals need inpatient treatment and it does not exist, then what do you do with them? They end up being housed in the county jail or prison.

Query whether public defenders, other defense counsel, if there's not adequate treatment or adequate assessment, don't simply move to dismiss the charges because it's not because it's in violation of Prop 36.

But let me turn to another question here, and that is in smaller locations, Is there anything in Prop 36 that says that while individuals may have a right to actual treatment at this point in time, if they meet the conditions of Prop 36, it doesn't mean that they have to be treated in their county that counties can consolidate for purposes of treatment.

That's at least my understanding. Is that your understanding as well, or do you have a different understanding? I'm asking the whole panel.

That's my understanding. Absolutely. And trust me, in our county, we're asking for help all the time. But, yes, I think that's appropriate. Okay. Anybody disagree?

No. We do place people in neighboring counties, but then they run out of space.

Right. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions for this panel? Okay. Thank you so much for joining us today and for your very thoughtful testimony. With that, I'll turn it back over to Senator Richardson to chair the next panel. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Aragon. We will now hear from our next panel. First, we'll have the Honorable Sergio Tupia, Presiding Judge of Los Angeles County Superior Court. Next, from there, we'll hear from San Joaquin County Chief Probation Officer, Mr. Steve Jackson. From there, we'll hear from Francine Byrne, Director of Criminal Justice Services for the Judicial Council of California.

And then our final presenter of this panel will be Kathy Jefferson, Deputy Director with the Office of Research at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We thank you all for being present. As you've heard US State, we are running within a tight time frame.

So we welcome your comments and your brief responses to hopefully, our brief questions. Thank you very much. With that, we'll turn to our Honorable Sergio Tapia.

Good morning, Chairwoman Richardson, Chairman Araguin, and Members of the two committees. My name is Sergio Tapia and I am the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, serving 10 million residents across 4,000 square miles.

Thank you for convening this Joint Hearing, for inviting representatives of the judicial branch to discuss implementation of Proposition 36 in the courts, particularly in Los Angeles County, since its enactment two months ago. Joining me today is Francine Byrne from the Judicial Council who can provide insights into the broader statewide implementation of this measure.

At its core, the court's role is to interpret and enforce the laws enacted by this body and or the electorate. While the new law provides for treatment or alternative sentencing, the court also plays a vital role in monitoring compliance and progress in these programs. The implementation of Proposition 36 varies across California.

Not all courts have dedicated drug courts or the resources necessary to handle cases requiring intensive supervision. Previously, many drug related offenses were classified as misdemeanors and resolved quickly through plea agreements, fines or fees requiring minimal judicial oversight. Under Proposition 36, however, these cases are now categorized as treatment mandated felonies and referred to our community collaborative courts.

These cases require significantly more judicial oversight, including regular status hearings and progress reports which extend case timelines. We expect Proposition 36 treatment mandated felony cases to be processed through existing criminal courts or drug courts if the county has one established.

In Los Angeles County, specialized drug courts, known as community collaborative courts, address substance use disorders alongside other related issues. If all parties agree, individuals receive intensive supervision, treatment and rehabilitation services as an alternative to incarceration.

Our collaborative courts include one Sentence Drug Offender Court, serving individuals with substance use disorders 2 CO occurring disorders court, addressing individuals with both mental health and substance use disorders Women's Re Entry Court, providing support for women with substance use disorders and finally our Veterans Court, assisting veterans struggling with substance use disorders and mental health challenges.

The court works closely with the county's Behavioral health agency to coordinate treatment services within our community collaborative courts. Service providers assess defendants progress and offer recommendations to judges. However, because the county's probation Department does not supervise defendants with these case types, our judges must must oversee participants throughout the program.

This includes maintaining regular engagement with service providers and defendants to ensure compliance and participation. This level of oversight demands more frequent court appearances and judicial involvement. Additionally, access to treatment resources and services remains a significant challenge statewide. Since the law took effect, the number of Proposition 36 related cases has varied significantly across counties.

Some counties have received hundreds of case filings while others have received none. This discrepancy often depends on how district attorneys choose to charge eligible offenses. For example, since implementation in LA County, 401 cases have been filed under Penal Code Section 666.1, which elevates repeat theft related offenses to felonies when an individual has two prior convictions.

172 cases have been filed under Health and safety code Section 11395, which reclassifies possession of certain drugs such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine as treatment mandated felonies for individuals with with two or more prior drug related convictions for context bookings for Proposition 36 related charges represent just over 1% of the approximately 220 daily bookings processed in Los Angeles County since the law's implementation.

However, as my colleague from the Judicial Council will discuss in more detail, the increased oversight required of these cases places additional strain on trial courts, further emphasizing the need for more resources and funding.

In conclusion, in the two months since Proposition 36 took effect, courts across the state have implemented the law in ways that reflect their unique resources and challenges. However, implementation continues to pose difficulties which Ms. Byrne from the Judicial Council will discuss further.

Further, thank you again for the opportunity to share how the judicial branch is working to implement this new law. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Steve Jackson, Chief Probation Officer of San Joaquin County, and I'm also currently the president of the Chief Probation Officers of California. I've been a probation officer for over 27 years. In that time, I've seen countless statutory changes and initiative overhauls to the criminal justice system.

One thing that has not changed in that time, however, and that is probation's core mission to improve and enhance community safety through a combination of accountability for those who commit crimes and the opportunity for rehabilitation for those same people. That combination and balance, accountability, and opportunity is an absolute cornerstone as we discuss Proposition 36 implementation.

When voters approved the drug treatment felony provision for Prop 36, they weren't just supporting expanded access to treatment. They were endorsing treatment with accountability needed to ensure successful rehabilitation and safe re-entry into our communities. Probation plays a unique role and a central role in our public safety system.

Guided by research and evidence based practices, we implement policies that enhance community safety through a balanced approach combining supervision with tailored appropriate sanctions and meaningful successful re-entry of justice involved individuals. Frontline law enforcement plays a vital role in public safety and arresting those who commit crimes.

But what happens after arrest is just as important and an often overlooked part of the justice system. When people think about post-arrest outcomes, many just assume incarceration. However, as professionals on the front lines, we know the majority of individuals in the criminal justice system do not stay in prison or jail.

They either are placed under probation supervision by either remaining in the community in lieu of incarceration or upon release after some portion of incarceration. Proposition 36 presents an opportunity to ensure individuals are both held accountable and have access to the proven programs and support necessary for long term success.

To effectively implement Proposition 36, we must have the tools and resources in place at every point of the system, including after arrest and after incarceration. That is why we have requested budget funding to supplement probation to work with this population specifically to support our role as at the pre-trial, sentencing, and supervision levels of the process.

Probation knows how to leverage existing county and community resources to provide supervision and support. Many counties have programs in place, and if funded, we can scale up these resources. We can meet increased demand without duplicating efforts or starting from scratch. The efficiency makes probation uniquely positioned to help Prop 36 achieve its intended goals.

Despite Prop 36 allowing flexibility in how the new treatment felony is implemented, we are seeing its impact on probation at every level of the system. From the court process, as you've heard related to pretrial and sentencing reports, to supervision and mandated treatment requirements. Implementation should prioritize integration and flexibility.

Aligning existing county level programs, processes, and resources with the need to scale up. Rather than creating a separate system, leveraging current efforts should be preferred, the preferred approach. However, even with these efficiencies, probation will require additional funding to fully utilize the new tools provided under Proposition 36. Currently, we are seeing a significant impact on pretrial programs.

Any arrest booked under the new code section now requires new procedures, including cases involving individuals who before Prop 36 were unlikely to be booked into jail for misdemeanor offenses. There is now a greater need for treatment assessments and evaluations to guide the court when considering cases are under a new treatment felony.

Probation departments across the state may be involved in coordinating these efforts with behavioral health partners, but how this unfolds will depend on county and court discussions. Many counties are exploring the use of drug courts or dedicated Prop 36 calendars to manage these cases.

While drug courts can be highly effective, treatment and supervision plans should be individualized, and I think we've heard that throughout the panels this morning. Based on assessments that match interventions to each person's needs. This presents an opportunity for probation and behavioral health to bring their collective expertise to the courts, improving case management and outcomes.

A well structured system not only aligns with the will of the voters, but also reduces reliance on costly incarceration when it isn't necessary. Of course, not all individuals will be suitable for this option. Some will face incarceration and traditional probation. However, intentional funding for this assessment and referral process can reduce that number.

This is why it's a key component of the Chief Probation Officers of California budget request. Until the new treatment felony process is fully operational, we are seeing cases where defendants who do not agree to treatment may be sentenced to felony probation instead.

It is important to highlight for the Committee, felony probation supervision in these cases is limited to two years. Shorter probation terms may lead to unintended consequences. More serious cases that, before Prop 47, would have been managed under longer probation terms may now be deemed more appropriate for incarceration instead.

The shift underscores the importance of ensuring that supervision and treatment options are structured to effectively address the needs of criminal justice individuals. Another area where we are likely to see an increase in caseloads, as discussed earlier, is the post-release community supervision population. Individuals sentenced to prison under the new treatment felony will be eligible for post-release community supervision upon parole, which, as you know by law is handled by probation. This is particular...

Please summarize as best as you can. Thank you.

Quickly, the impacts to probation must be accounted for. If programs and staffing are not scaled appropriately to address these impacts, we will miss a critical opportunity to provide meaningful intervention. Lastly, we can't go back to over incarceration without rehabilitation, and we can't stay where we are without a balance of accountability. People miss the structure and support needed to do this work of recovery. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to partnering with the Legislature going forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Francine Byrne. I'm the director of Criminal Justice Services at the Judicial Council of California. Thank you for allowing me to be here today to talk about the statewide impacts on the courts of Proposition 36.

As Judge Tapia mentioned, the courts, and made very clear, the courts understand that Proposition 36 is the law of the land and they're committed to implementing implementing it in the most effective and equitable way possible. I'm going to talk today very briefly about sort of two different components.

One is our statewide estimates of what we think the numbers are that will impact the court system. And then I'll go into a little bit more, Judge Tapia covered much of it, but just a little bit more of the workload impact as well on the courts. We originally estimated that there would be between 20 and 30,000 cases that would have been filed as misdemeanors that are being filed as felonies now because of Prop 36. We've gathered some preliminary data and we think those numbers are ballpark but perhaps a little low. I think there would be somewhere between 30 and 40,000.

Approximately 56% of those cases are theft related and 44 are drug related. I want to give a word of caution though. All the data are not in yet, and because the program's being rolled out so differently in every county, those different priorities may change over time.

We will continue to collect the data, and we'll report back as whenever we have a switch. Judge Tapia mentioned the workload impact differences between misdemeanors and felonies. There's quite a bit more time involved. There's more likely to have continuances and trials if it's a felony. We think that some research has suggested it's approximately well over $600 difference in adjudicating a case as a felony versus a misdemeanor. I also wanted to talk a little bit about the treatment mandated felony component.

While many of these cases will be appropriate and will be run through drug court program, that will not work for every case and every county, whether they have a drug court or not or any other kind of collaborative court. We'll need to identify different systems in place for different for cases that are not necessarily appropriate for the drug court or the collaborative court program.

Also important to note, there is no longer any state funding for the courts for collaborative court programs. They run based on in kind resources as well as federal funding grants and that sort of thing, which are becoming increasingly more limited over time.

One of the concerns of the courts as well that's been mentioned many times today is the availability of treatment. Even if the drug court is available, is there treatment that's appropriate for these defendants to enter in order to process their cases? I think that's really the end of what I wanted to say. I'm happy to answer questions at the end, but just wanted to recommit to our continuing the conversation with you. As we get more data in, which we are getting every day, we will come back to you and adjust some of these estimates as needed. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Jefferson.

Good morning to both the chairs and Members of the Committee.

Yeah. All right. Good morning. My name is Cathy Jefferson, Deputy Director for the CDCR Office of Research. I'm here to provide an overview of the CDCR's Fall 2024 population projections. So, CDCR prepares projections twice per year in alignment with the state budget cycle. For the past four cycles now, so fall 2022 to spring 2024, our projections have performed very well over a 12-month period with an error rate of only 1%. CDCR's projections utilize historical trend data, including data on court commitments to predict future populations.

The fall 2024 projections are provided through June 2029, and those estimates include actual data as well as the impact the estimated impact of legislation, policy and process changes through June 30th of 2024. Based on recent trends, we expected a net 5 year decrease of 9% for our institution population from June 30th, 2024, to June 30th, 2029.

However, after developing those estimates, Prop 36 passed. To capture an estimate for Prop 36 population impact, we included a below the line adjustment in our population estimates. Though we had limited historical data, we felt it was important to provide a preliminary estimate for the Governor's Budget.

To estimate the Prop 36 average daily population impact, we looked at admissions from fiscal year 2013-14, which is the fiscal year prior to implementation of Prop 47. Our estimate is based on very limited data because we could not account for all of the impacted offenses, but we are working to make adjustments in the May revision.

Our assumptions for the fall estimate included admissions, beginning here in January 2025. Sentencing would be similar to pre-Prop 47 penalties, less those with enhancements that are no longer valid at good conduct credit earning rates would remain as they are currently, and we assumed a length of stay of 11 months.

We anticipated impacts to the parole population if individuals have specified prior offenses or if they are charged with certain enhancements. As with the institution population, we will adjust those parole population projections in the May revision. So, you are provided a sheet with two charts as part of your agenda materials. For budget purposes, the charts reflect average daily population for each fiscal year. The charts compare the original fall 2024 projections without Prop 36 to estimates with Prop 36 for both the institution and parole populations.

With the Prop 36 estimates included, the institution average daily population for 24-25 is estimated to be 91,672 and by fiscal year 28-29 the estimate would be 88,787. So, there's a 4% increase in the institution population for fiscal year 28-29 for projections with Prop 36 to projections without.

So, as we've heard here this morning, there's still a lot of unknowns right now with Prop 36 still being very new. CDCR is monitoring Prop 36 implementation closely, and we will adjust impact estimates to provide a more accurate projection as the data becomes available.

And as I've mentioned earlier, we will be providing updated estimates as part of the May revision to the Governor's Budget. So, thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you to all of our presenters. Do any members have any questions? And we'd ask that members if you could keep your questions as brief as possible. And respondents and Honorable Judge, are we pronouncing your last name incorrect? Is it -

Tapia.

Tapia. Yes. Thank you, sir. And please excuse.

It's quite alright.

Yes. Mr. Umberg.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Question to Ms. Byrne. How many counties do not have collaborative courts?

There are 10 counties that do not have adult drug courts, and I think that there are only three or four that have no collaborative courts at all.

All right; you've answered my second question concerning drug courts. And does the Judicial Council have information as to how counties are basically implementing a number of different collaborative courts / care courts. So, it would seem that one bench officer might be used for evaluation purposes for all the various sort of alternative courts.

Is there an analysis or figure on that?

We do not have data on that yet. We are planning to gather that type of information through some implementation surveys that we hope to be getting out or focus groups, but we don't have that yet. We're hoping by the end of March to have some more information of how it's being implemented.

And last question. The first part of Proposition 36 is called Alexandra's Law, and that provides that the court issue a warning when someone distributes fentanyl, whether it's alone or in conjunction with another drug. Is there any analysis as to basically increase prosecutions in the circumstance now with Alexander's Law being the law?

You know, we have not gathered that data as well. We're trying to keep it very, very short. Just asked for the numbers, but I'm now putting that down for when we start asking more information about implementation. We will look into that.

All righty. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Any other members with questions? Yes, our majority leader, Ms. Gonzalez.

Thank you, Ms. Jefferson. I just wanted to be clear. And thank you so much to all of the panelists for your work. I just wanted to ensure that I was clear per the LAO's last report. It had recommended, of course, that the CDCR address flaws in its prison and parole population.

Is that reflective in the numbers that you've provided, or do you look forward to additional sort of formulas for addressing the flaws?

Thank you for your question. Yes, we will be making adjustments as part of the May revision. So, the numbers I provided were our fall preliminary fall estimate.

Okay. There were no other issues. Okay. I had another question. It just lost me. So I'll come back to you.

Okay. Did you have a question?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. Mr. Chair?

Your Honor, just a few questions. Thank you for joining us today. Part of the implementation is for the, I guess 11395 drug felonies, are an evaluation, substance abuse and mental health evaluation. Who's conducting those evaluations in LA County? And I know we're just - that's kind of the beginning phase of implementing this.

And how long does it take from the order for the evaluation to the evaluation to be completed?

Senator, thank you so much for that question. So, I don't have a specific answer for you because it will vary. It depends on the individual. I can tell you in LA County, we actually have nine courthouses with collaborative courts. So, they number, and they have multiple, sometimes court rooms within those courthouses doing collaborative cases.

So county behavioral specialists will do the evaluation when it comes time for the case to be in court. We're talking about two different evaluation processes. The initial one, when someone is booked and arrested, which is already taken care of through our prearrainment release protocol, where there's an evaluation done by a magistrate to determine release conditions.

If so, prior to arraignment, once the person's arraigned and then referred to a collaborative court, then behavioral specialists from the county will then evaluate that individual.

Again, I tell you, it varies throughout the county because in Long Beach, for example, we have a specialized court there where we have both city funding and county funding, that will perhaps change the nature in which somebody is evaluated. So, it's going to vary throughout our county.

And if it varies throughout our county, it's varying throughout the state. So those timelines will vary. And then depending on the nature of the issue, that person may get reevaluated even further. So, you might have some simple, straightforward cases where we may have an evaluation turnaround time that is quick.

And in some instances, and then depending on whether or not we have facilities to treat that individual, it could take even longer. It really is too early to tell with respect to the implementation of Prop 36 and this particular statute, what the long-term effects are going to be. And that's the best answer I can give you.

Thank you.

Mr. Umberg had a follow up question.

I'm a strong believer in the collaborative courts and care court. I'm wondering if there's any empiric data though that shows the efficacy of the collaborative courts, the alternative courts, number one. And then number two, if that data demonstrates what practices are most effective in curbing recidivism.

There's quite a bit of data - is that directed to me?

Okay, great, thanks. There's quite a bit of data showing the effectiveness of collaborative courts, particularly drug courts, in reducing recidivism, in being cost beneficial, increasing sobriety, a number of different things as well. There are standards based on research that have been put out nationally.

And there are a number of practices that increase. I cannot tell you off the top of my hand what say the best ones are. I know that identifying the right, probably the most effective is having the right target population. So, it's built best for high risk, highest need people.

Beyond that I could probably get that to you, but I don't know off the top of that.

I would love to have that data as particularly as to California specific and then particularly as to what is most effective in terms of California courts.

We may not have that for California specifically. We do have some, but I'll get you some.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I did have two questions. Ms. Byrne, did I understand that your statistical numbers of estimation was different from Ms. Jefferson's? Did I hear that correctly in the testimony? Did you both seem to concur in the amount of people, the increase or decrease, that you thought we would see?

You know, I'm not really sure. I know that we thought we did not compare. I don't. Yes, I don't know for sure. We thought between 20 and 30 and now it's probably 30 to 40,000 people through one of the arms. So, I actually don't remember.

Ms. Jefferson, I want to concur with my colleagues in statements or questions that you heard. If I did, I hear you correctly to say that you were referencing numbers back to 2015.

We looked at admissions from 2013-14. So that's the fiscal year prior to Prop 47. And given that that's over 10 years ago, that data is very limited in that we're not able to account for all of the impacted offenses under Prop 36.

So, I would just respectfully request that, in light of the panel that was before you that spoke of these significant increases, maybe a different evaluation might be able to be considered of getting actual data from the various courts that are implementing it as we speak, because we're going to be under a tremendous challenge to, from a budgetary perspective to estimate what these numbers are going to be, and we cannot afford to have it be grossly off, which I would think from 2013 that would occur.

Any other questions? All right. I will turn it back over to the Chairman. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We're going to go to our last panel, which is specifically focused on treatment, and I want to invite our panelists, Phebe Bell, Director of Behavioral Health for Nevada County, and Robb Layne, Executive Director of the California Association of Drug Alcohol Program Executives, and Saun Hough, SHIELDS for Families.

Thank you for joining us today. And we're going to go first to Ms. Bell and turn over to you.

Good morning, chairs and Members. My name is Phebe Bell. I'm the Behavioral Health Director for Nevada county, which is a small rural county of about 100,000 people. And I'm also a past President of the Behavioral Health Directors Association, and I'm here today to provide the county behavioral health perspective on the implementation of Prop 36.

As we've heard, Prop 36 creates in perpetuity a new pathway to treatment services via the treatment mandated felony but does not provide a related funding source to support that new pathway. Currently, California relies on two primary sources of funding for behavioral health treatment services.

First is federal grant funding, a source that depends on what's budgeted at a federal level, and it's also a relatively small part of our overall funding. The second involves the federal Medicaid program known as Medi-Cal.

In California, counties rely on earmarked state taxes through realignment and the millionaires tax, which we then utilize as match to draw down federal Medi-Cal dollars for services. The state tax funding is not tied to caseload and need, but rather historic spending levels which don't account for new initiatives like this one.

It's also not commonly known that Medi-Cal coverage for inpatient or residential substance use treatment is a relatively new benefit in California. In fact, California was the first state in the country to request an exception to Medicaid rules in order to allow for Medicaid coverage of residential drug and alcohol treatment under a pilot approved in 2016.

In 2017, Nevada county became an early adopter of this waiver called the Drug Medical Organized Delivery System, or ODS waiver. We love great names. What this means is that less than a decade ago, unless you were pregnant, Medicaid did not even have the option to cover residential substance use treatment.

This was a tremendous gap in coverage impacting both people needing care but also impacting the provider network trying to provide lifesaving services with very limited access to funding.

Because the ODS was put forward as an optional waiver in California, counties had to front load the cost to build out the new system of care and pay for the new services with existing resources. Despite these barriers, counties have made significant progress in implementing these benefits.

Today, 40 out of 58 counties have opted in, with the most recent being, Sonoma County in 2024. The vast majority of counties that have not opted in are small and frontier counties with already stretched resources and fewer existing providers, as was being referenced earlier. And important to note, in these counties, residential treatment is still not a covered benefit. Our substance use treatment capacity has also been challenged by the reality that commercial insurers do not make residential substance use treatment readily available to their beneficiaries, despite the fact that it should be a covered benefit.

A bill last year authored by Senator Cortese building upon Senator Weiner's landmark parody law would have overhauled the private insurance rules to make sure that more commercially insured Californians can fully access those benefits. But unfortunately, it did not advance. So, this overall austerity approach towards funding substance use treatment has real consequences that we've been hearing about today.

It's led to an inadequate patchwork of providers serving everyday Californians. We have providers who at times struggle to keep the doors open on one end of the spectrum given both the underfunded public system and the difficulty people have in accessing their commercial benefits.

And then very high-end boutique providers for the haves who can pay cash on the other end. It's for these reasons that CBHDA has made funding for substance use capacity, workforce and services a priority.

A number of policies are currently being implemented that stand a real possibility of making investments in that infrastructure such as the BCHIP grants and the BHConnect Workforce Initiative, if those are focused on county substance use capacity. The missing link in Prop 36 is the ongoing sustainable funding source for the expanded treatment services.

This was a major concern in the administration's as well in considering this initiative. Some may point to Proposition 1 as a potential funding source. The BHSA was passed by the voters in March 2024 and will implement over time beginning in 26.

Prop 1 permits counties to use the existing millionaires tax funding for substance use needs, a goal that behavioral health directors supported. But the really important thing to Note is that Proposition 1 does not generate new funding for these treatment services.

Instead, it pulls from existing mental health services funding and diverts that to pay for housing and other new state priorities from within the existing dollars.

Counties will need to make painful decisions in the months ahead about which programs to phase out and which to keep under existing Prop 1 criteria, leaving no room for new initiatives like Prop 36.

I also want to reiterate that the core funding model for the public behavioral health system is about our ability to draw down Medi-Cal and those tax dollars that we use as the match like 2011 realignment were created prior to the ODS waiver, prior to the opioid epidemic, certainly prior to Prop 36.

So, we are locked in at these historic levels from 2011 prior to some major policy and landscape changes.

In addition to the treatment system constraints, I also want to touch on the additional funding and workforce challenges Prop 36 creates around the Court Process Expectations. As we heard, for some counties, collaborative courts provide a useful structure for the implementation of Prop 36.

But in many areas the collaborative courts are small programs with limited resources, often insufficiently funded through grants. In addition, not every court is planning to use an existing collaborative court for Prop 36 cases. But most importantly, the proposition does not include any funding for the work of staffing these courts, including providing the required assessments, reports and updates.

In summary, County Behavioral Health has a distinct vantage point to understand local needs and capacity of our substance use treatment system, including the gaps and challenges, to ensure Prop 36 is able to meet its stated goal of connecting individuals to treatment.

Future funding should be directed to counties to maximize the build out of provider capacity throughout the state so that we can support these high-risk individuals during the course of their recovery. Funding also needs to be made available to support the non-billable work of staffing court processes.

Understanding the true cost of this initiative across all impacted partners will take time, but in Nevada county we know we will need to grow our staffing and treatment capacity to meet the increased demand.

At the end of the day, a robust treatment system fully supported across the array of payer sources is critical to address the complex needs of people struggling with substance use disorders.

We will continue to work closely with our public defenders, district attorneys, probation and court partners to prioritize access to care for those who need it most and ultimately, we hope to be able to offer people the services and the supports they need to recover and thrive. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll go next to Mr. Lane.

Robb Lanye, Executive Director of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, or CAADPE. We represent both a broad network of providers that provide a full continuum of care from prevention to residential treatment to withdrawal management and ongoing recovery services both in large, small, medium, urban and rural counties.

While Proposition 36 represents a shift in our approach to treatment, I want to highlight both its promise and also the challenges that we'll face for this implementation. When we look at our treatment system today from a holistic perspective, the facts are alarming.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, about 17% of Californians who are 12 and over have a substance use disorder, yet 20% of those individuals receive treatment. This means 80% of people struggling with addiction will not get the help that they need.

Let me give you a more concrete example of our capacity crisis that's been discussed earlier this morning. Just this morning, I checked the availability of the Los Angeles County of Los Angeles County, out of the 357 residential facilities, only 23 have open beds to treat substance use disorders specifically.

That's 1% of total capacity, and these openings will typically disappear within hours. In rural counties with fuel providers, this situation is even more dire. Sheriff Taylor spoke to this earlier and I just wanted to remind that this is not just a rural community problem. Behind these statistics are real people.

I think of a client that is well known in our provider group named Maria. She's a young woman from Shasta County, a rural county, who is diverted from incarceration through a program similar to what Proposition 36 proposes.

She waited 47 days for a residential treatment bin while living in her car, nearly relapsing multiple times without addressing our capacity issues. Stories like Maria will multiply under Proposition 36. Public Defender Wood mentioned this earlier, and I really want to support this comment.

We face several critical implementation challenges that must be addressed for the promise, as we've been discussing, of Proposition 36, to be accomplished. First, we have a severe workforce shortage. Our providers simply cannot find, retain or hire enough qualified counselors, social workers and clinical supervisors.

The state has launched initiatives like BHConnect, but realistically, it will take years to build the workforce that we need to address this crisis. Even as we construct new facilities, through things like Proposition 1, has been discussed in BCHIP. Many will operate below capacity due to staffing limit.

Secondly, we lack sufficient transitional housing for someone like Maria, leaving a treatment program stable. Housing often makes the difference between a sustained recovery and a relapse or a chaotic drug event. While Proposition 1 may fund additional housing, eventually we need immediate solutions to bridge this gap.

As Director Bell mentioned, our counties are already resource constrained; they must meet federal matching requirements for certain Medi-Cal populations, fund room and board expenses that drug, medical or DMC ODS does not cover and manage an enormous administrative workload associated with court ordered treatment coordination. Without additional support, many counties will struggle to implement Proposition 36 effectively.

The previous panel made it clear that success depends heavily on court collaboration. We need to reestablish and enhance specialized treatment courts that facilitate communications between judges, providers and county agencies. Without this infrastructure, participants who struggle may simply just default back into incarceration. Additionally, serving court ordered clients requires significant burden for providers.

It's a wanted burden, but it is a burden. Our staff must attend hearings, submit regular court progress reports, conduct specialized assessments, coordinate with multiple agencies and manage complex discharge planning. These responsibilities both require funding and staff time that in the current structure we simply don't have. Finally, we face a fundamental misalignment with the drug Medi-Cal requirements.

It's medically necessity - excuse me - it's medical necessity criteria that often conflicts with court ordered treatment plans, leaving providers caught between compliance with funders and court mandates. If we don't address these challenges, Proposition 36 risks becoming an unfunded mandate that expands the pipeline to incarceration rather than providing genuine rehabilitation. So, what do we need to do?

If I have a couple of moments, I can provide some thoughts on how we can. How we can propose solutions. We need immediate capacity funding to expand treatment availability while longer term Proposition one projects are developing. We need accelerated workforce development to expedite counselor certification programs and create retention bonuses for providers serving court ordered clients.

We need administrative support to counties special, specifically for Proposition 36 implementation. We need regulatory alignment. We need direction for DHCs to develop a streamlined documentation requirement that satisfies both the legal and Medi-Cal requirements. And we need a better data system for statewide tracking of beds to monitor availability outcomes and allowing real time capacity management.

Lastly, we need measuring the success. When measuring the success of Proposition 36, we should simply look beyond counting how many people avoid jail. True success means tracking meaningful recovery in four different in four different spaces. Sustained engagement and treatment, housing stability, employment and family unification.

So, in closing, with proper planning and adequate resources, we can transform Proposition 36 from a well-intentioned idea into a genuine opportunity offer rehabilitation for tens of thousands of Californians.

Thank you very much. I'm going to ask if you could send me those recommendations that you spoke to. That'd be very helpful.

We'll follow up with a formalized letter. Thank you. Go to you, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Committee. I am Saun Hough, Vocational Services Administrator with SHEILDS for Families.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the critical needs of justice impacted individuals and the role that behavioral health services, substance use treatment, and mental health support play in successful reentry and public safety. Justice impacted individuals face significant barriers upon reentry into society.

Many struggle with behavioral health challenges, including substance use disorders, mental health issues, and economic and social barriers. Access to substance abuse and mental health services is essential for the successful reintegration of justice impacted individuals and for maintaining public safety.

Studies show that untreated behavioral health conditions significantly increase the likelihood of recidivism, homelessness, and unemployment, and without adequate support, many individuals struggle to integrate into their communities, perpetuating cycles of incarceration and instability. Substance use disorders and mental health conditions are highly prevalent among the justice impacted population.

Data suggests that approximately 65% of incarcerated individuals have substance use disorders, while more than half experience mental health challenges. The absence of adequate treatment leads to increased criminal justice involvement, emergency health care utilization, and homelessness, all of which burden state resources and reduce public safety outcomes.

Programs such as SHEILDS for Families funded by Prop 47 savings demonstrate the effectiveness of investing in behavioral health services.

SHEILDS for Families is part of a network of programs providing intensive outpatient and residential substance use disorder treatment, family support, employment services, and mental health, connecting individuals to mental health, housing substance use services, significantly reducing recidivism rates, and improving economic stability. The Reentry Intensive Case Management Services Program, which is the Los Angeles County Prop 47 funded program, has demonstrated remarkable success by providing comprehensive case management to individuals leaving incarceration, connecting clients to housing, mental health care, and substance use treatment, significantly reducing recidivism rates, improving employment outcomes, and increasing stability for program participants. The effectiveness of these programs cannot be is undeniable.

A Board of State Community Corrections evaluation found that participants in these programs had a recidivism rate of just 15.3%, compared to much higher rates among those traditionally incarcerated. Additionally, homelessness among participants dropped by 60% while unemployment rates decreased by 50% for those who identified employment as a goal.

Despite the clear success of the Prop 47 funded programs, they are now under threat due to reduced funding because of Prop 36. The LAO office notes that the Administration projects a 68% reduction in Prop 47 savings for 2025 to 2026 and a 74% reduction in savings for 2026 to 2027, threatening the viability of these successful programs.

That should be noted that 74% of the funding that is currently going into treatment will be lost, while you've heard today of the lack of funding at the current levels and the impact it will have as well.

Programs that rely on the Prop 47 funding to operate are facing significant challenges as a result of a potential 74% reduction in funding. This dramatic cut is forcing organizations to make difficult decisions, including leveraging alternative funding sources, reducing staff, or even shutting down programs entirely.

The impact of such substantial funding loss cannot be understated as it threatens the sustainability of services that many communities now depend on. Many organizations will ultimately be forced to close their doors altogether. A 74% reduction in funding is simply too large for most of our county programs to absorb.

The closure of these programs will leave gaps in services and have devastating consequences, including increased recidivism.

And I'll point out that that includes recidivism is not because of specific criminal ideology or thinking as a result of the individual, but rather the result of failing to have equitable access to programs that help to address the underlying causes of the issues that show up and criminal behavior.

It's akin to providing equitable access to treatment or not providing equitable access to treatment but blaming the patient for going into remission.

We have done a great work in normalizing mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment amongst this population and now we are at the place of removing that treatment and opening people up to not having access to the help they need. The stark reality is that without a clear plan, many programs will not survive.

While some may adapt through strategic adjustments, the overall impact of a 74% reduction in available funding will be widespread and devastating, which also highlights the shameful disparity of investments California continues to make in its prison system versus the investment we make in our public safety and community safety organizations and systems which exacerbates our systemic inequalities and fails to prioritize long term public safety.

I will conclude by saying public safety is best of trees when individuals receive the support needed to successfully reintegrate into society. Our Prop 47 funded programs have proven effective in reducing recidivism and promoting stability.

However, with reduced funding we risk reversing the progress made and compromising both the individual and our community wellbeing unless we figure out how to reinvest these funds into our community programs that have proven to work. Thank you.

Thank you to all the panelists. Colleagues. We need to adjourn this hearing at 12 noon, so if I may suggest, perhaps questions can be submitted to committee staff and directed to the panelists.

We really appreciate you being here and your testimony and really emphasizing the importance of investing in treatment as a key part of implementing this proposition. So, in the interest of time, I would recommend we go to public comment. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you.

So, we'll now move on to anyone who'd like to provide public comment. And due to constraints regarding the length of our hearing, each speaker would be limited to 1 minute. Please line up at the microphone here if you'd like to participate in the public comment portion of the hearing. So, yes, please go ahead.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California: we urge the legislature to fund public defenders to ensure that they have social workers and behavioral health workers on staff. Public defenders are the first responders. They are the people that meet someone at their moment of greatest need when they've just been arrested or placed in jail.

Research shows that when they have social workers on staff who can help their clients understand and choose treatment, to find housing and to find treatment programs, the result is not just better for the individual, but for all of us because the research shows it leads to reduced recidivism.

So, we urge you to focus on Prop 36 implementation by calling on our public defenders and making sure they have the resources and the staff to make this work. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Vera California, the Los Angeles Public Defender Union Local 148, Initiate Justice, and the Debt Free Justice Coalition. Californians voted for Prop 36 because they want to live in safe, thriving communities.

We urge the legislature to follow the evidence and ensure that funds for the implementation of Prop 36 deliver the safety we deserve. The legislature must channel resources towards programs proven to reduce crime, not just more use of prisons and jails. Programs like behavioral health treatment, job training and housing deliver safety.

Californians who participate in these programs after committing low level property and drug crimes have a 15% recidivism rate while it is almost three times higher for those who leave state prison victim services and adequate indigent defense can also improve health, improve community safety and health. Voters believe that Prop 36 will provide more of these services, not less.

The legislature must listen to voters and champion policies that create lasting safety. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Chair, committee and staff, both committees: Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties. here representing all 58 counties. First, we'd like to extend our appreciation for convening this hearing and inviting all our county affiliates as primary implementers of this proposition.

I won't belabor any of the points previously made by our panelists, but I would like to underscore the importance of investing in our county departments to ensure that we meet both the expectations and honor the California voters.

More importantly, a common theme throughout the panels were the diversity amongst our counties and they're all positioned differently in terms of programs and resources.

And so just to please keep that in mind and you know, as a CSAC representing all 58 counties, again we always urge for adequate and flexible funding that represents and reflects the localized needs in each of our counties. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, State Policy Director at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office: indigent defense providers are uniquely positioned to effectively combat recidivism and connect Californians to resources to address poverty, trauma and homelessness because we connect with community members when they first enter the criminal legal system, build trust, and can make individualized plans in partnership with them.

For this reason, we're requesting the California leaders earmark 120 million over three years in the state budget to support states public defense system's implementation of a holistic defense services. We hope you'll support.

Lastly, on behalf of Debt Free Justice California, we strongly encourage you to prioritize rehabilitative and cost-effective policies that have been proven to reduce recidivism and ensure that wealth does not determine a person's access to justice. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you to both committees for holding this hearing. Dan Seaman here on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, the Re-Entry Providers Association of California, the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, and the Steinberg Institute. I won't belabor any of the comments previously made. We echo many of them, and we've provided more detailed testimony to the committee in writing.

I will just note that Prop 47 savings were the first time in California that we had an ongoing source of funding for trauma recovery centers to help victims of crime, as well as many successful reentry and anti-truancy programs that are currently operating. Prop 36 will result in less savings for these programs and it's important that both of these committees and the Legislature tackle this to make sure that these programs are held harmless and continue to operate. Thank you for the discussion.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jolena Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities. We really appreciate this hearing. Cal Cities was a strong supporter of Proposition 36 because of the increase of the organized retail theft and specifically shoplifting. Many of our constituents seeing that on a daily basis.

But that support was to focus on treatment and not to go back to mass incarceration. We appreciate the comments by the Committee Members to implement Proposition 36 and to look closely at funding treatment programs. Our Members were specifically very supportive of drug courts and collaborative courts and wanted to go back to that emphasis, which was very successful when they were fully funded. But we really appreciate this hearing and we look forward to working with you as the year moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairs and Members. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council. I'll keep my comments brief, but we would just like to state that as the state considers the resources and coordination needed to implement Prop. 36, we ask that you keep an eye on sufficiently funding every step of the process, from enforcement to prosecution to rehabilitation, to ensure the safety of business districts in all communities in the near and far term. We look forward to continued conversations and discussions to ensure the effective implementation of Prop 36. And please consider the Bay Area Council a resource in this space. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, as well as our member affiliate companies BOMA California, ICSC, and NAIOP California. We are working with law enforcement community to communicate on the issues related to implementation.

We proudly supported Prop 36 and the retail theft package in the Legislature last year. Both are critically needed. We actually co-sponsored a kickoff implementation discussion with the California District Attorneys Association back in November at Ovation Hollywood. We brought together mall owners, business owners, as well as DAs and law enforcement officials to just have discussions on the implementation process.

We are assuring ensuring that information is getting out to our members, who include both retailers and shopping malls, and to law enforcement on the effectiveness of this. Helping to get data to law enforcement agencies that will help refine and inform implementation strategies. We look forward to continuing to work on this issue. We support fully funding the implementation process and continuing to address this issue.

Good morning, Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Teja Stephens. I'm with Catalyst California, and I'll keep my comments quick. We just want to make sure that we're urging you to implement funding toward indigent defense and diversion programs and keeping communities that are underprivileged, low income, and communities of color that are disproportionately harmed in mind. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ellen McDonnell, Chief Defender, Contra Costa County at the Public Defender's Office and here also on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. It is critical that we properly implement this proposition. Holistic defense funding is needed.

We in Contra Costa are looking at suffering the loss of an incredible program, a holistic intervention partnership that provides $1.0 million a year Prop 47 savings just to housing alone and another $1.0 million a year to reentry services such as drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment.

We've seen incredible outcomes as a result of utilizing this state funding to stabilize individuals in the community. And just like the gentleman from SHIELDS that spoke earlier, we're very concerned about the resulting destabilization of those who are receiving housing, drug treatment, and other funds.

We've seen that when these programs are implemented through public defenders offices, it has special impact. We have a position of trust with our clients and community members and we're able to work very closely with them to ensure that they receive necessary and life saving services.

So again, we're asking that holistic defense funding come to public defenders offices so that we can implement and mitigate the damage on communities of color. We're seeing already a very high percentage of people of color impacted by Prop 36. We're seeing a 20% spike in January alone in jail bookings in Contra Costa County. We are seeing cases filed, theft cases, drug cases, and again, many more felonies being processed through our local system. So more help is needed. Thank you.

Thank you. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association of criminal defense lawyers and private practice and also working in public defender offices. I want to thank the Chairs and the Members for this hearing today.

CACJ is putting out a letter today to all of you with a 10 point plan of how to address some of the issues with Prop 36. We're actually going to make some amendments based on some of the conversation that occurred today. So I want to thank you for all of that.

Let me just highlight a couple of principles as you approach what to do. From everything you heard today, you realize that Prop 36 should only be one tool in the toolbox for prosecutors. It should not be the only tool. And the only way we can properly fund or address how to handle Prop 36 and make sure it is not causing chaos is to make sure that the other laws are also available and other drug treatment programs are also available.

We should reserve Prop 36 for the worst of the worst offenders and where the facts meet the law, only when the facts justify it. The other thing to keep in mind is that there should be some guidelines. You heard about some counties have one washout period, another county doesn't.

We need to have a statewide discussion on guidelines to guide prosecutors on how to use it, and we would love to see that happen. That's part of our plan. The last thing is there are provisions in Prop 36 that were advertised to be focused on drug traffickers and hard drugs.

It was in the intent of the ballot measure, but in the language of the measure itself, it actually allows for a new felony for someone who gives their friend a pot brownie. That is not what was advertised. That's not how it should be, and that should not be a new felony. So we have to look at discretion of prosecutors, guidelines, and making sure that it's only one tool that's reserved for the worst of the worst. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Aubrey Rodríguez, the legislative advocate on behalf of California ACLU California Action. ACLU California Action urges this Legislature to invest in indigent defense providers across California implementing holistic defense services, as well as invest in resources for drug and mental health treatment, housing, and other social safety net services.

Now, more than ever, California must ensure that people have equal access to justice and drug treatment, regardless of how much money they have in their pockets. Indigent defense providers are uniquely positioned to effectively combat recidivism and connect Californians who earn low incomes to resources to address poverty, trauma, houselessness, mental illness, or substance use because they couldn't connect with them when they first enter the criminal legal system. This funding is critical in the wake of Prop 36 and a call to action for California policymakers to redouble efforts to deliver on our nation's founding principle of equal treatment under the law, not just those who have the money to afford it. Thank you.

Morning. James King, program director with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. On behalf of EBC, want to second many of the comments today. Specifically, the need to effectively fund indigent defense. Providing public defenders with the resources to provide more holistic support will strengthen reentry services.

We also want to lift up community providers with an emphasis on those who have staff with lived experience. And finally, we want to name that families are often the first responders, and any Prop 36 funding and implementation that does not include families will have a massive hole in it. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Shelli Margarite. I'm the manager. I supervise a team of social workers case managers in Stanislaus County. Many of the folks that I work with have lived experience. I want to echo what my colleague said about supporting funding for indigent defense.

In our current county, if someone is incarcerated, they have an assessment for a substance use disorder. They have to qualify, and they have to score a particular number in order to qualify for residential services. By the time someone's incarcerated for a period of time the assessor comes in, they may not qualify for residential services anymore.

They may say that outpatient meets their needs. That's not adequate, that's not going to work for an individual who's unhoused, whose way of life has been on the streets. It's really doing them a disservice. So I would just like to support holistic defense and the system. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional speakers before we close public comment? Okay. Thank you all for coming today. Really appreciate your thoughtful comments and want to thank the panelists as well. Before we adjourn the hearing, I want to give my colleagues an opportunity to offer any closing comments. Yes, Senator Caballero.

I just want to thank you all for setting up this hearing and for everybody that showed up today. This is not easy, and we face an uncertain future with Medi-Cal, quite frankly. And that means it's going to affect our budget, and we're going to be trying to figure out how do we meet all the needs that we have with the resources that we have. So for those of you that said we'll send you something, please do. I think it'll be tremendously important. And this is just the first step. We have a lot more work to do.

We'll probably be reviewing this almost every year to figure out if we're getting it better in some communities than others because of the mismatch of resources all over the state. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair. I really appreciate this hearing. It was really well done. And thank you for coming.

Thank you. And just following up, if you have any... If you have any written testimony, please send it to our committee staff so all Members of the Committee can receive those comments. We really look forward to your written comments as well. Yes, Madam Chair.

I believe the last three panels, we didn't receive any of their testimony, so if we could request for the record that they submit their testimony. Particularly, there were some that were giving very specific stats that I think would be helpful for us. Thank you.

Yeah, we can follow up and ask them to provide their written comments that they made to share with the committee. Any additional closing comments? Okay. Once again, thank you to our panelists for joining us today. Thank you to all the individuals who provided public comment today. If you were not able to participate, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing either to the Senate Public Safety Committee or Senate Budget Subcommittee Number 5 or visit the committee's websites. Your comments and suggestions are important to us.

We want to include your comments in the official hearing records. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation. So thank you once again, everyone who joined us today. We have concluded the agenda. The Senate Public Safety Committee and Senate Budget Subcommittee Number 5 are now adjourned. Thank you.