Senate subcommittee adopts staff recommendations as stakeholders warn funding for Prop 36 and probation services is inadequate

The California State Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation met in Capitol Room 112 and adopted staff recommendations covering dozens of budget issues while public commenters urged stronger, ongoing funding for Proposition 36 implementation and for probation and pretrial services.

Why it matters: Stakeholders said the subcommittee's one-time funding proposals and proposed cuts to probation and pretrial services risk undercutting voter-mandated treatment, county implementation capacity and community supervision intended to reduce prison admissions.

Public comment and stakeholder concerns

Josh Garger, representing the Chief Probation Officers of California, told the subcommittee, "this is not a good budget for probation departments" and warned of multiple reductions he said would harm community supervision. Garger said the budget cuts include a $25,000,000 reduction to SB 678 funding for community corrections incentives, "0 funding for probation to implement Proposition 36," and cuts of $5,000,000 next year and $20,000,000 ongoing for pretrial services that help people who cannot afford bail return to court.

"We're disappointed in the outcome but look forward to further communication to try to improve the situation," Garger said.

Several other organizations echoed concern or offered related comments. Susan Ryan, speaking on behalf of Amity Foundation, HealthRite 360 and Westcare Foundation, cautioned the subcommittee about an "administrative unallocated cut to the CDCR" in issue 109 and asked that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provide a list of rehabilitative programs before targeting cuts.

Jolena Voras of the League of California Cities said she "strongly support[s]" the subcommittee's $110,000,000 allocation for Proposition 36 implementation but noted the amount is one-time funding and that not all groups seeking money received what they requested. Ryan Moore of the California State Association of Counties similarly said the one-time nature of the funding "doesn't cover all county costs."

Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, speaking on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, said she was "concerned that the funding is one time" and urged that behavioral treatment be coupled with probation supervision to improve accountability and rehabilitation outcomes.

Usha Mechler of the California State Sheriffs' Association said the committee's inclusion of $110,000,000 for Proposition 36 implementation was insufficient for "comprehensive and ongoing funding." Mechler also opposed the staff recommendation rejecting the governor's proposed reappropriation of $22,000,000 for law enforcement mutual aid and expressed concern about a planned prison closure by October 2026.

Anka Skanning of UAW Region 6 (CAPS UAW Local 1115) thanked the subcommittee for rejecting proposed cuts to state-worker compensation and urged against elimination of state scientist positions. A representative of Valor USA and statewide crisis centers thanked the committee for including $100,000,000 to backfill lost federal VOCA funds.

Committee action and votes

Senator Wahab moved to adopt the staff recommendations for the agenda items listed on the vote calendars (extensive lists covering public safety, labor and transportation issues). The consultant called the roll. Senators recorded as voting "Aye" on the roll calls included Senator Richardson, Senator Durazo and Senator Wahab. The motions to adopt the staff recommendations were approved; the subcommittee chair announced multiple item sets were "out" after the votes, and one tally was recorded as "3 ayes, 0 noes." (The roll-call tallies as read aloud by committee staff are reflected in the official hearing record.)

The committee chair opened the hearing by noting the difficulty of the budget year and invited continued collaboration with the administration and Assembly as the Legislature moves toward a final budget agreement. The hearing was a "vote-only" session following public comment; items taken up were described by the chair as part of the legislature's budget plan and had been discussed in prior subcommittee hearings.

What was not decided

Commenters repeatedly emphasized that the funding in the subcommittee package is largely one-time and urged the Legislature to identify ongoing resources to implement Proposition 36 and to stabilize probation and pretrial services. The committee approved staff recommendations on the listed items but did not adopt new, ongoing funding mechanisms during this hearing.

Ending

The chair thanked staff, the Legislative Analyst's Office and the Department of Finance and adjourned the hearing after completing the vote calendar. Members of the public who were not able to speak were invited to submit written comments to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee for the official hearing record.