Assembly panel hears courts, judges and analysts warn Prop 36 will strain courts and treatment systems

The California Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard detailed testimony that Proposition 36 will substantially increase workload for courts and county treatment systems and that the law’s success depends on access to treatment and new funding.

Rick Owen, senior staff counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, told the panel the measure creates a “treatment mandated felony” for repeat drug possession and increases prosecutorial charging power. “The common thread in all of these changes is that they enhance the power of prosecutors to bring felony charges and impose harsher penalties for drug and theft offenses,” Owen said. He summarized the statute’s treatment pathway, including required evaluations, court-ordered caseworker benefit checks, and a court-approved treatment program that can lead to dismissal if the defendant completes it.

Why it matters: Courts, prosecutors and treatment providers said they are already seeing rapid filings and expect cases created by Prop 36 to take far longer to resolve than typical misdemeanors. That combination risks long waits for defendants, increased jail and pretrial custody pressure and stretched judicial resources unless the state funds personnel, facilities and treatment slots.

The Judicial Council and local judges described early impacts. Francine Byrne, director of criminal justice services at the Judicial Council, said a Judicial Council survey of 49 counties covering about 98% of the state’s population indicates the courts may receive roughly 25,000 additional cases annually that otherwise would have been misdemeanors. Byrne warned courts are three months into implementation and counties are still building processes. She said the Judicial Council’s prior workload study shows processing a felony case costs substantially more than a misdemeanor — about $650 to $700 per case — which magnifies fiscal and staffing needs.

Presiding Judge Lisa Rogan of the San Bernardino Superior Court said local facilities and staffing are already strained. “Treatment consists of successes and failures. You don't get out of the program just because you may have had a setback,” Rogan said, stressing that many cases can now remain open for years while defendants enter, leave and re-enter treatment. Rogan also reminded the committee that Prop 36 includes a pre-arraignment review requirement that limits immediate bail eligibility and increases judicial review burdens at the front end of cases.

Orange County’s Supervising Judge Scott Cooper and Santa Barbara Court Executive Daryl Parker described similar operational bottlenecks: evaluations require clinicians and courtroom space, residential treatment beds are limited and many defendants are unhoused, producing a housing need that undermines treatment success. Cooper said Orange County filed roughly 1,100 of the new drug treatment–mandated felony charges in the statute’s first 11–12 weeks and that the drug‑treatment filings accounted for about 30% of all recent felony filings there.

Budget and program consequences: Caitlin O’Neil of the Legislative Analyst’s Office explained how Prop 36 interacts with Proposition 47’s funding structure. Prop 47 reduced certain punishments in 2014 and requires that state savings be allocated to grant programs for mental‑health and substance‑use treatment. O’Neil said Prop 36 will reduce those Prop 47 savings and the governor’s January budget projects roughly $88 million in savings to be allocated in 2025–26 — about $6 million less than the pre‑Prop 36 estimate — with larger declines projected in later years. The LAO also recommended the administration refine its methodology in the May Revision to better estimate savings and urged the committee to plan for uncertainty in future years.

Officials’ split on immediate solutions: Several county and court officials urged direct state funding to avoid an “unfunded mandate,” while legislative members said the proposition system places responsibility on proponents to estimate implementation costs and on the Legislature and Governor to address budgetary shortfalls. Panelists recommended several near‑term steps if the Legislature wants to limit delay and risk: 1) fund additional court judicial officers and staff for progress hearings and evaluations; 2) expand funded evaluation and residential treatment capacity; 3) provide housing supports and bridge housing tied to treatment placements; and 4) fund public defenders or other counsel offices to perform referral and case‑coordination work that probation would otherwise handle in collaborative courts.

Outlook: Panelists and the LAO emphasized that early filing and acceptance rates likely understate later treatment uptake because defendants can opt into treatment at any time before sentencing. But they warned that without timely evaluations, available treatment beds and housing, the statutory treatment pathway will be difficult to implement at scale and could prolong caseloads and custody time for many defendants.

The committee did not take votes on Prop 36 implementation at the hearing. Members asked the administration and the Judicial Council for more detailed, county‑level cost and capacity estimates ahead of budget negotiations.