Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Fiscal Prop36 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAO and CDCR tell Senate Prop 36 could raise prison and court costs; May revision to update estimates
Summary
Legislative Analyst's Office and CDCR briefed senators that full implementation of Proposition 36 could increase state criminal justice costs by tens to low hundreds of millions annually, raise prison and parole populations by a few thousand over several years, and reduce savings from Proposition 47.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation told the joint Senate hearing that Proposition 36 will have measurable fiscal impacts that the budget must address.
Caitlin O’Neil, principal fiscal and policy analyst with the LAO, told the committees that the office’s full‑implementation estimate assumes impacts would “ramp up” over several years. “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,” she said.
O’Neil said the measure also “reduces the state's savings attributable to [Proposition] 47,” likely lowering grant revenue that had been tied to Proposition 47 savings by the low tens of millions annually.
Kathy Jefferson of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation described the department’s fall 2024 population projection and the adjustments CDCR built into the governor’s budget. CDCR’s early projection included a below‑the‑line estimate for Prop 36 and — using pre‑Prop‑47 admissions as a baseline and an assumed 11‑month length of stay — the agency estimated a multi‑year impact that led to an institution average daily population estimate of about 91,672 for 2024‑25 in their model and a fiscal‑year 2028‑29 estimate of 88,787 when Prop 36 effects were included.
Jefferson cautioned that CDCR’s fall estimate drew on limited historical data and that the department will refine its numbers in the May budget revision.
The LAO raised methodological concerns about the administration’s approach to estimating prison and parole impacts, saying CDCR’s methodology likely overestimates near‑term impacts but may undercount some out‑year effects tied to longer sentences. The LAO recommended the legislature direct CDCR to revise its population‑impact estimates for the May revision and direct the Judicial Council to report on court implementation and workload.
Senators at the hearing repeatedly pressed for budget clarity. Committee Chairman Jesse Arreguín and Budget Subcommittee Chair Laura Richardson said the legislature must develop an implementation plan and identify funding sources for treatment programs, court workload and county costs; several legislators urged conservative (higher) budgeting to ensure funds are available as implementation proceeds.
Why it matters: the fiscal estimates will shape May revision budget negotiations. The committees flagged state‑local cost sharing, potential reductions in Prop 47 grant pools, and the need to fund both treatment capacity and increased court and probation workload.
Sources: Caitlin O’Neil and Will Owens (Legislative Analyst’s Office); Kathy Jefferson (CDCR); hearings before the Senate Public Safety Committee and Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5.
