San Diego County declines to endorse Proposition 36 after staff warns of multi‑million dollar impacts

County staff told the Board of Supervisors on Oct. 9 that a state ballot measure known as Proposition 36 could reduce funding for local programs paid from savings generated by Proposition 47 and would increase county criminal‑justice costs by tens of millions of dollars annually.

The board received a cross‑departmental analysis from Health & Human Services staff and public‑safety officials that projected increased workload and costs across the sheriff’s office, district attorney, public defender and probation if Prop 36 passes. “Our public safety departments … estimate an initial minimum cost of approximately $58,000,000 annually for increased staffing,” Andrew Strong, deputy chief administrative officer for public safety, told the board. He said the sheriff’s office estimates 5,000 to 8,000 additional arrests and bookings annually and would need about 230 additional positions at a cost the presentation lists as roughly $52,000,000.

Why it matters

The presentation linked those cost increases to how Prop 36 would change sentencing and court requirements for some theft and drug offenses, potentially increasing jail, supervision and treatment mandates. County staff also warned that several locally run programs funded by one‑time Prop 47 grants could lose funding. The presentation said the county uses $6,000,000 of one‑time Prop 47 grant funding for the Community Care Coordination Reentry Support (C3RES) program (budgeted $5,190,000 for the first three years), and $510,000 for a Peer Reentry Leadership Academy; staff also described a conditional $8,000,000 award for a Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) cohort that would serve about 330 adults through 2028.

Public comment and board debate

Public comment included callers and community advocates both for and against Prop 36. Christy Lovehill, advocacy and legal director with the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial County, urged supervisors not to support the measure: “We urge this board to vote no on any resolution to support Prop 36,” she said, arguing that Prop 36 would increase incarceration and roll back investments made under Prop 47.

Several callers and speakers described personal experience with incarceration and said treatment‑focused alternatives were preferable. Others criticized Prop 47 and blamed it for retail theft and other public‑safety problems.

Supervisors pressed staff on the underlying data and trade‑offs. Supervisor Montgomery Stapp (speaking from the dais) cited local statistics showing declines in property crime and asked staff to reconcile different crime‑rate claims. Staff responded that crimes against property decreased in 2023 compared with 2022 — citing single‑digit to mid‑teens percentage declines across categories — but warned that Prop 36’s primary new caseload would be drug‑possession offenses and that many fiscal impacts depend on how courts implement the measure.

Board action

After discussion, Supervisor Joel Desmond moved a motion to approve a board position supporting Proposition 36. The motion was called to a vote; according to the audio record and clerk’s announcement in the meeting transcript the motion did not carry. The transcript records that a minority of supervisors voted aye while the remaining supervisors voted no.

What’s next

Staff told the board it will continue to seek sustainable funding, including pursuing state reimbursement opportunities such as CalAIM coding and other revenue sources, if programs lose Prop 47 grant funding. The board did not adopt a position to support Prop 36 at the Oct. 9 meeting.

Source and provenance

This article relies on the county presentation and the board’s discussion during the Oct. 9 meeting (county presentation segments and the public comment and vote recorded in the meeting transcript).