Police countywide arrested hundreds of repeat drug offenders in the months after California voters approved Proposition 36, which promised to offer treatment rather than simply jail time and a felony record.
But until last month, the region didn’t have a formal process to connect Proposition 36 offenders with treatment and put the felony cases against them on hold.
In the initial absence of a formal process to link offenders with those services, many weren’t connected in the four months after police started making arrests.
Since Proposition 36 became law in mid-December, the county District Attorney’s Office has filed more than 670 Proposition 36 treatment-mandated felony cases against alleged repeat drug offenders. So far, Superior Court judges have referred 50 defendants to be assessed for treatment under the new law since the county established the process to do so last month.
District Attorney Summer Stephan and other vocal supporters of the voter-approved Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act emphasized treatment offerings as they rallied for the ballot measure, which sought to combat theft and drug crimes. Advocates who opposed the ballot measure argued that it would drive more Californians into jails than treatment programs.
In the months after Proposition 36’s rollout, advocates’ concerns appeared to bear out.
It took the county four months to deliver a process to link Proposition 36 offenders accused of at least three drug offenses with treatment – at least through the law itself.
Superior Court spokesperson Emily Cox said last month that San Diego County was poised to become one of the first counties in the state to implement a process to defer Proposition 36 defendants’ felony charges and link them with treatment.
A month ago, the county established the system to evaluate drug offenders’ treatment needs and on April 28, the downtown Superior Court held its first hearings to oversee treatment connections for Proposition 36 offenders. By that point, police countywide had reported more than 1,130 Proposition 36-related jail bookings, more than three quarters of which involved drug offenses – and the District Attorney’s Office had filed nearly 900 drug and theft cases. (As of Thursday, the sheriff’s department reported nearly 1,300 bookings.)
A Voice of San Diego review of Superior Court records documenting more than three dozen city of San Diego Proposition 36 cases found that, as of late last month, more than half of those accused drug offenders were not or had yet to be referred to treatment. Seven drug offenders had already pleaded guilty to reduced charges, often spending days or weeks in county jail after their arrests. Five were referred to the county’s drug court, including the new Proposition 36 process. Other cases were still making their way through the court process.
Per the measure, people accused of so-called treatment-mandated felonies who express interest in treatment rather than jail time should be connected with a “drug addiction expert” who can evaluate their needs and then they can plead guilty or no contest. Their cases are then essentially put on hold. If they decide against treatment, they could go to jail or prison. If they finish treatment, Proposition 36 offenders’ charges are dismissed.
But the law didn’t spell out exactly how all that should work, leaving counties across the state to figure it out.
Stephan said ensuring treatment availability has been a top priority for county officials since Proposition 36 passed. She said her office began meeting with Superior Court leadership, public defenders, county behavioral health officials and others after voters approved the measure to implement a regional system for treatment assessments and access.
After agreeing on a process, county spokesperson Tim McClain said three county behavioral health clinicians with experience working with justice-involved populations are conducting evaluations.
For now, McClain said, the county is working to ensure it can provide treatment for those who seek it and has been able to keep up with evaluation requests.
He said the county couldn’t immediately describe typical treatment needs for Proposition 36 offenders but noted that the state law includes services such as evaluations of people not typically eligible for county services that are outside the county’s typical scope.
At least one local treatment program – Salvation Army’s no-cost, 120-bed Otay Mesa rehabilitation center – reports that it’s seen an uptick in intakes since Proposition 36 took effect, filling beds during a season when more beds are sitting empty.
Paul Swain, a pastor and administrator for development at Salvation Army, acknowledged he could not provide a specific number of Proposition 36-related intakes but noted that the increases aligned with the implementation of the law.
“It’s had an impact,” Swain said.
Based on her office’s initial experience, Stephan estimated that about 70 percent of Proposition 36 drug offenders – the equivalent of about 25 each week – would express interest in treatment and that the assessment and referral system is equipped to handle that demand. She acknowledges the county will need to work to ensure treatment options are available.
“I’m beyond proud of what our county has done and really excited about the future of treatment and expanding treatment to the people that have self-identified as needing it the most,” Stephan said.
She pledged to release data later this year to gauge how Proposition 36 implementation is going, including how many offenders are accessing treatment.
Stephan previously suggested statewide behavioral health bond measure Proposition 1 would help the county and the state respond to new treatment demand tied to Proposition 36.
But the county and providers are still waiting to hear if they’ll receive competitive funding and the measure isn’t just focused on addressing addiction treatment needs.
Now Stephan is among those across the state urging new funding to support Proposition 36 costs. McClain said the county’s behavioral health department is also advocating for new money to address “unfunded mandates.”
State Sen. Tom Umberg of Orange County has a legislative proposal to make Prop. 36 treatment programs eligible for an existing pot of state funding. Lawmakers in both the Assembly and the Senate, including Umberg, are also requesting that hundreds of millions of dollars be set aside each year for those programs.
State Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins of San Diego is convening bimonthly meetings with Proposition 36 stakeholders across the county, including law enforcement and advocates, to discuss implementation. She said she’s heard about the dearth of treatment options for repeat drug offenders caught up in it.
Indeed, people with Medi-Cal insurance have for years confronted weeks-long waits for residential treatment though the county’s now-former behavioral health director suggested in December that many Proposition 36 offenders could succeed in lower-level outpatient treatment that’s more readily available.
Late last year, then-Behavioral Health Services Director Luke Bergmann told Voice the county hadn’t projected treatment needs tied to Proposition 36. A month before Proposition 36 passed, county public safety officials projected hundreds of additional jail bookings and felony filings each year.
Sharp-Collins emphasized that counties across the state are now asking the state to step in to provide funding that supporters once suggested wouldn’t be needed to support implementation. She argued the county, court and other stakeholders should have been better prepared to link offenders with treatment before the law took effect.
“This proposition was pushed out without any adequate planning,” Sharp-Collins said.
Heather Boxeth, executive director of the San Diego Criminal Defense Bar Association, and Geneviéve Jones-Wright, a former public defender who now leads legal advocacy group Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance, agreed.
“I don’t think the county was really ready,” Jones-Wright said. “I don’t think the entire state was ready.”
