Proposition 47 (2014) and Proposition 36 (2024) represent two key shifts in how California approaches incarceration and behavioral health treatment
California’s Proposition 47, passed by voters in 2014, changed how California defines and prosecutes non-violent crimes, especially drug and property-related crime to account for its overcrowded prisons and lack of access to recovery-oriented treatment programs.
Tinisch Hollins, Executive Director at Californians for Safety & Justice, shares some historical context, purpose, and impact of Prop 47 in a panel from our inaugural Vision 2030 Solution Symposium:
Prior to Prop 47, California’s prisons were dangerously overcrowded, holding nearly twice as many people as they were built for, and the state faced a constitutional crisis. Strict sentencing laws like Three Strikes (1994) had put thousands of people behind bars for decades, including many whose crimes were minor or driven by addiction and mental illness – or as Hollins put it, we were “overrelying on the carceral system for safety.” This resulted in severe overcrowding and inhumane environments for California inmates.
That came to a head in 2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata that California’s conditions amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” and ordered the state to reduce its prison population by some 30,000.
How Proposition 47 Changed California’s Carceral System
In many ways, Proposition 47 was a response to the Brown v. Plata ruling. It reduced several drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and allowed people already incarcerated to be re-sentenced under the new standards. It also redirected state savings into prevention, diversion, and re-entry programs focused on mental health and substance use treatment.
“The operative word is access…[We didn’t want to] wait until people actually came into contact with the criminal legal system to get an assessment, especially around things like mental health. We wanted to make sure that we didn’t have to wait to add another, an additional barrier, including a lifelong felony restriction for someone to get access to something like mental health treatment.”
Tinisch Hollins, Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice
Prop 47 Impact highlights
- Felony incarceration for the targeted drug and property crimes fell sharply. At the same time, misdemeanor filings for those same offenses rose, reflecting a shift toward local, community-based programs and services rather than incarceration.
Source: Public Policy Institute of California
- Programs funded via Prop 47 have reduced recidivism rates among Prop 47 program participants; participants have an ~8% recidivism rate compared with ~44% for people released from state prison overall.
- Over $800 million in savings were invested in prevention, reentry, and treatment programs across local communities, with 87% of funds going to mental health services.
Changing tides: Proposition 36
Proposition 47 was successful in many ways, but rising rates in retail theft, especially after the pandemic, created backlash. This, in some part, led to Proposition 36, passed by voters at the end of 2024.
Proposition 36 rolls back several provisions of Proposition 47 by allowing prosecutors to file certain repeat theft and drug offenses as felonies. It also expands the use of court-mandated treatment instead of incarceration for people with substance use disorders.
Supporters frame it as a response to rising retail theft and fentanyl overdoses with an emphasis on treatment, not imprisonment. Opponents argue it risks undoing a decade of progress by re-criminalizing poverty, substance use, and mental illness. The challenge with Proposition 36 is that it lacks a funding component to develop and scale needed treatment programs. As Hollins referenced in the clip below, we still have a statewide shortage of treatment beds, making treatment-mandated felonies hard to implement if access to treatment continues to be a challenge.
“To make good on [the intent of Proposition 36], it needs to be an immediate priority for us to scale up. Scale up not just the number of beds or the diversity of treatment that should be available to people, and at the community level.”
Early rollout results support this – a recent state report shows that in the first six months since Prop 36 took effect, roughly 9,000 individuals were charged with a treatment-mandated felony. Yet only about 15% (1,290 people) opted into treatment. Of those, 771 were placed into treatment and only 25 people completed treatment.
The good news? Next year’s state budget allocates $50 million for Proposition 36 behavioral health treatment services. Still, without sustained and dedicated funding for treatment, the policy may result in more felony charges without adequate access to treatment.
Conclusion
Proposition 47 emerged in response to a constitutional crisis. The reform aimed not only to reduce incarceration but also to address the root causes of system involvement through investments in mental health and substance use treatment.
As Hollins put it, you can’t incarcerate your way into safety. Long-term public safety depends on sustained investments in treatment, housing, and recovery supports that allow people to stabilize and lead dignified lives outside of the criminal legal system. Proposition 36’s success in expanding access to treatment will likewise depend on continued investment in these programs. Otherwise, California risks returning to the conditions that prompted Proposition 47 a decade ago.