California prosecutors have filed nearly 20,000 drug possession felony cases under a tough-on-crime measure passed in 2024. But despite promises to get people into services, the vast majority of those arrested have not received drug treatment, state data reveals.

Proposition 36, a state ballot measure, enacted harsher penalties for minor theft and drug offenses, with proponents pledging the crackdown would lead to “mass treatment to keep people alive, out of jail, and off our streets”.

Case records, however, suggest the state is largely failing to meet the central goal of getting people help and instead conducting mass arrests and incarcerating more people with addiction. In Prop 36’s first year, less than 1% of drug felony charges resulted in defendants completing treatment programs, data shows.

Prop 36 was overwhelmingly passed by voters amid concerns about public drug use, shoplifting and other non-violent crimes tied to California’s homelessness crisis. The initiative turned certain misdemeanors into felonies that carry prison time, rolling back parts of a landmark 2014 reform that had kept low-level offenses out of prison and reduced dangerous overcrowding behind bars.

The new data has revived concerns of civil rights advocates, who warned Prop 36 would expand incarceration without addressing underlying public health challenges.

No mass treatment

Prop 36 allowed prosecutors to file felony drug possession cases against people with two or more previous drug convictions. Those charges, called “treatment-mandated felonies”, allow defendants to avoid prison if they complete treatment.

In 2025, prosecutors filed a total of 19,104 drug possession felonies under Prop 36, according to data from the Judicial Council of California, the government agency that oversees state courts. But courts reported that defendants entered treatment in only 2,853 of those cases (15%). As of the end of 2025, only 57 of those cases (0.3%) completed treatment and had charges dismissed.

The figures, along with incarceration data, were analyzed by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), a San Francisco-based nonprofit that advocates for reforms and shared its research with the Guardian.

The Judicial Council cautions that its data is incomplete as some counties did not report comprehensive case information. Of the roughly half of California counties that disclosed detailed data, 12% of drug felony cases resulted in treatment referrals, and of those, 3% completed programs so far and 7% failed and were convicted.

The number of case dismissals is expected to increase, with courts reporting more than 850 people were still in treatment as of the end of 2025. Defendants may also select treatment later in the court process.

The courts surveyed by the Judicial Council reported numerous factors contributing to the lack of treatment. Some defendants chose time in custody over treatment, declined to be evaluated for treatment or missed court dates. Some faced more serious charges, making treatment “unfeasible”.

Some courts reported “a general lack of access to the necessary treatment services within their county”. Some defendants did not financially qualify for county treatment programs. And state funding for Prop 36 treatment services was not yet doled out last year.

The CJCJ, which collected accounts from public defenders about Prop 36, reported that people who relapse can get kicked out of programs, despite relapses being common in recovery. Some defendants chose convictions instead of treatment, because the programs are too long or intensive, public defenders reported.

Prosecutors have at times used the threat of a felony to secure a plea deal for a lesser misdemeanor, the CJCJ added. In those cases, defendants might never be offered treatment or have little incentive to enter a program.

Imprisoned for shoplifting

Prop 36 allowed prosecutors to file felony charges for petty theft or shoplifting if defendants have two prior theft-related convictions. Those charges previously would not lead to prison time.

In 2025, prosecutors filed 15,508 theft felonies under the new measure, with an estimated 38% resulting in conviction, the Judicial Council reported. Many cases are still pending.

More than 850 people have been sentenced to prison on Prop 36 charges from January 2025 through January 2026, the CJCJ reported, with prison admissions steadily increasing each month. A total of 606 people were imprisoned for theft while 250 people had drug offenses.

The public defender’s office of Alameda county, which includes Oakland, said one client was charged with felony theft after stealing a $13 belt, and another was charged with a felony for allegedly stealing $33 in soda and hygiene supplies.

A central California public defender reported that a client who stole shoes was sentenced to two and a half years in prison in part due to a 1998 conviction. Another client who stole roughly $200 of items from a grocery store was charged with felony theft and sentenced to two years in prison, the public defender said.

California’s jail population also increased by roughly 2,600 people from November 2024 to November 2025, which is likely due in part to Prop 36, though jail data is not broken down by charge, the CJCJ said.

Maureen Washburn, senior policy manager at the CJCJ, noted this crackdown was happening amid significant drops in crime rates.

“Did Californians voting for Prop 36 really understand that they would be driving an increase in prison populations for low-level drug and theft cases?” she said. “It’s so counter to the direction we’ve been moving in as a state over the last few decades.”

Unequal outcomes

The implementation of Prop 36 has also been uneven across California, the CJCJ found. Orange county, in southern California, is home to 8% of the state population, but accounted for nearly 20% of Prop 36 charges, the group found. Orange county residents were about 10 times more at risk of landing Prop 36 drug felonies compared to residents of neighboring Los Angeles, the group estimated.

Kern and Stanislaus counties, in the Central Valley, filed Prop 36 charges at a rate more than twice the state average, the CJCJ found.

Racial disparities were also stark. In Contra Costa county, in the Bay Area, Black residents make up 9% of the population, but accounted for 52% of Prop 36 theft charges, according to the CJCJ. In Napa, Black residents are 2% of the population, but 26% of theft cases. In Santa Clara, Latinos are 21% of the population, but 55% of Prop 36 drug charges.

“We see people committing crimes of poverty – stealing diapers, hygiene supplies, essentials, and instead of trying to address the poverty, we’re sending people to prison,” said Brendon Woods, Alameda county public defender. “Charging someone with a felony – is that really going to curb their criminality or lead to some rehabilitation? … There is no job training or anything to help people get better or improve their economic situation.”

Woods said 63% of Prop 36 felony defendants in his office were Black, while his county is only 10% Black.

A spokesperson for the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), a group that backed Prop 36, said early reports show the “model works well in counties with better systems in place”. She provided data from several DAs showing treatment enrollments through September, including 531 people in treatment in San Diego (out of 1,634 cases filed); 370 in treatment in Riverside (out of 1,999 cases); and 215 in Orange county (out of 5,114 cases).

In a statement provided by the CDAA, Harriet Salarno, founder of Crime Victims United of California, another Prop 36 backer, defended the measure, saying it was designed to “hold habitual offenders accountable” and connect people to treatment. She also called for an additional $400m in the state budget to support implementation: “Without more resources, we risk failing the voters’ balanced mandate – and leaving victims exposed.”

In response to questions about the racial disparities in charges, a spokesperson for the Santa Clara district attorney said in an email that “many factors go into why people commit crimes, how they get caught, and what charges are filed against them”, adding: “We do note that in our community the income disparities by race are very similar to the disparities in the criminal justice system.”

A Contra Costa DA spokesperson said Prop 36 cases, like all prosecutions, “go through a race-blind review process prior to any charging decision” following state law aiming to “reduce unconscious bias in prosecution”. A Napa DA spokesperson said comparing the race of defendants to the county’s general population was “misleading”, in part because not all defendants may live in Napa. DAs from other counties with disparities did not respond to inquiries.

“We’ve already seen this play out with tough-on-crime initiatives and the war on drugs from the 80s and 90s,” said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, a criminal justice reform group. “It has a generational impact. People who ended up with felony drug charges faced … lifetime restrictions on housing and employment, with sanctions passed onto their children.”

She added: “It doesn’t make anyone safer to have someone struggling with addiction now living with a legal barrier preventing them from stabilizing their lives.”