Proponents of California Proposition 36, which would undo many of the reforms brought by voter approval of Proposition 47 in 2014, are claiming that voter approval of this new measure would reduce homelessness in our state. As a Sociologist with the California Housing Partnership, I can tell you these claims are patently false. Here’s why:
What Did Proposition 47 Do to Address Homelessness? Under Prop 47, the reclassification of certain drug and property crimes as misdemeanors has meant that fewer people are given long jail/prison sentences and the lifetime stigma of the label of “felon”. In addition, Prop 47 directed that the cost savings to the state from the reclassification of certain drug and property crimes be reinvested in various programs to reduce recidivism, help with drug addiction, and address other factors that contribute to homelessness. A 2022 report by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice showed the positive impact that various programs supported by Prop 47 related funding had on reducing homelessness, improving employment outcomes, and helping people get connected with mental health services.
What would Prop 36’s Impact be? The intention of Prop 36 is to put more people in prison for longer periods if they commit certain drug and theft crimes. Given the high cost of incarcerating an inmate in California, at an estimated $123,860 a year, any potential increase in the total number or length of stay for the incarcerated population in California through the passage of Prop 36 would mean millions in state and local funding going to jails and prisons rather than state and community programs that help reduce the likelihood of someone committing a crime, using drugs, experiencing homelessness, or other negative experiences. By eliminating many of the provisions in Prop 47 that led to savings that have been invested in reducing homelessness, the passage of Prop 36 would likely mean an increase in homelessness not a reduction, leading to increased burdens on local communities. Passage of Prop 36 would also mean increased costs to local communities to provide drug and mental health treatment programs. But it should not go without saying that reclassification of certain drug and property offenses from misdemeanors to felonies will mean more people with a felony conviction on their records thus leading to increased obstacles to finding stable housing and employment for more people. Lastly, proponents of Prop 36 are saying that it could help more people get off drugs through allowing some people convicted of certain drug crimes to complete drug treatment programs instead of being incarcerated. Additional drug treatment facilities needed to support more people seeking these services because of the passage of Prop 36 could be supported, in part, by funding made available by the passage of Prop 1 earlier this year. It should be noted though that until those new drug treatment facilities or additional beds are added, many people convicted for drug crime with the option for treatment in lieu of imprisonment may have a more difficult time finding drug treatment programs in their community and thus could be at greater risk of being incarcerated if they fail to comply with their mandated drug treatment program requirement.
So when proponents of Prop 36 tell you it will decrease homelessness, don’t believe them because they are misrepresenting, either intentionally or unintentionally, what the actual impacts will be if Prop 36 passes.
ABOUT THE AUTHORDr. Anthony Vega leads the Partnership’s research, policy analysis, and program evaluation efforts. He previously worked in research and program evaluation focusing on housing stability, access and crime prevention through environmental design at The Community Builders in Boston and the John Jay Research and Evaluation Center in New York. He has taught 15 courses in Criminology and Sociology at Washington State University and John Jay College. |