These programs helped former inmates get treatment, jobs. Prop. 36 could slash their funds

After spending time in jail, Rachel Flores never expected to work adjacent to the criminal justice system.

At 26, she was jailed with a felony DUI charge. She had struggled with alcohol and substance abuse since she was 18.

The Ventura County resident said with help from her parents and a sponsor, she turned her life around and got her record expunged. Now 35, she recently earned a master of social work degree and works as a case manager, helping people who struggle with substance abuse and barriers to reentering society after incarceration, as she once did.

Her group, Champions of Service, also provides job training and tattoo removal for formerly incarcerated people seeking jobs, food distribution, and school resources for young children.

“I love giving back. This is my heart,” Flores said. “Any way I can help propel this thing forward and help other people overcome their stuff, I’m there.”

Organizations like the one Flores now works for could collectively lose tens of millions of dollars annually if Proposition 36 passes this November, according to a fiscal estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Prop. 36, backed by a coalition of local prosecutors and retail giants, would increase punishments for repeat drug and theft charges.

The measure would likely increase court costs, the LAO said, cutting into the grant programs that fund services for crime victims, formerly incarcerated people and at-risk youth. These grants are funded under Proposition 47.

Will Prop. 47 grants go away?

Prop. 47, approved by voters in 2014, aimed to reduce the prison population by decriminalizing lower-level theft and drug crimes. The idea was to reinvest the savings realized under a leaner criminal justice system into other diversion programs: behavioral health treatment, school truancy programs, family services and more.

More than half a billion dollars has so far been made available to local government agencies, nonprofits, school districts and victim services. The bulk of funds go toward preventive and rehabilitative services like the ones Flores’ organization provides.

Advocates hail the programs as a major success.

Participants saw a 60% decrease in homelessness and a 50% decrease in unemployment, according to a state report published in February.

The same report found participants had dramatically lower recidivism rates. Fifteen percent of participants received a new felony or misdemeanor conviction within three years of enrolling in a program, compared to the state’s average recidivism rate of 42%.

“Prop. 47 has demonstrated that when we invest in community, we get the results that we’re looking for, versus going back to mandatory minimum sentences,” said Saun Hough, an administrator for an organization that provides services for high-risk families and individuals in south Los Angeles.

Hough said his group, Shields for Families, gets an estimated 25% of its funding from Prop. 47 grants. It uses the money to provide job training and treatment for people with behavioral health and substance use disorders.

The organization also provides weekly food distributions, housing subsidies and family services.

The grant funding is “crucial to our community, not necessarily just to our program,” he said, pointing to a myriad of other service providers in Los Angeles that also get dollars from the grants.

Supporters of Prop. 36 point to a provision of the measure that would allow court-ordered treatment for people with multiple drug convictions.

“Court-mandated treatment is an important tool against criminal recidivism — to say nothing of California’s epidemic of fatal drug overdoses. That’s precisely what Prop. 36 delivers,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said in a statement to The Bee.

Mahan pointed to California’s diminished drug courts, which have seen plummeting participation after Prop. 47 removed incentives for people to attend.

He also pointed out drug overdoses were the leading cause of death for Californians aged 15-64 in 2022.

“With an annual state budget of nearly $300 billion, California certainly has the money to fund adequate court-mandated treatment,” he said. “The budget impact would pale in comparison to the skyrocketing financial and human costs of homelessness, substance abuse, and the epidemic of retail theft on our communities. “

Mahan, a Democrat who supported Prop. 47 a decade ago, has said it led to a “massive failure of accountability” for repeat offenders. He argued Prop. 36 could bring about an “era of mass treatment.”

Prop. 36 has divided Democrats

Proposition 36 has divided California’s elected Democrats. Gov. Gavin Newsom and the more liberal wing of the party have doubled down on arguments that Prop. 36 would usher in a return to “the 1980s, the war on drugs (and) mass incarceration,” as Newsom said at a recent press conference.

Mahan and several other mayors — officials who face stronger backlash for crime and in their own communities — have joined moderate Democrats and Republicans in supporting Prop. 36.

Still, advocates for criminal justice reform said the diversion services funded under Prop. 47 have proven successful.

Like Mahan, Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, argues the state budget is large enough to fund solutions.

But they disagree on what the best solutions are. Bryan opposes Proposition 36.

“We’re making a choice. We either pay for survivor services, victim services, substance abuse treatment, care and opportunity, or we funnel people through the criminal legal system,” Bryan said in an interview. “Because Prop. 36 does not provide for those (services) to exist.”