The statewide data released by the courts indicate that of the 18,666 felony drug cases charged under Prop. 36 last year, 3,173 defendants (17 %) chose the treatment track, and a mere 57 of those participants successfully completed the program and had their charges dropped.
Implementation varies dramatically across the state. San Francisco barely used the law, recording almost no Prop. 36 drug arrests, while Orange County, which had the highest potential caseload, referred 1,311 people but only 314 agreed to treatment and fewer than half of those were actively in a program. San Diego reported that 71 % of its defendants entered the treatment pathway, yet the county’s own data show that less than a third of those referred actually began treatment and only two graduates were recorded as of February 2026.
Prop. 36 was approved by voters without any dedicated funding for addiction services. The state later appropriated a fraction of the $650 million the measure’s supporters said was needed, allocating $100 million to the program and $50 million for related pre‑trial and behavioral‑health services. The shortfall has left many counties scrambling for beds and outpatient slots, with waiting times of two to three weeks for residential treatment and up to six weeks in some areas.
The lack of resources has hit homeless participants especially hard. In Santa Clara County, 61 % of people referred for evaluation were homeless, and in Orange County 62 % of completed evaluations involved homeless defendants. Without stable housing or case‑management support, many drop out of treatment or are forced back onto the streets, a problem highlighted by Santa Clara County drug‑court Judge Stephen Manley.
"The statute basically said, ‘We will fix everything for you,’ and none of that happened," said Tracie Olson, chief public defender for Yolo County. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan blamed Governor Gavin Newsom’s refusal to fund the initiative, saying the state has left people “waiting and dying on the streets.” District Attorneys Association CEO Greg Totten acknowledged the funding gap but argued the law is working as intended where treatment is available.
The prison impact is already measurable. An analysis by the University of California’s California Policy Lab found 568 admissions to state prisons on Prop. 36 drug charges between January 2025 and July 2026, with an average sentence of 28 months. State finance officials project the law could add roughly 1,550 inmates to the prison population once fully implemented.
Individual stories illustrate the mixed outcomes. Nicco Pierstorff, a 40‑year‑old who had been sober for years, was forced into the program after a backpack containing drugs was found in his car; he completed treatment and had his charge dismissed, calling the experience “a blessing.” By contrast, Gustavo Meza, who was homeless and overdosing before his 2025 arrest, found his own treatment program and credits the diversion as a turning point, though he had to wait ten months for the court to enroll him.
Advocates continue to press for more money. State Senator Catherine Blakespear and a coalition of local leaders have called for $400 million in the current budget for addiction treatment, far above the $50 million actually allocated. Until funding and coordination improve, the promise of Prop. 36 – to divert drug‑offenders into comprehensive treatment, housing and job support – remains largely unfulfilled.