Proposition 36 of 2024 — The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act

Key Takeaways

• Two different Propositions 36, same ballot number: Prop 36 of 2000 (Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act) created treatment diversion instead of incarceration. Prop 36 of 2024 (Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act) re-criminalized certain drug and theft offenses and created a treatment-mandated felony as an alternative to incarceration. The frameworks are substantively different. When someone says “Prop 36” today, ask which one.
• Prop 36 of 2024 was approved by California voters on November 5, 2024 with 68.4% yes, 31.6% no (certified December 13, 2024 by the California Secretary of State), and took effect December 18, 2024.
• Core provisions: (1) treatment-mandated felony for drug possession (HSC §11350, §11377) with two or more prior drug convictions; (2) aggregation of smaller theft offenses into felony prosecution; (3) fentanyl-specific penalty enhancements; (4) “Alexandra’s Law” notice to drug dealers regarding potential murder charges if their drug sales result in death; (5) enhanced penalties for drug sales involving weapons.
• Treatment-mandated felony is the SUD-relevant pathway. A defendant charged under this new felony category can avoid prison by completing court-ordered SUD treatment. Failure to complete results in standard felony sentencing.
• Implementation has been evolving through 2025–2026. County District Attorneys’ offices, Superior Courts, public defenders, probation departments, and DMC-ODS treatment providers have been building infrastructure at different speeds. Operational realities vary by county.
• Prop 36 of 2024 is criminal law, not civil. It is distinct from CARE Court (civil SMI framework) and Laura’s Law AOT (civil AOT for SMI). For pre-plea or post-plea drug-treatment diversion that is not Prop 36 of 2024, see our SoCal Drug Court Programs page.

Proposition 36 of 2024 — what the law does

California’s Proposition 36 of 2024 — formally the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act — was approved by California voters on November 5, 2024 with 68.4% in favor and 31.6% opposed per the Secretary of State’s certified results. The proposition took effect December 18, 2024. The law represents a significant re-calibration of California’s approach to drug possession and theft offenses, and it creates a new criminal-law treatment pathway (“treatment-mandated felony”) relevant to substance-use disorder treatment in the state.

This page explains what Prop 36 of 2024 actually does, how it differs from the earlier Prop 36 of 2000 (which created treatment-in-lieu-of-incarceration for first-time drug offenders), how the treatment-mandated felony pathway works for defendants, and what the implementation status is across the six Southern California counties. The page is written for people navigating the criminal system for themselves or a family member, for people seeking SUD treatment while facing criminal charges, and for anyone trying to understand what the 2024 Prop 36 means in practical terms.

Implementation is still evolving through 2026. Operational specifics — how individual counties are building infrastructure, which treatment providers are contracting with treatment-mandated felony referrals, how public defenders and DAs are handling cases — varies meaningfully by county. The framework below reflects the statutory architecture; current 2026 operational maturity requires county-level verification.

This is editorial guidance, not legal advice. For legal questions about a specific case, consult a California criminal defense attorney.

Why “two Propositions 36” is worth understanding first

California’s ballot proposition numbering creates occasional same-number collisions across decades. Two propositions with the number 36 have shaped California’s drug-law landscape:

Proposition 36 of 2000 — Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act

Passed November 2000. Established a treatment-in-lieu-of-incarceration framework for first-time and second-time nonviolent drug possession offenses. Created a legal obligation to offer treatment rather than prison for qualifying defendants. Dedicated funding mechanism for county drug treatment. Operated as a primary California drug-diversion framework for two decades, alongside subsequent frameworks like drug courts, Penal Code §1000 deferred entry, and various mental-health diversion provisions.

The 2000 framework was the “kinder” treatment-pathway law — it expanded treatment access and reduced incarceration for drug possession.

Proposition 36 of 2024 — Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act

Passed November 2024. Re-criminalizes certain drug possession offenses (with repeat-offense enhancements) and creates a new “treatment-mandated felony” category. Also re-calibrates theft offenses (rolling back portions of Prop 47 of 2014 that reduced some theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors). Adds fentanyl-specific penalty enhancements and enhanced sentencing for drug-sale-caused deaths.

The 2024 framework is the “tougher” treatment-pathway law — it expanded criminal consequences for drug possession and theft, while offering treatment as an alternative for specific defendant categories.

When someone references “Prop 36” in 2026, the speaker may mean either. Context usually clarifies:

• References to “Prop 36 treatment” in the context of first-time drug possession diversion typically mean 2000 Prop 36
• References to “Prop 36 felony” or “the 2024 proposition” mean 2024 Prop 36
• References to “treatment-mandated felony” specifically mean 2024 Prop 36’s new category

What Prop 36 of 2024 changed — the substantive provisions

Treatment-mandated felony — the new criminal category

The central provision relevant to SUD treatment is the new “treatment-mandated felony” category. Under the framework:

• A defendant charged with possession of specific controlled substances under Health and Safety Code §11350 or §11377 who has two or more prior drug convictions may be charged with the new treatment-mandated felony.
• On conviction, the defendant has the option to enter a court-ordered SUD treatment program. Successful completion results in avoiding the state-prison sentence that would otherwise apply. Failure to complete results in standard felony sentencing.
• The treatment program is typically 12 months, though specific program structures are evolving through county implementation.

Key statutory framing: this is a post-conviction pathway — the defendant has been convicted of the underlying felony charge before entering the treatment program. This contrasts with drug court pre-plea diversion and Penal Code §1000 deferred entry of judgment, where conviction is avoided contingent on treatment completion.

The treatment-mandated felony pathway is designed for defendants who have not been eligible for earlier diversion frameworks — specifically, those with the multiple-prior-conviction pattern that has historically excluded them from standard drug court and §1000 diversion.

Aggregation of theft offenses

Prop 36 of 2024 also re-calibrates certain theft provisions — particularly the aggregation of smaller thefts across separate incidents into felony prosecution. Portions of Prop 47 of 2014 (the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act that reduced many drug and theft offenses to misdemeanors) are rolled back. Specific theft aggregation provisions affect retail theft and organized-theft prosecution.

Fentanyl-specific enhancements

Given fentanyl’s centrality to California’s overdose crisis, Prop 36 of 2024 includes penalty enhancements specifically for fentanyl sales, possession with intent to sell, and similar offenses. These enhancements add sentencing exposure for fentanyl-specific conduct.

”Alexandra’s Law” drug-dealing-death notice

The law includes a notice-to-defendants provision requiring that individuals convicted of drug-sale offenses be warned that subsequent drug-sale conduct resulting in a buyer’s death could be prosecuted as murder. The provision is sometimes referred to as “Alexandra’s Law” after a named case that informed its drafting.

Sale-with-weapon enhancements

Enhanced penalties for drug sales involving weapons — reflecting concerns about the intersection of drug trafficking and firearms offenses.

How the treatment-mandated felony pathway works

Step 1: Charging decision

When a defendant is arrested for possession of a controlled substance under HSC §11350 or §11377, the prosecutor (county District Attorney’s office) evaluates whether the treatment-mandated felony pathway applies. Eligibility requires:

• The underlying possession offense meets the statutory criteria
• The defendant has two or more prior drug convictions meeting the framework’s specifications

If both conditions are met, the DA has discretion to file the charge under the treatment-mandated felony provision rather than under standard misdemeanor or felony possession provisions.

Step 2: Plea and conviction

The defendant pleads guilty or no contest to the treatment-mandated felony charge. Conviction enters at this point. This differs from drug court pre-plea pathways where a plea is avoided.

Step 3: Treatment program option

At sentencing, the defendant has the option to enter a court-ordered SUD treatment program. The court specifies:

• Which level of care (residential, IOP, PHP, outpatient) — typically based on ASAM-based clinical assessment
• Duration (typically 12 months structured program)
• Reporting requirements — drug testing, court appearances, treatment-provider reporting
• Sanctions for non-compliance and rewards for compliance

Step 4: Completion or failure

Successful completion typically results in:

• Avoidance of the state-prison sentence that would otherwise apply to the felony conviction
• Potential for reduced probation or other sentence modifications
• In some structures, eventual charge reduction or sentence reduction

Failure to complete results in:

• Standard felony sentencing exposure (state prison)
• Credit for time served in treatment may or may not apply depending on specific statutory provisions
• No “second chance” at the treatment-mandated felony pathway for the same charge

Step 5: Treatment delivery

Treatment is delivered by DMC-ODS contracted providers, commercial providers (for insured defendants), or county behavioral health system providers. Coordination with the criminal justice system — probation monitoring, court reporting, drug testing — is structured around the defendant’s engagement.

Implementation status across SoCal counties

Implementation of Prop 36 of 2024 has been uneven across the six Southern California counties. Factors affecting operational maturity include: treatment provider capacity, public defender and DA staffing, court calendar availability, and county behavioral health system integration.

Los Angeles County: largest treatment-mandated felony caseload in the state given population. LA County DA, LA County Superior Court, LA County Public Defender, and LA County SAPC have been building infrastructure since 2025. Specific program structures and treatment provider contracting continue to develop.

Orange County: OC DA has engaged early with implementation. Orange County’s existing OC Health Care Agency Behavioral Health Services DMC-ODS network provides treatment capacity. Implementation maturity advancing through 2025–2026.

San Diego County: San Diego County DA, Superior Court, and County Behavioral Health Services building treatment-mandated felony infrastructure. San Diego has substantial existing drug court and SUD treatment capacity to build on.

Riverside County: Riverside Superior Court and Riverside University Health System Behavioral Health DMC-ODS system are building implementation. Inland Empire’s higher-per-capita SUD treatment need creates capacity pressures.

San Bernardino County: similar build-out through San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health DMC-ODS network. SB County has smaller existing infrastructure than LA or OC.

Ventura County: Ventura County Superior Court, DA, and Ventura County Behavioral Health building treatment-mandated felony infrastructure. Smaller-scale operation given county population.

As of April 2026: the framework is operationally active in all six SoCal counties, though specific case-processing maturity, treatment provider contracting, and court-ordered program availability varies. For a specific case, consult the defendant’s criminal defense attorney and the county-level treatment-provider resources.

Proposition 47 context — what 2024 Prop 36 rolled back

To understand what 2024 Prop 36 changed, a brief detour through Proposition 47 of 2014 is useful.

Proposition 47 (2014), the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, was a California voter-approved measure that reduced many drug and theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors:

• Drug possession for personal use under HSC §11350 and §11377 — reduced to misdemeanors for most possession amounts
• Shoplifting, petty theft, and similar theft offenses under a $950 threshold — reduced to misdemeanors
• Forgery, bad checks, and similar non-violent property offenses — reduced to misdemeanors

Prop 47’s effects included substantial reductions in California prison and jail populations, and savings directed to education and mental health/SUD services. Critics argued Prop 47 contributed to retail-theft increases and reduced deterrence; supporters argued the decriminalization was appropriate proportionality reform.

2024 Prop 36 partially rolls back Prop 47 in specific ways:

• Theft aggregation — smaller thefts across separate incidents can now be aggregated into felony charges, reversing the strict $950 per-incident threshold
• Drug possession with priors — the new treatment-mandated felony category recriminalizes possession where the defendant has multiple prior drug convictions
• Retail-theft-specific enhancements — additional provisions targeting organized retail theft

Much of Prop 47 remains. First-time drug possession remains a misdemeanor. Most theft under $950 per incident without aggregation remains a misdemeanor. The forgery and bad-check provisions largely remain. 2024 Prop 36 is a targeted rollback of specific Prop 47 provisions, not a wholesale repeal.

This context matters because debate over California’s drug-law and theft-law framework is continuous. The 2000 Prop 36 → 2011 Realignment → 2014 Prop 47 → 2024 Prop 36 arc represents two decades of voter-driven recalibration. Understanding the full arc helps contextualize any single component.

What a treatment-mandated felony program actually looks like

The treatment-mandated felony category is new enough that operational details are still being established across California counties. Based on the statutory framework and early implementation patterns, a typical treatment-mandated felony program involves:

Clinical assessment and placement

• ASAM-based clinical evaluation determining appropriate level of care
• Placement determination — residential, PHP, IOP, or outpatient based on clinical severity
• Co-occurring conditions assessment — dual-diagnosis presentations receive integrated placement

Treatment structure — typical 12-month program

• Phase 1: Stabilization (months 1–3) — high-intensity initial treatment, frequent court appearances (bi-weekly or monthly), multiple-times-weekly drug testing, treatment attendance requirements
• Phase 2: Engagement (months 4–8) — continuing treatment at possibly stepped-down intensity, less frequent court appearances, deeper clinical work
• Phase 3: Stabilization and completion (months 9–12) — maintenance intensity, less frequent court contact, transition planning
• Exit: successful completion means avoidance of state-prison sentence and, in some structures, sentence reduction or charge modification

Drug testing protocols

Frequent urinalysis — typically 2–3 times weekly in Phase 1, decreasing as the program progresses. Positive results produce graduated sanctions rather than immediate program removal; repeated positives or patterns of non-compliance can lead to removal from the program and standard felony sentencing.

Court reporting and supervision

Defendants on treatment-mandated felony remain under court supervision throughout the 12-month program. Probation officers or dedicated program coordinators track attendance, drug testing, treatment provider reports, and other engagement metrics.

Non-compliance sanctions

Graduated responses to non-compliance include:

• Verbal warnings and additional check-ins
• Increased drug testing frequency
• Community service requirements
• Short custodial sanctions (flash incarceration, typically 2-10 days)
• Program-phase regression (moving back to earlier, more intensive phase)
• Program termination — after repeated non-compliance or serious violations

Treatment program termination

Defendants terminated from treatment-mandated felony programs return to standard felony sentencing. Credit for time served in treatment typically applies toward any subsequent prison sentence. Some defendants may be eligible for re-entry into the program after additional review; this varies by county discretion.

California’s framework comparison

With multiple treatment-connected frameworks operating in California, side-by-side comparison helps clarify what each does:

Framework	Civil or Criminal?	For What Condition?	Entry Point	Treatment Scope	Typical Duration
Voluntary SUD treatment	Neither	Any SUD	Self / family referral	Any ASAM level	Variable
Penal Code §1000 diversion	Criminal	First-time drug possession	Pre-plea	Outpatient / IOP typically	12-18 months
Drug court diversion	Criminal	Drug-possession offenses	Pre/post-plea	ASAM-matched, varies	12-18 months
Prop 36 of 2000	Criminal	First/second-time drug possession	Varies	Outpatient primarily	6-12 months
Prop 36 of 2024 treatment-mandated felony	Criminal	Drug possession with 2+ priors	Post-conviction	ASAM-matched, often residential	12 months typical
DUI court	Criminal	DUI offenses	Post-plea	DUI-specific programs + SUD treatment	12-18 months
AB-1810 mental health diversion	Criminal	MH + SUD qualifying conditions	Pre-plea	Mental health + SUD	Variable
CARE Court	Civil	Schizophrenia-spectrum disorder	Civil petition	Outpatient engagement	12-24 months
Laura’s Law AOT	Civil	SMI with non-adherence history	Civil petition	Outpatient commitment	6-12+ months
LPS 5150 / 5250	Civil	Acute psychiatric crisis	Peace officer / clinician	Inpatient psychiatric	72 hours / 14 days
LPS Conservatorship	Civil	Grave disability from SMI/SUD	Civil petition	Whatever is clinically needed	Indefinite / renewed

The overlaps create case-level complexity. A defendant with SMI, SUD, multiple prior drug convictions, and a current theft charge might theoretically fit multiple pathways simultaneously. Which pathway applies depends on prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, clinical evaluation, and the specific offense circumstances.

How Prop 36 of 2024 relates to other California frameworks

Prop 36 of 2024 is a criminal-law framework. It operates alongside but is distinct from several other California pathways that also involve court-ordered treatment:

Drug court diversion (pre-plea, post-plea, or post-conviction)

See our SoCal Drug Court Programs page. Drug courts typically use pre-plea or post-plea diversion pathways under Penal Code §1000, Prop 36 of 2000 frameworks, or other statutory mechanisms. The treatment-mandated felony is distinct — it’s post-conviction and comes after drug-court-eligibility has been exhausted (typically because of prior-conviction history).

Proposition 36 of 2000 — Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act

Created the original treatment-in-lieu-of-incarceration pathway for first-time drug offenders. Largely supplanted in operational practice by drug courts but still relevant in specific case contexts. Distinct from 2024 Prop 36.

Penal Code §1000 deferred entry of judgment

Pre-plea diversion for qualifying drug possession offenses. First-time offenders primarily. Successful completion results in charge dismissal.

AB-1810 mental health diversion

Created pre-trial diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health conditions. Relevant for defendants with co-occurring SMI and SUD who meet its criteria.

Laura’s Law / AOT (civil, not criminal)

See our Laura’s Law page. Civil court framework for SMI, not criminal drug-law framework. Separate pathway.

CARE Court (civil, not criminal)

See our CARE Court page. Civil court framework for psychotic-spectrum SMI. Not a criminal drug-law framework.

Proposition 47 of 2014 — the framework 2024 Prop 36 partially rolled back

Prop 47 of 2014 (Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) reduced many drug and theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Portions of Prop 47’s theft-reduction provisions are rolled back by 2024 Prop 36, though many Prop 47 reforms remain in place.

The framework landscape is complex. A criminal defense attorney familiar with California drug-law diversion can advise on which specific pathway is available in a given case.

Treatment provider capacity — the underlying constraint

Prop 36 of 2024’s treatment-mandated felony pathway relies on DMC-ODS contracted providers and other SUD treatment capacity to deliver ordered treatment. California’s SUD treatment system has structural capacity constraints:

• Residential treatment bed counts in DMC-ODS networks are frequently insufficient to meet demand, with wait times varying by county
• IOP and PHP capacity is generally better than residential but also has access friction
• Provider contracting for treatment-mandated felony referrals is being built out; not all SUD providers have taken on court-ordered caseloads
• Criminal-justice-informed clinical practice — clinicians comfortable working with court-involved patients — is a specific skill set that varies among providers

The 2024 Prop 36 framework adds significant demand to California’s SUD treatment system. How capacity-building keeps pace with demand will shape operational maturity through 2026 and beyond.

Implementation reality — a treatment pathway without dedicated funding

The statutory design of Prop 36 of 2024 created a treatment-mandated felony pathway but did not provide dedicated funding for the treatment infrastructure the law requires. Counties are operationalizing court-ordered treatment using existing resources — DMC-ODS capacity already committed to voluntary Medi-Cal SUD clients, drug court capacity already serving pre-plea diversion cases, AB-1810 mental health diversion capacity, and county behavioral health general funds. The law added demand without adding supply.

Polling one year after passage captures voter awareness of this gap. UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center published survey research finding that 53% of California voters disapprove of Prop 36 implementation in the absence of dedicated treatment funding — a majority that cuts across political identity. Among Republicans, 38% disapprove of the unfunded implementation; among voters who approve of President Trump, 45% disapprove. 59% of California voters say treatment should be funded to actually support the goals Prop 36 articulated. The disapproval is not opposition to the law’s goals; it is disapproval of a legal mandate divorced from the operational resources to honor it.

Racial equity in Prop 36 enforcement is also contested in early implementation data. In Alameda County, which is approximately 10% Black, roughly 90% of Prop 36 petty theft charges have been filed against Black defendants. Statewide, approximately 84% of those charged under Prop 36 are people of color. These disparities track long-documented patterns in California drug and theft enforcement; critics argue Prop 36 implementation is amplifying rather than correcting them. Proponents argue that charging practices reflect underlying offense patterns rather than discriminatory enforcement. Empirical analysis of 2024-2025 Prop 36 implementation data is ongoing and will shape future policy discussion.

Our directory’s editorial posture on this: the statute is the law, the operational reality is what families and defendants actually encounter, and honest reporting requires both. Prop 36 operates in California in 2026. Whether it achieves its articulated goals is an empirical question that ongoing implementation data — including that captured by UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center and parallel research efforts — will progressively clarify.

Ongoing debates and critiques

Prop 36 of 2024 passed with broad voter support but has generated substantive policy debate. Notable critiques from various stakeholders:

Civil liberties concerns — the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California, Drug Policy Alliance, and similar organizations have raised concerns about the return to felony prosecution for drug possession, citing racial equity concerns, impact on unhoused populations, and costs compared to treatment-first alternatives.

Effectiveness evidence from 2000 Prop 36 — research on the 2000 framework showed mixed outcomes: meaningful reductions in incarceration, modest reductions in recidivism, moderate costs savings relative to incarceration, but also meaningful treatment non-completion rates. The 2024 framework’s effectiveness is not yet evaluable.

Racial equity concerns — California’s drug-law enforcement has historically produced disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic populations. Whether 2024 Prop 36 will maintain or exacerbate these disparities is an active policy question.

Capacity concerns — as noted above, treatment system capacity may constrain the framework’s operation.

Fiscal impact — state cost projections and county cost impact are being tracked through implementation.

Alternative-framework proponents argue that expanded voluntary SUD treatment (through DMC-ODS capacity expansion, housing-first models, harm reduction) would produce better outcomes than criminal-court-mandated treatment.

This page presents the framework as it is. Policy critique and evaluation are separate questions being addressed through academic research, advocacy, and ongoing legislative and administrative action.

For defendants and families navigating Prop 36 of 2024

If you or a family member is charged under the treatment-mandated felony provision

1. Retain criminal defense counsel familiar with California drug-law diversion. A public defender or private counsel experienced with drug court, Prop 36 of 2000, and related frameworks will know how 2024 Prop 36 operates in the specific county.

2. Get an ASAM-based clinical assessment of the defendant’s SUD severity. This will inform which level of care is clinically appropriate for the court-ordered program and strengthens positioning for treatment-mandated felony enrollment.

3. Identify treatment provider options early. If the defendant has Medi-Cal eligibility, DMC-ODS contracted providers are available at $0 cost. If commercial insurance, network provider access. County behavioral health may have referral programs for uninsured defendants.

4. Understand what completion requires — typically a 12-month program with specific attendance, drug testing, reporting, and engagement requirements. Non-completion has serious consequences (state prison).

5. Address co-occurring conditions — mental health comorbidity is common. Integrated treatment (see our dual diagnosis pillar) produces better completion rates than SUD-alone treatment.

6. Plan for post-completion — successful completion is the beginning of sustained recovery, not the end. Continuing-care engagement improves long-term outcomes. Insurance continuity, peer support, ongoing medication management matter.

If you are a family member seeking to support someone facing Prop 36 charges

• Attend court appearances where permitted
• Help identify treatment provider options and insurance coverage
• Support attendance at treatment sessions and court dates
• Engage with family therapy if offered as part of the treatment plan
• Take care of yourself — support people need their own resources (Al-Anon, Nar-Anon, NAMI family support)

Related coverage

• SoCal Drug Court Programs — Pre-plea and post-plea drug-treatment diversion pathways
• CARE Court California — Civil framework for SMI (not SUD)
• Laura’s Law / AOT California — Civil AOT framework for SMI
• Medi-Cal Coverage for Addiction Treatment — DMC-ODS treatment funding
• Patient Brokering and California’s Rehab Fraud Laws — Adjacent enforcement framework

Navigating Prop 36 of 2024 for yourself or a family member?

Our editorial team can explain how the framework works and help you understand which treatment provider resources exist in your county. We do not accept referral fees from treatment facilities. We are not attorneys; for legal questions about a specific case, consult a California criminal defense attorney.

Contact our editorial team →

Need help now? Call (310) 596-1751 for editorial guidance on California SUD treatment options.

---

Last reviewed: 2026-04-23. Prop 36 of 2024 statutory framework reflects the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act as enacted. Implementation specifics vary by county and continue to evolve through 2026. This page is editorial content, not legal advice.