As California faces increasing homelessness, steadily rising retail theft and an escalation of opioid-related deaths, and a consensus these are connected, how should these troubling trends be addressed?

Proposition 36 provides a tempered answer that voters should back on the Nov. 5 ballot.

It’s a much-needed adjustment of Proposition 47, the well-intentioned criminal justice reform measure state voters passed in 2014.

The proposition won’t solve homelessness, which has multiple causes. Nor will it end shoplifting or the state’s fentanyl crisis. But it should help.

Critics of Prop. 36 say that if approved the measure would erode criminal justice reform in California by reversing key advances aimed at reducing mass incarceration and promoting rehabilitation. It would impose stricter sentencing laws that disproportionately impact people of color and those with low income, exacerbating existing racial and socioeconomic disparities in the criminal justice system.

But contrary to critics’ claims, this is not a reactionary return to the days of mass incarceration. While Prop. 36 would increase punishments for some theft and drug crimes, it would also create incentives for addicts to seek drug treatment.

We support the goals of lowering the state prison population and reducing recidivism. But societal problems have worsened since Prop. 47’s passage.

Last year, California accounted for 28% of the nation’s homeless population; the state count has increased 40% in just five years.

Meanwhile, as fentanyl permeates our state, opioid-related deaths have increased nearly fourfold over the past six years. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of death for Californians 15 to 44 years old.

The state’s retail theft rate has surged since 2021 and is now higher than when Prop. 47 passed, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Shoplifting is at its highest level since 2000.

These parallel trends are not surprising given that homelessness is highly correlated to mental health problems and drug addiction, often leading to theft to support a habit. Unfortunately, Prop. 47 made it harder to force addicts to seek treatment.

Under the 2014 measure, someone can conduct a series of thefts each under $950, and the repetitive pattern cannot be used by prosecutors to elevate the crime to a felony. Similarly, Prop. 47 reduced the penalty for possession of illegal hard drugs such as heroin, fentanyl and methamphetamine from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Without the threat of felony punishment, judges lost leverage to convince addicts who are serial offenders to complete mental health and drug treatment programs in exchange for dismissal of the charges.

Prop. 36 would correct this. It would address serial offenders by making thefts of $950 or less a felony, punishable by up to three years in county jail or state prison, if the person has two or more past convictions for theft crimes such as shoplifting, burglary or carjacking.

And the measure addresses addiction by incentivizing drug treatment. It permits prosecutors to charge people who possess illegal hard drugs and have two prior drug convictions with a “treatment-mandated felony.” That would allow the offender to choose treatment, with their record wiped clean upon completion, instead of serving up to three years in state prison.

Prop. 36 would also address major theft crimes. Current law does not permit additional jail time for stealing more than $50,000 worth of property. Prop. 36 would permit judges to add one, two, three or four years for stealing property worth more than, respectively, $50,000, $200,000, $1 million or $3 million.

This measure has bipartisan backing, including a significant contingent of Democratic state legislators as well as San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and San Francisco Mayor London Breed, both Democrats.

The measure is a smart response to the state’s homelessness, retail theft and opioid-addiction crises. Voters should approve Proposition 36.

Our Bay Area News Group Editorial Board contributed to this Editorial.