Proposition 36, which polls say is expected to pass, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Prop. 36 will drain money from local treatment programs, school-based prevention efforts, and crime survivors to fill the coffers of Big-Box Retail who cynically see mass incarceration as a way to increase their profits by curbing petty theft. By the time we see the devastating effects Prop. 36 will have on Santa Cruz, it will be too late.

Proponents of Prop. 36 – Walmart, Target, and Home Depot – have sold it as a plan to decrease retail theft, reduce homelessness, and force drug users into treatment. Prop. 36 does not provide a dime for shelter, treatment, or prevention. Instead, Prop. 36 would unwind much of the progress from Proposition 47, approved in 2014 by nearly 60 percent of California voters.

Prop. 47 aimed to reduce the population of California’s overcrowded, racially disparate prisons and address the root causes of system involvement by treating nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors rather than felonies and using the savings for underfunded social programs. It is working. Prop. 47 has reduced recidivism, saved California more than $800 million, and reduced the prison population by nearly 30%.

Proponents of Prop. 36 point to a modest rise in property crime over the past decade as justification for returning to the same failed policies that led to the Supreme Court’s concluding that imprisonment in California’s overcrowded prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Significantly, this modest increase in nonviolent crime occurred during a pandemic that pushed our most vulnerable neighbors into poverty. Violent crime, robbery and burglary have not increased. Savings from decreased incarceration has funded housing, services, and treatment that break the harmful cycles that lead to criminal behavior.

If passed, Prop. 36 would cost billions of dollars in increased prison, jail, and court costs, reduce California’s progress in slowing mass incarceration, and have devastating consequences for our most vulnerable community members. Here in Santa Cruz County, Prop. 47 savings have funded drug treatment, housing, and school-based prevention programs.

Just this month, the County Health Services Agency and the County Office of Education were awarded a combined $15 million in Prop. 47 grant funding. These grants will fund programs that provide housing, treatment, and services to adults and children impacted by the criminal legal system.

The Coordinated Access for Empowering Success (CAFES) Project, led by County Probation, has received over $12 million in Prop. 47 grants. CAFES provides diversion opportunities, access to mental health and substance use treatment, case management, and housing support to system-involved individuals.

CAFES funds the District Attorney’s Office’s Neighborhood Justice Program. This successful program uses a restorative justice model to keep first offenders accused of non-violent crimes out of criminal court.

In the County Public Defender’s Office, CAFES funds two Partners for Justice client advocates. The advocates meet with people facing criminal charges to understand, address and overcome the challenges that led them into the system, including poverty, homelessness, trauma, disability, and mental health and substance use disorders.

If Prop. 36 passes, what will happen to programs like these? They will likely be cut, as we gut social programs to fund increased policing, prosecution, and incarceration.

While supporters of Prop. 36 claim it will make California safer, it will almost certainly make us less safe. Prop. 47 has funded programs that reduce recidivism without increasing violent crime. If Prop. 36 passes, we will lose those programs. Without money for desperately needed community services, crime — including violent crime — will likely increase. People who could have benefitted from care will instead be incarcerated, tearing apart families, divesting at-risk youth of critical supports, and destabilizing our community.

For close to 40 years, policy makers tried steadily increasing criminal penalties to address the societal harms created by homelessness, mental health disorders, and drug use. These policies did not provide shelter or make sick people well. Instead, poverty and addiction became crimes, and jails and prisons took the place of affordable housing and treatment centers. Now, the proponents of Prop. 36 are again promising that criminal penalties will patch a failed social safety net. A return to failed policies will almost certainly produce the same failed results.

The sweeping policy changes contemplated in Prop. 36 are poised to harm the residents of Santa Cruz County for generations. Together, we can prevent a return to the expensive, harmful policies that have already failed us and instead focus on real solutions that reap lasting change.

I urge you to vote “No” on Proposition 36.

Heather Rogers is Public Defender of Santa Cruz County.