Why is a California prosecutor pausing drug and mental health court referrals?
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Yolo County DA ended referrals to mental health and addiction courts in March 2025.
- Policy shift prioritizes Prop. 36 felony treatment model amid resource constraints.
- Critics warn new limits reduces access to care for defendants without prior records.
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig during his 2018 re-election campaign for the county’s top prosecutor vowed to expand access to mental health and addiction intervention courts.
But Reisig has since paused referrals until at least Jan. 1 to those courts which offer defendants a chance to avoid incarceration and instead receive wraparound services. He cited shortages in the county’s ability to offer treatment and instead sought to prioritize initiatives under Proposition 36.
“In order to effectively implement this new legally mandated treatment model, with the very limited personnel and resources available, the District Attorney has decided, effective today, to prospectively terminate the discretionary diversion programs my office previously developed,” according to the March 21 memo that was given to The Sacramento Bee last month.
Reisig referred to himself as the architect of Prop. 36, which mandated treatment for people with two or more prior convictions of some drug crimes. It also created a felony charge for a person accused of stealing for a third time.
About $85 million in the 2025-26 state budget will fund programs under the referendum, Jennifer Kim, a legislative budget staff member, told state lawmakers during a state Assembly committee hearing in June. But law enforcement decried the allocations as insufficient to implement a voter-approved Prop. 36.
Critics of Reisig’s memo warned fewer people would receive remedies for addiction or mental health illnesses because Prop. 36’s mandatory treatment applies to a narrow category of defendants. By curtailing rehabilitative efforts, the District Attorney’s memo undermines law enforcement’s stance that Prop. 36 is about getting alleged criminals treatment to stop illegal behavior, said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defender’s Association.
“You don’t really believe in treatment,” Chatfield said. “And what you believe in is what Prop. 36 is really about, which is incarceration.”
Chief Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello, a spokesperson with the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, said “it is absolutely false” Yolo County prosecutors’ new policies will stop services. People can still receive treatment outside and within the criminal justice system, she said.
“Our commitment to treatment has not lessened,” Aiello said.
Participants enrolled in programs under Prop. 36 will exceed the number of participants in the other courts, she said. The District Attorney’s Office said it could reconsider its memo in the future if there are more resources available.
“We would be thrilled to fund Prop. 36 and then ensure that other optional programs can resume,” Aiello said.
Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson worries only treating defendants who are charged Prop. 36 could exclude other people who need to address their mental health or addiction. The memo halted referrals to mental health, addiction intervention and mental health diversion courts.
The “treatment-mandated felony” under Prop. 36 only applies to individuals charged with having certain drugs and who have been previously convicted of two or more drug crimes.
“If we value treatment, then we should have as many pathways to treatment as possible,” she said.
The District Attorney’s new policy
Before the District Attorney’s new policy, a prosecutor and defense counsel would talk about the defendant’s case and refer them to the program. Now, the public defender solely refers people to each court, and must argue a defendant deserves a referral before a judge.
“The petition process now is a lot longer,” Olson said, while adding this new process also increases workload for her staff.
Yolo County often celebrated and touted successes off all three collaborative efforts, calling mental health diversion court “groundbreaking.”
A prosecutor or defense attorney could flag a case and seek to divert a defendant away from the trial court process. The District Attorney, Public Defender’s Office, Probation Department and Yolo County’s Health and Human Services Agency all must agree to accept a client.
Each court accepts clients ranging from 20 to 30 people, according to the county. Mental health and addiction intervention courts resulted in, respectively, 90% or 80% reduction in arrests and time spent in jail for participants, according to 2022-23 data.
“This program continues to be a successful way to address those suffering from mental illness who find themselves in the criminal justice system,” Reisig said in 2018.
But the Yolo County District Attorney’s stance has since evolved.
Aiello cast doubt on the effectiveness of each court program. She cited limited spots within each court, staffing or resources issues halted “some if not all” programs at “various times” and how nearly two-thirds of all referrals are not accepted.
“That is a very significant fact when the concern is that our decision to prioritize Prop. 36 is being criticized as turning our backs on those individuals,” she said.
The District Attorney’s position to prioritize Prop. 36 programs is not unique, Aiello said.
The Placer County District Attorney’s Office developed a Prop. 36 court alongside its mental health court and recovery court, which helps those with substance abuse issues. A Prop. 36 court is being created in Sacramento County, which will exist alongside its other collaborative courts, said Sacramento County Public Defender Amanda Benson.
The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office refers clients to mental health and recovery courts.
Laura Galindo, a Yolo County spokesperson, did not answer a question asking if there was a drop in the number of people referring to mental health and addiction intervention courts since the District Attorney’s memo became effective in March. There are multiple funding sources for these three collaborations, which includes state and federal grants. Money was also provided under Prop. 47, which does not “directly support” these courts, she said.
“The county continues to work with justice partners on collaborative court programs, which have limited capacity and are impacted at times by resource availability,” she said.
Yolo County began a dedicated court under the referendum on May 1, according to a District Attorney’s Office news release. Prosecutors charged 77 people under the “treatment mandated felony.” There are 55 pending cases, and five people have since accepted treatment.
This story was originally published July 7, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to add a statement from the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. The DA refers clients to mental health and recovery courts.
