SACRAMENTO, CA (MPG) - California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) President and Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley provided testimony Feb. 25 in Sacramento, urging legislators to include money in the state budget for the treatment of substance use disorders, a lynchpin of Prop 36, the initiative overwhelmingly passed by California voters last November.

“Funding treatment for those who are ready to address their illness is a reflection of our collective values. It reflects our commitment to honor the wishes of the voters and provide meaningful options for those battling addiction,” said DA Haley.

The full transcript of DA Haley's remarks is below. Her remarks were made at the Joint Hearing before the California Senate Public Safety and Budget Committees and Fiscal Review Subcommittee.

The California District Attorneys Association is a statewide training and advocacy organization representing elected district attorneys, city attorneys with criminal divisions, and more than 3,500 prosecutors.

Transcript of DA Haley's Remarks:

Good morning. 

My name is Allison Haley and I am Napa County’s District Attorney.

I was in support of Prop 36 last year along with, it turned out, just under 70% of voters statewide.

I like that it carves out the possibility of meaningful treatment for drug addicts.

I had a drug- and alcohol-addicted father growing up and I like to think that we’re doing better now as criminal justice professionals in response than we did in the 80s/90s when he was simply cycled in and out of jail and prison completely destroying any semblance of stability in my home.

I think offering quality, evidence-based treatment is long overdue considering what we know now about the illness of addiction and the long-term ripple effects of trauma.

I like that Prop 36 gives prosecutors the flexibility to treat serial theft offenders differently and frankly, more severely than someone who committed a single theft on one occasion. 

I like that all diversions programs are still available for defendants to find a pathway completely away from the criminal justice system if appropriate. I like that consequences will be proportional to harm caused. I think that is right and just.

I like that Prop 36 gives prosecutors’ wide discretion and flexibility to meet the needs of their own constituents—to the problems that exist in their own counties.

In Napa, I implemented wash out periods, so we aren’t charging these cases unless the priors were committed in roughly the last 10 years. This is a practice I know that has been implemented by other elected DA’s.

And we don’t have to do that—the law doesn’t require it—but I know that the citizens of Napa and unsurprisingly other counties want Prop 36 to be surgically and thoughtfully implemented with an eye toward hardened, repeat offenders.

I know that the residents of my county expect me to look at the unique circumstances of each and every case and apply Prop 36 to the subjects it was intended for.

So, this isn’t a one size fits all approach but rather, something that caters to individual needs. And it was the residents of Napa County who voted for me, and I am accountable to them.

Would my approach work in every county? Not necessarily. Some counties are taking a phased approach to implementation in order to keep caseloads manageable. Other counties are such highways of drug trafficking that the community is demanding as much accountability as possible from those destroying their quality of life.

In Napa, we are prepared to use the full array of treatment options available.

Treatment in out-patient programming, drug courts and yes, some overnight or residential beds. In Napa, I have working partnerships with HHS and Probation who all come to the table with the best interest of the community in mind—but also a commitment to making treatment meaningful for the defendant. I want defendants to succeed, and I want to never see them in court again.

Because these defendants are parents. They are also somebody’s child. Successful treatment and sobriety are joyful goals, the answer to prayer, a celebration for the people who love them. My father’s periods of sobriety contained some of my most beautiful memories of him. They are the dream of every child of an alcoholic.

Californians voted for Prop 36 for surely many different reasons. But at its core was an overwhelming crescendo of “what we’ve been doing isn’t working.” The proliferation of blatant theft was demoralizing, the plight of the unhoused left to waste away in their illness is deeply inhumane and cruel—as well as destructive to neighborhoods and communities.

Funding treatment for those who are ready to address their illness is a reflection of our common values. It reflects our commitment to honor the wishes of the voters and provide meaningful options for those battling addiction.

Treatment can be varied and appropriate to the person—not everyone will require a bed and an overnight stay. Some people will. Others might require a drug court type approach with supervision, drug testing, and daily or other regular NA or AA meetings.

I applaud you for looking at ways to implement the will of the voters to make Prop 36 and our state function.

I do think we need to remain flexible in our approach, giving discretion to prosecutors, judges and counties, while still meeting the treatment needs of this very unique population.

Governor Newsom has led in this area with his commitment to CARE courts to ensure that people who need treatment have a better chance of getting it. Similarly, proposition 36 will allow addicts who have committed multiple crimes to feed their addiction the opportunity to get the treatment they need to turn their lives around and become functioning members of our communities.

And that is truly exciting.

I wish that something like Prop 36 had been around to help my father; I like to think that he would have taken advantage of it. I know that many other families of addicts feel the same way. We owe them nothing less than full commitment to make this work.