SB 38 directs the state board to run a competitive grant program focused on community‑based approaches to reduce recidivism, with eligibility targeted at people arrested, charged, or convicted who have mental health or substance use disorders. The statute authorizes a broad set of services—mental and behavioral health care, drug or collaborative courts, substance use disorder treatment, misdemeanor diversion, and housing‑related assistance—and requires that a public agency serve as the lead applicant on proposals.
The bill matters because it ties criminal justice outcomes to health and housing services and channels state grant dollars through public agencies while explicitly prioritizing restorative‑justice approaches, interagency collaboration, use of existing funding streams (Drug Medi‑Cal, MHSA, HUD, Byrne JAG, VA programs, etc.), and capacity expansion rather than supplantation. For compliance officers and program managers this creates both programmatic opportunities (multi‑service pilots, housing supports up to 24 months) and operational constraints (public‑agency leads, prioritization criteria, potential matching or leveraging expectations).
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates and tasks the board with administering a competitive grant program that funds community‑based services aimed at reducing recidivism, including behavioral health, diversion programs, treatment under Health and Safety Code section 11395, and housing assistance. It requires a public agency to be the lead applicant and establishes an executive steering committee to set submission guidelines and scoring priorities.
Who It Affects
Counties, city agencies, probation departments and other public agencies that can serve as lead applicants; community‑based treatment and service providers that would deliver services under partnership arrangements; courts running drug or collaborative court models; and people with arrest/conviction histories who have mental health or substance use disorders.
Why It Matters
The bill channels criminal justice funding toward health‑and‑housing‑centered interventions and creates explicit priorities (restorative justice, leveraging other public funds, housing stabilization) that will shape which local programs receive state support, favoring publicly partnered, multi‑service models over unaffiliated nonprofit‑led projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 38 sets up a state grant program whose declared purpose is to reduce recidivism through community‑based solutions. The board must run a competitive process and may fund programs that serve people who have been arrested, charged, or convicted and who have a history of mental health or substance use disorders.
Eligible program models include mental and behavioral health services, drug or collaborative courts, substance use disorder treatment, misdemeanor diversion, and programs authorized under Health and Safety Code section 11395.
The statute requires that a public agency be the lead applicant for any proposal; nonprofits and philanthropic organizations can be partners but cannot be the primary applicant. To guide the program the board must convene an executive steering committee composed of state and local government representatives, community‑based treatment and service providers, and people with lived experience of incarceration; the committee must have expertise in homelessness/housing, behavioral health, and rehabilitative treatment and will recommend submission guidelines, threshold criteria, and scoring priorities.Those scoring priorities are substantive: the board must prioritize proposals that demonstrate restorative‑justice principles and capacity to reduce recidivism; that leverage other public or philanthropic funds (the bill lists Drug Medi‑Cal, the Mental Health Services Act, HUD Emergency Solutions Grants, Byrne JAG, VA SSVF, Social Innovation Funds, state tax credits, and others); that provide integrated services including housing stabilization and up to 24 months of rental assistance; and that expand capacity rather than supplant existing programs.
The bill also directs the board to consider geographic diversity, limits on administrative costs, interagency/regional collaborations, juvenile services, and preferential treatment for drug or collaborative court models.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The grant program limits eligibility to proposals with a public agency as the lead applicant — nonprofits cannot apply on their own.
Priority services include mental/behavioral health care, substance use disorder treatment, misdemeanor diversion, drug/collaborative court models, and programs eligible under H&S Code §11395.
Housing‑related assistance can include security deposits, utility and moving‑cost assistance, housing stabilization services, and up to 24 months of rental assistance per participant.
The steering committee must include government officials, community providers, and formerly incarcerated people and will recommend threshold and scoring criteria emphasizing restorative justice and fund leveraging.
The statute bars using the grant fund to supplant existing program funding and permits funding only to expand capacity of existing programs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Eligibility and allowed service categories
This subsection defines who the program should serve and what it may fund. It explicitly authorizes projects serving people arrested, charged, or convicted who have histories of mental health or substance use disorders, and enumerates permissible program types — mental/behavioral health services, drug or collaborative courts, SUD treatment, and misdemeanor diversion. For program designers, this creates a broad service envelope but ties funding to specific service domains rather than open workforce or infrastructure grants.
Public‑agency lead requirement and treatment code alignment
The bill requires a public agency to be the lead applicant and allows inclusion of treatment programs that qualify under H&S Code §11395. Practically, that channels grant contracting through county or municipal entities (for example, probation, behavioral health departments, or sheriff’s offices) and embeds existing regulatory treatment frameworks into funded programming, which affects billing, oversight, and reporting expectations.
Executive steering committee: membership and remit
The board must form a steering committee composed of balanced representatives from state and local government, community providers, and people with lived incarceration experience, with expertise in housing, behavioral health, and rehabilitation. The committee’s job is advisory: it designs eligibility thresholds, scoring criteria, and program design recommendations. Its composition creates a formal vehicle for lived‑experience input but also raises questions about selection, term limits, and conflict‑of‑interest rules that the bill does not resolve.
Core prioritization criteria (restorative justice, leveraging, partnerships)
These subsections set the program’s value‑judgment framework: proposals that advance restorative justice principles, demonstrate capacity to reduce recidivism, leverage federal/state/local/philanthropic funds, and put forward public agency partnerships rank higher. That steers awards toward multi‑stakeholder, blended‑fund projects and away from single‑source pilots, and will influence which counties or regions can assemble competitive proposals based on existing contracts and funding connections.
Service integration, housing rules, administrative limits, and anti‑supplanting
The bill requires attention to integrated service packages — mental health/SUD treatment paired with housing stabilization, job training, and legal services — and specifies housing assistance options including up to 24 months of rental assistance, case management, landlord recruitment, and credit repair. It instructs the committee to consider geographic diversity, limits on administrative costs, juvenile services, expansion (not supplantation) of existing programs, and to prioritize drug or collaborative court models. These mechanics will drive budget lines, subcontracting, and performance measures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with criminal histories and co‑occurring mental health or substance use disorders — the intended direct beneficiaries who gain access to integrated treatment, diversion options, and housing stabilization, including up to 24 months of rental assistance.
- Public agencies (counties, probation departments, behavioral health departments) — they can serve as lead applicants and receive grant funds to scale programs, extend services, and coordinate regional partnerships.
- Community‑based treatment and service providers — they are likely to receive subcontracting opportunities as program operators in partnerships with public leads, expanding service volumes and client referrals.
- Courts running drug or collaborative court models — these programs are prioritized, which can attract funding to expand court‑linked treatment and diversion capacity.
- Housing service providers and landlords — housing navigation, landlord recruitment, and rental subsidies create new payment streams and demand for supportive housing placements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public agencies acting as lead applicants — they must carry administrative responsibility, comply with reporting and oversight, and may need to assemble and manage partnerships and matching or leveraged funds.
- Smaller nonprofit providers — they may face upfront compliance, data, and contracting burdens to participate as subcontractors and could be disadvantaged if they cannot partner with a public lead or demonstrate leveraged funding.
- State board or administering agency — the board must staff and manage the competitive process, convene the steering committee, and develop scoring criteria without specified additional funding in the text.
- Jurisdictions lacking existing funding streams — rural or resource‑poor counties may struggle to meet the bill’s leveraging and partnership priorities, reducing their competitiveness for grants.
- Existing programs with fragile funding — while the bill forbids supplantation, the competitive pool could shift discretionary funds and attention toward new pilots, creating indirect budget pressures on some local programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute’s central dilemma is balancing public accountability and fiscal oversight (by requiring a public agency lead and formalized steering guidance) against the goal of effective, trust‑building community solutions (which often come from grassroots providers and peer‑led organizations); prioritizing leveraged funding and formal partnerships increases scale but risks locking out smaller or underfunded communities that need the programs most.
The bill designs a program that favors publicly led, partnership‑based projects that can demonstrate blended funding and restorative‑justice frameworks. That design improves public accountability and fiscal oversight but risks excluding nimble community organizations that lack a public partner or mature funding relationships.
The steering committee’s broad membership requirement gives voice to formerly incarcerated people and providers, yet the statute leaves open who appoints members, how conflicts are managed, and what weight the committee’s recommendations carry — implementation decisions that will shape program fairness and credibility.
Operationally, requiring leveraged funds and prioritizing certain funding sources (Drug Medi‑Cal, MHSA, HUD, Byrne JAG, VA SSVF, etc.) speeds scalability for jurisdictions that already have those streams, but it may entrench disparities: counties without matching or wraparound resources will be disadvantaged. The housing assistance allowance (including up to 24 months of rental aid) is programmatically powerful but raises sustainability questions — who funds support after grant expiration, how to avoid creating temporary housing churn, and how rental assistance interacts with federal HUD and state homelessness rules.
Finally, the anti‑supplantation language and the capacity‑expansion requirement will produce administrative challenges: defining baseline services, auditing whether a grant truly expands rather than replaces, and reconciling multiple funders’ allowable cost rules could consume significant administrative bandwidth.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.