Prop 47’s impact on crime in California

When California voters passed Proposition 47 in 2014, the goal was noble: decrease incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders and redirect resources towards rehabilitation and public safety programs. The measure reclassified certain felonies to misdemeanors, thereby lowering the severity of penalties for certain offenses, and has been touted as a revolutionary step in California’s criminal justice reform. Proponents argued that this would lead to reduced recidivism and better community outcomes. However, a decade later, the reality is far from the success story many hoped for. A recent paper by the Manhattan Institute discusses some of the ways in which Prop. 47 has negatively impacted public safety and health and put strain on county resources.

In the early 2000s, California’s prison system became severely overcrowded due to policies aimed at reducing crime. To address this, a 2009 federal court order mandated that the state reduce its prison population. California enacted a series of reforms that transferred nonserious offenders to county jails and amended the three-strikes law for nonviolent offenses. While these measures alleviated prison overcrowding, they worsened jail overcrowding, particularly in counties like Riverside.

Against this backdrop, voters approved Prop. 47 to further reduce prison populations and fund community services. In addition to reclassifying several nonviolent felonies as misdemeanors, Prop. 47 retroactively allowed for resentencing, leading to many repeat offenders facing less severe charges. This has contributed to some troubling loopholes exploited by repeat offenders.

One of the most concerning aspects is the rise in certain crimes that, while seemingly minor, have major implications for public safety. For example, previous studies indicate that larceny, motor vehicle theft, and overall property crime have all increased under Prop. 47. Cars in particular have become targets, with California data from 2023 showing increases in auto theft, car break-ins, and theft of car accessories like catalytic converters. These findings are also consistent with other research suggesting a link between progressive prosecutors and increases in property crime.

Riverside County

The Manhattan Institute study, as well as a recent state audit, illustrate outcomes at the local level using data from Riverside County, California. Researchers from the Manhattan Institute gathered data on the charges recommended by law enforcement, the specific charges filed, case dispositions, and recidivism outcomes.

Data showed that the number of felony cases per felon decreased by 31.6%. This was to be expected because many offenses that used to be felonies were reclassified as misdemeanors. However, the number of misdemeanor cases per misdemeneant increased by 47.2%, while the overall number of cases per defendant remained stable.  This indicates that offenses are not being ameliorated at the rate that it may seem. Crime is not going down; rather, it is being renamed.

Source: Manhattan Institute, p.8, Figure 3.

They also noted a major increase in case dismissals following Prop. 47’s passage, which rose from an average of 1.5 cases per defendant to an average of 4 cases per defendant. These cases were dimissed in conjunction with a plea agreement, which requires an admission of guilt, suggesting that Prop. 47 is not actually deterring defendants from future crime.

This situation is harmful because offenders are committing more crimes before their initial cases are resolved. Prosecutors often encounter defendants who have four or more new cases while the first is still pending. Overloaded prosecutors end up bundling these trailing cases together, offering a plea deal for only one and dismissing the others. This diminishes the deterrent effect of prosecution, as defendants may be more likely to have additional charges dismissed. Consequently, this makes prosecutors’ conviction rates appear artificially low, as they are handling more cases as a single bundle.

Source: Manhattan Institute, p.10, Figure 6

The data also showed an increase in nearly all measures of recidivism following implementation of Prop. 47. While there were reductions in violent felony referrals (-10.1%) and convictions (-18%), there were even larger increases in overall serious felony referrals (+22.7%) and convictions (+20%). They also found increases in the number of arrests (+42%) and convictions (+35.9%) for cases involving victims.

Source: Manhattan Institute, p.15, Figure 10

As stated above, a July 2024 report by the auditor of the State of California found similar results regarding recidivism in Riverside County. The findings revealed a notable, statistically significant increase in recidivism for those with extensive criminal histories (i.e., those with four or more prior convictions), which rose from 31% to 43%. They also noted a particularly sharp increase in theft convictions among this subset of offenders, which rose from 25% to 39%. For more information on the auditor report findings, check out the synopsis from our previous blog post.

Discussion

Taken together, the research on Prop. 47 highlights challenges in its approach to managing repeat offenders. Offenders committing these crimes know that under Prop 47’s framework, the punishment is often little more than a slap on the wrist with minimal accountability. This leniency emboldens repeat offenders, who face few repercussions even if they repeatedly commit crimes. While other reports try to imply the opposite, the validity of the research unravels quickly upon taking a critical look at some of the data. Various thinktanks and advocacy groups have made sweeping claims regarding the effectiveness of Prop. 47, but the devil is in the details. And when taking a closer look at the actual data compiled from some of these counties, the conclusions simply don’t hold up.

Some acknowledge the rise in certain crimes that have resulted from Prop. 47, but downplay its significance. It’s become common to minimize any increase in crime—violent or otherwise—by comparing current statistics to the crime peak of the mid-1990s. While technically true, this expression is tired and offers little comparative value. It suggests that “success” simply means achieving rates that are not the worst ever recorded. Crime rates being lower than a particularly high point in history doesn’t reflect meaningful progress in addressing crime; rather, it sets the bar for success too low.

Treating property crimes as inconsequential fails to grasp the full scope of harm inflicted on real people and their families. These crimes have real, tangible costs for victims. When a car is broken into, it’s not just the stolen goods that hurt; it’s the cascading expenses that follow. Car windows need to be replaced, often costing hundreds of dollars. In the case of catalytic converter thefts, the cost can skyrocket into the thousands. Many victims must also deal with increased insurance rates after filing claims, further straining their finances. In some cases, victims lose wages when they need to take time off work because they either lack transportation or because they need to repair or replace damaged property.

Auto theft in particular triggers a devastating chain of financial and personal hardship. Without a car, getting to work becomes a monumental challenge. In regions with limited public transportation, such as many parts of California, a stolen vehicle can mean missed shifts, lost wages, or even termination from a job. For those already living on the financial edge, missing even a few days of work could lead to falling behind on bills. To add insult to injury, the cost of vehicles has skyrocketed in recent years, making it even more difficult to find a replacement vehicle. Essential appointments and meetings also become more difficult to attend without a vehicle. Even something as routine as picking up the kids from school becomes a daily logistical nightmare. This is especially dire for those on probation or parole, where missing a court appearance or a mandated meeting can result in severe legal consequences.

The ripple effects of property crime go far beyond the value of the stolen goods. It fosters a sense of unease and contributes to the perception that our laws are not equipped to protect us.

Fortunately, there is an opportunity to correct course. Prop. 36 represents a necessary step in addressing the gaps left by Prop. 47. It would reclassify certain crimes as felonies and introduce treatment-mandated felony options for drug offenders, where an individual would be given an opportunity to complete a court-mandated treatment program in lieu of a jail sentence. Overall, Prop. 36 strikes a more balanced approach between ensuring accountability while still offering a pathway for rehabilitation where appropriate. Importantly, it aims to address the very real issue of repeat offenders, providing stronger deterrents for those who exploit Prop 47’s leniency.

Conclusion