crime – Public Policy Institute of California

Low Crime Numbers Leveling off Under Shelter-in-Place

After large decreases in March, the latest numbers on crime in the wake of COVID-19 mostly point towards a leveling off, with continuing lower rates for four California cities—Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. There are a few exceptions, such as commercial burglaries, which rose by about 37%.

Swings in crime numbers stem from many factors under any conditions, and certainly during a pandemic. With improved weather and possible shelter-in-place fatigue, more people—potential victims and perpetrators—are out. The dire economic situation may be a factor, while state and local directives, such as zero bail, an issue of heightened concern within law enforcement, may be another.

Data on crime in these four large cities cover rates through April 2020. They represent preliminary numbers that are subject to revision before they are submitted to the California Department of Justice as part of the state’s official crime statistics. Furthermore, the numbers do not represent all of California.

A closer look shows that violent and property crimes broadly leveled off in April, after falling from February through March. In particular, violent crimes fell from 1,881 in February to 1,603 in March, and then came down slightly to 1,580 in April—a decrease of 16% since February. For property crimes, the number dropped from 4,294 in February to 3,399 in March, then fell somewhat further in April to 3,302, for a total February-to-April drop of 23.1%.

Within these broader categories, some crime was on the uptick in April. While burglaries fell by 1.3% from February to March, the weekly number rose by 9.3% in April compared to February. This increase is primarily driven by commercial burglaries, up by 21.2% in March relative to February and up by 37.5% in April, again relative to February. Car theft is also up: after declining by 4.2% between February and March, it rose in April and is now 8.5% higher than in February.

The changes in crime numbers vary across these cities. For example, while commercial burglary is up in all four cities, the rise in vehicle theft is driven by Los Angeles, where the number of stolen vehicles increased from 352 to 363 and then 468 in February, March, and April; or up 32.9% compared to February. In Oakland, reported assaults rose in April; after dipping to 96 per week in March—from 116 in February—the average weekly number of assaults climbed to 129 in April. And while still below pre-pandemic numbers, assaults in Los Angeles in late April were higher than in March, up from 766 to 805 on average per week.

As crime in these four cities seems to be hovering at low rates, at or below the pre-pandemic numbers, there is no evidence yet that efforts like zero bail, which went into effect April 13, led to broad increases in crime. However, as some crimes are on the uptick, they deserve attention to determine whether they are part of common swings in crime numbers or early signs of reversing trends. If reversals are indicated, now is the time to identify contributing factors and investigate effective solutions.

Jail Bookings Down Significantly during COVID-19

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, California has sought to reduce county jail populations through a range of actions, including a “zero bail” emergency measure. This means that most misdemeanor and lower-level felonies currently have no bail amount associated with them, and that suspects are more likely to be cited and released instead of booked into jail. This new practice, along with decreases in crime and local directives to reduce arrests and bookings, appear to have drastically reduced the number of people sent to jail at this time.

A number of offenses—including felony burglary, driving under the influence, and the most serious sexual and violent crimes—can still receive a bail amount above zero. And law enforcement can still book someone into jail even for a so-called zero bail offense—but the arresting law enforcement agency (or the district attorney) has to request to a judge to set a bail amount. If the court denies the request then the suspect has to be released.

To get a sense of the magnitude of zero bail’s effect on releases and bookings, we looked at data from the Monthly Arrest and Citations Register (from 2016, the most recent available). These data do not perfectly identify zero bail offenses or the offenses excluded from the zero bail list. But they do allow us to identify an upper bound of the impact on jail bookings.

Of the roughly 1,140,000 arrests that we analyzed, about 791,000 were booked into jail (about 69% of arrests). About 317,000 of these bookings (or 40%) were for offenses in which bail is still is an option today. The remaining 474,000 bookings (or 60%) were for zero bail offenses.

This suggests that today, if the arrest offense distribution is currently the same as it was in 2016 and there are practically no requests to set bail for zero bail offenses, then only about 28% of arrests in California would lead to a booking into jail.

In 2016, misdemeanors made up the majority of arrests booked into jail (about 77%) for what are now zero bail crimes. Of these, the most common offenses were drugs (almost 28%), failure to appear in court on a misdemeanor offense (about 21%), drunk and disorderly conduct (12%), and traffic and petty theft (each about 5%). The most common felony offense bookings now set at zero bail were drug offenses (almost 30%), theft (22%), and vehicle theft (roughly 14%).

While crime appears to be down since the COVID-19 outbreak, and the type of crimes committed during the pandemic almost surely have changed, our examination of 2016 arrest data suggests that the implementation of zero bail—in addition to the effects of local directives and fewer crimes—means that far fewer people are being booked into jail at this time.

Recent statewide data from the Board of State and Community Corrections supports this conclusion, as it reveals that weekly jail bookings have dropped from 17,140 the week of February 23 to 6,880 the week of April 12 (a decrease of about 60%, consistent with our data analysis).

These findings suggest that the zero bail measure is playing a significant role in reducing crowding in California’s county jails and helping to make social distancing more achievable. Going forward, it will be important to monitor other possible impacts this reduction in jail bookings might have, including on homelessness, public safety, and access to health care.

COVID-19 and Crime in Major California Cities

Public safety is one of many areas of life being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that most Californians are staying home in response to the statewide shelter-in-place order, the overall number of reported crimes is declining in four of the state’s largest cities. But there is also evidence of an uptick in some types of crime.

We examined the daily reported crime numbers for two large Southern California cities and two Bay Area cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. It is important to note that while these cities make their data quickly available for analysis, the numbers are preliminary: law enforcement agencies update and review the data before submitting them to DOJ as official statistics. Also, we do not yet have data on other cities or rural areas across the state. And, finally, it is possible that our highly unusual circumstances are affecting the extent to which crime is reported.

Comparing the average weekly number of reported crimes in February to the number reported for the last week in March shows an overall drop from about 6,150 to 3,620—a decrease of 41%. Declines have been particularly large in the two Bay Area cities: about 69% in Oakland and around 55% in San Francisco. Crime reports began to fall in all four cities a few weeks before shelter-in-place orders were issued for the Bay Area (March 16) and the state (March 19)—after employers started urging their workers to stay home.

Property crime accounts for roughly 80% of the overall decrease: reports fell from a weekly average of 4,270 in February to 2,270 in the last week of March (a drop of about 47%). This trend was driven by a decline in larceny reports, particularly car break-ins. The drop in larcenies, which are most striking in the Bay Area, could quite possibly be largely attributable to the absence of tourists.

Overall reports of violent crime dropped from a weekly average of about 1,880 in February to about 1,360 in the last week of March—a 28% decrease. Oakland experienced the most dramatic drop—from about 200 to 70. The number of reported assaults dropped from 1,430 to around 1,100 (22%). The overall decrease in robberies—from about 350 to 260—was driven largely by the Bay Area.

There are some notable exceptions to this downward trend. While reports of domestic violence are down overall for the four cities, Los Angeles saw an uptick in the last two weeks of March, and the weekly number of reported robberies in San Diego were also up somewhat. More broadly, a slight increase in reported commercial burglaries across all four cities suggests that burglars may be shifting from residential to commercial targets now that so many people are at home at all times of day.

It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about recent trends, but it will be important to track and monitor crime data so that we can identify vulnerabilities in our communities and determine whether new approaches are needed to maintain public safety in these challenging times.

Video: Travis Allen’s Priorities

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, asked Assemblymember Travis Allen, candidate for governor in 2018, to name the top three issues with major consequences for the state’s future—a question Baldassare has asked of all gubernatorial candidates appearing before PPIC audiences. Allen said his top priorities would be

Cutting taxes
Getting tough on crime, and
Fixing roads and expanding freeways

Allen, who is campaigning to repeal the state gas tax increase passed last year, said California is already collecting enough tax revenue to improve roads and unclog the freeways.

“We can fix our roads, we can expand our freeways, we don’t need to raise taxes further to do it,” he said. He added that voters should be the ones to decide if they want to raise taxes.

The conversation with Allen is part of the PPIC Speaker Series on California’s Future. PPIC is inviting all major candidates for governor to participate if they reach a certain threshold in the polls. The goal is to give Californians a better understanding of how the candidates intend to address the challenges facing our state.

Watch all candidate videos

Crime Rates Stable Overall, But Some Counties See Big Changes

In 2011, California embarked on a series of criminal justice reforms, decreasing the state’s reliance on costly incarceration—and raising fears about the impact on public safety. A look at recently released crime numbers from the California Department of Justice show that while auto thefts are up almost 10%, the state has not seen a broad surge in crime since the reforms started. The violent crime rate is up 1.1% (and when adjusted for an important definitional change, is in fact down about 1%), while the property crime rate is down 3.2%. However, these statewide numbers mask substantial differences across counties.

Prompted by a federal court mandate to reduce the population of the state’s overcrowded prisons, California enacted public safety realignment in 2011. This historic reform shifted the management of lower-level felons from state prison and parole systems to county jail and probation systems. Since then—with the state still unable to meet the federal mandate—voters have passed three significant initiatives: Proposition 36 in 2012, Proposition 47 in 2014, and Proposition 57 in 2016. Due to the combined impact of these reforms, the state’s incarceration rate has declined dramatically and is now at a level not seen since the early 1990s.

While reforms were unquestionably needed—the state faced a possible federal order to release more than 30,000 prisoners early—critics have voiced concerns that public safety may be negatively affected and have asked whether less incarceration would reverse California’s long-term decline in crime rates.

Have reforms affected crime in California? A comparison of 2016 crime rates to those of 2010, the year before any of these reforms were implemented, provides a useful starting point.

The 2016 violent crime rate of 444 per 100,000 residents is up somewhat (1.1%) from the 2010 rate of 439 per 100,000 residents. However, the FBI implemented a change in 2014 that expanded the definition of sexual crimes that constitute rape. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, the new definition added about 38% to the number of reported rapes in 2014 in California, increasing the violent crime rate by about 8 more violent crimes per 100,000 residents. If we adjust the 2016 violent crime rate accordingly, from 444 to 436 per 100,000 residents, we find that this more comparable measure indicates a slight drop in violent crime (of about 1%) between 2010 and 2016.

The property crime rate in 2016 of 2,545 per 100,000 residents is down 3.2% from 2010 and is the second lowest rate observed since 1960 (the lowest was 2,459 per 100,000 residents in 2014). While the rate of auto theft is up 9.9%, burglaries have been decreasing noticeably since 2012 and are now down 21.9% from 2010. Larceny theft has changed very little (up less than 1%).

The picture is more complicated at the county level. A look at the 15 largest California counties shows that five saw double-digit drops in their violent crime rates between 2010 and 2016: San Mateo, Contra Costa, San Diego, Sacramento, and Alameda. But Ventura and Fresno Counties experienced increases of more than 10%. And while the property crime rate dropped more than 20% in three counties—Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Fresno—it went up a staggering 35.5% in San Francisco. Alameda County saw an increase of almost 10%.

How can we explain these differences? Before rushing to conclusions, there are several questions that need to be answered first. How have reforms affected factors such as arrests and incarceration? Do these differ across counties and what is their relationship to crime rates? Also, California’s crime trends may be affected by factors unrelated to recent reforms. How do statewide trends compare to what other states are seeing? Finally, have California’s reforms improved outcomes for those released from our jails and prisons? If so, this could help lower crime rates in the coming years. Our goal at PPIC is to address these important questions in our upcoming research.

California’s Arrest Rate Reaches a 50-Year Low

Recently released arrest and crime data from the California Attorney General’s Office reveal some noticeable recent changes. Until last year, California’s felony arrest rate trend had closely mirrored the state’s crime rate trend for 20 years. We would expect the two trends to move in similar ways, since most of the crimes reported and used to calculate the crime rate are felonies. But the trends diverged in 2015 after passage of Proposition 47, which reclassified a number of drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The felony arrest rate dropped dramatically in 2015, by 30%, while crime rates went up—the violent crime rate rose by 8.4% and the property crime rate by 6.6%. The drop in felony arrests was partly offset by a very noticeable increase in misdemeanor arrests. Still, the total number of arrests dropped by almost 52,000.

California’s total arrest rate—which has been declining over the past two decades—is now at a historic low of 2,944 per 100,000 residents; this is less than half the peak rate of 6,765 reached in 1989. What is arguably more noteworthy is the even greater drop in the felony arrest rate, which, at 806 per 100,000 residents, is about a third of the 1989 peak rate of 2,052. The 30% drop in the felony arrest rate in just one year, 2014 to 2015, accounts for more than a quarter of the peak-to-bottom decline. Misdemeanor arrests, by contrast, increased from 1,979 to 2,138, or 8%.

The data strongly indicate that Proposition 47 is a major factor in these changes. First, monthly arrest data show abrupt changes in drug and property arrests in November 2014, the month Proposition 47 went into effect. Second, the drop in felony arrests was almost exclusively for drug and property offenses, while the increase in misdemeanor arrests was almost entirely for drug and property offenses. Arrests for motor vehicle theft, which continues to be a felony after Proposition 47, is the only area of increase. Possibly in response to the 13% increase in auto thefts in 2015, motor vehicle theft arrests went up by 26%.

Although the total number of property crime arrests dropped, the decrease in arrests for drug offenses was more significant. Felony drug arrests declined by about 92,000, while misdemeanor drug arrests went up by more than 70,000. The net drop of about 22,000 drug arrests accounts for more than 40% of the total decline.

The new data raise many questions, including whether the recent changes to our criminal justice system are affecting public safety. Also, does the decline in drug arrests mean that drug use has declined or that fewer offenders with substance abuse problems are receiving necessary and effective treatment? Future research needs to address the role of reforms like Proposition 47 on crime, offenders, law enforcement, and counties’ ability to provide necessary treatment and programming.

Preliminary Data Show Higher Crime Rates in 2015

Preliminary data from the FBI offer discouraging news about crime trends in California’s largest cities. A number of cities—such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Riverside—reported increases in violent crime in 2015. The recently released FBI data also show that California cities are seeing property crime increases. These increases, particularly in property crime, are widespread and not trivial in magnitude. However, the data also show that cities in other states are also experiencing increases, especially in violent crime.

The FBI crime numbers cover January through June 2015 and are limited to cities with populations of at least 100,000 that report crime data to the FBI. In total, the data allow us to calculate year-over-year changes for 245 cities in 41 states throughout the country. The 66 California cities included in the FBI data contain about half of the state’s total population. The most recent statewide crime numbers showed that California’s crime rates continued to drop in 2014 and were at historic lows.

Comparing January through June 2015 to the same months in 2014 reveals that many US cities included in the preliminary FBI data saw increases in crime. Of the 66 California cities in the data, 49 saw increases in violent crime and 48 experienced increases in property crimes. Many of these cities saw double digit percent increases—34 in violent crime and 24 in property crime.

Violent crime rates went up in 24 of the 41 states included in the FBI data, and property crime increased in 14 states. However, the property crime rate for the included US cities with populations of 100,000 or more decreased by 29.6 per 100,000 residents, while the property crime rate for the California cities increased by 116.9. The increase in property crime in California cities stands in sharp contrast to the other four states with the highest populations: large cities in Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois saw decreases of between 111.1 (Texas) and 47.7 (New York) property crimes per 100,000 residents.

Among the 41 states with cities that are included in the FBI data, California’s property crime increase ranked 6th, while its violent crime increase ranked 12th. Most of California’s larger cities (46 of 66) were among the 100 cities nationwide that saw the largest property crime increases. Close to half (32, to be precise), were in the top 100 in violent crime increases. When we look at the data for the 25 largest US cities, we see that the biggest increases in violent and property crime rates occurred in Sacramento and San Francisco, respectively. California has six cities in this group, and all are among the ten that saw the largest increases in the property crime rate.

Again, these FBI numbers are preliminary, and they cover only about half of the state’s population. But they are a strong indication that recent crime increases have occurred across the state. They underscore the importance of monitoring crime trends and the need for careful analysis to identify key causes. If we can identify the factors that are contributing to higher crime rates, we can implement effective crime-preventive strategies.

Chart note: Changes in the number of violent and property crimes per 100,000 residents, January–June 2015 compared to January–June 2014. The table includes the 25 largest US cities included in the FBI data with crime statistics for both 2014 and 2015, ranging from New York City, with a population of 8,473,938, to Kansas City, MO, with a population of 468,417.
Chart source: FBI’s Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January–June, 2015.

Public Opinion and Sentencing Reform

Governor Brown has proposed a ballot initiative that would reform prison sentencing in California, increasing parole opportunities for non-violent felons. Our January PPIC Statewide Survey findings show a public opinion environment that may be favorable to the governor’s proposal.

Our survey shows that many Californians believe—incorrectly—that prisons and corrections account for the largest share of state spending. When asked to select the largest spending area of the state budget, California likely voters are most likely to choose prisons and corrections (41%)—this is consistent with our findings over the past several years. In fact, the allocation for prisons and corrections in the governor’s 2016–17 budget proposal ($10.6 billion) comes in behind higher education ($14.6 billion), health and human services ($33.7 billion), and K–12 education ($51.2 billion).

If the governor’s sentencing reform proposal is perceived as a way to reduce spending on prisons and corrections, it could benefit from this overestimation of state corrections spending. The proposal could also benefit from a contrasting opinion: only 3 percent of likely voters say that prisons and corrections should be the highest spending priority.

Californians’ current attitudes toward crime may also bode well for sentencing reform. Just 3 percent of likely voters name crime, gangs, or drugs as the most important issue for the governor and legislature to work on this year. And only 15 percent of likely voters say violence and street crime are a big problem in their communities today—down somewhat from January 2015 (22%). Furthermore, a solid majority of likely voters (63%) say that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks and other minorities, a share that is somewhat larger than it was last January (55%).

Given these attitudes toward crime and the criminal justice system, along with Californians’ desire to see less spending on prisons and corrections, the governor’s proposal for sentencing reform could be well received.

Video: Survey Looks at Taxes and Pensions

As interest groups work to turn their ideas into initiatives for next year’s statewide ballot, the September PPIC Statewide Survey examined Californians’ views in two areas that may be put before voters in 2016: taxes and public employee pension reform.

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, and Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented the findings at a briefing in Sacramento last week.

Among the survey findings:

Half of likely voters favor extending the tax increases in Proposition 30 temporarily, but just a third favor making them permanent.

There is bipartisan support for raising taxes on cigarette purchases.

A majority of likely voters favor changing Proposition 13 to tax commercial properties according to their current market value.

Solid majorities of Californians see public pension spending as a problem, and most think voters should weigh in on changes to the system.

Most likely voters favor placing new public employees in a defined contribution system, similar to a 401(k) plan, rather than a defined benefits system.

The survey shows that Californians give their state leaders—the governor, legislature, and their own legislators—high approval ratings at the close of the legislative session. Baldassare offered his explanation at the briefing: there was little drama around the budget, the economy’s going well, and very few respondents in the survey mentioned fiscal issues as the most important ones.

Congress, on the other hand fares far less well in Californians’ eyes. Its 17% rating is not only much lower than the ratings likely voters give their state leaders, it is much lower than those of President Obama, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and Californians’ own representative in the US House.

“Congress is a government institution that needs work, according to most Californians,” Baldassare said.

How California Reduced Its Prison Population

After years of struggling with a 2009 federal court order to reduce the population in the state’s overcrowded prisons, the inmate population has reached the target of 113,700 (based on current capacity), roughly a year ahead of schedule. A look at historic prison and jail data reveals that this milestone has been achieved to a significant extent by adding capacity and simply shifting inmates to institutions not subject to the court order. As a result, cost savings from the various efforts appear lacking so far. The state’s spending on corrections is now at a historic high.

Since reaching its peak in 2006 of about 163,000, the institutional prison population has dropped dramatically, by slightly more than 49,000. The court order mandated that inmate population be reduced to 137.5 percent of design capacity, or the number of inmates the facilities were intended to house.

Realignment, the state’s biggest correction reform, was a response to the court. It shifted incarceration of many lower-level felons and parole violators from state prison to county jails, beginning in 2011. However, a significant share of the prison population—about 18,000 inmates—declined before realignment. Most of this drop happened between 2009 and 2011 and was driven by policy changes such as SB 678, which created financial incentives for counties to lower the number of felony probationers they sent to state prison. Realignment then led to the largest decline, about 28,000, in the state’s institutional prison population. The post-realignment drop occurred in the first year of the reform.

The prison population did not start to decline further until November 2014, when voters passed Proposition 47, which classifies a number of drug and property offenses as misdemeanors instead of felonies. Since then, the institutional prison population has dropped an additional 3,000, which pushed the number of inmates below 137.5 percent of design capacity.

The state has met the crucial federally mandated target, but not—as reform proponents hoped—by a major reduction in costly prison incarceration. Here’s a rough breakdown of how this was achieved.

First, the decline of about 18,000 inmates in the institutional population prior to realignment was partly accomplished by housing about 9,000 offenders in private prison facilities out of state—a practice that continues on about the same order of magnitude. Second, since the implementation of realignment, the state has also incarcerated an additional 3,900 inmates in public and private facilities in the state. California has also opened up a new state prison health care facility in Stockton with a capacity of almost 3,000 inmates. Third, since realignment shifted responsibilities of many lower-level felons and parole violator to the counties, the county jail population has increased by about 11,500, as of June 2014 (the numbers may have come down some since then because of Proposition 47). In sum, roughly one half of the reduction of the institutional prison population since its 2006 peak was achieved by increasing capacity and simply shifting inmates to other facilities.

California has indeed seen a significant decrease in the reliance on incarceration over the last decade through policies like SB 678 and realignment, as well as initiatives like 2012 Proposition 36 (which revised California’s “Three Strikes” law) and Proposition 47. Our total incarceration rate has dropped from about 702 per 100,000 residents in 2006 to about 568. Unfortunately this is not reflected in the state’s expenditures. In fact, spending on corrections is now at a historic high. A look at corrections spending going back to the 1970s shows a long-term increase. In the current budget year, the state is spending more than $12 billion on corrections. In other words, meeting the federally mandated target does not mean that California has solved its incarceration problem.

Research shows that incarceration at current levels is not a cost-effective way to prevent crime. Clearly we need to refine our crime prevention strategy and look more closely for effective alternative approaches to manage public safety.