Proposition 47, passed by voters in November 2014, has generated considerable debate. By reducing penalties for some lower-level drug and property offenses, Prop 47 marked another significant step toward reducing California’s reliance on incarceration. Supporters of the reform believe that redirecting money that is no longer being spent on incarceration to behavioral health and other treatment programs would reduce recidivism. Opponents feared that Prop 47 would overburden local law enforcement and lead to increases in crime.
A panel discussion in Sacramento last Thursday encapsulated this debate—but also featured significant areas of agreement. PPIC researcher Mia Bird set the scene by outlining a new report, The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism. The report finds no evidence that Prop 47 has affected violent crime rates but sees signs that it led to a rise in property crime—driven largely by thefts from motor vehicles. The report also finds a decline in recidivism, driven largely by a drop in rearrest and reconviction rates for offenders covered by Prop 47.
Bird pointed out that “Prop 47 likely sent a signal to law enforcement to reprioritize their resources away from arrests for drug possession toward more serious offenses.”
Fresno police chief Jerry Dyer underlined this point. “Whenever you have laws that take away your ability to arrest certain individuals for a felony, and you know there’s no room in the jail for misdemeanants, you shift your resources [toward] violent criminals.”
For George Gascón, San Francisco’s district attorney, “Prop 47 is a mild beginning of a process where we go back and see where we want to put public resources.” He pointed out that the negative impact of high rates of incarceration has been felt primarily in communities of color, and added that recent crime fluctuations need to be placed in the context of historically low crime rates over the past several years.
For Dyer, reclassifying some drug and property crimes as misdemeanors means that there are “no consequences for individuals who are committing crimes.” Dyer also noted that when Prop 47 passed, local law enforcement was still adjusting to the realignment of corrections responsibilities that was enacted three years earlier. The pace of reform has felt like “trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.”
While the panelists had differing views on the state’s shift away from incarceration, they agreed on the importance of treatment programs for mental health and substance abuse disorders. Gascón noted that with funding from Prop 47, “communities are beginning to experiment with different ways of treating the drug addiction and mental health issues that drive many crimes.” Dyer agreed, noting that “jail is no place for people with mental health issues.”
Kate Howard, executive director of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), explained how the BSCC developed a process for allocating 65% of the money saved by reductions in incarceration to local programs. The BSCC sought input from across the state, and the grant steering committee includes several ex-offenders, whose experience with the corrections system was “instrumental.” The first 23 grants were awarded in June 2017. While it is too early to measure their impact, Howard said there is “great reason for optimism.”
The measure required that the first transfer of savings occur by August 2016. This first transfer totaled more than $67 million and went to the three agencies tasked with distributing the grants (Table 1). The first grants were awarded this month. It’s estimated that nearly $46 million in savings will be transferred for fiscal year 2017–18. By 2019–20, long-term savings will be $75 million annually.
In 2014, Proposition 47 reclassified several property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. These offenses are also committed by a greater share of women than men. As with realignment, Proposition 47 had a greater impact on women than men, and women appear to have more greatly benefited. One year after the proposition passed, the percentage of women in custody for Proposition 47 offenses dropped from 32% to 16%. The percentage of men in custody for Proposition 47 offenses dropped from 22% to 12%. In other words, a greater proportion of Proposition 47 offenders were women, and the share of women in jail dropped by a greater percentage after the proposition. The racial and ethnic composition of female offenders did not change across the reforms.
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 a number of policies have contributed to this decline, it is largely attributable to two recent major reforms: the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act, or AB 109, which shifted responsibility for many non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders to county jail and probation systems; and Proposition 47, which reclassified some drug and property felonies as misdemeanors. Since January 2015, two months after voters approved Prop 47, the prison population has remained below the court-mandated target. That is good news for the state. However, the institutional population is only about 1.1 percent, or 900 inmates, below the target. Given this slim margin—and given the fact that the state still needs to show that it is providing adequate health care—the pressure is still on.
Voters may well be inclined to see reductions in spending on prisons, and with good reason. California’s corrections budget continues to grow, with the governor requesting $10.6 billion from the General Fund for 2016–17—a historic high. This amount does not include more than $1 billion annually that the state transfers to counties to implement realignment. For 2016–17, the state is projecting the cost of the prison system to be almost $70,000 per prisoner. A significant reduction in the prison population could finally allow the state to stop the use of out-of-state contract beds and possibly close a state prison. These actions could potentially lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings. Without further reductions in the prison population, it will be difficult for the state to stop using contract beds and remain below the court-ordered population cap. 
Proposition 47 helped bring down the prison population by about 8,000 inmates, below the mandated target of 137.5 percent of design capacity (the number of inmates that facilities were designed to house). The target was set by a federal court in 2009 in the wake of lawsuits over prison conditions; at the time, it meant a reduction of almost 40,000 prisoners. The prison population has remained below the target since January 2015. This is a key requirement for the state to regain control of prison health care, which is currently overseen by a court-appointed receiver. The total prison population has dropped by slightly more than 45,000 inmates since it peaked in 2006. 
As we noted above, reports of increased crime in a number of cities and counties in 2015 have fueled concerns about the impact of these population reductions. Between January and August, violent crime in Sacramento was up by 24 percent compared to the same months in 2014. In Riverside County, violent crime was up almost 11 percent in the first six months of 2015. In the City of Los Angeles, it was up almost 21 percent in the same time period. 
As of August 2015, the total prison population had dropped by almost 45,000 inmates from its 2006 peak. The majority (about 55%) of the decline was a result of realignment, which was implemented in October 2011 in response to a court order to improve prison conditions by reducing overcrowding. However, it took the passage of Proposition 47 last November—which reclassified a number of felony drug and property offenses as misdemeanors—and building and renting additional prison beds to reach the court-ordered population target of 137.5 percent of design capacity. The prison population has declined by almost 7,700 since November and has remained below the mandated target since January 2015. This is a key requirement for the state to regain control over prison health care—currently, a court-appointed receiver oversees health care in the system.
Although we can see that prison population numbers have dropped in each of the nine months since Proposition 47 passed, we need to be more cautious about the measure’s impact on jail population numbers because we only have jail data for the first two months. Also, counties have been working to implement and refine new jail policies and procedures, and these may be having an impact on jail populations. For instance, data through March 2015 for Los Angeles County show that the jail population dipped below 16,000 inmates in December (down from more than 18,000 in October), but rose above 17,000 in January and stayed above 17,000 through March. This increase is related to the sheriff requiring that inmates serve a larger percentage of their sentences before release. We may see similar developments in other counties. Nonetheless, even in Los Angeles there was a noticeable drop in the jail population compared to months before passage of Proposition 47. 
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.
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.