The Consequences of Proposition 47 on Public Safety in California
This study analyzes crime data and law enforcement perspectives to assess the effectiveness and unintended consequences of Proposition 47 in the State of California.
The Consequences of Proposition 47 on Public Safety in California
Sheriff (Ret) Currie Myers, PhD, MBA
Professional in Residence, Criminology Department - Benedictine College and retired Sheriff of Johnson County, Kansas
Published Substack Publications at drcurriemyers.substack.com
September 23, 2024
Abstract
Proposition 47, passed by California voters in 2014, reclassified certain non-violent felonies as misdemeanors with the aim of reducing incarceration rates and redirecting savings to community programs. This paper examines the consequences of Proposition 47 on public safety, specifically focusing on property crime rates, drug-related offenses, homelessness, and recidivism in California generally and Riverside and Yolo County specifically. Using both quantitative and qualitative research methods, this study analyzes crime data and law enforcement perspectives to assess the effectiveness and unintended consequences of the proposition. The findings reveal significant increases in certain types of crime and challenges in addressing substance abuse, raising questions about the broader impact of Proposition 47 on public safety.
Keywords: Proposition 47, public safety, crime rates, recidivism, zero bail, focused deterrence, recidivism, mental illness, transient crime, California, Riverside County, Yolo County.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it addresses the ongoing debate surrounding Proposition 47 and its consequences for public safety. The findings will contribute to the broader discussion on criminal justice reform and provide insights for policymakers, law enforcement, and community leaders.
Problem Statement
While the intent of Proposition 47 was to promote rehabilitation and reduce incarceration, the effects on public safety have been concerning. This paper explores whether Proposition 47 has led to an increase in crime, particularly property crimes and drug-related offenses, and how these changes have affected the overall safety of California communities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of Proposition 47 on public safety in California by analyzing crime data and law enforcement perspectives. This research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the proposition has influenced crime rates and public safety, with a focus on identifying any unintended consequences.
Research Hypotheses or Questions
1. Has Proposition 47 led to an increase in property crime rates in California?
2. How has Proposition 47 affected drug-related offenses and substance abuse treatment?
3. What impact has Proposition 47 had on the homeless population and recidivism rates?
4. How do law enforcement officers perceive the effectiveness of Proposition 47?
5. How did Proposition 47 impact law enforcement services and law enforcement officers in particular?
Methodology
Research Design
This study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of crime data with qualitative insights from law enforcement officers to include personal interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions. This approach allows for a comprehensive evaluation of Proposition 47's impact on public safety. The research based approached to the consequences of Proposition 47 utilized nine divisions within the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office. Additional interviews data and interviews were with the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.
Participants/Subjects
The quantitative analysis focused on crime data from various counties in California, including Riverside County, where the effects of Proposition 47 have been particularly pronounced. The qualitative component involves interviews with law enforcement officers from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.
Data Collection
Crime data was collected from publicly available sources, including the California Department of Justice, local law enforcement agencies and specifically, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office. The research had limited Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. Since 2019, the reliability of FBI criminal statistical data has significantly declined due to a substantial reduction in the number of law enforcement agencies reporting their crime statistics. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, which serves as the primary source for nationwide crime data, has become increasingly spurious, largely due to a notable decrease in participation by local and state law enforcement agencies, in some cases 20-35% depending during this time period. In 2023, The Marshall Project cited in their research that more than 6,000 law enforcement agencies were missing from the FBI’s national crime data last year, representing nearly one-third of the nation’s 18,000 police agencies. This means a quarter of the U.S. population wasn't represented in the federal crime data last year.
Reporting to the California Department of Justice (CDOJ)
According to the CDOJ the following agencies were unable to report the full year of data due to a variety of reasons including but not limited to: Records Management System (RMS) issues, unresolved reporting errors, staffing issues, cyberattacks, or failing to report. This means that over 31% of the 58 counties in California is partial data and not a full report.
Del Norte County: Del Norte County Sheriff’s Department
Imperial County: Brawley Police Department, Calipatria Police Department, Imperial Police Department, Westmorland Police Department
Kern County: Arvin Police Department
Lake County: Lakeport Police Department
Los Angeles County: Montebello Police Department
Mendocino County: Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department, Willits Police Department
Orange County: Costa Mesa Police Department, Garden Grove Police Department, Orange Police Department, Westminster Police Department
Riverside County: Cathedral City Police Department
San Bernardino County: Chaffey College Police Department, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
San Joaquin County: Lodi Police Department
Santa Barbara County: Lompoc Police Department
Santa Clara County: Morgan Hill Police Department, San Jose Police Department
Santa Cruz County: Santa Cruz Police Department
Shasta County: Redding Police Department, Shasta County Sheriff’s Department
Siskiyou County: Yreka Police Department
Solano County: Solano County Sheriff’s Department
Yolo County: West Sacramento Police Department
Yuba County: Yuba County Sheriff’s Department
As a result of spurious national data, qualitative data was gathered through structured interviews and surveys with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, focusing on their experiences and perceptions of Proposition 47's impact.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analyzed using statistical methods to identify trends in crime rates before and after the implementation of Proposition 47. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and insights from the interviews.
Ethical Considerations
All participants in the qualitative component were provided informed consent, and their anonymity will be maintained. There were some participants that approved of the use of their names and videos because of the study. This study was completed self-funded. There were no funds from any political organization, policy institute or government grants used for this study. There was no direction and/or orders by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office or the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office to guide and alter this study.
Appreciation
Special thanks to Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County and District Attorney Jeff Reisig and their collected staffs in allowing me unfettered observations, interviews, data collection, and focused groups for this study.
Introduction
Proposition 47, also known as the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act," was passed by California voters in November 2014. The proposition sought to reduce the state's prison population by reclassifying certain non-violent offenses, including drug possession and petty theft, from felonies to misdemeanors. Advocates argued that this would reduce the burden on the state's correctional system, while opponents warned of potential increases in crime and public safety concerns.
Literature Review
Previous studies have shown mixed results regarding the impact of Proposition 47. While some research indicates a reduction in incarceration rates, others highlight increases in certain types of crime, particularly property crimes and drug offenses. This study will examine the existing research on Proposition 47, focusing on crime statistics, law enforcement perspectives, and the broader implications for public safety. Proposition 47 now has ten years of application so there is in-depth data and information that can now be used to extrapolate program success and failures.
Intended Effects and Public Vote
Proposition 47 aimed to reclassify specific nonviolent felonies as misdemeanors, including drug possession, petty theft, shoplifting, forgery, and receiving stolen property, provided the value involved did not exceed $950. The reclassification was expected to reduce the state's prison population significantly and generate savings estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These savings were to be redirected to programs for mental health, substance abuse treatment, victim services, and K-12 education.
Proposition 47 reclassified six nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including possession of nearly all types of illegal drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and date rape drugs. Also on the list is check forgery, writing bad checks, receiving stolen property, shoplifting and grand theft, all if the loss is less than $950. It should be noted that most handguns are worth less than $950, so most of the stolen handguns would become a misdemeanor.
Proposition 47 was also supposed to transfer the savings of incarceration, estimated at $150 million to $250 million a year, to three areas: 65% to mental health and drug abuse programs, 25% to the safe schools' fund, and 10% to the state victim's compensation fund.
The proposition was placed on the ballot in the November 2014 election and passed with 59% of the vote. The public's support reflected a growing consensus on the need for criminal justice reform and a shift towards more rehabilitative approaches to nonviolent offenses.
Proposition 47 went into effect immediately after its passage in November 2014. The implementation involved re-sentencing individuals currently serving sentences for offenses reclassified under the proposition and changing the classification of future offenses. Many of these reclassifications were from pervious felony charges down to misdemeanor charges. A key benchmark of the proposition was the anticipated reduction in the state's prison population, with early estimates suggesting a decrease of up to 10,000 inmates.
Another significant benchmark was the reallocation of savings to community programs. The proposition mandated that savings from reduced incarceration costs be directed towards the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. This fund was intended to support mental health and substance abuse treatment programs, K-12 public school programs aimed at reducing truancy and supporting at-risk students, and victim services.
Pro Proposition 47 from Public Figures in 2014
Governor Jerry Brown (D), Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) were vocal supporters of Proposition 47. Brown and Newsom emphasized the need for criminal justice reform to alleviate the financial burden on the state's prison system and to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. In numerous statements, Newsom highlighted the potential for redirected funds to enhance community safety through education, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment.
"Proposition 47 is about common sense. We should not be wasting hundreds of millions of dollars locking people up for low-level, nonviolent crimes. This initiative allows us to focus on real threats to public safety while investing in prevention and rehabilitation programs that work." Gavin Newsom - Source: Ballotpedia
Attorney General Harris, known for her progressive stance on criminal justice, also supported the proposition. She argued that reducing the penalties for certain nonviolent crimes would allow law enforcement to concentrate on more serious offenses. Harris underscored the importance of second chances and the role of the justice system in facilitating rehabilitation rather than perpetuating cycles of incarceration.
"This proposition is an important step forward in reforming our criminal justice system. By reducing certain nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, we can help end the cycle of incarceration and invest in rehabilitation and education programs that strengthen our communities." Kamala Harris - Source: Los Angeles Times
Dissenting Opinions on Proposition 47 from Public Figures in 2014
Despite the significant support, Proposition 47 faced opposition from various quarters, particularly among law enforcement officials and district attorneys. Then Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff was a notable critic, arguing that the proposition would lead to an increase in crime rates and strain local law enforcement resources. Sniff contended that the reclassification of certain felonies to misdemeanors would embolden criminals and undermine public safety efforts.
“Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act,” is misleading and is a collection of poor changes that will produce the opposite of what that title portends. Potentially letting up to 10,000 felons out of prison and decreasing penalties for crimes like theft, shoplifting, gun theft, possession of hard-core drugs. The penalties for serious crimes will be reduced and felons already in prison for their transgressions will be entitled to resentencing to already severely overcrowded county jails, or outright release. Proposition 47 also declares open season on retail businesses as well by reducing the penalty for commercial burglary to a straight misdemeanor and a welcome mat for those criminals who would cheat and steal.” Sheriff Stan Sniff - Source: The Desert Sun
Similarly, Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin expressed concerns about the proposition's impact on crime and recidivism rates.
“Reducing penalties for drug possession and petty theft could result in higher rates of these offenses, as the deterrent effect of harsher penalties would be diminished. Mike Hestrin - Source: ABC7 News
Results
Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
Even though there was a decrease in arrests over the ten-year period, an analysis of crime data reveals a marked and troubling increase in property theft and motor vehicle theft across California after the implementation of Proposition 47. This legislation, which reclassified several felony offenses as misdemeanors, appears to have significantly impacted crime trends. Notably, following the passage of Proposition 47, the rate of violent crime in the state began to shift upward, deviating from prior years of decline.
In addition to the rise in violent crime over the same time period, there has also been a sharp escalation in petty theft and shoplifting, with these offenses reaching concerning levels. The reclassification of such crimes as misdemeanors seems to have diminished the deterrent effect that harsher penalties typically impose. Offenders now face fewer legal consequences for actions that once carried heavier punishments, potentially emboldening more individuals to commit these crimes. The data suggests that Proposition 47 has unintentionally fostered a climate where the perception of risk for committing theft and other lower-level crimes has been significantly reduced.
Violent Crime
Pre-Proposition 47 (2010-2014)
Before Proposition 47 was enacted, California's violent crime rates had been on a general decline. According to data from the California Department of Justice (CDOJ), the violent crime rate dropped by approximately 14% between 2010 and 2014. In 2010, the violent crime rate was 422 per 100,000 residents, decreasing to 361 per 100,000 residents by 2014.
Post-Proposition 47 (2015-2023)
After the passage of Proposition 47, the trend in violent crime began to shift. Between 2015 and 2016, California saw a significant uptick in violent crime. The violent crime rate rose by 7.6% in 2015, reaching 388 per 100,000 residents. In 2016, the rate further increased to 397 per 100,000 residents, a 9.9% increase from the pre-Proposition 47 baseline in 2014.
By 2018, the violent crime rate had plateaued somewhat, hovering around 400 per 100,000 residents. However, from 2021 to 2023, the state experienced another surge in violent crime. The rate increased to 442 per 100,000 residents in 2020, and by 2023, it had reached 475per 100,000 residents. This represents a 28% increase in violent crime from 2014 levels.
(Please note data is not complete and is actually higher than displayed due to non-participation of some California agencies.)
The rise in violent crime has been attributed to several factors associated with Proposition 47, including the reduction in consequences for drug and property crimes, which has led to a broader sense of lawlessness. Additionally, the proposition's reclassification of crimes has led to fewer offenders being incarcerated, which has contributed to the increased criminal activity.
Violent Crimes in Riverside County raised significantly from 2014-2023, 2014 data shows 6,260, 2015-7,020, 2016-7,447, 2017-7,308, 2018-7,360, 2019-7,511, 2020-7,243, 2021-7,201, 2022-8,122 and 2023-8,128. This data accounts to a 23% increase in violent crime in Riverside County from 2014 to 2023.
General Property Crime
Pre-Proposition 47 (2010-2014)
Similar to violent crime, general property crime in California was on a downward trajectory prior to Proposition 47. The property crime rate declined by 11% between 2010 and 2014. In 2010, the rate was 2,741 per 100,000 residents, and by 2014, it had decreased to 2,443 per 100,000 residents.
Post-Proposition 47 (2015-2023)
Following the passage of Proposition 47, property crime rates spiked. In 2015, the property crime rate increased by 8.1% to 2,640 per 100,000 residents. This trend continued into 2016, with the rate rising to 2,717 per 100,000 residents.
By 2017, the property crime rate began to stabilize, largely due to increased law enforcement efforts and public pressure to address the crime wave. Nevertheless, the rates remained higher than pre-Proposition 47 levels, indicating a sustained impact of the proposition on property crime. By 2020, the property crime rate was 2,683 per 100,000 residents, which still represented a 10% increase compared to 2014.
One of the significant drivers of the increase in property crime has been the reclassification of theft-related offenses. Under Proposition 47, theft of property valued at less than $950 was reduced to a misdemeanor, which has led to a rise in repeat offenders who face minimal consequences for their actions. Law enforcement agencies have reported that the reduced penalties have made it more challenging to deter and prosecute property crime offenders, contributing to the overall increase in these offenses.
Retail Theft and Shoplifting
Pre-Proposition 47 (2010-2014)
Before the implementation of Proposition 47, retail theft and shoplifting were generally stable, with minor fluctuations year over year. While comprehensive statewide data specific to retail theft alone is limited, the overall property crime trends provide some context. During this period, retailers reported manageable levels of shoplifting incidents, with law enforcement agencies able to prosecute many cases as felonies, particularly for repeat offenders.
Post-Proposition 47 (2015-2023)
The most significant impact of Proposition 47 has been on retail theft and shoplifting. The reclassification of thefts under $950 as misdemeanors has led to a dramatic increase in these crimes. Retailers across the state have reported a surge in shoplifting incidents, with some major retailers even deciding to close locations in response to the increased losses.
According to a 2022 report from the California Retailers Association (CRA), retail theft in California has risen by approximately 25% since 2015. The CRA estimates that organized retail crime (ORC) alone costs California businesses around $1.6 billion annually, a significant portion of which is attributed to the changes brought about by Proposition 47.
Year-over-year data shows a consistent rise in retail theft and shoplifting incidents:
2015: 10% increase in reported shoplifting incidents
2016: 15% increase in shoplifting incidents
2017: 18% increase in shoplifting incidents
2018: 20% increase in shoplifting incidents
2019: 22% increase in shoplifting incidents
2020-2021: Retail theft levels remained high, exacerbated by the pandemic, with some estimates showing a slight decline in overall numbers but still significantly above pre-Proposition 47 levels.
2022-2023: Reports indicated that retail theft continued to rise, with some sources suggesting increases as high as 30% compared to 2014.
The impact has been particularly severe in urban areas, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, where the concentration of retail establishments has made them prime targets for organized retail crime. This has led to the closure of several retail stores, particularly in high-crime areas. For example, Walgreens closed at least 22 stores in San Francisco alone between 2016 and 2022, citing increased theft as a primary reason.
Because inflation changes the real value of currency, California, like all states, has had to periodically update the felony threshold so that it keeps up with inflation. The Alliance for Safety and Justice examined data on this issue on inflation and property crime thresholds. Their study cited that California’s first penal code, enacted in 1872, established as felonies all thefts valued at more than $50, or $1,270 in today’s dollars. In 1923, the Legislature raised that value to $200, or $3,572 today. Deflation during the Great Depression caused the real threshold to rise, but inflation during and after World War II eventually decreased the value again. The California Legislature raised the felony threshold to $400 in 1982 ($1,261 today), and left it there until 2011, when it raised it to $950 ($1,285). Each time the Legislature has adjusted the felony theft threshold, it has set it within a very narrow range, between $1,261 and $1,285 in today’s dollars. Amazingly, the Legislature has never set a felony threshold value lower than it is today. For 80% of California’s history, the felony threshold was higher than it is today once inflation is considered. The felony threshold reached its highest level in 1933 – $4,701 in real 2023 dollars – five times its current value.
Motor Vehicle Theft
Motor vehicle theft jump from 2014 to 2023 approximately 23%. According to the California Highway Patrol data approximately 51.7 percent of all vehicle thefts occurred in Southern California (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties). Of the vehicle thefts in Southern California, 59.8 percent occurred in Los Angeles County. Approximately 21.6 percent of all vehicle thefts occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area (Alameda, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties). Of the vehicle thefts in the San Francisco Bay Area, 53.8 percent occurred in Alameda County. Approximately 11.9 percent of all vehicle thefts occurred in the Central Valley (Kern, Fresno, San Joaquin, Tulare, Stanislaus, Merced, Kings, and Madera Counties). Of the vehicle thefts in the Central Valley, 36 percent occurred in Kern County.
Monetary Projections and Allocation Findings
When Proposition 47 passed in 2014, it was projected to save the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually by reducing incarceration costs. These savings were to be directed into the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, with the following allocation:
65% to the Board of State and Community Corrections for mental health and substance abuse treatment, particularly for individuals who would have been incarcerated.
25% to the Department of Education to fund K-12 truancy prevention and dropout prevention programs.
10% to trauma recovery services for victims of crime.
Year-by-Year Funding Overview (2014-2023)
The actual funding allocated to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund has varied year by year:
2015: The fund started with a modest allocation as the effects of the reduced incarceration began.
2016: The fund saw an increase, with approximately $103 million allocated based on savings.
2017: The allocation increased to about $114 million as incarceration rates continued to decline.
2018: Funding plateaued around $109 million due to stabilization in the number of inmates.
2019-2021: Funding fluctuated between $110 million and $113 million, reflecting consistent but not growing savings.
2022-2023: Savings began to slightly decline, with funds dropping to around $105 million as crime rates and enforcement policies shifted.
Allocation Outcomes: Did the Money Achieve Its Goals?
Most of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund under Proposition 47 was directed to counties and cities with larger populations and higher needs for mental health, substance abuse treatment, and educational support. Urban areas such as Los Angeles County, San Francisco, and Alameda County received significant portions due to their size, higher crime rates, and greater need for community services. These funds were allocated based on specific needs assessments, with a focus on areas most affected by crime and poverty. This left the majority of California counties underfunded.
Despite initial optimism, many experts and stakeholders now view the reallocation of funds under Proposition 47 as falling short of its projected outcomes:
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs: Many of the individuals who were expected to benefit from these services remain untreated, contributing to continued issues with homelessness and drug-related crime. Initial reports show these programs received significant investments, but their impact has been uneven. Many programs struggled with scalability and lacked the resources to reach the entire population needing services. Studies indicated that homelessness and recidivism did not decrease as hoped; in fact, areas saw increases due to insufficient treatment infrastructure and rising drug abuse issues.
K-12 Truancy and Dropout Prevention: The impact on truancy and dropout rates has been less than anticipated, with many schools reporting that the funding did not sufficiently address the root causes of absenteeism. The California Department of Education used the funds to enhance school programs aimed at reducing truancy and supporting at-risk students. However, the effectiveness of these programs has been questioned. The expected improvement in school attendance and graduation rates has been minimal, and many schools report that the funds were insufficient to address deeper systemic issues like poverty and community violence.
Victim Services: The analysis of trauma recovery centers (TRCs) indicates that while they provide valuable services to underserved victims of violent crime, they are often limited in scope and tend to be localized to certain urban areas. According to reports, these centers, though impactful for the thousands of victims they assist, have not expanded comprehensively across the state. Their services remain largely confined to metropolitan regions, limiting access for those in rural or less populated areas (CA Victim Compensation Board)(ICJIA).
Despite these limitations, TRCs do offer a range of trauma-informed services, such as mental health treatment and legal advocacy, and they help improve the mental health and quality of life of crime survivors. However, the reach of these services is not widespread enough to address the needs of victims statewide, contributing to their overall inefficiency when examined from a broader perspective (CA Victim Compensation Board).
Recidivism Rates: The broader effects of Proposition 47, including the decriminalization of certain offenses, may have contributed to an increase in repeat offenses, complicating the effectiveness of this program. By reducing many property and drug crimes to misdemeanors, the measure has unintentionally encouraged repeat offenders to commit low-level crimes, knowing the consequences would be minimal. Proposition 47 changed the legal landscape by reclassifying some felonies as misdemeanors, making it harder to impose severe penalties on repeat offenders. Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig noted that misdemeanors in California rarely result in serious jail time, diminishing the deterrent effect. As a result, offenders may feel emboldened to commit more crimes without fearing significant consequences (Public Policy Institute of California)(KQED). Recidivism has been a particular point of contention. A study conducted after Proposition 47's implementation showed a decrease in arrests for certain crimes like shoplifting and drug possession, but this is also due to fewer crimes being reported, especially by retailers reluctant to engage with non-violent offenders. Meanwhile, the broader reduction in incarceration rates and the rise in property crimes, such as catalytic converter thefts, have fueled arguments that Prop 47 may have created a permissive environment for habitual offenders (
Public Policy Institute of California)(KQED). In the end, the complexities of reduced penalties, lower arrest rates, and fewer jail sentences have influenced a shift in offender behavior.
The Rise in Homelessness and Consequences
In 2023, California bore a significant burden of homelessness in the United States, accounting for 34% of all individuals experiencing homelessness. The crisis was particularly acute in major cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose, and Oakland, where over 70% of the homeless populations remained unsheltered. The challenges faced by these cities underscore the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to address homelessness and provide support to vulnerable populations.
According to the State of California’s Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, in 2023, (the most recent full year of data), that Continuum of Care Services (CoCs) across California provided housing and services to 338,055 people experiencing homelessness. In 2017 there were 180,623 seeking care. This represents an 87.6% increase from 2017 to 2024. In Riverside County 12,242 people were provided housing and services for the homeless which is a significant increase from 2017 when 6,605 people were provided housing and services for homelessness. This represents an 85.3% increase from 2017 to 2024.
*Video from Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Emergency Operations Division - Aviation Unit investigating homeless encampments along a riverbed NE of Hemet.
In a 2023 study called “The Periodic Assessment of Trajectories of Housing, Homelessness, and Health Study (PATHS),” the USC Homelessness Policy Research Institute (HPRI) revealed high levels of discrimination and violence against persons experiencing homelessness, especially that unsheltered outdoors. Psychological distress, substance use, and physical health conditions increase vulnerability. The study also found that strategies to counter stigma and provide trauma-informed services were frequently underfunded or scarce relative to the level of need. Included in the study’s key findings were:
· Physical violence was found to be statistically associated with being sheltered, unsheltered outdoors, physical health conditions, and psychological distress.
· Sexual violence was found to be statistically associated with non-male gender and being unsheltered outdoors.
In a 2022 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research study, which cited research from multiple surveys across several states, showed 43% to 88% of the homeless population struggled with drug abuse.
Important Notation One: The Issue of Unreported Crime and Low Clearance Rates
Proposition 47 has contributed to an increase in unreported crime, particularly for lower-level offenses. As penalties for crimes like petty theft, drug possession, and vandalism were reduced, the perceived consequences for offenders diminished. Over time, victims and community members may feel reporting such crimes is futile, leading to underreporting. This phenomenon erodes trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, as people begin to believe that their concerns are not taken seriously or that reporting will not lead to meaningful action, exacerbating issues of public safety and community well-being.
Proposition 47 has led to a significant rise in unreported crimes, particularly for misdemeanors like petty theft and drug possession. With the reduction in penalties, many victims feel that reporting these crimes is futile, as the offenders face minimal consequences. Studies have shown that this sentiment is growing, with an estimated 20-30% decrease in reported property crimes in some areas since Proposition 47's implementation. As a result, law enforcement data may underrepresent actual crime rates, complicating efforts to assess and address public safety concerns accurately.
The study showing that Proposition 47 led to an increase in crime and other negative outcomes can be referenced through several sources. A notable one is from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which found that crime rates, especially property crimes like theft and shoplifting, have increased since the implementation of Prop 47. This aligns with reports from other institutions, such as the Pacific Research Institute, which highlighted that property crime in California increased by 6.2% in 2022 alone. This increase is believed to be underreported due to various factors, such as businesses being reluctant to report crimes.
Providing exact percentages for unreported crime is challenging because, by definition, these crimes are not officially recorded. However, researchers use various methods to estimate the extent of unreported crime, such as victimization surveys. Here are some general estimates and statistics related to unreported crime:
1. According to a report based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in recent years, around 47% of violent crimes and 35% of property crimes were reported to police on average. This data, collected from surveys of U.S. households, provides insight into the underreporting of crimes. While the reporting rates for violent crimes have ranged between 40-51%, property crimes have consistently seen lower reporting rates, typically between 32-40% (Bureau of Justice Statistics)(Pew Research Center).
These national statistics indicate that a significant portion of crimes goes unreported, often due to victims choosing alternative ways to address the situation or believing that reporting will not lead to a resolution. This context can help further your understanding of crime reporting in the U.S.
2. For specific types of crimes:
Sexual assault: It's estimated that 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police (RAINN).
Domestic violence: Approximately 70% of cases go unreported (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence).
Burglary: About 50% of burglaries go unreported. (FBI Uniform Crime Reporting).
National Clearance Rates for Crimes Committed: The percentages of violent and property crimes cleared by arrest or exceptional means for violent crimes, the individual offenses and their respective clearance percentages are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 52.3 percent; rape (revised definition), 26.1 percent; robbery, 23.2 percent; and aggravated assault, 41.4 percent. Of property crimes, the individual offenses and their respective clearance percentages are burglary, 13 percent; larceny-theft, 12.4 percent; and motor vehicle theft, 9.3 percent.
3. For cybercrime, it's estimated that as much as 90% goes unreported (Cybersecurity Ventures).
The prevailing notion that crime rates in California are decreasing might not reflect the reality of public safety. Two key factors may explain this seeming contradiction. First, crime reporting apathy has led to a significant underreporting of crimes, as individuals lose faith in law enforcement’s ability or willingness to address minor offenses. Second, the decriminalization of certain offenses like drug possession and property crimes, following legislation such as Proposition 47, has shifted the classification of these crimes, making them less visible in traditional crime statistics. Together, these factors suggest that the decline in reported crime may be misleading.
Crime Reporting Apathy: This occurs when victims or the public no longer report crimes because they feel it's futile—either due to a lack of law enforcement response or because they believe minor crimes won't be taken seriously. Apathy can also arise from the perception that crime is normalized, reducing formal reporting.
Decriminalization of Drugs and Property Crimes: Legislative changes, such as Proposition 47, have reclassified many drug and property offenses, making them misdemeanors. As a result, these crimes may not be captured in arrest data, artificially deflating crime statistics.
The data in the below chart provided by the California Department of Justice reveals a troubling trend: while arrest rates have been steadily declining over the past decade, this reduction does not reflect a decrease in actual crime. Instead, it underscores a growing issue of crime reporting apathy and the impact of decriminalization policies. Many crimes are either underreported due to public mistrust or fatigue, or they no longer result in arrests because of shifts in public policy that reclassify certain offenses, such as drug possession and property crimes, as non-arrestable or minor infractions.
This discrepancy between arrest data and rising crime rates illustrates a significant gap. On one hand, arrests appear to be falling, suggesting an improved safety landscape, but on the other hand, crime statistics show that criminal activity, particularly in areas like property crime and drug-related offenses, continues to rise. This contradiction points to the fact that the lower arrest rates are not a reflection of an actual decrease in crime but are instead a result of reduced enforcement, legal reclassifications, and societal attitudes toward reporting crime. Consequently, the state's public safety apparatus is not fully capturing the extent of criminal behavior, leading to skewed data that paints an incomplete and misleading picture of California’s crime landscape over the last ten years.
This data illustrates that a lack of focused deterrence on lower-level crimes, such as property crime, can lead to an increase in higher-level crimes, like violent offenses. For example, from 2014 to 2023, violent crime rose by 23%, while arrests for violent crime dropped by 9%, property crime by 38% and drug crime by an incredible 86%. Additionally, the data shows that 63.8% of violent offenders nationwide reoffend after being released from prison. California recidivism rates need a significant study completed but a look into a specific county (Yolo) indicates that recidivism rates average between 75-78% which is 10-15% above the national average.
These figures can vary significantly depending on the type of crime, geographical location, and the specific study or survey methodology used. It's important to note that these are estimates and the actual percentages may differ. Additionally, reporting rates can change over time due to various factors such as increased awareness, changes in law enforcement practices, or shifts in societal attitudes. But the law of probability would suggest that California would reflect the national standards on unreported crime that is demonstrated above.
Important Notation Two: The Consequences of the Ferguson Effect
The Ferguson Effect refers to the hypothesis that increased scrutiny of law enforcement following high-profile incidents of police violence—such as the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri—leads to a reduction in proactive policing. The theory suggests that officers become more reluctant to engage in policing activities due to fear of public backlash, legal consequences, or negative media attention. This phenomenon is often linked to a rise in crime rates, as a perceived decrease in police presence and enforcement emboldens criminal activity.
The effects of the Ferguson Effect have been particularly pronounced in California, where it has coincided with the implementation of Proposition 47. In the context of the Ferguson Effect, the combination of heightened scrutiny of law enforcement and the reduced consequences for certain crimes under Proposition 47 has created a challenging environment for California law enforcement. Officers, already wary of engaging in proactive policing due to potential backlash, face additional hurdles as criminals may perceive a lower risk of serious legal repercussions.
Key Consequences:
1. Increased Crime Rates: California has seen an uptick in violent crimes, property crimes and drug offenses, which some attribute to the reduced penalties under Proposition 47 and the reluctance of police to engage proactively due to the Ferguson Effect.
2. Decreased Officer Morale: The dual pressures of public scrutiny and the perceived futility of enforcing laws with reduced penalties have contributed to a decline in officer morale. This can lead to a further reduction in proactive policing, creating a feedback loop that exacerbates crime rates.
3. Strain on Community Relations: The Ferguson Effect, coupled with the consequences of Proposition 47, has strained relations between law enforcement and communities. The perception of law enforcement as either overly aggressive or disengaged contributes to a lack of trust, making effective policing even more difficult.
Overall, the convergence of the Ferguson Effect and Proposition 47 in California has created a complex and challenging environment for law enforcement, leading to increased crime rates, decreased officer morale, and strained community relations.
Consequences of Zero Bail
In a seminal report and perspective done by the Yolo County District Attorney, Jeff Reisig, the use of Zero Bail was studied. The Zero Bail question raised in California started when the spread and transmission of Covid-19 amongst prisoners and jail staff started to occur. As a result, a statewide “Emergency Bail Policy” was enacted on April 6, 2020, by the California Judicial Council. The Emergency Bail Policy set bail at $0 (zero dollars) for most misdemeanors and non-violent felonies, with exceptions specifically listed. As a result, most people arrested for qualifying crimes were immediately released from jail after booking without conditions and without further inquiry by the courts. The Emergency Bail Policy was to be in effect for 90 days after the Governor declared the state of emergency lifted. On June 20, 2020, California’s Judicial Council ended the statewide Emergency Bail Schedule, however, individual counties were allowed to make their own decision about keeping similar measures in place. This resulted in many counties in California opting to continue zero bail policies practices because it mirrored a national progressive strategy to have zero bail opportunities.
Bail is a financial or other form of security that an individual who has been arrested or charged with a crime can provide to the court. This allows them to be released from jail or remain out of custody while their criminal case is pending or until the court issues further orders. The presumptive amounts for bail related to specific offenses and enhancements are typically outlined in an annual uniform bail schedule established by the superior court in each county. After an arrest, but before the first court appearance, the arrested individual may have the option to post bail as specified in the bail schedule to secure their release. During the first court appearance, the judge may take several actions regarding bail, including: 1) increasing, decreasing, modifying, or denying it; 2) granting release on the defendant’s own recognizance (OR release) with or without conditions; or 3) releasing the defendant under supervision. Decisions about bail amounts and release are generally influenced by factors such as: 1) the severity of the charges; 2) the defendant’s criminal history; 3) the likelihood that the defendant will appear in court if released; 4) the safety of the victim or their family; 5) public safety; and 6) the defendant’s financial capability.
The original study from Yolo County looked at random samples of people who were released during emergency zero bail compared to a random sample of people who were arrested for similar charges between January 2018 and December 2019 and posted bail for their release. The study examined recidivism in each group for 18 months after their release. A potential factor that may have affected recidivism was later realized in that of the group that posted bail, those that were released after October 06, 2019, had their recidivism period overlap with the emergency zero bail period. As there was no way to determine whether the emergency zero bail influenced any of this sample regarding recidivism, the study was done again, this time with a random sample of people who posted bail for similar crimes and were released between August 01, 2016, and July 31, 2018. This earlier sample ensured that the recidivism period ended not only prior to the enactment of emergency zero bail, but also before the Covid 19 pandemic was a public concern.
The findings of the study were significant and explosive. Recidivism over both a 12 month and an 18-month period were examined for a random sample of 100 arrested individuals who posted bail between August 01, 2016, and July 31, 2018, compared to a random sample of 100 arrested individuals who were released on zero bail between April 19, 2020, and May 31, 2021. Offender demographics and original offenses were similar for the comparison groups considering random selection. Recidivism was counted if the individual was arrested anywhere within either 12 or 18 months, for at least one new crime, after being previously released. In this study, individuals released on zero bail were subsequently rearrested for a total of 169% more crimes than individuals released on bail. The average recidivism rate for those released on zero bail was 78% over 18 months, while the average recidivism rate for those released on bail was only 33% to 44%. Thus, arrested individuals released on zero bail reoffended at an average rate that was 77% to 136% higher than arrestees who posted bail.
Additional highlights/averages:
· More new felonies - Individuals released on zero bail committed new felonies 103% more often than those who posted bail.
· More new misdemeanors - Individuals released on zero bail committed new misdemeanors 130% more often than those who posted bail.
· More multiple arrests - Individuals released on zero bail were rearrested more than once in eighteen months 169% more often than those released on bail.
· More new violent offenses - Individuals released on zero bail committed new violent offenses 175% more often than those who posted bail.
Key findings of the Yolo County study include:
Individuals released on zero bail were subsequently rearrested for a total of 169% more crimes than individuals released on bail.
Arrested individuals released on zero bail reoffended at an average rate that was 70% higher than arrestees who posted bail.
The average recidivism rate for those released on zero bail was 71% over 12 months, while the average recidivism rate for those released on bail was only 29% to 37%.
The average recidivism rate for those released on zero bail was 78% over 18 months, while the average recidivism rate for those released on bail was only 33% to 44%.
Individuals released on zero bail committed new felonies 103% more often than those who posted bail.
Individuals released on zero bail committed new misdemeanors 130% more often than those who posted bail.
Individuals released on zero bail were rearrested for two or more new crimes 169% more often than those released on bail.
Individuals released on zero bail committed new violent offenses 175% more often than those who posted bail.
Interview with Jeff Reisig is the District Attorney of Yolo County, which is one of California’s fifty-eight counties, located in Northern California, between the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. Reisig has served as the county’s chief elected law enforcement official since 2007. In this media interview with DA Reisig, we discuss the consequences of Proposition 47 in depth.
Drug Crimes Pre-Proposition 47
Arrest Rates for Drug Offenses (2010-2014)
The reclassification of drug offenses under Proposition 47 had a marked impact on arrest rates across California. Data from the California Department of Justice (CDOJ) reveals a sharp decline in drug-related arrests following the proposition's enactment. Between 2010 and 2014, before Proposition 47, California averaged approximately 150,000 drug arrests annually. These arrests included charges for both possession and trafficking, with possession often accounting for the majority.
Prior to Proposition 47, the possession of most major drugs, including methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, was classified as a felony in California. These classifications allowed law enforcement to pursue harsher penalties, including significant jail or prison time, for those caught with illegal substances. The proposition's passage, however, downgraded the possession of these drugs to misdemeanors, significantly reducing the legal consequences for individuals found in possession of these substances.
Drug Crimes Post-Proposition 47
Arrest Rates for Drug Offenses (2015-2023)
After the implementation of Proposition 47, drug-related arrests saw a significant drop. By 2015, the first full year after the proposition's passage, drug arrests had fallen to around 85,000—a reduction of nearly 43% from the pre-Proposition 47 average. This trend continued in subsequent years, with drug arrests stabilizing at around 75,000 to 80,000 annually from 2016 to 2019.
The data from 2020 onwards shows further declines, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on law enforcement activities, with drug arrests dropping to approximately 60,000 annually by 2022. This represents a reduction of nearly 60% compared to the pre-Proposition 47 period.
Proposition 47 significantly altered the landscape of drug-related offenses in the state by reclassifying many nonviolent drug possession crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. This change, which included the possession of substances such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and even fentanyl, has had a profound impact on California's criminal justice system and society at large. The decision to decriminalize these offenses has led to a complex array of consequences that continue to shape public discourse and policy.
In California, under Proposition 47, the threshold for what constitutes a felony in drug cases was significantly altered. The proposition reclassified many drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. However, there isn't a specific "felony threshold" in terms of quantity for simple drug possession cases after Proposition 47; rather, the reclassification applies broadly to possession offenses.
Here were the new drug thresholds under Prop 47:
1. Simple Possession: For most controlled substances, possession is now a misdemeanor, regardless of the quantity, unless the person has certain prior convictions or other aggravating circumstances.
2. Possession for Sale: Possession with intent to sell remains a felony. The intent to sell can be inferred from circumstances such as the amount of drugs, packaging materials, scales, or large sums of money found with the drugs.
3. Other Exceptions: Certain aggravating factors can elevate a misdemeanor possession charge to a felony, such as the defendant's criminal history (e.g., prior serious or violent felonies) or if the possession occurred on school grounds or involved minors.
*Videos from Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Emergency Operations Division - Aviation Unit investigating illicit cannabis grows and abandoned drug labs that have succumbed to fire and explosions.
Other Consequences of Proposition 47
The cost in non-enforcement of drug cases also has consequences. The non-enforcement of drug cases and the resulting reduction in incarceration rates did lead to cost savings in the prison system. However, there may be other costs associated with this approach that affect various sectors of society. While it's challenging to provide precise estimates without specific data or studies, the Brennan Center for Justice) did research in seven areas where costs would be increased regarding the consequences of Proposition 47:
Healthcare Costs:
Increased Emergency Room Visits Due to Drug Overdoses: The reclassification of drug offenses under Proposition 47 has led to a rise in drug-related incidents, including overdoses. Emergency rooms have seen increased visits from individuals suffering from drug overdoses, putting additional strain on healthcare facilities and resources. A 2022 report indicated that California has experienced a significant rise in opioid overdoses, with emergency room visits reflecting this trend.
Long-Term Treatment for Addiction and Related Health Issues: The reduction in criminal penalties for drug possession under Proposition 47 has increased the demand for long-term addiction treatment services. This has placed a burden on public health systems, which often bear the cost of treating individuals who might otherwise have been incarcerated or mandated to receive treatment as part of a legal sentence.
Mental Health Services for Drug Users and Their Families: As drug addiction often co-occurs with mental health issues, the increased prevalence of drug use has led to a higher demand for mental health services. Families of drug users also require support services, including counseling and therapy, further straining the mental health system.
Social Services:
Child Welfare Services for Children of Drug Users: Proposition 47 has had an indirect impact on child welfare services. As more individuals struggle with addiction, the number of children entering the foster care system due to parental drug use has increased. This places additional strain on child welfare services, which are already underfunded and overextended.
Homeless Shelters and Support Services: The rise in drug use and addiction has contributed to an increase in homelessness. As more individuals become homeless due to addiction-related issues, the demand for shelters and support services has grown. Proposition 47 has been linked to a higher number of individuals with substance use disorders who are not receiving adequate treatment, thus exacerbating the homelessness crisis.
Rehabilitation and Job Training Programs: The shift in focus from incarceration to rehabilitation under Proposition 47 has led to increased demand for rehabilitation and job training programs. However, funding for these programs has not kept pace with the need, resulting in limited access to services that could help individuals reintegrate into society and the workforce.
Economic Costs:
Lost Productivity in the Workplace: Drug addiction, particularly when untreated, leads to lost productivity due to absenteeism, decreased work performance, and increased workplace accidents. Employers in California have reported higher rates of absenteeism and turnover as a result of the growing drug crisis, which can be partly attributed to the effects of Proposition 47.
Increased Absenteeism and Turnover: As more individuals struggle with addiction, absenteeism and employee turnover have risen. This trend negatively impacts businesses, particularly small businesses, which are more vulnerable to the effects of high employee turnover.
Potential Impact on Local Businesses in Areas with High Drug Use: Areas with high rates of drug use often experience a decline in local businesses, as customers and employees may avoid these areas due to safety concerns. Additionally, businesses may face higher costs related to security and insurance.
Family Costs:
Emotional and Psychological Toll on Family Members: Families of individuals struggling with addiction face significant emotional and psychological challenges. The stress of supporting an addicted family member can lead to mental health issues among other family members, including anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
Financial Strain Due to Supporting Addicted Family Members: The financial burden of supporting a family member with addiction can be substantial, especially when the addicted individual is unable to contribute financially. This can lead to long-term financial instability for the entire family.
Potential Increase in Domestic Violence Cases: Substance abuse is a known risk factor for domestic violence. As drug use has increased under Proposition 47, there is concern that domestic violence cases may also be on the rise, further straining social services and law enforcement.
Law Enforcement:
Costs Associated with Responding to Drug-Related Crimes: Although Proposition 47 aimed to reduce law enforcement costs by decreasing incarceration rates, the increased prevalence of drug-related issues has led to higher costs in other areas. Law enforcement agencies have reported increased expenditures related to responding to drug-related crimes and overdose incidents.
Resources Dedicated to Drug Prevention and Education Programs: To address the rise in drug use, law enforcement and community organizations have had to invest more in drug prevention and education programs. However, the funding for these programs is often insufficient, limiting their effectiveness.
Community Costs:
Decreased Property Values in Areas with High Drug Use: Areas with high levels of drug use often experience a decline in property values as these neighborhoods become less desirable due to increased crime and social issues.
Increased Crime Rates in Certain Neighborhoods: While Proposition 47 aimed to reduce crime by focusing on rehabilitation, some communities have seen an increase in certain types of crime, such as property crime and drug-related offenses, as a result of the reduced penalties.
Strain on Community Resources and Social Cohesion: The increase in drug use and its associated problems have placed a significant strain on community resources, including social services, law enforcement, and healthcare systems. This has led to a weakening of social cohesion in affected communities, as residents may feel less safe and less connected to their neighbors.
Education:
Increased Need for Drug Education and Prevention Programs in Schools: Schools have had to increase their focus on drug education and prevention programs to address the rise in drug use among students. However, these programs often lack sufficient funding and support, limiting their reach and effectiveness.
Potential Impact on Student Performance and Dropout Rates: Drug use can have a detrimental impact on student performance, leading to higher dropout rates and lower academic achievement. The increase in drug-related issues under Proposition 47 may contribute to these negative educational outcomes.
It's important to note that the exact costs and their distribution would vary depending on the specific policies implemented, the types of drugs involved, and the characteristics of the affected communities. Additionally, some argue that treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one could lead to better outcomes and potentially lower overall societal costs in the long run.
To get a more accurate picture of the costs and benefits of different drug policies, policymakers often rely on comprehensive cost-benefit analyses that take into account a wide range of factors. These analyses can help inform decision-making and policy development in this complex area.
A significant concern arising from the decriminalization of major drug offenses is the potential message it sends to society. Critics argue that by reducing the severity of penalties for drug possession, the law may inadvertently convey the impression that drug use is less harmful or socially acceptable. This perception could potentially lead to increased drug experimentation and use, particularly among young people who may view the legal consequences as less deterring.
Moreover, the reduced emphasis on prosecuting drug possession cases has raised concerns about public safety and quality of life in many communities. Some law enforcement officials and community leaders argue that the inability to pursue felony charges for drug possession has limited their ability to address drug-related crime effectively. They contend that the threat of felony charges often served as leverage to encourage individuals to seek treatment or provide information about drug suppliers, tools that are now less available to them.
The impact on drug treatment programs is another area of concern. While Proposition 47 aimed to redirect resources towards rehabilitation, some argue that the reduced legal consequences have led to fewer individuals seeking treatment. Without the threat of lengthy incarceration, some drug users may be less motivated to enter rehabilitation programs, potentially leading to increased rates of addiction and associated social problems.
What Auditors are Saying About Proposition 47
A new Report from the CA State Auditor (July 25, 2024) found that Prop 47 resulted in more prolific thieves stealing more often. The Auditor’s concluding recommendation to state lawmakers:
“[Enact] a proposal for approval by the voters that would amend Proposition 47, to allow more severe punishment for those convicted multiple times of theft, likely by identifying such offenses as potential felonies instead of automatically classifying them as misdemeanors.”
“The frequency of theft convictions at the three law enforcement agencies we reviewed (located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties) increased after the implementation of Proposition 47, particularly for those who reoffended with four or more convictions.”
In summary, under Proposition 47, simple possession of most controlled substances is treated as a misdemeanor, with more serious drug offenses, like possession for sale, remaining felonies. There isn’t a set quantity threshold that differentiates a misdemeanor from a felony under the current law; it’s more about the nature of the offense (simple possession vs. intent to sell) and the individual's prior criminal history. The audit confirms that repeat offenders are more likely to reoffend, and the Legislature should have increased penalties on those who repeatedly violate the law.
Qualitative Findings
Surveys, focused groups, and Interviews with law enforcement officers across nine division, specifically Coroners, Communications, Corrections, Emergency Operations, Major Crimes, Media Information, Patrol, Special Enforcement, and Special Investigations Bureaus indicate widespread concerns about the impact of Proposition 47 on public safety. Officers report challenges in prosecuting repeat offenders and a perceived increase in drug-related offenses, particularly among individuals experiencing homelessness.
Survey: The Impact of Proposition 47
A survey was used for everyone interviewed prior to the interview taking place. The questionnaire had ten questions related to Proposition 47.
1. Proposition 47 has led to an increase in property crimes within Riverside County. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
2. The reclassification of certain felonies to misdemeanors under Proposition 47 has made it more challenging to prosecute repeat offenders. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
3. Proposition 47 has contributed to an increase in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness in Riverside County. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
4. Since the implementation of Proposition 47, there has been a noticeable rise in drug-related offenses in Riverside County. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
5. The reduced penalties for drug possession under Proposition 47 have negatively impacted efforts to address substance abuse in Riverside County. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
6. Proposition 47 has resulted in fewer individuals being incarcerated for non-violent offenses in Riverside County. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
7. Law enforcement officers in Riverside County have encountered more difficulties in deterring petty thefts since the passage of Proposition 47. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
8. The financial savings from reduced incarceration rates due to Proposition 47 have been effectively used for rehabilitation programs in Riverside County. [True / False – Result 0%/100%]
9. There has been an increase in recidivism rates for misdemeanor offenses in Riverside County following the enactment of Proposition 47. [True / False – Result 100%/0%]
10. There has been an increase in recidivism rates for violent offenses in Riverside County following the enactment of Proposition 47. [True/False - Result 100%/0%]
Individual Interviews
Chad Bianco was elected Sheriff, Coroner, and Public Administrator of Riverside County in the November 6, 2018, general election. In June 2022, he was re-elected to his second term. He is a thirty-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office. As Sheriff, he serves as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Riverside County. In this media interview with Sheriff Bianco, we discuss the consequences of Proposition 47 in depth.
Interview of Lieutenant Deirdre Vickers, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Public Information Division
Interview One: Deputy Sheriff Pedro Vera, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Special Investigation Division, Riverside County Gang Unit Task Force.
Interview Two: Deputy Sheriff Pedro Vera, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Special Investigation Division, Riverside County Gang Unit Task Force.
Interview One: Sergeant George Reyes, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Patrol Division, Lake Matthews Station
Interview Two: Sergeant George Reyes, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Patrol Division, Lake Matthews Station
Interview One of Lieutenant Mike Walsh, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Special Enforcement Division, Emergency Services Team
Interview Two of Lieutenant Mike Walsh, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Special Enforcement Division, Emergency Services Team
Interview Three of Lieutenant Mike Walsh, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Special Enforcement Division, Emergency Services Team
Interview of Sergeant Mark Alanis, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Special Enforcement Division, Emergency Services Team
Interview One of Lieutenant Jason Santistevan, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Patrol Division, Lake Matthews Station
Interview Two of Lieutenant Jason Santistevan, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Patrol Division, Lake Matthews Station.
Interview of Sergeant Ruben Escobar, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office - Coroners Division
Focus Groups: The Impact of Proposition 47
Panel Discussion with Riverside County Sheriff – Corrections Bureau
Participants
Captain Bruce Phillips
Lieutenant Leslie Uriarte
Lieutenant Sean Crebar
Lieutenant Richard Aceves
Sergeant Chris Andrade
Corporal Eduardo Valenzuela
Dr. Currie Myers: I'm here at the Riverside County Sheriff's Office at their main correctional location located in Riverside, CA. Let’s talk a little about the improvements in corrections, and about support of inmates especially the need for mental health hospitals.
Response: Before 47 there were mandated programs, like they were sentenced to something, so there was some type of repercussion or mandate for them to attend this. Whether it was rehabilitation or community service or they going to work program that they didn't complete that and they came back into custody. So since the jails and the prisons are overcrowded it’s better use to make either rehabilitation centers or mental health centers to get them where they need to be so that they can complete those programs and the resources can go back out to the community and they can maybe even we have a lot of great programs in custody where they will learn some type of trade or things like that. If they're on drugs and they come into custody and are released right away within misdemeanors and there they need to show up to court. They don't always go to court most of the time, and there's no repercussion for that either. So, the cycle continues.
Dr. Myers: How did we get to this point where there are no repercussions?
Response: Because of AB109 we were already overcrowded and then they closed prisons due to the passage of Prop 47. When that happens, many of those released re-offended but the prison would not take them back so those that offended were now sentenced to jail. We literally have some inmates that have been in our jail serving time now for 10–15-year sentences due to the seriousness of their crimes. We are already overloaded anyways and now where are the resources for them to be able to stay? Because some people need that stable resource to either learn a trade or get off the drugs or, and if they're not being mandated to do it, they won't show up and do it and they'll continue the cycle. So. That's the big one right there. We got to be mandated to do something. You're just not going to do it. And so, if we don't catch it when you know, it's just these missing your crimes or these minor crimes, then at times, as you mentioned earlier, lead to the bigger crimes, right? And then now they're mandated to stay when really, they just probably needed somewhere off the streets for a while and learn these things before Prop 47. They were sentenced, we would see that they were sent to former or released them to a drug program and they were held accountable for, you know, at least showing up and finishing those programs which could help their role.
Dr. Myers: I would think or them to at least give them the right direction. It doesn't mean that they won’t return to custody, but it gives them a better chance. I think a lot of people don't realize that in especially synthetic drugs, you must go into a contingency management long term drug treatment because shorter 12 step programs don't work. Methamphetamine, any synthetics takes 18 to 24 months of constant treatment and care to be able to even get them where they're not being triggered anymore to on the addiction side, you know you go through something with cocaine or marijuana, something that's not synthetic. You could do a 12-step program that might take three to six months and successfully graduate, and I think people tend to put drug treatment in generalities and we need a more specific, targeting approach.
Response: What most people are using, whether it's fentanyl or cytosine or methamphetamine or synthetic heroin or whatever it may be. The whole purpose of Prop 47 was just to reduce the number of people in prison. And so, they let people out of prison. But what happened to the sheriff's offices? Many people came into the Sheriff's Office jails because they're going to say we're going to arrest people. And then you guys are in a position where you're overcrowded, and then you got to start putting people out who normally would be in jail. We're on the threshold, but they may have had 15 or 20 previous offenses that required them to be in jail in the, you know, back in the old days. So how do you deal with that? It's pushed down from the state. Ultimately, what comes out, comes back down to us at the jail level.
Dr. Myers: How do you handle that from a management point of view and how do you handle from a release? You must release people out, right Captain?
Response: So, is it something that judges determine, or do you have to determine? Division, we have a headcount management unit, previous work there, so help shed some more light. But every day we're mandated to keep our head count below what was the percentage was like 93% which was like 3767 jail population. We were over. We have the early release people with them basically signing for them to promise to appear at their court date. It's not like it just goes away. They would just have to promise to appear because we allowed people to let out because we get more and more people in right.
Dr. Myers: Was that an internal standard, state mandate or was that a federal mandate?
Response: Federal, due to litigation. There would also be early releases as filled as far as like their sentence would be reduced in some sort. Early on it would be certain percentages they would have to do before they get early release. Yeah, but nowadays, because of Prop 47 and maybe we're nine, it's what's the list of the worst. Basically, like how you put it is hoping, you know, they get out and don't do something worse. They go to court. But again, you see the same people repeatedly. They don't go to court, or they go to court and then they don't show up again. And they just, whether it's the same case, they're wrong or come on new cases, revolving door of everything.
Dr. Myers: What was AB 109?
Response: It was a state realignment, but it was essentially to reduce the population of state prison inmates. And so that compounded the problem with our housing. We only have a certain number of beds and now we're trying to get below that threshold of 93%. As you mentioned, from a correctional management position, prior to Prop 47 and AB109, people only do one year in county and that was it. If they did anymore if they did, they go to prison. But now we are seeing 5,10, 15 years in county and we don't obviously those types of people programs. Now, we must provide different programs since people are staying longer.
Dr. Myers: Sheriff Bianca last night on my radio show said he's yet there is a number of his inmates that are serving court ordered15 or 20-year sentences. County jails are just not designed for that type of inmate. Can we talk classification for a second? So just for the for the layman, can you explain your classification system and the things that you determine on your classification process,
Response: Classification coordinators start their work right after the booking process. They interview separately and we'll ask some serious questions that are criminal background, any special handles, any affiliations, we'll run them in our system to see if they've been booked before and you know any past crimes that we might have to take note in order to make the determination of where the greenhouse in the facility or in the county. And according to that, along with working with behavioral health and housing. So, the basic duties of what we assess are the liabilities of housing somebody in custody because taking their rights away essentially are huge liability factors. The classification process is to classify inmates as equally liable. And they're classified by gender. We'll start with gender. Males aren't going to be housed with females, right? Or vice versa. And it's really, yeah, it's for their safety. And then we look at their criminal history, we look at their sophistication, we look at their criminal background, at their gang affiliations. And at the end of the day, to bring it down to the most basic aspect, we don't want to house an 18-year-old who was involved in a fatal DUI. This arrested on a felony to be housed with a guy, a 45-year-old male that's twice his size that has 20 years of state experience. The liabilities of housing the 18-year-old which has zero experience in custody setting versus the 45-year-old which has 20 years of state experience. This guy could take advantage of him. He could be stealing from him, putting pressure on him to do things he doesn't want to do. So, we break down every single person that's booked into custody into those classifications to limit the liabilities and to make sure people are housed appropriately with somebody that isn't going to be taking advantage of somebody else.
Dr. Myers: With classification, classification should include medical health, mental health, and chemical dependencies. You guys all have outsourced your medical and mental health services, correct?
Response: Medical mental health is contracted through the county, their county employees. We have our nurses and clinicians that all work for the county. We do have some outsource providers for specialty inmates that are incompetent to stand trial, but that's a small population of 25 inmates.
Dr. Myers: When I was embedded with your gang unit last night, I noticed when your deputy arrested a known gang member that was publicly intoxicated that the detainee had to go to a nurse first for medical screening which I thought was awesome.
Response: When it first started, it was not popular with the officers at the time, so we may not have appreciated it like we do now. The county was sued regarding the lack of medical evaluations and one of the consent decrees was the used on medical health screening before booking. They are pre-screened vitals which is the quickest evaluation and assessment for medical history before they even come into the facility. If they don’t pass the pre-screening, then the arresting officer must take them to a hospital to be cleared medically. After the pre-screen they are then booked into the facility and then we take them back and finish the full medical screening. So, where it's a little more formalized, where they sit down and again, they assess them, they ask them additional questions to formalize that clearance. We'll finish the booking process including fingerprints, identification stuff, take their property, change their clothes to jail clothing and then put them into an interview booth where behavioral health will interview every inmate that's booked into custody that were housing and assess them for dangerous off danger. Then the detainee or inmate gets a rating and all that is the consideration when we're housing them because we have different levels throughout the facility. Understand you may have 5000 beds, but you can't just it just can't put 5000 people in 5000 beds. There's like you said, you can't put bad people in this area. You must account for what kind of crimes they've committed to assign them to the facility.
Dr. Myers: Let's talk about the perfect world. We know we can't accept everybody in the jail because we don't have enough room. But if we went back to the way things were prior to 2014 and the implementation of Prop 47, where we had more mandated by the judges to say you're going to go to mental health, you're going to go to drug treatment. Maybe you have a veteran's court, you know, different types of court, drug courts. Is that something worth implementing again if you could, or do you guys have something else in mind? Do you think that would work out better than what we're doing now?
Response: I think two things, one, if we went back to where we were pre 2014 and there were these crimes, drug crimes and would be again where people are coming to jail, they have to go to court and when they made their arraignment or their parents, they got mandated for drug or mental health court. I think that would be good. Or if there was a fashion of it where it was aggregate. Several multiple petty crimes or petty theft crimes came aggregate on top of each other and then you hit that threshold because yeah, you're right, we don't have the housing to house everybody that's arrested right now on a misdemeanor or on a petty theft. But if it was aggregate, they're showing a trend that they're doing this multiple times, then at whatever that threshold is decided they should come to jail and then have some type of consequence, whether it's going to prison, mental health court or some of the rehabilitation.
Dr. Myers: I've always considered that jails or law enforcement activities are like a spicket when people are being lawless, you're going to have to arrest more people and then people start behaving. You can kind of back off a little bit when people start following the law again. Even with your children, there are times when you must ratchet it down on discipline because they are getting out of control.
Response: I mean, if we're going to go back into it, we may have to arrest more people to get things back in check and for people to understand consequences for their action and take responsibility for your actions. They're released without consequences. If you set a $950 threshold, you know, and you can’t even do consecutive charges, then people are going to break the law. There's no consequence and they'll just continue to do it. And you see that from a young age. We're all human. So, if you don't hold your kids responsible at a young age or teach them wrong from right or they continue to get away with something, what happens when they're older until it becomes something bigger, you know? Prior to 2014 we had in house programs within our jails where you go to this, if you don't do it, you go to prison, right. No, some people will go from program to program, or some will not even show up at all or just walk away and there's no result. It's just a continuance of, you know, their behavior or lack thereof to try to, you know, do what they need to do to get their case to either go away on diversion or, you know, get. Put in to go to prison because they're not finishing what they were obligated to do. And although they're all adults, I mean, we've, we've worked in the pods and talked to the inmates and how proud of themselves they are when they finish their GED and customers that sometimes just the environment that they're in or what they've been doing continuously. They don't ever finish anything. And when they come into custody, like when they were sentenced to account a year because of whatever the drug charges for that and they're finishing their GED, they have a step to do something in the room or in the community. That assists them. So, when we did away with that, they're no longer sometimes bad because there are people who can't help themselves. They need that extra mandate and push from you know for that extra time, even adults. But it's also holding them responsible and then hitting them with what they need to succeed. But when you release now some right they go right back out there and do it again, and it another ticket which means another bench warrant for failure to appear. Most people arrested have 5,10, even 20 outstanding warrants.
Dr. Myers: There's been a lot of money spent on hotels to house people by the state. I mean, there is all types of spending money for homeless, transients, and illegal immigration. Part of Prop 47 was that there would be money for behavioral health due to the plan's savings. This is listed as an official outcome of the plan. Well, the money never came, there isn't any. So, if you ask anybody who is in mental health, they're not getting anything that was promised to them.
Response: Yes, things that were said in the marketing of Prop 47 that would be beneficial, I mean, basically they just wanted to get people out of prison and let them roam the streets. The official name of Prop 47 was “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act "and there is nothing about safe neighborhoods and schools in the act.
Dr. Myers: And that I used to say these were unintended consequences. I'm not sure if they're intended consequences now. It's just common sense. You know, to have those kinds of accountability. In my new book, "The Advent of Feral Man”, my theory is that the lack of faith, family information are the causal reasons for crime. You know, there are a lot of sociologists and criminologists who want to focus on race or poverty or things like that. I'm not saying those focuses can’t play some role in crime. But if you don't have formation, if you don't have discipline in your lives, all those kinds of things, you're going to 100% base everything on observational learning. If you don't have that structure and the surroundings you're going to be on a path to crime. As an example, last night with the gang unit. The deputy I was with came from poverty. His dad died when he was 14 years old, and his mom abandoned him. His grandmother took him in, and his grandmother had discipline. Holding him accountable, he couldn't go out whenever he wanted. She and him prayed the rosary every night, they went to mass every Sunday, and he had to be there for supper every night. There were things he was told he couldn't go do. And because of her sacrifice, he didn't, you know, he didn't do some of the things that he could very easily have done and ended up going into a life of crime. He's now a sheriff's deputy, has a family, a faith life and is giving back to the community. What a success story! From your perspective how important is formation, family and serving something better than yourself?
Response: I think that leads to a respect, a self-respect that people will carry with them to help them through life and make the right decisions. Yeah. We've seen this repeatedly; I think all of us have met an inmate that has had a brother in jail before as well as his father and other family members. I totally, I totally agree with you. When you're raised in that type of upbringing where you don't have the structure, and your uncle steals and drinks on Friday nights, hangs out at the gas station, and does dope, and they are up to no good. And your brother does the same thing. Your dad's in prison and all that. So, I do see if there was a structure or if we were able to provide that structure at some point, maybe not in jail or through some sort of social service as part of, as part of a rehabilitation track. I think that would benefit society more than just locking somebody up in jail for five years and then saying here's $200.00, good luck, and then they get released. The loneliness associated with that you know. Nothing to go to, nothing to go back to, you are just alone and on the streets.
Dr. Myers: Education used to play a major reform, helping to form kids and we don't allow that at all now. So, I mean, when I was in school, there were many people who maybe came from a broken home or had problems, but when you went to school you were given discipline, you were getting structured, and you had athletics or music that can help you focus. I’m a huge believer in athletics. Athletics changes a person for the better. You know that team spirit that it all fosters in things. But back when I was going to school you had discipline, you had structure. You were rewarded for good behavior. Public schools today don’t have discipline, don’t have structure and don’t educate. This is why homeschooling, Catholic and Christian schools, and private school populations are soaring, because they have discipline and structure.
Response: Yes, schools play a major role in the formation of kids. Everything that you said about the school system is true and it's been broken down. There's no discipline, you know, teams or anything like that. If people were being held accountable for their crimes much earlier on the younger, you know, and these crimes that might not be violent and they give them those opportunities and they give them some self-worth. Jails alone are not the answer. Jails, mandating mental health and drug treatment services must be part of the equation.
Dr. Myers: Wouldn't it be great if crime and punishment were different options, but still had a focus on deterrence. Not just jail but mental health courts, drugs courts, and Veteran’s courts that all offer real, mandatory treatment opportunities. I separate Veterans because it could be partnered with Veteran’s Administration health and wellness care. It’s about having tools in the toolbox, and I have made the argument for the longest time that America’s Sheriffs have the roadmap to follow and that is the classification system we currently use. Prosecutors and judges should use that information to determine bail, sentencing, and if the convicted person is a candidate for those other three options that aren't jail but mandatory. But here is a question out of left field question because you just mentioned trades. Is it possible in the future to have a fourth option and that is tradecraft preparation? So OK, we're not sending you to jail, but we do have a mandated trade school that is part of the option.
Response: Yes, we have people who do not know how to earn a living other than illegally. And when they learn something new, it's a chance to improve self-worth and for them to be prepared for when they do get released. There are a lot of inmates that I've seen and talked to that you know that end up getting their certificate in something, so why not a trade. Proud that they can do concrete work, you know, or they learned culinary skills or things like that I think that works yeah. I mean, we already have a GED option and in prison even associates degrees, so why not trades, that seems to make total sense. The problem is right now with Prop 47 they don’t get anything because they are not getting incarcerated first and then being able to obtain these options in the sentencing phase.
Dr. Myers: We're just we're forcing everybody into college, when in our hearts when we could have been developing certificates in tradecrafts, like welding or taking classwork to get a CDL, you know, and before they get multiple felonies where they don't pass the background. If someone gets a Class A CDL, eventually you could make $60,000 to120,000 a year.
Response: Yeah, and when you get them young and you're starting to mandate these things and you show them these opportunities and we use the money that way and not just to build a hotel so that they could, you know, just do drugs and steal some more. My nephew and my stepbrother both live on the streets and you know, they were involved in drugs and things like that. Without mandated options they don't want that structure, because they don't let them do the drugs. But if we have these areas that were saying that we're safe as far as like there is security because they would have, you know, health resources or, or it's like a jail, but it's, it's a mandated thing. And then it gives them the trades and resources they need. It's better than a shelter or a motel.
Dr. Myers: I could do this literally all day, it’s been great, and I want to thank you all for participating in this important roundtable discussion. Riverside is a is a unique county. One of the reasons I wanted to come here is with the 10th largest county you have incredible diversity, both in people and in land. I mean, you go from urban business all the way to desert, you know, I just can't fathom that you all could drive three hours east and you're still in your county. Captain, do you have anything else that you want to cover in your groups’ last comment?
Response: I think it’s to the California citizens and the way Prop 47 was marketed. Using the “Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act” as a title was disingenuous at best. So, the public needs to be well informed and aware of agendas that are politically motivated by politicians in Sacramento. The other issue is ensuring that we have more focused deterrence but also being able to aggregate crimes for more effective prosecution. In reality, Prop 47 has cost millions of dollars more than the savings produced by depopulating the prisons.
Panel Discussion with Riverside County Sheriff – Communications Bureau
Participants
Captain Steven Favero
Manager Heather Watson
Manager Margie Gemende
Manager Tim Burchfeller
Dr. Myers: We are here at the Communications Center for the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. Captain, thank you very much for the opportunity to come to spend time with you today. And wanted to get a general understanding of the effects of Prop 47. But also, some of the, you know, consequences that you all are feeling as a result of, often being overworked. And there's things that you're putting into place to try to deal with those. Riverside has been on the cutting edge of coming up with ways to work effectively despite bad criminal justice public policy from Sacramento. Thank you very much. I don't know if you would like to say a couple things on as you start out in particular Prop 47 and what your perspective is because you were also has spent time in other sectors been arresting the bad guys and I'm sure you have a perspective as well, not just as the Commander communication center.
Response: A little bit about our center first. We have roughly 200 people inside between two different locations. This is and I think I'm down as probably 100 and 150 other people are sitting here with a smaller contingency in the desert breakdown. You have three communications managers in the room with us in about 22 to 23. Advisors here so. And I think you said about 1.6 million calls per year come from here. It’s really busy a little bit about kind of what I've seen from Pop 47 from back when I was a deputy sheriff to now as a commander. The easiest way I would say it is back in the day, if I caught somebody with a gram of drugs, meth, coke, crack, doesn't matter, heroin. Back then for that crime, the punishment was 16 months to up to three years. So usually once you found your first offense was a 16-month sentence, it would serve to all of it. And then your second offense they usually served two years and then three and above when they were getting into multiple returns. Where I found that on the streets was, I wouldn't see those people for a year. If they went to jail for a dime bag of meth, they were gone for about 10 months to 12 months. And then on top of that they forced them to get. Because they had to basically start the jail, they would then come out of the jails, and they would take him about four or five months to kind of fall back to their ways. Are they starting? Crowd in it. It was kind of this little cycle that you would see them in like oh you're out oh yeah. And then you could kind of watch them diminish back on the way. With that, now that same person, it's just a ticket. Take the drugs, give the ticket and there's no detox, there's no. There's no um. Punishment for them, they know that. What you're also seeing is what we call this explosion of homelessness is these people are getting strung out on higher and higher levels of their body or they're they can absorb more drugs because there's not this interruption in their drug cycle. You see that more and more and then you get this drug induced mental health issue and ultimately it falls on the same people answering them on one call, dispatching the deputies or officers and nothing on the back end to get them either. Or punish them for their crime. That was kind of, I think, what a lot of the street cops see. Our tactics changed now because once was a felony, it allowed us to have a certain response down. It's a misdemeanor. It changed our whole response to it as well. You know, before we would have drug search warrants that were dirty doors for night service and had all these other implementation implications on it. Now we're not going to do a drug search for it unless we significantly more to it other than a possession. So little things like that. And that's just the drug piece of Prop 47.
Dr C: Did you find while working drug cases that that also began other criminal activity?
Response: So, the drug case would open the door, but you would also see whether would either be a potential burglary, ring of theft ring, maybe even a murder had occurred, or you know, prostitution, whatever. Most of the people we have a significant drug addiction are supplying those drugs by either criminal means of stealing property to sell to get the money or trading it for crime worked or trading it for sole property or doing something to keep this habit wheel going, right. And so, you would always, it would trickle into something and just depends on kind of what their niche was, you know, could be stolen cars, could be weapons, could be just drugs, could be prostitution. But they would fall back I mean, you kind of been spot on with it from the history is the lack of funds deterrence and in the past, if someone the importance of arresting people did not necessarily mean they were always going to be incarcerated, but a judge could at least say we're going to if you're, if you are willing, you're going to go to a mental health treatment facility, you're going to go to a drug treatment facility. Play LA. Hostile hospital, the hospital, they have what they call the behavioral response team that is embedded there with the deputies so they can give a clinician on 911. They can get a clinician that shows up with a deputy and ultimately goes to a group with deputies, clinicians and doctors at the County Hospital. Yeah. There is an entire loop here that has been put in place. Yeah. I think the concern from some law enforcement is reluctant because they're worried that we're going to send a clinician out and get hurt on the 911 call. But it sounds like you all are vetting that. Yeah. And there's calls that they're told to stay back. Yeah, you know that, and they know that. The next part is, is that they might be going there knowing this person would be violent, but they can provide some of the history. And so, they can kind of give some functional information that's vital to the deputies, right. And then I've heard, I've heard, I don't think we've had any IS as anywhere near a CBAD clinician five, 6-7 years that I can think of and very few uses of forces with them. That they know that they can talk to the clinician and get some resources. They now know the team is multi faction and it's not just I'm going to get a 5150 hold and throw it in in in the Psych Ward.
Dr C: Last night with your gang unit we definitely saw that with a mentally ill person who was just triggered by a person in uniform. But there was a, there was a, we were close to the mental health facility and that person and mental health practitioner came out and he treated her differently than what the deputy was treated. This is the deputy that had experience in the mental health field.
Response: We need to learn like one of the things that we changed right away. With the black and white paint scheme on it, that softened everything up. Especially when we were taking maybe veterans to the VA, they didn't want to look like criminals, you know? And so, we learned all these little pieces. Most of the time now they run around in an unmarked car. Capabilities and they have a cage for keeping everything else, but we're seeing that softens them up quite a bit. I think it's nice as we're ahead of it before because I think other states we've seen some of those things happen where the clinician was injured or even killed because it was a mandate from the state, the state said. Cannot respond to XY, like the fact that we're ahead of this before that comes down because we expect it. We don't know when it's going to happen. And a nice side note about this. We've all known this job, but job is tough. We know our what, what we demand of our dispatchers is tough. Well, the clinicians were shocked. They couldn't believe just the total number of their clients that continually call us. And it was kind of nice. It was reassuring for our folks like, yeah, this is our job. And they realize that a lot of these folks just continue to call 911 or non-emergency numbers. Our poor folks are dealing with and there really under training to deal with folks with that level of mental illness. So that's it's been fantastic so far. And so, to their credit, they said there's a lot more we can do. The metrics aren't there because we're still figuring out what all they can do to help us. And we' Yeah, this is only one clinician here, alright.
Dr Myers: I think the interesting part is a lot of people wouldn't have thought of that. They would have thought about a co-response model, but not a thought about a Co response model at the beginning. Which is in dispatch, and it makes perfect sense because that first communication that comes in, I mean, I'm sure there's times where that person can handle it just even on the phone, right? I mean, that's one thing that could occur. So, it's, it sounds like that. This is one thing. It may be indirectly because of Prop 47, but certainly we're here in this time and space because of Prop 47 that's made us do other things.
Response: I would say the extreme. Two cases for the mental health side of it comes from just the number of drugs pumping through their system. Yeah, that they're just especially here with the heat, like we can tell you when people are getting dehydrated because they're high as a kite or the oats cause they're just their mind is, is really having a hard time connecting the dots. And sometimes I think it even tests the clinicians to their, their expertise.
Dr. Myers: Let's put Prop 47 aside for a second. In the perfect world, what do you think is needed in the communications profession? What's the next step? There is no doubt in my opinion that Riverside is on the cutting edge on communication and technology. Is there something next that you think that we need to be a thinking of ahead of time before it's too late?
Response: Wow, that’s opening Pandora's box. What we're going to see is a morph with technology, yeah, of a brand-new job that we've never seen before. Because what's happened is there's so much data that's available. We think of video, pictures, just scratching the surface, video. There's so much technology in it and it has nowhere to go, so it can't go to today's traditional dispatcher. So, it needs to go to a new place. For some, it's a real time crime center, Information Center. And that's what we're going to see is we're going to see to analytics drone footage is happening and because our climate so nice here, it's almost every agency up and down the beach. They all are doing draws a responder, so just that that data alone. You now have a body controlling the drone, controlling the and interacting over the radio with the responding units. It's wild to see because it feels like it's happening fast. They talk about technology happening fast, but over the last few years, the ability for video and pictures from any cell phone to push to an item. One center can happen across the nation right now. And you go back to a couple years ago. I think that's going to be the big shift as you will always have that traditional dispatcher taking the phone calls, especially those high level 911 calls, you'll have that radio dispatch component. But we're going to see a huge shift for this real time analyst just the ability to yeah, we're these are tech guy and when he was gone announced that. Real time crime center, so nice. We're putting one console together now. I'm going to have a crime analyst and dispatcher and a Sergeant that'll work together. And we told them to break it, bend it, figure it out more fit, come up with what, what it should look like for us. And so, they're going to test it. And I mean, literally, we just decided this two days ago. They're sure you can't even take off without not so. And the nice part about it is? From the patrol side, the analyst that we chose is probably one of the best crime analysts, like he's matches some of the best detectives. We will be bringing video footage from helicopters, drones, citywide cameras, you name it. And so like, we have one city right next door. They have hundreds of cameras and every intersection. And I don't know how many crimes we've solved because we put a person on the camera and as soon as the client goes out there, like, yeah, I just went this way. And they know where the car is going before the officers called acknowledged the call.
Dr C: Now, you are county wide, even for cities? Right?
Response: Yes, tell you why we have all of our contract cities, contract cities, but cities, not every city on the same radio system. We can now talk to them, OK, but they have their own Riverside city or cities, but like some of our contract cities. Yeah, we're it. I think that's where I like change. I like to get given a project and break it, figure it out and everything else. So maybe that's why they gave me a station. I don't know. They go try and figure it out. But the neat part for them is they get to now put a visual on this now before they just sit there to get A1 sided story. And then the deputies like, thanks, I got it. And they're like, well, figure out they're going to get more than information and they're going to be more part of solving the crime even more. I think you want to talk about just the Wellness piece of it. They're going to get a little bit of closure. Because they were going to now start to see what everybody's doing. They don't need to see the graphic part, but they can also be like, hey, we found this pocket and the deputies like that's the car and they're now assisting guiding the deputy to this or whatever.
Dr C: I’m a big proponent of Evidence based policing, and, in most places, we don't have true evidence-based policing because it's so historic that to get data is historic in nature. To me, if it's a week old is too old and you're lucky to get it in a week old with it. The software that's coming up now is if it's imported right, you're going to be able to get stuff. If I write a report, if you think, if you go back and think about writing reports, how many things are in a report that are never seen again?
Response: Never and there might be a witness or might be some information that you put in there that should be captured and comes to the forefront and the software in tomorrow's world is going to be able to capture that and say this person was also a witness he's a murder suspect that he was a witness to this and never really got in the database for anything else. And I think that's where this communication is central, you know we’ve never been able to pull it back out. If you look at every mass shooting that occurs, 95% of them, there's been mental health calls, there's police have responded to him before all of those things occurred that written reports. But no one's ever been able to extrapolate that information out of the reports. You know, for people to focus on, we better focus on this person. The future is going to be certainly interesting, and you guys are going to play a major role in it because it's a matter of communicating health that information. They have to set you in front of a video to be able to give a historical perspective of what you started to what you said.
Dr. Myers: They could capture that. Wow, that's advanced.
Response: You know, it's not just the technology because obviously it’s about people too. It's just selecting the better person to be a dispatcher and part of it was retention. You know, there was a time where we can actually look back at our stats and our attrition was 13% the people coming in and then just revolving doors. They're not saying longevity was not something that you were seeing people retire from dispatch. The changes being made in the acknowledgements of the need for more training. What are we looking for? What does the dispatcher look like? Someone's going to stay who's going to be able to the resiliency. More attention is being focused on that part of it, the human factor part of it to retain them. And also, the addition of these young ones is coming in. They're forward thinking and on top of the technology. But how do we keep them? How do we teach them to foresee the potential dangers of something or something not said, you know, so there has been also changes within our department as far as how we do our training, how we do our recruiting. You know, Heather is overseas the, the training unit and just the changes and the recruiting efforts and how we interview what we are looking for. That whole process of mentorship, you know, starting wherever we start, even before they come in to better prepare for them, to ensure not only are they ready for all the technology which most of them are on board. But how can we keep them for sure 10 years from now? 15 years from now? You could go across the nation and these communication centers are not fully staffed, right, just like law enforcement.
Dr C: The defund movement has hurt us, you know? There were opportunities for improvement in our profession. I write about these issues all the time and I'm not shy about pointing out things that we don't do correctly. But when you start defunding police, this is the consequences that we are going to have. Young people ask, why should I go work in a profession that you don't appreciate, you don't care about, and you have a higher attrition rate. People are going to people officers and dispatchers are leaving after 10 or 15 years of work, which leaves a void.
Response: One of the nice things about our county is it doesn't matter what political affiliation. We've got a lot of support. Tell me why. It just wants action. But by and large, the population like we don't get protests, you know, for something that we've done right. There's kind of a kind of an accepted standard. As long as we deep we don't deviate from that accepted standard. We get a lot of support.
Dr C: Same where I'm at, it's going to be supportive in nature. But there is some spillover on people maybe not wanting to do the career just because they think it’s a bad choice.
Response: LA media dominates the area. It’s hard for us to recruit from LA County. I don't get a lot of people that want to drive out here or they're like, yeah, just stop for me. And so, but I think we're lucky compared to some of the other areas of the nation or even the state. Like you look at their bonuses to just take a lateral to the Bay Area. I mean 6 figure salaries and hiring bonuses and nobody's taking the jobs. So that's speaks volume to those leaders and whether they want to not want to hear it or not, that's the that's the tough part. And you know, we always have a little bit of improvement, but I think the community for sure supports us pretty well. Just drives me insane. And I'll say, I think that there's been some big changes we've seen like the technology is fantastic. I think that it's making our job easier for sure. It's heading out a lot of steps. It's all great. I think that we never need to lose that human factor. I think that's important. We have somebody always sitting in that seat to bring that human factor to it. Because it's not going to be able to do some of those things that's really important. The new generation is so tech savvy, but they're not people skill savvy. We see a lot of what we have come here, and they really deal with the mental health side very well because you have to talk to people. That is really the challenge. And so, you know, with the real time frames that are, that gives them a little bit more. That's a, that's a big bonus. But the flip side of that is I've got some dispatchers that are going to dig through every database they can find that they're going to be the ones who want things down if they're the ones who tie things together and they'll be fantastic in that position. This is why we must make sure they're ready to see those videos from drones that may be of bad things. We got to make sure they're ready to see those photos. And so, you know, and, and it's funny because we've had these conversations with patrol people, right? See, you know, there's those things they don't want to see, and they didn't sign up to see them. And so, you have got to find the right people to do those jobs. No dispatcher wants to see a deputy shot you know, there's those things they don't want to see, and they didn't sign up to see them. You have got to find the right people to do those jobs. Kids right now are coming in as gamers and they might go home and play Call of Duty and grab Theft Auto after their shift. So, the future of communications centers is right up their alley if we include drones, active camera systems and other forms of technology.
Dr C: There is text 911 now, does that include video or photos? I could see what would occur, all kinds of things such as people sending inappropriate photos and videos. But the advantages really outweigh the disadvantages, right?
Response: The sworn officers and the crime analysts will use this information considerably. It will be up to us to ensure that they get this evidence and information as soon as possible. The Sergeant in the operations center now will be able to make command decisions going, hey, we're going to need this, this and this and staff are like, I'm on it, you know, and then hey, Crime Analyst, this is what I've got over here. And so, that's where that collaboration can start. I could technically see having full time sworn staff members here 24/7 in the next three to five years.
Dr C: I think you're right. The key is the use of evidence-based policing and command and control to implement that type of policing such as ‘hot spot” crime response.
Response: Yes, now I have a Sergeant that can make command decisions and support people in the field whereas if I place a deputy up here, they're limited by their rank structure of what they're allowed to authorize. We might even see camera video and start calling for resources to support our partner in the field. We're trying to figure out where that is going to go. What is it going to look like? Or maybe having some operational folks with just a roving unit.
Dr C: I suppose you can even have a roof on your facility or multiple facilities across the county with 50 drones setting up there waiting to be deployed.
Response: It’s interesting you say that as we now have a COA authorization to do it in our San Jacinto Hemet. And we are looking to test that out of this real time crime center. Yeah, we already have the pilots. And so there might be some test drives where they log on to the real time crime center like they were doing a test flight in the city right now and send me this call, we're going to send a drone to it.
Dr C: I know we have NYPD now with drones up and responding to calls now to include having stations around the city that deploy to 911calls as an air asset and to understand the crime space before officers arrive.
Response: Yes, here at Chula Vista PD, they said 25% of their calls were handled by drones. For us here in Riverside County, 25% would mean almost 200,000 calls.
Dr C: Yeah, I went out with the after this one they have drones as well, So I'm going to solve them. And he was able. I think it was about 2 1/2 football fields. You couldn't even see the drone and you could see my face.
Response: Yes, we now have 130 drone’s department wide it's every single station with lots and then you have like the canines the swat team special teams those guys that he wants that could follow the tech team in every single one of those drones are now on a video software where that will be piped right to dispatch. See that's the case. They can literally move the drone and put it on the screen and now I have a crime analyst and a Sergeant and a dispatcher if they want to look at it create. If they don't, they don't, but now we can start helping and you know. For the dispatch side that is that never been done before. Without saying it, definitely, it's been never done. But the Sergeant could tell the responding deputy, I'm like, yeah that call, we've already checked it. It's good taken off the board that that would be a huge step for us.
Dr C: No question that handling calls quickly and more efficiently is the key to responsive policing and helps us triage the serious calls for service.
Response: Yeah, it's like gunshots versus fireworks, you know. Yeah, they are fireworks, right. OK. Yeah. Actually, one of the dispatchers stopped me in the hallway and she was telling me about something that she had done now that they have access to the park. And the cameras in one of the cities. And the report came out that there was a big group of people fighting and she was actually able to now bring that up the cameras and look at this the park that it was happening, and she was actually watching the fight happening. She started looking because they said there was a victim down. She was trying to find where exactly they were and she confirmed it, but she was unable to say it's on the northwest side of the park because she's like, I don't know where. Yes, so there was. It's like, no way. She was actually able to see the deputy. You know, there was a suspect hiding behind a bush, and she saw him. And you know, so she was able to pass that information, and he was taken into custody, and she was watching it like real time. We definitely have those dispatchers out there that are digging, digging. And she told me another call that she handled, and I was like, how did we not know about this? You know, and but there are there are those you know, she's checks out, she's on she's in there. She would be one of the good ones to put into this real time. Because also she's thinking as a dispatcher, you know, updating the deputies and doing the, the multitasking skills and so forth. So yeah, I'm excited to see their reaction to when they now can see all the other operational things that are done. After they hit send on the call because there's so many things that are out there in the field that exponentially because I know they're going to find I don't say a shortcut, but they're going to be like if I know this this and this, I could do now do this there there's going to be that synergy. I just don't know what it is to ask them to do it yet because I need to kind of say all right, let's play it and there and be like wow, like look at all this and then just.
Interpretation of Results
The analysis of Proposition 47’s impact on public safety in California reveals complex outcomes. While one of the proposition's key objectives—reducing incarceration rates—was largely achieved, this success has been tempered by significant increases in certain types of crimes, raising alarms about the overall impact on public safety. Specifically, the reclassification of crimes like drug possession and theft as misdemeanors has contributed to a notable rise in property crimes such as motor vehicle theft and shoplifting. These crimes, once considered felonies, now carry lighter penalties, reducing the deterrent effect and emboldening repeat offenders.
Furthermore, many local law enforcement officials and district attorneys have argued that Proposition 47 unintentionally created a permissive environment for criminals, particularly for those committing low-level offenses. With the reduced threat of jail time, habitual offenders may see little incentive to change their behavior. Studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that while jail populations have declined, communities have experienced an uptick in crimes that significantly affect quality of life. This study demonstrates that these concerns are valid and true.
In addition, the decline in prosecution for these misdemeanors has also limited the ability of the criminal justice system to intervene with rehabilitation programs that often accompany longer sentences. As a result, while the intention behind Proposition 47 was to shift resources toward treatment and reduce prison overcrowding, the long-term ramifications on crime trends in California are still evolving. This calls into question whether the reduction in incarceration is outweighed by the societal costs of increased criminal activity, suggesting a need for further policy adjustments or complementary measures.
Comparison with Previous Research
The findings in this analysis align with earlier research that has documented increases in property crime rates following the passage of Proposition 47. Previous studies, such as those conducted by public safety organizations and research institutes, have consistently observed rises in offenses like motor vehicle theft, shoplifting, and petty theft, which were reclassified as misdemeanors under the proposition. These studies emphasize that the reclassification has reduced the deterrent effect of harsher penalties, leading to more frequent occurrences of these crimes.
However, the qualitative insights gathered from law enforcement professionals provide a fresh perspective on the practical consequences of Proposition 47. Officers and district attorneys on the frontlines report that the downgrading of certain offenses has resulted in greater difficulty in managing crime at the community level. Many have observed that habitual offenders, emboldened by the lack of serious consequences, have continued engaging in criminal activities. These insights offer a valuable addition to quantitative data, as they highlight real-world challenges—such as fewer resources for arresting or prosecuting offenders, and a growing sense of frustration among law enforcement when dealing with repeat offenders.
This practical viewpoint underscores a key issue not always fully addressed in broader statistical analyses: the strain on local law enforcement agencies tasked with balancing public safety while navigating the legal changes introduced by Proposition 47. The combination of quantitative crime data with these qualitative insights provides a more nuanced understanding of the policy’s unintended effects, pointing to the need for a holistic evaluation of the law’s long-term impact on communities across California.
Implications
The findings from this study carry significant implications for policymakers, law enforcement, and the broader community. The observed increase in property crime, alongside the challenges in addressing substance abuse and petty offenses, suggests that Proposition 47's goals of reducing incarceration rates may have come at the cost of public safety. This signals a critical need for policymakers to reassess the balance between criminal justice reform and effective crime deterrence.
One key implication is the need for targeted reforms that address gaps in the current framework. While reducing incarceration for non-violent offenders remains a commendable goal, the data indicates that the reclassification of certain crimes has inadvertently led to a rise in repeat offenses. Law enforcement agencies have expressed growing concerns about the difficulty of managing these lower-level offenses, which, despite being categorized as misdemeanors, still have a profound impact on community safety.
In addition, the struggles with substance abuse treatment under Proposition 47 highlight the importance of coupling decriminalization efforts with robust rehabilitation and mental health services. The existing framework appears inadequate to handle the broader social and health-related consequences of increased drug use, with many offenders cycling through the system without receiving the necessary support to break the cycle of addiction and recidivism.
For policymakers, these findings underscore the need for a more comprehensive approach—one that strengthens community-based interventions, rehabilitation programs, and public safety initiatives. Lawmakers need to revisit elements of Proposition 47 to ensure that the goals of reducing incarceration are better aligned with maintaining public safety and addressing the root causes of criminal behavior. This could involve adjusting the classification of certain crimes, providing greater resources for law enforcement, and investing more heavily in treatment options that reduce repeat offending while supporting rehabilitation efforts.
Limitations
This study is limited by its reliance on a narrow set of quantitative crime data, qualitative insights, and perspectives primarily from law enforcement. While these sources provide valuable information, they do not fully capture the wider societal and contextual factors influencing the impact of Proposition 47. The focus on property crime and substance-related offenses limits the study's scope, potentially overlooking other types of crimes and community dynamics that may be affected by the policy.
Future research could address these limitations by expanding the geographical and demographic range of the study to include rural, suburban, and more varied urban areas across California. By examining how Proposition 47 affects different types of communities—particularly those with varying socioeconomic and cultural profiles—researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the policy's full impact. Additionally, including perspectives from a broader range of stakeholders, such as social workers, public health professionals, community leaders, and even offenders themselves, could enrich the qualitative dimension of the research.
Further studies could also explore additional factors influencing crime trends post-Proposition 47, such as economic conditions, housing instability, mental health issues, and drug addiction treatment accessibility. These factors may play a significant role in shaping crime patterns and the effectiveness of criminal justice reform. A more holistic approach would help policymakers make more informed decisions on how to reform and adjust Proposition 47 to achieve a better balance between reducing incarceration and protecting public safety.
Conclusion
Proposition 47 has significantly influenced public safety in California, particularly through a notable rise in property crime and complications in managing drug-related offenses. While the initiative has successfully reduced incarceration rates, these findings raise concerns about its broader consequences. Financially, Proposition 47 redirected substantial savings from incarceration toward community programs, but the anticipated positive outcomes from these funds have not materialized as expected. Issues such as poor scalability, systemic challenges, and insufficient infrastructure have limited the effectiveness of initiatives funded by the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. These shortcomings highlight the complexity of criminal justice reform and underscore the need for continuous evaluation and adjustment of policies to better align with real-world conditions.
Final Remarks
Proposition 47 represents a fundamental shift in California’s approach to criminal justice, reflecting a broader trend towards progressive reform. However, as this study has demonstrated, the consequences of these reforms must be carefully examined to ensure they meet their objectives without compromising public safety.
The reclassification of drug and property crimes has led to increases in these offenses, weakening the deterrent effect and creating a “revolving door” within the criminal justice system. While the policy aimed to promote rehabilitation through community programs, many of these initiatives remain underfunded and overwhelmed, falling short of addressing the demands generated by the policy’s implementation.
The shift from incarceration to community-based treatment and support has not been accompanied by adequate resources. Programs targeting mental health and substance abuse, critical to reducing recidivism, have struggled with limited funding, resulting in long waiting lists and unmet needs. This gap in services has contributed to an increase in homelessness and repeat offenses, as individuals are left without the necessary interventions to break the cycle of criminal behavior.
The broader social consequences of Proposition 47, particularly in marginalized communities, are also evident. Though the policy was intended to alleviate the negative impact of incarceration on vulnerable populations, these groups have borne the brunt of rising crime rates and diminished public safety. The increased victimization within these communities has exacerbated crime and social instability further undermining their quality of life.
As trust in the criminal justice system erodes due to rising crime and inadequate public services, public skepticism toward reforms has grown. Many Californians feel less secure in their neighborhoods, and the perception that reforms prioritize the rights of offenders over the safety of citizens has undermined confidence in the effectiveness of these policies. The continuing cycle of criminal behavior, particularly as it affects victims who face repeated offenses by the same individuals, reflects a deeper failure in delivering justice and safety.
For law enforcement officers, Proposition 47 has reshaped their approach to crime, creating new frustrations. Reduced penalties for offenses previously classified as felonies have made it more challenging to arrest and incarcerate repeat offenders, leading to a sense of diminished effectiveness in maintaining public order. Officers are increasingly encountering the same individuals cycling through the system, and the lack of resources for treatment programs further complicates their efforts.
This shift has also affected police morale and expectations. With a greater focus on community-oriented approaches like de-escalation and rehabilitation, law enforcement agencies are required to adjust training and resources. However, the increased complexity of their role, alongside the feeling that their work is being undermined by lax policies, has contributed to increased retirements and resignations among officers.
The unintended consequences of poorly executed criminal justice reforms in California emphasize the complexities of achieving meaningful change. While reducing incarceration and promoting rehabilitation are worthy goals, successful implementation requires careful planning, sufficient resources, and ongoing evaluation. Without these, policies like Proposition 47 risk exacerbating the issues they aim to solve, leading to higher crime rates, strained public services, and a loss of public trust in the criminal justice system. As California continues to grapple with these challenges, it is imperative that future reforms are evidence-based and balanced. Proposition 47, having failed to deliver its promised outcomes, should be reconsidered or repealed before it inflicts further harm on the safety and well-being of Californians.
Author Biography
Sheriff (Ret) Currie Myers, PhD, MBA has a combined 35 years of professional experience as a law enforcement officer at the local, state, and federal level, and as a criminologist, professor, and executive. Dr Myers ended his law enforcement career as the sheriff of Johnson County, Kansas which serves a population of more than 650,000 citizens in the Kansas City Metropolitan area and is one of the largest sheriff’s offices in the Midwest. Prior to being sheriff, Dr, Myers was a Kansas State Trooper and a Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) special agent. He is a nationally recognized expert in criminal justice public policy, crime, and criminology and is a media favorite with more than 1,000 appearances on radio, television, and podcast, including nationally syndicated shows like Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Mike Gallagher, Bill Martinez, Carl Jackson, and Officer Tatum. Dr. Myers’ Op Eds have appeared in the Washington Times, Police1 Magazine, the Chicago Times, and USA Today, as well as numerous local papers and journals. He has been featured on Fox News on multiple occasions and co-hosts a weekly radio show out of San Bernardino, CA on KMET Radio/TV and as a weekly Podcast called America’s Criminologist that is featured on Substack and Spotify.
Dr Myers has published hundreds of articles and policy papers within the area of criminal justice public policy and is a certified expert witness within the Federal Court System. Dr. Myers has also spoken at several events throughout the United States on criminal justice public policy to include US Senate round tables in Washington DC and was a participant in the White House 2015 Criminal Justice Reform Summit. For nine years, 2015-2024, Dr. Myers a Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation – Right on Crime Initiative and then a criminal justice public policy advisor to Americans for Prosperity.
Dr. Myers possesses a PhD and an MS in Criminal Justice as well as an MBA and is the president of Sheriff Myers & Associates, which is a consultancy firm that focuses on business practices, organizational culture, security, and public policy. In 2019, he started Green Canopy Consulting which is dedicated to security and safety compliance of businesses. Dr. Myers has been on faculty for 13 years in the Criminology Department as the Professional-in-Residence at Benedictine College, located in Atchison, KS. His published work can be viewed on Substack at drcurrimemyers.substack.com. He can be contracted through his Substack site for speeches and media appearances. Please follow him on LinkedIn at Sheriff (Ret) Currie Myers and on X @drcurriemyers.com.
Much appreciate the restack!