Over the past decade, programs funded by Prop 47 have helped Californians thrive. But a new ballot measure would increase arrests and incarceration.
By Sam McCann and Claire Simonich
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
When Pam Thompson first got out of prison in 1993 after four years of incarceration, she felt trapped. Though no longer behind bars, she returned to Los Angeles seemingly without options.
“I just hit wall after wall,” she said. “There was no transitional housing. There was no job training, and I couldn’t even get a job because of my criminal background. I couldn’t get my own place. On the applications, they ask if you’ve ever been convicted of a crime, and if you have, they don’t want to rent to you.”
This was decades before Proposition 47, the landmark ballot measure that California passed in 2014, was implemented. That law greatly expanded funding for reentry services, so people like Thompson could find a way to survive and thrive.
But in 1993, with sparse job prospects and unstable housing, Thompson had few choices. She eventually started selling drugs and taking more risks to make ends meet. Within two years of her initial release, she was rearrested, this time under a felony assault charge. That charge was serious on its own, but California’s “three strikes” law made the penalties eye-watering. Because Thompson’s first incarceration stemmed from two criminal charges, this latest arrest was deemed a possible “third strike” and carried with it the threat of a life sentence.
She was determined to fight the case—Thompson maintains that she had nothing to do with the assault—and did so all the way through trial. But when the verdict came down as guilty, the judge sentenced her to 33 years to life in prison. “When I went back to the county jail, and even when I went to prison, I was suicidal,” she said. “I was depressed.”
Thompson gradually pulled out of that depression and worked hard to pursue her education over nearly 24 years in prison. She got her GED and began taking college classes. But when granted parole in 2018, she was terrified about falling into the same cycle of desperation that led to her rearrest decades earlier. Luckily, a number of community-based reentry programs were at hand to help her.
The challenges Thompson faced in 2018—and the support she received—lie at the heart of a battle being fought in California. And this November, Californians will decide the outcome at the ballot box. Proposition 36, a ballot measure funded by special interest groups, would limit the options for people like Thompson, who are returning from prison or have struggled to find stable housing or employment. If it passes, Prop 36 will usher in an era of more incarceration and less safety statewide.
Support services equal fewer rearrests
While Thompson was in prison, California worked to seal the cracks she had fallen through in the 1990s. In 2014, a majority of Californians voted for Prop 47, which funded services for people returning from prison. It also ensured that people convicted for certain low-level, nonviolent crimes—like drug possession or shoplifting—would not spend more than a year in prison. The ballot measure was introduced in part to reduce the state’s prison population, which had become so dangerously large that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the overcrowded prison conditions violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Prop 47 directed the state to spend the money it saved in prison expenses on drug and mental health treatment, homelessness prevention, and victim services centers.
Thompson was a direct beneficiary of these sorts of programs. Upon her release in 2018, she was determined not to reoffend—just as she had been determined not to do so in 1993. The difference this time was that the state had created pathways to success for people returning from long prison sentences. Thompson enrolled in A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a program based in Los Angeles that helps formerly incarcerated people find employment, secure housing, and reunite with their families following incarceration. The program was funded by Prop 47. Through that program, she was hired to work as a community health worker at the Francisco Homes, a transitional housing center also funded by Prop 47, where she helped other people returning from long sentences get on their feet. She now works as a life coach at the Anti-Recidivism Coalition (ARC), another Prop 47 program, where she mentors people navigating the reentry barriers she knows well.
“Without Prop 47, I wouldn’t have been able to get into transitional housing; I wouldn’t have been able to continue participating in trainings,” said Thompson. And she would not have helped the hundreds of clients she has served do the same.
In the decade it has been in effect, Prop 47 has been a resounding success. It has reduced rearrests, shrank the prison population during a period of dangerous overcrowding, and saved the state more than $800 million. Programs funded by Prop 47 have helped alleviate homelessness and bring down the number of arrests among program participants. About 44 percent of people who left prison in California returned with a different conviction within three years, but that number was just 15 percent for those who completed a Prop 47 reentry program. That is the difference between people hitting wall after wall, as Thompson did in 1993, and thriving in their communities, as she is now.
Prop 36 will undermine public safety
Today, the services that have helped Thompson and tens of thousands of others like her are under attack. Prop 36 threatens to cut funding from the types of services she received, which are proven to be effective at improving safety in our communities. Californians have an opportunity to reject it this November and insist that prison is not the solution to every problem the state faces.
If it passes, Prop 36 would send people to jail or prison for low-level crimes related to substance use or shoplifting and remove millions of dollars in funding for drug treatment and homelessness prevention. Californians for Safety and Justice (CSJ) estimates that this would send over 65,000 more people to prison and jail, nearly 50,000 of whom would be incarcerated for drug possession. CSJ also says Prop 36’s passage would result in at least $49 billion more in public money spent on incarceration and court costs over the next decade.
“Prop 36 is going to create overcrowding in prisons, and it’s going to remove … funding for the trainings [that helped me],” said Thompson.
Californians deserve better for their neighbors and for themselves. The state faces real challenges, like the ongoing opioid crisis, the high cost of living, and the lack of affordable housing. Stripping funding from programs as resoundingly successful as Prop 47 services—with mass incarceration as the only replacement—will not make communities safer. We know that longer sentences and more charges do not deter crime. In fact, they do the opposite. Additionally, Prop 36 would not serve to reduce homelessness in any way, but would instead perpetuate cycles of homelessness and incarceration. People who are formerly incarcerated are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public, and people who are homeless are 11 times more likely to be arrested than people with stable housing.
Special interest groups are supporting the campaign to pass Prop 36, with correctional officers and large corporations being the biggest funders. But Prop 36 does not serve the needs of the vast majority of Californians. We know more punishment and incarceration do not build safety, and Prop 36 would divest California from the long-term well-being of communities across the state.
Californians should reject Prop 36 this November. Safety cannot be built by denying people options and hoping for the best. Even those with every intention of not committing another crime upon release, like Thomson, may falter out of desperation just as she did. Instead, we need to invest in services that set people up for success. For a decade, Prop 47 has done exactly that, and California is safer—and freer—because of it.
Originally published by Vera Institute of Justice
Sam McCann, Senior Writer
Claire Simonich Associate Director, Vera California
