Before California voters approved Proposition 36 in November 2024, property crime had already fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded in the state’s history. That’s the striking takeaway from newly-released 2024 data by the California Department of Justice—data that undermines the central argument made by supporters of Prop. 36, which sought to undo portions of Proposition 47 by re-felonizing certain theft offenses.
According to the DOJ report, California’s property crime rate dropped 8.4% in 2024, continuing a decade-long trend that saw theft and larceny reach historic lows. Larceny-theft, the category directly targeted by Prop. 36, also plummeted to record levels. These reductions occurred before Prop. 36 took effect, casting doubt on the claim that rising property crime necessitated harsher penalties.
“Proposition 36 was a solution in search of a problem,” said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice. “They ran a fear-based campaign rooted in misinformation. They created a panic about property crime at the very moment property crime rates hit an all-time low.”
In 2024, California also saw a 10.4% drop in the homicide rate and a 6% decrease in violent crime. Taken together, the data paints a picture of a state making public safety gains even before implementing the punitive measures in Prop. 36. Criminal justice reform advocates are now questioning the long-term consequences of a ballot initiative they say was built on a false premise.
Anne Irwin, director of Smart Justice California, noted that “these historic drops in crime all occurred before Prop. 36 was even law. Voters were led to believe that Prop. 47 had caused a property crime wave and that the only way to respond was to roll back reforms. Now the facts are clear: that narrative was simply not true.”
Irwin also warned that the gains made in 2024 may not be sustainable due to recent federal budget cuts. On April 22, 2025, the Trump administration eliminated $811 million in federal grants for victim services, gun violence prevention, and community safety programs nationwide. California lost $80 million in crime prevention funding, including support for effective initiatives in Fresno and Oakland.
Among the programs affected was a Fresno initiative credited with a 35.6% reduction in shootings, and an Oakland hospital-based violence intervention program designed to prevent retaliatory violence among young victims.
“These cuts couldn’t have come at a worse time,” Irwin said. “We finally have data showing that our community-based public safety strategies are working. Instead of building on that success, we’re watching the foundation get ripped out from underneath us.”
Meanwhile, the implementation of Prop. 36 has run into additional trouble, not because of its premise but due to how the state has funded—or failed to fund—it.
A joint statement by the presidents of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, California District Attorneys Association, and Chief Probation Officers of California slammed the 2025 budget deal for stripping away critical resources needed to implement the initiative. The statement called the budget “a blueprint for the failure of Proposition 36,” citing the lack of funding for supervision, treatment, and law enforcement support.
“This budget is a slap in the face to California voters,” said Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes, one of the statement’s signatories. “We cannot achieve meaningful change unless we provide the resources needed for courts, probation, law enforcement, and treatment.”
The budget deal included no new funding for county probation departments to supervise individuals with repeat theft or drug-related arrests. It also left out resources for law enforcement to carry out community interventions and failed to provide funding for in-custody treatment programs. County sheriffs and probation departments—key partners in delivering court-ordered treatment—received nothing, while behavioral health agencies were given modest planning grants with strict limitations.
Additionally, courts received $10 million less than what the Legislature originally approved, severely hampering their ability to process Prop. 36-related cases in a timely and effective manner.
“The measure was sold to the public as a way to hold people accountable,” said Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley. “But without implementation funding, we’re setting up the courts, treatment programs, and even law enforcement to fail.”
Critics of Prop. 36 had warned that re-felonizing low-level theft offenses would clog the courts and jail system with individuals who are often struggling with poverty, addiction, or mental illness. The promise of accountability, they argue, rings hollow without the infrastructure to connect people to treatment and rehabilitation.
And now, those critics are pointing to the DOJ’s new crime report as evidence that Prop. 36 was misguided from the start. The property crime rate dropped from 2,272.7 per 100,000 in 2023 to 2,082.7 in 2024—a number that is not just historically low, but well below national averages.
At the same time, the number of arrests for homicide also declined, falling by 5% year over year. The violent crime rate dropped from 511 per 100,000 to 480.3. These reductions occurred in every major crime category measured by DOJ, further strengthening the case that California’s reforms—Prop. 47 included—did not produce the crime surge opponents claimed.
“Prop. 36 took us backward,” said Hollins. “It rolled back policies that were working, and now we’re watching federal and state leaders dismantle the funding we need to keep our communities safe.”
Attorney General Rob Bonta, in announcing the release of the DOJ’s reports, underscored the importance of using data to guide public safety policy. “Transparency is key for understanding, preventing, and combating crime in our communities,” he said. “While crime rates have declined over the past year, public safety remains a top priority.”
The DOJ reports are based on data collected from law enforcement agencies across California, some of whom are still transitioning to a more advanced data system known as CIBRS (California Incident-Based Reporting System). Despite some reporting inconsistencies, DOJ emphasized that the overall trends in the 2024 data are clear and consistent with long-term patterns.
The new statistics could reignite debate about the long-term direction of California’s criminal justice policy, especially in light of the recent rollback of Prop. 47. For reform advocates, the numbers are both vindication and a warning: the state had been making meaningful progress—until it decided to reverse course.
As Hollins put it, “We don’t need more fear. We need more facts. And the facts show that smart justice works.”
Just like there are less calls for the respite center, right David?
I read these comments on David’s Facebook page in response to this article:
“This is a perfect example of cooking the books. In sacramento, for example, code enforcement and Sacramento City PD were threatening small businesses that reported crimes too often, like vandalism to business properties, and thefts. Businesses were threatened with code enforcement fines. At the same time police and Sheriff’s were refusing to come out for calls on retail thefts if the amounts were under $3000. So the people who are feeding us the crime statistics are in bed with the people who are refusing to receive reports of crimes.”
“Come on, David, you absolutely have to know that crime is going unreported because basically they’re being told nothing could be done. These idiots walk in with calculators and tally up the amount to keep themselves under a felony. I can’t tell you how many times during the last few years I heard over and over and over that there’s no use in calling the cops bcuz they can’t do anything.”