DOJ Report Shows Property Crime Fell to Historic Low before Prop. 36 Took Effect, Raising Questions about Need and Implementation
Key points:
- Property crime in California hit historic low before Prop. 36.
- Critics argue Prop. 36 is a solution to a non-existent problem.
- Early data shows increased felony filings and racial disparities.
SACRAMENTO, CA – A recent report from the California Department of Justice shows property and larceny theft fell to the lowest levels in state history in 2024—months before the implementation of Proposition 36, a voter-approved initiative aimed at increasing penalties for repeat theft and drug offenses.
The data is fueling renewed debate over whether Prop. 36 addressed an actual crisis or a politically amplified perception. While law enforcement, prosecutors, and probation leaders say the law provided much-needed tools to confront rising community concerns, critics argue the measure was misleadingly marketed and is already increasing incarceration, worsening racial disparities, and stretching local justice systems thin.
“Proposition 36 was a solution in search of a problem,” said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice. “They created a panic about property crime at the very moment property crime rates hit an all-time low. Voters bought it and rolled back progress.”
“I never had a single person convicted of retail theft tell me they calculated the value to avoid a felony. But I’ve seen agencies whose policy was not to respond unless it was a felony. So when voters saw Prop. 36, they thought it was the only way to get help.” – Judge Brett Alldredge
The DOJ’s July 1 report shows that California’s property crime and larceny rates declined in both 2023 and 2024, reaching their lowest point since record-keeping began. But Prop. 36 passed in November 2024 with nearly 70 percent support, fueled by high-profile headlines and viral videos of smash-and-grab thefts.
Early Impact: More Filings, More Jail Time, Less Treatment
Anne Irwin, director of Smart Justice California, said data from several counties show an uptick in felony filings for both theft and drug possession since the law took effect in December. “People are being incarcerated while waiting weeks or months for nonexistent treatment beds,” she said. “Jail is exactly the wrong place to sit while suffering from addiction or mental illness.”
Kate Chatfield, executive director for the California Public Defenders Association, called Prop. 36 a “bait-and-switch.” “They knew voters support treatment, so they used that language,” she said. “But there was no mechanism in the law to guarantee treatment would be available.”
A May 2024 analysis by the Vera Institute of Justice found that Black and Latinx Californians made up the majority of people booked on retail theft charges statewide. Black people were especially overrepresented in shoplifting arrests, despite national research showing white people are statistically more likely to engage in shoplifting. Youth have also been heavily impacted—84 percent of people ages 14 to 24 arrested for organized retail theft were Black, despite that group comprising just 13 percent of the state population.
In San Diego, city police data showed that Black residents—who make up 6 percent of the population—accounted for 32 percent of those arrested under Prop. 36 between December and May. They were also disproportionately likely to be arrested more than once. “It is depressing. It’s extremely unfortunate but it’s not surprising,” said County Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, who opposed the measure.
Claire Simonich, Associate Director of Vera California, said the disparities were expected. “This isn’t an accident. It’s the latest chapter in California’s long history of using the criminal legal system to manage poverty and race.”
County Systems Strained
Local justice systems are already showing signs of strain. Public defenders report swelling caseloads and clogged dockets. Jail populations in counties like Los Angeles have surged, with the L.A. County Public Defender’s Office reporting hundreds of new Prop. 36-related felony cases.
Ricardo García, Los Angeles County’s Chief Public Defender, said the jails grew from 11,000 people before Prop. 36 to more than 13,000 in May. “We went from 12 of these cases to nearly 600,” he said. “But without housing or treatment beds, the mandate is meaningless.”
In Yolo County, District Attorney Jeff Reisig has paused referrals to mental health and addiction courts—programs his office once promoted. Critics say the move reveals a deeper philosophy of “charge first, treat later—if at all.”
“You don’t really believe in treatment,” Chatfield said of the shift. “What you believe in is what Prop. 36 is really about: incarceration.”
Retired Tulare County Judge Brett Alldredge added that the law arose partly from public frustration with police who declined to respond to misdemeanor-level thefts.
“I never had a single person convicted of retail theft tell me they calculated the value to avoid a felony,” he said. “But I’ve seen agencies whose policy was not to respond unless it was a felony. So when voters saw Prop. 36, they thought it was the only way to get help.”
Alldredge said California’s sentencing structure remains chaotic.
“You end up with sentencing that’s more complex than college calculus,” he said. “It’s a system shaped by anecdotal reaction, not comprehensive policy.”
Supporters Say State Undermining Voter Mandate
Law enforcement leaders and county officials who backed Prop. 36 say the state’s lack of follow-through on funding is setting the law up to fail.
“This budget is a slap in the face to California voters and a blueprint for failure,” wrote the California State Sheriffs’ Association, District Attorneys Association, and Chief Probation Officers of California in a joint statement. “Stripping away these resources is a way to ensure Prop. 36 will fail.”
Governor Gavin Newsom, who opposed Prop. 36, has resisted fully funding its implementation, calling it an “unfunded mandate.” His office included no money for the measure in the May budget revision amid a $12 billion deficit.
The final budget includes $110 million—far short of the $400 million requested by Republican lawmakers. Of that, $50 million is allocated to behavioral health, $15 million to public defenders, and a one-time $15 million to probation—despite a simultaneous $20 million cut to pretrial services.
County officials say those numbers are inadequate.
“Counties can’t implement Prop. 36 without full support from the state,” said Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties. “This budget waves the white flag on homelessness and thwarts the implementation of Proposition 36.”
State Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) echoed the concern. “By failing to properly fund treatment and supervision, the Legislature and Governor are disregarding the will of the voters,” she said at a June press event alongside sheriffs, DAs, and victim advocates.
A Disjointed Rollout
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, felony filings under Prop. 36 vary widely by jurisdiction. In Kern and Orange counties, prosecutors brought over 20 charges per 100,000 residents during the first 60 days. In Fresno and San Francisco, that number was closer to two. Some counties focus mostly on theft charges, while others concentrate on drug-related cases.
Chatfield said the discretionary nature of Prop. 36’s application has created unequal treatment across counties.
“It depends entirely on where you live—and which DA is in office,” she said.
Irwin warned that those inequities could deepen without legislative oversight. “We didn’t need this law,” she said. “But if it’s here to stay, the state must do more to prevent it from becoming a new pipeline to prison.”
Even some Prop. 36 supporters now say they’re frustrated. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who campaigned in favor of the measure, said Sacramento is “attempting to sabotage it by refusing to fund the very solution voters called for.”
As the state begins another fiscal year and counties adjust to Prop. 36’s mandates, advocates on both sides agree that further legislative action—and more robust funding—may be needed.
“If there’s a silver lining,” Irwin said, “it’s that Prop. 36 has forced a spotlight onto California’s underfunded treatment infrastructure. But we didn’t need a punitive ballot measure to figure that out.”
With felony filings rising, racial disparities widening, and jails filling up, the future of Prop. 36 remains uncertain. Whether it becomes a tool for reform or a new iteration of California’s carceral legacy may depend less on voter intent and more on what lawmakers and county leaders do next.
Key Concerns Raised by Critics
As Proposition 36 rolls out across California, public defenders, justice reform advocates, and civil rights organizations have raised several recurring concerns about its design and early impact:
Increased incarceration, not diversion.
Although Proposition 36 was marketed as a treatment-oriented law, critics say it has primarily functioned as a tool for felony prosecution, with little evidence that people charged are being diverted into treatment programs. In counties like Alameda and Santa Clara, few if any individuals charged under Prop. 36 have been referred to treatment. Instead, defendants—many of whom are unhoused or struggling with addiction—are languishing in jail due to a shortage of treatment beds.
Exacerbation of racial disparities.
Early booking data shows Black Californians are disproportionately impacted. In San Diego, 32 percent of those arrested under Prop. 36 are Black, despite making up just 6 percent of the city’s population. Statewide, Vera’s analysis found that Black youth are heavily overrepresented in organized retail theft arrests. Critics warn that Prop. 36 is replicating the dynamics of past “tough-on-crime” policies under the guise of reform.
Criminalization of homelessness and poverty.
Many advocates argue Prop. 36 is targeting individuals engaged in survival-level theft or drug use—often driven by unmet housing and healthcare needs. “We are seeing incarceration used as a strategy to manage homelessness,” said Kate Chatfield. Others point to law enforcement concentration in downtown areas with high homeless populations as a major factor behind arrest patterns.
Lack of treatment infrastructure.
Public defenders say that treatment options are simply not available at the scale needed to make the law’s promises real. Critics argue the measure should have included funding mechanisms from the outset. Instead, counties now face the challenge of implementing court-mandated treatment without new resources or staffing to do so.
Prosecutorial discretion and geographic inequity.
Because Prop. 36 gives district attorneys wide latitude in deciding when to file felony charges, outcomes vary significantly by county. Some DAs focus on drug offenses, others on petty theft. Some are setting up Prop. 36 courts; others are cutting existing diversion programs. “Justice now depends on your ZIP code,” said Anne Irwin.
Concerns about long-term system strain.
With jail populations rising and court systems reporting longer delays, legal advocates fear the new law will strain the same institutions it was meant to improve. “This is a return to mass incarceration,” said Ricardo García, L.A. County’s Public Defender. “And without the infrastructure to support it, it will come at great human and fiscal cost.”
Critics note that voters were promised “treatment with accountability”—but warn that the treatment remains elusive, and the accountability has come primarily in the form of charges, jail time, and criminal records.
California passed Proposition 36 in November 2024, aiming to reverse certain aspects of Proposition 47 (passed in 2014) and introduce a more nuanced approach to drug and theft offenses. Here are three key points explaining why the voters approved this measure:
Key points:
1. Closing loopholes in existing laws: Many supporters of Proposition 36 argued that previous reforms, particularly Proposition 47, created loopholes that allowed repeat offenders to escape significant penalties for theft and drug-related crimes. Concerns about rising retail theft and the perceived lack of accountability for repeat offenders fueled public support for measures to strengthen consequences for these crimes. Proposition 36 aims to address these concerns by escalating certain misdemeanor offenses to felonies and increasing penalties for repeat offenders, particularly for theft and fentanyl-related crimes.
2. Addressing the fentanyl crisis: The escalating opioid crisis, particularly the dangers associated with fentanyl, played a significant role in the passage of Proposition 36. The measure introduced tougher penalties for fentanyl trafficking, including weight-based enhancements and potential murder charges for individuals whose drug distribution leads to a death. These provisions reflect a growing concern about the impact of fentanyl on communities and a desire to hold traffickers accountable.
3. Balancing accountability and treatment: While Proposition 36 increased penalties for certain crimes, it also aimed to incorporate a treatment-focused approach for individuals struggling with drug addiction. The measure created a new legal pathway, allowing some individuals with drug possession convictions to opt for court-mandated treatment instead of immediate incarceration. Successful completion of treatment could even lead to the dismissal of charges, reflecting an attempt to balance the need for accountability with the understanding that addiction requires treatment and support.