By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Sacramento, CA – The Little Hoover Commission conducted an examination of California’s response to retail theft following a request by 66 members of the state legislature.
A big finding is: “The state should prioritize data collection and collaboration with research institutions as it seeks to understand and combat retail theft in the long term,” the Little Hoover Commission concluded in a new report, Retail Theft: A Data Driven Response for California.
The report notes that “since the Legislature and the voters are now considering changes to the penal code sections addressing retail theft, the Commission’s recommendations focus on long-term improvements in the way the state reports and assesses retail theft and law enforcement’s response.”
The issue has increased in recent years as “alarming videos showing brazen thefts of commercial property have circulated on social media, increasing public concern.”
As a result, some businesses have cited theft as a reason for the closure of stores.
The report notes, “These crimes also burden the criminal justice system, using limited resources that could be redirected toward more severe crimes.”
However, the data suggests a somewhat different picture.
For example, the report found, “Reported retail theft has ticked up since 2019, but remains at roughly the same level it was during the 2010s and lower than it was in earlier decades.”
While the report notes that “retail theft is undoubtedly underreported,” the report also finds, “by its nature underreporting is extremely difficult to measure. Little data is available. A federal study of the reporting of household and personal property crimes shows a moderate downward trend in the rate of reporting since 2010.”
Therefore, “The Commission concluded that more detailed crime data is needed for policymakers to craft an evidence-based response.”
Moreover, the report notes that this is not exclusively a California problem.
“Reported incidents of theft in the other 49 states often, though not always, follow a similar trajectory to the California data,” the report finds.
A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found in 2023 that 8 percent of respondents identified “crime, gangs, drugs” as the top issue confronting the state.
About a third identified “jobs, economy, inflation” as the most important issues, and a roughly similar share identified housing and homelessness.
Despite widespread confusion on this point, the report notes, “Prop. 47 did not change the threshold at which crimes could typically be charged as grand theft, a felony. That threshold had been increased from $400 to $950 by the Legislature in 2010.”
Proposition 47, passed by voters in 2014, reclassified several theft and drug offenses from felonies and wobblers to misdemeanors. It also limited the prior offenses that make it possible to charge someone with petty theft with a prior.
Even after Prop. 47, “California has one of the lowest felony theft thresholds in the nation,” the report noted. “However, Prop. 47 limited the prior offenses that make it possible to charge someone with petty theft with a prior in California to violent and serious felony convictions, crimes that require offenders to register as sex offenders, and theft crimes against vulnerable populations.”
It adds, “Some other states retain more latitude in the types of crimes that underlie a charge of petty theft with a prior. This means that in those states, defendants might be charged more often with a felony even if the amount stolen is underneath the threshold.”
Governor Newsom proposed a six-point property crime framework addressing many aspects of retail theft:
- Cracking Down on Professional Thieves. This would create new penalties for stolen goods resellers and those stealing with the intent to resell.
- Increasing Enforcement Tools. This would allow law enforcement to arrest retail theft suspects even if they did not witness the crime in progress.
- Aggregating Theft Amounts. This would clarify existing law that law enforcement may combine the value of multiple thefts, across different victims, to reach the threshold for grand theft.
- Fighting Auto Burglary. Auto burglary is the type of property crime that has seen significant recent increases, and this would create new penalties for those who steal with the intent to resell.
- Eliminating the Organized Retail Crime Sunset Provision. Currently, the Organized Retail Crime Task Force, led by the CHP, is scheduled to sunset in 2026. This provision would eliminate that sunset date.
- Increasing Penalties for Resellers.
The Commission recommended that the DOJ expand its existing data initiatives in consultation with experts.
At a minimum, “data should include information on crime statistics, demographics, law enforcement response times, prosecution and adjudication data, and rehabilitation, reentry, and recidivism data.”
In addition to data collection, “the Commission recommended that the state partner with California universities and other nonpartisan research institutions to study preventative measures, rates of underreporting, economic impact, and drivers of public perception.”
“Never was the aphorism, ‘You can’t manage what you don’t measure,’ more true than when discussing retail theft. We can’t fully comprehend the effects of retail theft, or address its causes, without detailed data. As it now stands, necessary data is missing,” said Commission Chair Pedro Nava. “There are many potential partners who can collaborate to remedy the information gap. Working with stakeholders, California can fund coordinated studies and data collection efforts to better understand the complexities of these crimes.”
“California has the opportunity to join efforts with some of the best researchers in the nation as it navigates the issue of retail theft,” said Vice Chair Anthony Cannella. “With a more complete picture of how retail theft is impacting the state, the Governor and Legislature can make evidence-based decisions on how to respond effectively.”
It’s near impossible to get accurate data when you have DA’s frowning and threatening to fine retail establishments for reporting thefts. Retail theft is much worse than is being reported but progressives choose to downplay it because they want you to think that progressive justice is working.
“Retail theft is much worse than is being reported ”
Except we know the opposite is true. The retail industry admitted they fudged their numbers.
“The National Retail Federation had said that nearly half of the industry’s $94.5 billion in missing merchandise in 2021 was the result of organized theft. It was likely closer to 5 percent, experts say.” (Source)
Sacramento doesn’t have a progressive prosecutor.
As the article stated:
There are only two or three progressive prosecutors in the entire state. Besides you don’t have to go by the arrest end data, you can go by reported losses which is independent of reporting. These guys spent a year trying to collect and compile the data and found it difficult – that clearly needs to improve. But it’s a small piece of the entire pie.