California Law Enforcement Agencies Are Spending More But Solving Fewer Crimes

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Published: Feb 13, 2024

Author: Mike Males, Ph.D.

A new report finds that, despite record spending on law enforcement, crime-solving is at record lows. Read on for the full report and download the Executive Summary here. 

Introduction

California is not ​defunding the police” nor implementing lenient criminal justice reforms – just the opposite. State spending on law enforcement has risen sharply, even after adjustments for inflation and population growth. The odds of being imprisoned per arrest have risen to near-record heights. However, despite record spending on California law enforcement agencies1 in recent years, one of the core measures of law enforcement effectiveness— crime clearance rates — has fallen to historically low levels. An agency’s clearance rate is the share of Part I violent and property crimes2 that are considered solved after law enforcement makes an arrest. Over the past three decades, these clearance rates fell by 41%, from a 22.3% clearance rate in 1990 to 13.2% in 2022, which equates to fewer than one in seven crimes solved (Figure 1, Table 1). California’s decline in overall clearance rates has been driven by falling property felony clearances (-59%), though the solve rate for violent felonies also fell during the 1990 – 2022 period (-14%).

This steep decline in crime-solving has occurred despite ballooning law enforcement budgets. From 1990 to 2022, Californians’ per-capita spending on law enforcement rose by 52% in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars to a total of roughly $25.5 billion (Figure 1, Table 1).3 California’s police are hardly being ​defunded;” rather, they are receiving record high per-capita funding.

crime stats chart

Are law enforcement agencies effective at solving crime? This analysis of major changes in the percentage of offenses cleared by the arrest of a suspect over the last 33 years finds surprising results:

  • Despite steep declines in crime and major per capita spending increases, law enforcement now solves fewer than one in seven serious crimes, a 41% decrease in solving crimes over the last 33 years. In 1990, law enforcement agencies cleared 439,000 Part I violent and property felonies (22.3% of reported Part I crimes); in 2022, just 144,000 (13.2% of reported Part I crimes).
  • Since 1990, clearance rates have plummeted for rape, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny/​theft offenses. During this period, clearance rates rose by 16% for robbery and by 1% for homicide (Figure 2).
  • Crime clearance rates vary widely by county and city, suggesting that local approaches to crime solving are more important than state laws or prosecution practices in determining whether persons are held accountable for crime. Additionally, some law enforcement officials express frustration with major retailers allegedly not cooperating with anti-theft efforts (Sacramento Bee, 2023).
  • California is now more likely to imprison someone arrested by law enforcement. The rate of imprisonment per cleared (solved) violent and property felony has risen by 207% since 1990. However, due to the declining property crime clearance rate, total imprisonments for property crime have fallen substantially. While reforms also lowered imprisonment rates, law enforcement’s low clearance rates, not reforms or purported prosecutor and court leniency, explain this decline.
  • Clearance rates had already fallen substantially prior to the start of California’s criminal justice reform era in 2011 (see Method).

Results

  • Police solved just 13.2% of Part I felonies in 2022, a decline from 22.3% in 1990

Police cleared (made an arrest to solve) 13.2% of all Part I offenses reported to them in 2021, including 41.0% of violent offenses and 7.2% of property offenses (Table 1). Much of this shift was driven by property offense clearances, which have fallen steadily and sharply (16.1% in 1990 – 9413.8% in 2010 – 14; falling to 7.2% in 2022). Declining property crime clearances are due to substantial reductions in clearances for larceny/​theft (-66%), vehicle theft (-29%), and burglary (-22%). These trends long predate the criminal justice reform era, which began in 2011

Clearance rates for violent offenses have fallen more moderately than those for property crime, from an average of 46.4% in 1990 – 94 to 41.0% in 2022. The homicide clearance rate has stayed steady while robbery clearances have risen; rape and assault clearances have fallen sharply during this period.

  • Reported crime has fallen steeply, leaving far fewer crimes for police departments to solve

One might think the decline in rape, assault, and property offense clearances would be due to rising reports of these offenses overwhelming police resources, but the opposite is the case (Table 2). Reports of all major offenses have plummeted by 57% since 1990 – 94 and by 21% since 200509. This shows other factors must explain law enforcement’s increasing inability to solve crime. More crime and lack of police resources cannot explain this trend.

Nor is law enforcement concentrating on other offenses. Arrests for drug, public order, misdemeanor, status, and all other non-Part I offenses fell from 1,621,712 in 1990 to just 624,455 in 2022, a 61% decline. Reported cases are not available for these offenses, so no clearance rates can be calculated.

  • Clearance rates have fallen despite rising law enforcement budgets

Law enforcement agencies are not being hampered by decreased funding and personnel. In fact, law enforcement agencies currently have larger budgets and staffing (even after factoring in inflation and California’s population growth) but solve fewer crimes than in the past. As Table 3 shows, per-capita spending on law enforcement (adjusted for inflation) rose by 46% from the early 1990s through 2022. Yet, during this period, the percentage of reported Part I offenses cleared by an arrest fell by 38%. These trends cast doubt on whether increasing police budgets and staffing would solve more crime.

  • Declining law enforcement crime-solving, not reforms or DAs, are leaving fewer crimes resolved

The upshot is that law enforcement agencies are presenting prosecutors and community programs with far fewer people to process today than in the past. In 1990 – 94, police agencies cleared an average of around 423,000 Part I offenses per year, including 152,000 violent and 270,000 property offenses. In 2022 — in a state with 10 million more people and 45,000 more law enforcement personnel — police agencies cleared just 144,000 Part I offenses, including 79,000 violent and 65,000 property offenses. These declines in crime and crime-solving are the principal contributors to the massive declines in court, prosecutor, and probation caseloads, as well as sizable cuts in prison and jail populations.

  • Clearance rates vary widely by jurisdiction, with no clear relationship to county crime rates

California’s 58 counties, each with multiple law enforcement agencies, have widely varying crime clearance rates. California cities, even large ones, and unincorporated areas vary even more widely. Among California’s major urban counties, Part I offense clearance rates in 2022 ranged from a high of 26.0% in Tulare County, 21.5% in Sonoma County, and 19.9% in San Bernardino County to a low of 6.7% in San Francisco and 5.8% in Alameda County, the latter driven by the Oakland Police Department’s very low clearance rate (1.5% in 2022 for all Part I offenses, including just 6.5% of violent offenses). 

Law enforcement agencies need to explain why crime clearances have been falling since 1990 despite police agencies being given more resources and personnel. If, as is widely speculated, officers secretly stopped making arrests to protest reforms and coerce public sentiment against ​liberal” policies, that would be a criminal dereliction of the police duty and oath that demands disciplinary action. The lawful way for police to protest policy is not to shirk their duties, but to make their case in policy forums or by running for office, like all other community members. Alternatively, if law enforcement has become less competent in solving crimes despite receiving more money and personnel, or if for some reason crimes have become harder to solve, these matters also require scrutiny so that corrective actions can be taken. 

  • The odds of imprisonment per cleared case have increased, not decreased, over the last 35+ years

The impression, often fostered by anti-reform lobbies, that individuals are ​getting away with crime,” fails to account for the large drop in people who are arrested for reported Part I offenses. It is a myth that criminal justice reforms render a person arrested for a Part I offense less likely to be incarcerated for that offense than in years past (see Rodriguez, 2021). The opposite is true. In fact, a Part I offense cleared by arrest is more likely to result in a prison admission today than it has for any of the past 36 years, excepting 2009 and 2010

In 2010, just prior to the start of the criminal justice reform era, there were 36,067 prison admissions for violent and property offenses, a rate of 17.1 prison admissions per 100 cleared Part I offenses (Figure 3). This rate is more than double 1990’s when 439,065 total Part I offenses were cleared by arrest and 28,122 people were admitted to prison for violent and property offenses, equal to 6.4 prison admissions per 100 cleared Part I offenses (Figure 2). In 2021 and 2022, there were more than 14 violent and property prison admissions per 100 cleared Part I offense, more than double 1990’s rate. 

These trends complicate California’s progress towards remedying unconstitutional and inhumane prison overcrowding. While it is true that reduced law enforcement clearance rates aid in reducing prison populations, reducing prison populations should be accomplished by targeted policy, not by the haphazard failure to make arrests. The proper way to reduce prison populations is via legislated reforms such as Public Safety Realignment (AB 109), which, beginning in 2011, successfully reduced prison admissions for non-violent and non-serious offenses to comply with these court mandates. In 2020COVID-19 restrictions brought steep but short-lived reductions in prison admissions, followed by a sharp reversal in 2021.

  • Declining clearance rates, not reforms, drove down new prison admissions for property offenses

Opponents have criticized Proposition 47, as well as ​liberal” prosecutors, as too lenient towards people who have committed serious property offenses (Washburn, 2022). However, police clearance data suggest that this blame is misplaced. In fact, while prison admissions for property offenses did fall by 24% from 2014 (just before Proposition 47 took effect) to 2022, much of the responsibility for this decline lies with police departments whose felony property crime clearance rates fell even faster (by 50%) during the period. In fact, the likelihood of prison admissions per cleared property offense rose by 13% from 2014 to 2019, the latest year before COVID-19 restrictions temporarily reduced new prison admissions. Imprisonment rates per property offense rebounded in 2022 to levels 26% higher than 2014.

  • Property offense clearances were falling long before the justice reform era

Law enforcement clearances for property crimes did not decline because the California legislature raised the felony limit for thefts from $400 to $950 in 2010 (see Method).4Three-fourths of California’s law enforcement jurisdictions had declines in clearances of property offenses from 1990 to 2010, prior to the post-2010 reforms (DOJ2022). Moreover, from 2010 to 2019, dozens of the state’s 258 major law enforcement agencies (those with 500 or more reported Part I property offenses every year) reported increased property offense clearances. These cities include Berkeley, Eureka, Porterville, Santa Cruz, and Walnut Creek. Cities with thousands of reported property crimes each year increased their property offense clearance rates (often substantially) under the reformed felony theft limits.

Conclusion

California’s criminal justice debaters are arguing over the wrong things. Anti-reform lobbies, police officials and unions, and many press reports wrongly criticize criminal justice reforms and progressive district attorneys for failing to hold people accountable for crime. In part, the rapid rise in law enforcement budgets is the result of lobbying efforts by police unions and advocacy groups. These groups have been able to vastly expand the share of public funds allocated to law enforcement agencies. Yet, even with substantial increases in police funding, California has failed to see a return on its investment. 

In stark contrast to California’s $25.5 billion annual investment in law enforcement, many community programs are addressing the root causes of crime and violence at a fraction of the cost. For example, evaluations of Proposition 47’s behavioral health, housing, and employment programs, which receive roughly 1/​200th as much funding as law enforcement each year, show strong returns on a relatively modest investment. Participants of Proposition 47-funded services see lower rates of recidivism and homelessness and higher rates of employment after completing the program (Washburn, 2022).

True reform requires targeted strategies like these that address people’s underlying needs through housing support, education, mental health services, drug treatment, and more. Heavily investing in police is not working. Instead, jurisdictions should explore alternatives to policing for those problems other community organizations and agencies are better positioned to address.

Method

For each of the seven major Part I offenses (four violent and three property) used to form an ​index” of crime, police report how many offenses are cleared (solved) by the arrest of a suspect. Crime clearances approximate but do not equal arrests, since one arrest may clear several offenses, or several arrests may clear just one, and later investigation may change initially reported clearances. 

Clearance rates are an imperfect indication of the percentage of crimes that police ​solve.” A crime is considered cleared by law enforcement if an arrest was made. An adjudication of guilt by a court is not necessary for a crime to be considered cleared. Occasionally, a law enforcement agency will designate a crime as cleared by ​exceptional means” without an arrest, for instance, if a suspect was identified but died before an arrest could be made.

Since 1872, state law has contained protections against warrantless arrests for misdemeanors unless the misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the arresting officer. Police can address suspected misdemeanor law violations by reporting the incident to prosecutors. (This is called an ​application for a complaint.”) But long-standing law that protects citizens from warrantless misdemeanor arrests unless they committed a crime in the presence of someone authorized to make an arrest – combined with defining clearances primarily by arrest – means that clearance rates for some misdemeanors will be low.

California’s broad protections against warrantless misdemeanor arrests are as old as the state itself, but the definition of some property crimes has had to change due to inflation. In 1982, the legislature decided that thefts of items valued at $400 or more ($1,260 in today’s dollars) should be considered a felony. That $400 threshold stood for a generation. In 2011, the California Legislature changed the threshold for Grand Theft from $400 to $950 to account for inflation. As a result, thefts of items valued from $400-$949 became misdemeanors; this change affected clearance rates for whatever share of thefts were of items valued in that range. These changes in law – intended to keep punishments up to date with inflation – likely affected clearance rates for thefts of items valued between $400 and $949. The full impact of these changes on clearance rates should be observable at the dates of their implementation: some of the change between 2011 and 2012, for instance, is likely due to the update in law. Outside of these years, changes in clearance rates are entirely due to changes in police practices or police data reporting.

Within the years affected by changes in law, it is not possible to determine the major drivers of changes in clearance rates because law enforcement agencies in the state declined to update their data definitions to match existing law. Police still use the $400 threshold and have declined to update their reporting to match California’s laws since 1982.

In 2022, crime clearance rates were reported by 718 law enforcement agencies to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) (2023). DOJ releases these data publicly, allowing for an analysis of crime solving by local police, county sheriffs, specialized agencies such as transportation, park, campus, and other police, and state police agencies like the California Highway Patrol. Summing clearances produces totals for all 58 counties and a statewide clearance rate.

A clearance rate analysis is only as accurate as the data used to produce it. These data, like crime statistics more broadly, are produced by police agencies themselves and subject to reporting errors and, in some cases, distortion. A charting of clearance rates for 1985 – 2022 for the state’s five largest cities, which should have the most stable numbers, instead reveals extremely erratic patterns. In Sacramento and San Jose, violent crime clearance rates varied by 30 points over a period of one year, while variations of 10 points or more in a one-year period occurred for Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. Property crime clearance rates also proved unstable. It may be that law enforcement agencies are not capable of generating reliable crime statistics, indicating their gathering and reporting should be shifted to another public agency.

Reported offenses and clearances by jurisdiction are available for the 1985 – 2022 period (DOJ2023). This report uses post-1990 numbers. Populations for each incorporated jurisdiction for 2020 are from California Department of Finance (2023) estimates, which allow calculation of offense rates. Results are reported for each county, selected cities and unincorporated areas, and cities of 100,000 population or more.

References

Bureau of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). (2023). Jail profile survey. Juvenile detention profile survey. At: http://​www​.bscc​.ca​.gov/​m​_​datar….

California Highway Patrol, Department of (CHP) (2023). Ebudget. At: https://​ebud​get​.ca​.gov/​2023
24/pdf/GovernorsBudget/2500/2720.pdf

California Office of the Controller (Controller) (2023). City data. At: https://​cities​.bythenum​bers​.sc…. County data. At:
https://counties.bythenumbers.…. Budgetary/​Legal Basis Annual Report. At: https://​www​.sco​.ca​.gov/​a​r​d_sta….

California Department of Corrections (CDCR). (2023). Offender data points. At https://​www​.cdcr​.ca​.gov/​r​esear…. California Prisoners and Parolees. At: https://​www​.cdcr​.ca​.gov/​r​esear…. Special data provision by request for 20202021, and 2022.

California Department of Finance (DOF). (2023). Demographic Research Unit. Estimates. At: https://​dof​.ca​.gov/​f​o​r​e​c​a​sting….

California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). (2023). California Consumer Price Index, (19552022). At: https://​www​.dir​.ca​.gov/​O​P​RL/CP.

California Department of Justice (DOJ). (2023). Crime in California, 1985 – 2022. At: https://​open​jus​tice​.doj​.ca​.gov…https://​open​jus​tice​.doj​.ca​.gov….

California Senate Committee on Public Safety (2010). AB 2372 Bill Analysis, June 292010www​.legin​fo​.ca​.gov/​p​ub/09 – 10/​b…https://​legin​fo​.leg​is​la​ture​.ca….

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2017). The effects of changing felony theft thresholds. At: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/me…
.
Prison Policy Initiative. (2020). How inflation makes your state’s criminal justice system harsher today than it was yesterday. At: https://​www​.pris​on​pol​i​cy​.org/b….

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). (2020). How much do cities spend on policing? At: https://​www​.ppic​.org/​b​l​o​g​/how-….

Rodriguez, S. (2022). What compels Republicans and police to lie about Proposition 47? Orange County Register, February 182022. At: https://​www​.ocre​g​is​ter​.com/202about-proposition-47.

Sacramento Bee (12 Nov 2023). Sacramento County sheriff accuses major retail stores of stymieing efforts to stop theft. At: https://​www​.sacbee​.com/​n​e​ws/lo…

Washburn, M. (2022). Proposition 47: A $600 million lifeline to California communities. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. At: http://​www​.cjcj​.org/​u​p​l​o​a​ds/cj…es.pdf.

Please note: Jurisdictions submit their data to the official state or nationwide databases maintained by appointed governmental bodies. While every effort is made to review data for accuracy and to correct information upon revision, CJCJ cannot be responsible for data reporting errors made at the county, state, or national level.

Media Coverage & Response

We are pleased with the response to our most recent report California Law Enforcement Agencies Are Spending More But Solving Fewer Crimes. Media and partner coverage underscores the urgency of this information and the questions the data poses. 

Contact: For more information about this topic or to schedule an interview, please contact CJCJ Communications at (4156215661 x. 103 or cjcjmedia@​cjcj.​org.

  • 1 This includes the California Highway Patrol, county sheriff’s departments, and local police agencies. 
  • 2 Part I felonies include murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny/theft. Larceny/theft is the only Part I offense to include misdemeanors (see Method). 
  • 3 Law enforcement agency budgets are in constant 2022 dollars adjusted for inflation and state population growth. 
  • 4 Note: Even with a narrower definition of felony theft, California is not lenient; it has the country’s 11th strictest threshold for felony theft among the 51 states and DC (Prison Policy Initiative, 2022). California is not staking out a radical position; it merely joined the large majority (37) of states that raised their felony theft thresholds from 2000 to 2016 to higher levels (Pew, 2017). Raising the grand theft threshold from $400 to $950 only partially compensated for the effects of four decades of inflation in artificially expanding felony offenses. An item worth $950 whose theft would be a felony in 2021 would have been worth less than $400 prior to 1982 resulting in only petty theft charges for stealing that same item back then. As a result, inflation had boosted the proportion of larceny/thefts classed as felonies from 27% in 1990 to 41% in 2014. Felonies should only be expanded by direct legislative action, not by the passive effects of non-legislative forces such as inflation. 

Zombie politics: The return of failed criminal legal system policies in 2023 – and how to fight back

Prison Policy Initiative

January 24, 2024

by Sarah Staudt

For the first time in over a decade, prison and jail populations increased in 2022, and state prison systems and the federal Bureau of Prisons are predicting future growth. Although there are many reasons for this – including courts returning to normal operations after the height of the pandemic – at least some of this expected rise will be the direct result of regressive policy choices made by state legislatures.

The politics we have seen surrounding crime and punishment are eerily reminiscent of 1990s “tough on crime” rhetoric: in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis suggested that his political opponents are “pro-crime,” throughout the country; while Democrats attacked parole reform, reform-minded prosecutors, and bail reform in their 2022 mid-term election challenges. This rhetoric contradicts the facts: crime across the nation remains at record low levels, including a likely dramatic decrease in violent crime in 2023.

crime rates 2018 - 2023 bar graft

As our partner organizations around the country decry this resurrection of bad policy, we looked at recent legislation passed around the country to identify trends in this most recent crop of throwback laws. In this briefing, we present some of the most common kinds of tough-on-crime laws passed in 2023  and the best arguments against them, so that advocates can be ready if these trends appear in their state.

Renewing the War on Drugs

In recent years, substantial progress has been made to address and begin to reverse the harmful policies from the War on Drugs. The authors of these policies, passed between the 1970s and 2010s, created draconian mandatory minimum sentencing laws, established a racist sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, and led to the incarceration of millions of people. Despite spending billions each year to enforce these policies, the drug war has not reduced drug use rates, drug prices have dropped, and overdose deaths have risen. Based on our experience with the Drug War, there is no reason to think that arrest and incarceration can stop drug use or trade.

Fentanyl now permeates the United States drug market, leading to higher risks of overdose. Experts and advocates consistently urge a public health approach to fentanyl, but, unfortunately, too many states are treating it as “Crack 2.0“, pursuing the same failed policies that sent millions of people to prison. This includes penalty enhancements for both possession and distribution of fentanyl and increased penalties for homicide charges leveled against people who provide drugs to a person who subsequently dies of an accidental overdose – often called “drug-induced homicide” laws. These laws are often levied against people using drugs together, who may or may not know that fentanyl is present in what they are using.

This year, a number of states passed laws resurrecting failed war on drugs policies:

  • Alabama (HB 1) created mandatory minimums for possession of fentanyl. This bill was especially concerning because it passed the legislature unanimously, suggesting that there was no meaningful debate about whether the policy would be effective.
  • Iowa (HB 595) increased penalties for both possession and distribution of fentanyl.
  • Wisconsin (AB 68) increased penalties to 60 years for reckless homicide involving delivering fatal drugs. The law would apply to people using drugs together.

Arizona and the federal government have also come close to passing retrograde drug legislation. Arizona’s legislature passed a presumptive 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of as little as 2 milligrams of fentanyl; that bill was vetoed by the governor. At the federal level, the HALT Act would trigger new and increased mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl; it has passed the House and currently sits in the Senate.

Fighting back against zombie drug policies

Advocates facing regressive drug policy changes have the benefit of decades of research showing that these policies do not work, have never worked, and cause massive harm to communities.

First, advocates can rely on the mountain of evidence showing mandatory minimums and longer prison terms do not reduce crime, drug use, or overdoses. Families Against Mandatory Minimums has compiled a wealth of resources on sentencing reform, including a handy guide to arguments against mandatory minimums. They argue that mandatory minimums create racially biased outcomes – Black people are 65% more likely to face mandatory minimum charges. Advocates can also point to the ways that lengthening prison sentences will expand prison populations in the long run.

Second, advocates can educate lawmakers on how carceral approaches fail to address the fentanyl crisis. In particular, many lawmakers believe that jails and prisons will provide treatment for opioid users – in fact, incarceration increases overdose risk, and few people receive treatment inside. Policymakers also believe they can target drug dealers with harsh penalties without harming people who use drugs. In fact, drug users and drug suppliers are most often the same people; sentencing enhancements are unlikely to affect so-called drug “kingpins” and will more likely target users and low-level sellers. Drug Policy Alliance has a great video on this subject.

Lastly, advocates can provide lawmakers with alternatives to these carceral policies. Kneejerk penalty increases are often the product of a desire to “do something” about the very real devastation that fentanyl and overdoses are wreaking in communities across the country. But doing things differently during this overdose crisis means taking a public health approach to drug use. Drug Policy Alliance has created a comprehensive toolkit on such health-centered approaches, including increasing access to treatment and harm reduction approaches like safe consumption sites and fentanyl test strips.

Criminalizing the homeless

The United States has a long history of responding to the problem of homelessness with criminalization and punishment. Homelessness has risen in recent years, driven by economic factors like increased housing costs, as well as by the COVID-19 pandemic.

As concern about homelessness rises, some jurisdictions are trying to criminalize their way out of a problem that can only be addressed with social services and housing.

  • In Georgia (SB 62), the state legislature passed a law requiring that municipalities enforce anti-camping laws.
  • Alabama (HB 24) expanded the definition of loitering to encompass more unhoused people.

Arizona also came disturbingly close to passing similar policies. A vetoed bill in Arizona (SB 1024) would have created an anti-camping law, and two other bills proposed further criminalized homeless encampments but failed.

There are dozens of ways that policymakers have targeted people experiencing homelessness. In 2021, the National Homelessness Law Center published a guide to laws around the country criminalizing homelessness; they note that as of 2021, almost every state has at least one law restricting behaviors associated with the experience of being homeless.

Protecting unhoused people from backwards policies

There’s no denying that rising housing insecurity is a genuine concern. Unfortunately, the solutions are complex, and can’t be solved by simply outlawing living outside. Advocates can help lawmakers understand the feedback loop between criminalizing homelessness and increasing mass incarceration. Further criminalizing homelessness is likely to increase jail populations – and jails are ill-equipped to address the poverty, mental health, and substance use related reasons why people are experiencing homelessness. The National Homeless Law Center’s comprehensive guide notes that criminalization harms the health and wellbeing of unhoused people, and is an extremely expensive reaction to homelessness. Incarcerating someone costs over $47,000 a year; a week in a jail cell might cost the equivalent of a month or more of housing.

Advocates can also help lawmakers find and implement successful, humane, and non-carceral approaches to this crisis. “Housing First” policies, which give people housing as the first step in holistically addressing their challenges, have been shown to interrupt cycles of criminalization and give people a path to long-term, stable housing. Housing First is part of a suite of innovative approaches to homelessness cataloged by the National Homelessness Law Center; other approaches include expanding access to affordable housing subsidies, embracing innovative housing solutions like “tiny home” communities, and preventing homelessness before it happens by reforming eviction laws and prohibiting discriminatory housing policies.

Lastly, the Homelessness Law Center notes that some policies criminalizing homelessness violate constitutional rights, and can be challenged in the courts. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that imposing criminal penalties for people who cannot obtain shelter violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Sweeps of tent cities have been found to violate due process rights when governments destroy or confiscate personal property without notice. The courts may provide another avenue for protecting the basic human rights of people experiencing homelessness

Resurrecting failed sentencing policies

2023 saw a resurgence of so-called “Truth in Sentencing” laws. In the 1990s, federal legislation established funding incentives that encouraged states to pass laws requiring that people charged with certain offenses serve at least 85% of their sentences in prison. In the mid- to late 90s, 21 states passed these laws. These policies sometimes as much as doubled people’s actual prison terms overnight, as states that had historically allowed people access to parole after half or less of their sentences were suddenly requiring much more time in custody before parole. Notably, these sentencing structures reduce the ability of people to earn time off their sentences for good behavior or for completing programming, and therefore remove powerful incentives that support prison safety and reentry success. In 2022 and 2023:

  • Louisiana (HB 70) reduced the ability of people convicted of repeated non-violent offenses to earn time off their sentence for good behavior.
  • South Dakota (SB 146) eliminated parole eligibility for many offenses and reduced the ability to earn sentencing credit.
  • Arkansas (SB 495) changed sentence structures and made certain felonies ineligible for sentence credits.

In 2022, Tennessee’s SB 2248 served as a cautionary tale. Tennessee’s Department of Corrections projects that the resulting increases in incarceration will cost taxpayers at least $40 million over the next 8 years. Chillingly, when asked about these costs, the Speaker of the House simply said, “if we need to build more prisons, we can.”

The truth about “Truth in Sentencing”

Because Truth in Sentencing has been tried before, advocates have lots of resources showing that it is a failed and counterproductive policy. Research consistently shows no public safety benefit to increased incarceration, and that longer sentences do not deter crime. Research also shows that Truth in Sentencing reduces incentives for incarcerated people to complete rehabilitative programming, increases safety risks for people in prison and corrections officers, and increases recidivism. Truth in Sentencing leads directly to prison overcrowding, which causes immense suffering.

Truth in Sentencing and other “tough-on-crime” policies are often enacted in the name of crime victims. Advocates can help policymakers understand that most victims of violence prefer that money be spent on violence prevention, not incarceration.

Lastly, because of the immense expense of Truth in Sentencing policies, progressive advocates may find unlikely bedfellows in the fight against these laws. In Tennessee, the American Conservative Union opposed the Truth in Sentencing bill; voices on both sides of the aisle understand that investing in prisons is an ineffective, wasteful, and dangerous approach to public safety.

Building more prisons

States continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building new prisons instead of pursuing decarceration strategies. These efforts often cite prison overcrowding or aging buildings to justify this immense expenditure – but fail to explore proven strategies to reduce the number of people behind bars. In 2023, states made major moves towards prison construction:

  • Arkansas (SB 495) appropriated $470 million for 3,000 new prison beds.
  • South Dakota (HB 1016) appropriated $60 million for a new women’s prison and $340 million for a new men’s state prison.
  • Montana (HB 817) appropriated $211 million for capital improvements at Montana state prisons.

Combatting prison construction

Demands for new or expanded prison construction are constant features of the criminal legal reform landscape. Often, these efforts are sold to lawmakers as either necessary or actually progressive, when in fact they are neither. Although it may be true that prison buildings are aging and that prisons are overcrowded, the most straightforward – and most cost-effective – approach to addressing these problems is decarceration. Substantially reducing prison populations can allow states to close decrepit buildings instead of spending millions renovating or rebuilding them. Around the country, states have successfully reduced their prison populations enough to close facilities; twenty-one states fully or partially closed prisons between 2000 and 2022.

Advocates arguing against prison construction can look to the detailed plans created by activists to close 10 prisons in California by 2025. They may also find the Prison Policy Initiative’s anti-jail expansion materials helpful – many of the arguments against building new jails also translate to the prison context. Even in states where active plans to build prisons are not on the table, advocates can argue for prison and jail construction moratoriums, which can give state policymakers time and space to genuinely pursue decarceral solutions, instead of investing in our failed mass incarceration system.

Undermining reform prosecutors

In recent years, many jurisdictions have elected reform-minded prosecutors (sometimes called “progressive prosecutors”) who are interested in changing the tough-on-crime policies behind mass incarceration. The American criminal legal system is designed to give substantial discretionary power to prosecutors, and prosecutors are increasingly using this discretion to roll back some of the most damaging parts of the system. These prosecutors have taken a range of approaches, from increasing access to diversion programs to creating conviction integrity units that examine the cases of incarcerated people asserting their innocence. Although some reform prosecutors have seen pushback from voters in recent years, most still enjoy widespread support.

Unfortunately, conservative state legislatures continue to try to undermine these democratically elected local officials with legislation designed to take their discretionary power away and force them to adhere to carceral policies – or risk being removed from office.

  • Florida Governor DeSantis has continued a trend of removing popular States Attorneys – including the state’s only Black woman state prosecutor – because of complaints about sentencing decisions and statements opposing his attacks on reproductive rights and gender-affirming health care.
  • In Georgia (HB 231), the state legislature created a “Prosecuting Attorneys Oversight Commission” empowered to investigate and remove local prosecutors.
  • In Texas (HB 17), the legislature passed a bill allowing courts to remove district attorneys for failing to pursue certain types of prosecutions.

Protecting local control of prosecutions

Advocates can help policymakers and the media understand that state legislative efforts like these undermine local elections and reduce confidence in the democratic process. Although rhetoric against reform prosecutors has been loud and sometimes extreme, it can be helpful to point to evidence that Americans are still broadly supportive of criminal legal system reform, and continue to support it at the polls. Reform prosecutor races are often high profile and hard-fought, and voters have made a clear and intentional choice to go against the status quo of harsh criminal legal system policies. Those choices should be respected.

Importantly, there is no evidence that crime has worsened under reform prosecutors. In fact, between 2015 and 2019, cities with reform prosecutors were less likely to experience a rise in homicides than those with traditional prosecutors.

Conclusion

We unfortunately couldn’t possibly cover all of the “zombie policies” cropping up around the country. Other notable examples include bills to enshrine cash bail more deeply in state law (Wisconsin), and expanding the use of non-unanimous jury verdicts for the death penalty (Florida), among many others. And by highlighting these setbacks, we don’t intend to diminish the real progress made around the country in 2023. Our Winnable Battles report details some of these successes; the Sentencing Project’s roundup of 2023 trends in criminal legal system reform highlights even more.

But the forces that seek to entrench and expand mass incarceration remain active across the country. We hope that this guide helps arm advocates with some of the arguments they need to avoid history repeating itself.

  

Footnotes

  1. For the sake of brevity, this piece considers only legislation that actually passed into law in 2023. This narrow focus is not meant to discount the ongoing fights going on around the country to protect reform efforts from repeal and fight back retrograde laws that were proposed but ultimately not passed. This focus is also not meant to diminish or ignore the real progress on criminal legal system reform that has been made around the country in 2023.  ↩

Sarah Staudt is the Policy and Advocacy Director at the Prison Policy Initiative. (Other articles | Full bio | Contact)

Women Speaking Up About Sexual Abuse Behind Bars Face Retaliation in California

truthout.org 

By: Victoria Law
February 22, 2024

The federal prison in Dublin, California, made nationwide headlines in 2022 when six employees, including the warden and chaplain, were arrested for sexually abusing women in custody. Later, two more guards were arrested, giving Dublin the highest number of staff charged with sexual abuse of any U.S. prison. Since then, seven employees, including the warden and chaplain, have been convicted or pleaded guilty. The eighth, Darrell Smith, whose abuse was so egregious that women nicknamed him “Dirty Dick Smith,” is going to trial on 12 counts of sexually abusing three incarcerated women.

These much-publicized arrests, prosecutions and prison sentences, however, have done little to change the prison’s ongoing atmosphere of sexual abuse and retaliation against those who speak out.

In August 2023, survivors at Dublin filed a class action suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) for continuing to allow the conditions that fostered “the rape club.” Their suit also demands an end to placing survivors into solitary confinement as well as improved access to off-site medical and mental health care.

As reprisals continue, survivors are now asking a federal judge to appoint a special master, or independent monitor, to ensure that court ordered changes are implemented. If she does, it would be the first time in the history of the Bureau of Prisons, the agency that runs the federal prison system.

In early January 2024, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers held a four-day hearing during which high-ranking prison officials testified about the changes which has been implemented. Currently incarcerated women testified that these changes failed to stop ongoing harassment, abuse and retaliation.

Rogers castigated the Bureau of Prisons administrators for placing people in the Special Housing Unit (the SHU, or solitary confinement) after they reported sexual harassment and abuse. “It’s hard to say it’s not punitive when you’re restricted to an hour, maybe an hour and 15 [minutes] outside, which is vastly different from general population,” she told prison officials, who had claimed that the isolation was not meant as punishment. “You’re treating them just like someone who is being disciplined, which suggests it’s punitive.” She also issued a court order expressly prohibiting the transfer of the 13 people who testified.

That didn’t stop officials from placing women in the SHU, this time as retaliation for testifying, or from transferring them to other prisons.

Transferred Illegally After Testifying

Rhonda Fleming, 58, had previously experienced sexual abuse at the federal prison in Hazelton, West Virginia. When she reported the abuse, staff beat her and placed her in the SHU.

At Dublin, Lieutenant Baudizzon, who is in charge of sexual abuse complaints, periodically called her into his office to ensure that she was not facing further retaliation. But that didn’t stop him from threatening her when she attempted to help others.

In August, Fleming printed paper copies of the newly filed class action lawsuit for other women, including the lead plaintiffs. According to her testimony, Baudizzon called her into his office. He brought her to a part of the office which contained cells, warning that he would place her in protective custody if she did not stop distributing copies.

In prison, protective custody is similar to punitive segregation, or the SHU, in which a person is confined to a cell for nearly 24 hours each day. She agreed to stop distributing copies. “I only agreed so as not to be placed in the SHU,” Fleming wrote in a grievance filed against him.

One month later, Fleming learned about another act of reprisal. Her security level had been changed. Previously, prison officials had classified the 58-year-old as out-custody, which would have allowed her to leave the prison in the event of a family hospitalization or death. In September, they changed it to in-custody. If one or both of her elderly parents was hospitalized or died, she would be unable to visit them in the hospital or attend their funeral.

Still, the retaliation did not stop her from testifying in court. “I have been incarcerated for over 16 years,” she told Truthout. “I have taken on the federal system wherever I was housed. I did not feel like I had a choice. I was raised by parents and grandparents that fought for civil rights in the Deep South. So, I had it in my spirit, I had to fight back.”

Two weeks later, prison officials placed her in the SHU, telling her that she was under investigation and that she was a potential threat to security. “That’s their standard statement to everybody,” Fleming said.

In the SHU, she and others were denied shampoo, lotion, decent deodorant, hair combs and other basic hygiene items, including an adequate number of menstrual pads.

Fleming immediately embarked on a hunger strike to protest both her isolation and the SHU conditions, including the smaller meals that staff gave them. “If I am going to starve, let me starve myself,” she explained. Nine other women embarked on their own hunger strikes to protest SHU conditions, including their inability to report Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) violations.

Fleming told Truthout that, during their hunger strikes, a lieutenant repeatedly told women that if they did not stop, they would be issued incident reports for a “demonstration.”

“More incident reports increase the time spent in the SHU,” Fleming explained. The threat worked and, gradually, the other women resumed eating. Fleming, however, remained on hunger strike for seven days. Staff wrote her an incident report, alleging that she had two screws and some tape among her belongings. The violation was classified as high severity, a classification normally reserved for actions such as fighting, escape and sexual assault. If she had been found guilty, Fleming could have spent 10 months in the SHU and/or lost up to 90 days of good conduct credits, extending her prison stay.

Despite the judge’s order prohibiting the transfer of the incarcerated witnesses, Fleming was transferred on February 6She was placed in handcuffs and leg irons, then driven six hours to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. She was given no explanation.

Baudizzon still works at Dublin. When asked about Fleming’s allegations and the reason behind her transfer, BOP spokesperson Randilee Giamusso said: “The Federal Bureau of Prisons strongly condemns all forms of sexually abusive behavior and takes seriously our duty to protect the individuals entrusted in our custody. All allegations of misconduct, including retaliation, are referred for administrative action and/or criminal prosecution. Due to active litigation, we will decline to comment further while this matter is pending before the court.”

At MDC Los Angeles, Fleming has met two women who have been sexually abused — one at MDC and the other at the nearby Victorville prison camp.

“I am watching both women be abused by the system, but the same regional director’s employees that are supposed to be correcting things at Dublin. I was stunned that the employees were operating under the same playbook of punishing the victim, while they are in court alleging they have clean everything up,” she wrote.

Eight days after her transfer, the MDC’s disciplinary hearing officer expunged the report, noting that Dublin staff failed to provide photos of the alleged contraband. Ten days later, Fleming was returned to Dublin.

Asked whether she thought the transfer was to prevent her from speaking further with the judge, Fleming told Truthout, “100 percent.” She also believes her isolation and transfer served to scare others from coming forward.

Punished for Reporting Misconduct

“KD” also knows that the culture of harassment and retaliation continue despite officials’ proclamations of change. (KD and her family asked that their names not be published to lessen the chances of retaliation.)

KD was transferred to Dublin in 2023 after the much-publicized arrests. Still, the atmosphere was hostile and she described staff behavior as paranoid. “They’re mad at the prisoners for having a voice,” she tearfully told her aunt.

That September, a female officer ran her hands over KD’s breasts during a pat frisk. Other women had similar experiences with that officer but advised KD that she would suffer retaliation if she reported it.

Nonetheless, KD reported the incident to the Department of Justice, which is in charge of the federal prison system. The next day, she was called to see the prison’s psychologist, who said that what had happened was a violation of PREA, which prohibits sexual contact between staff and incarcerated people.

“I never felt like it was a sexual advancement of any kind,” KD later testified. “I just felt like she was being overly aggressive. It felt like I was reporting misconduct, not what I would feel would be considered a PREA.”

Nonetheless, the psychologist sent KD to Baudizzon, the lieutenant in charge of sexual abuse investigations. “Can I feel safe in talking to you and telling you what happened with me?” she told the court that she asked him. “Is it not going to be used against me? I have to live in the same unit …[her] office is 20 feet from my cell.”

According to her testimony, Baudizzon assured her that she was safe in telling him.

The next day, however, staff charged KD with filing a false PREA report. They took away her phone calls, video visits and in-person visits, leaving her unable to communicate with her family. She was also prohibited from shopping at commissary, or the prison’s sole store, preventing her from buying water, food, clothing or shoes. She was removed from her job at commissary, which paid her 20-30 dollars each month, and was reassigned to mop the floors for five dollars a month. Her supervisor is the same officer against whom she filed a complaint.

That officer is also the one in charge of approving visiting applications. For months, KD’s daughter — as well as another aunt and uncle who live near the prison — had submitted applications. The officer continually claimed not to have received them.

That was when KD decided to talk to the attorneys who had been talking with other sexual abuse survivors at Dublin. She had previously avoided them, fearing retaliation.

Shortly after she told the attorneys about the retaliation, prison staff reinstated her calls and visits. Still, her relatives’ visiting applications remained in limbo until early February — nearly a month after the judge ordered officials to approve the applications. Shortly before Valentine’s Day, she and her daughter saw each other for the first time in five years. They spent the first several minutes hugging and crying in joy.

Other sanctions remain. KD is still unable to shop at commissaryStaff frequently search her cell, a process that resembles a ransacking with her belongings torn apart and scattered across the floor.

KD’s aunt was in the courtroom when she testified. That night, KD told her that, when she returned to the prison, staff searched her cell — flipping over her mattress and bedding and strewing her belongings everywhere. Despite this, her aunt told Truthout, KD sounded empowered by the experience — a stark difference from her previous calls where she tearfully described the environment and asked, “What’s going to happen to me?”

“They Want to Throw People in Fear”

By the early January hearing, 19 out of Dublin’s 207 staff had been placed on administrative leave. Those 19 employees included five female managers who had been brought in as the prison’s new leadership and a signal that the “rape club” culture was changing.

Still, neither sexual harassment nor retaliation has stopped. Over the course of two days, Fleming and KD were among 13 people incarcerated at Dublin who testified that staff had instituted strip searches after legal visits, male staff watched women on the toilet, male staff opened the curtains as women showered, and staff touched and groped incarcerated women. They also testified that staff withheld their legal mail and other mail for six weeks, threatened or placed them in the SHU, rescinded their release to home confinement, changed their security classifications, removed their credits towards early release under the First Step Act, removed them from better paying jobs, and subjected them to frequent cell searches where their belongings were thrown around.

On February 14, Judge Gonzalez Rogers made a nine-hour semi-surprise visit to Dublin, telling prison officials about her plan to visit at 9 pm the night before, and arriving at 7 am. She talked to over 100 women, many of whom lined up to speak to her. They told her about receiving incident reports, shoddy medical care, having their medications stopped, being yelled at by staff and having their release to home confinement rescinded. She also spoke with women who had initially agreed to testify, but changed their mind after experiencing retaliation.

KD was among those who approached the judge. She thanked Gonzalez Rogers for ensuring that she was able to see her daughter. She also told her that her approval for home confinement had been rescinded and that, upon release, she was approved only for a halfway house.

In the SHU, women pressed their faces against the windows of their cell doors to flag the judge’s attention. They told her about not receiving hygiene items or clean sheets and towels, not receiving all of their meals, and constant delays in medications. They also told her that Fleming had been transferred in violation of her court order.

The following day, the judge posted an order to the U.S. attorneys representing the Bureau of Prisons to show cause (or give reasons) why she should not hold them in contempt of court for violating her order and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, February 27. She also ordered them to immediately fix the showers, which only ran cold water, and to address the asbestos and black mold, which women had complained about for years.

On Friday, February 16, 10 days after she was transferred, Fleming was sent back to Dublin. “Now, the prison officials are up to the same old game of intimidation and in denial,” she told Truthout. Although she had undergone a medical exam at MDC-LA, a health services administrator insisted that she go to the clinic for an exam. Aside from one camera at the entrance, the clinic has no other surveillance cameras — and Fleming knew women who had been sexually assaulted there. “My instinct told me not to go anywhere with these people,” she said. She repeatedly refused.

Fleming arrived with only the clothing on her back. She was told that she would not be given another set of clothing — or any of her legal or personal belongings — until after the holiday weekend. Only after she told staff she would inform the judge and attorneys did officials give her one additional set of clothing for the five-day stretch.

“They want to throw people in fear,” Fleming reflected. Some women have told Fleming that they had been afraid to approach the judge during her visit. “I don’t want what happened to Ms. Fleming to happen to me,” one woman recalled telling the judge.

While the Bureau of Prisons declined to answer questions about Fleming’s transfer, its director, Colette Peters, told 60 Minutes in late January“I have been very clear that retaliation would not be stood on my watch. When allegations come forward, they are investigated and we will hold those people accountable.” Three days after the segment aired, Fleming was placed in the SHU.

Three days after her return to Dublin, an investigations officer told Fleming that the warden had ordered him and Baudizzon to comb through her emails and recordings of her phone calls and video visits for any rule violations. They found no wrongdoing but still placed her in the SHU. He also told her that the warden continued to press them to write incident reports stating that she was a threat to the prison so that she could be transferred. The following day, she and her attorney filed a declaration attesting to this with the court.

“It’s witness intimidation,” Fleming told Truthout.

Fleming has spent over 16 years in various federal prisons. She noted, “The situation at Dublin is not unique. I have been in custody at several federal facilities. It is the same everywhere: Women are being coerced into sex with staff.”

Still, she said, “The prison [at Dublin] needs to be closed because the FBOP keeps bring more and more of the same employees, with poor training and an attitude that women do not have civil rights.”

“At least 100 to 200 women are eligible, right now, for transfer to home confinement or a halfway house. If the BOP complied with their own regulations, these women would be back in their communities,” Fleming pointed out. “My goal is to get as many women out of prison, sent to halfway houses and home confinement. There are resources at halfway houses that can be used to help women with reentry. After over 16 years, I want the opportunity to go to a halfway house.”

Judge holds FCI Dublin in ‘contempt of court’ when woman transferred, punished after testifying

 

A federal judge is holding the Bureau of Prison in “contempt of court” after KTVU published a story this week about a woman who was thrown in a punitive cell and then transferred away after she testified about the sexual abuses and retaliatory nature at the Federal Correctional Institute at Dublin.

Read the full story here from  KTVU FOX 2

Woman who testified about conditions at FCI Dublin, thrown in solitary, transferred

Updated 2:35PM
 

A woman who has spent years of her prison sentence at FCI Dublin, and who testified about the dire conditions there this month, was thrown in a special housing unit and transferred away from the facility, she told KTVU. 

“It was purely retaliation for my testimony,” Rhonda Fleming wrote KTVU in an email. “The prison officials did not want the women to have an advocate with knowledge.” 

Read the full story at KTVU FOX 2.