California's Proposition 47, a milestone in criminal justice reform, is under threat. The proposed Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act aims to undo key aspects of Prop. 47, a reversal that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation.
Proposition 47 was passed in 2014 to reform penalties for non-violent, low-level drug and property crimes. Before the reforms, prosecutors had broad discretion to treat some property crimes as felonies or misdemeanors. The new law makes shoplifting less than $950 a misdemeanor and eases some penalties for other property and drug crimes. It also applied retroactively, allowing incarcerated individuals to petition for release or commutation of their sentences.
Prop. 47 had an immediate effect. In its first year, Proposition 47 reduced the state prison population by 4,700 people, according to estimates from the Legislative Analysis Service. Over the past decade, this reform has saved California more than $800 million.
Specifically, Prop. 47 would require 65% of those savings to go toward treatment services, with the goal of keeping people out of prison. From 2017 to 2023, the measure provided more than 53,000 defendants with services such as mental health and drug treatment, as well as housing, job training, diversion, and legal assistance. These strong reinvestments span 16 counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Marin, and Santa Clara. Recidivism rates for those who complete the Proposition 47 reentry program have decreased significantly (typically between 35% and 45% when compared to other state-wide recidivism rates).
Felony drug arrests also decreased as a result of Proposition 47. Early research found that it contributed to narrowing racial disparities in arrest rates for drug charges, with declines of approximately 76%, 66%, and 74% for white, black, and Latino Californians.
But despite a decade of success, misinformation abounds. The bill, sponsored by the California Coalition for Safe Communities and largely funded by retailers such as Walmart, Home Depot and Target, would impose new penalties for drug possession with two previous convictions. It aims to increase penalties for drug dealers who are charged with “felonies with mandatory medical treatment.” . Offenders will be given the option to receive drug and mental health treatment in lieu of incarceration, but what kind of programs will they participate in, and will there be room for new admissions? It is not clear whether It also proposes that repeat offenders of theft be subject to serious charges.
The coalition announced last month that it had collected 900,000 signatures, more than enough to put the change before voters on the November ballot. Supporters argue that Prop. 47 has increased property theft, overdoses and homelessness. Sentiment on the issue is strong following several high-profile retail crimes in California. But the evidence is stronger.
As a public health researcher, I know that involuntary treatment like this law proposes can perpetuate homelessness and increase the risk of overdose. Involuntary interventions are more harmful than voluntary treatments. And not all treatment services are the same. Unlike detox or counseling-only strategies, medically assisted treatment for opioid disorders has proven effectiveness.
The problem in California is that there aren't enough voluntary, research-backed drug treatment services. Especially since success depends on continued participation in the program, and deficits mean people have to wait long periods of time. But forcing people into treatment is dangerous and inhumane, especially without expanding the availability of needed services.
Additionally, felonies often lead to homelessness. In the past, punitive measures such as zero-tolerance policies have increased incarceration rates and homelessness, creating significant economic and social burdens. Research we conducted at the University of California, San Francisco shows that institutionalization often precedes homelessness. One in five participants in a statewide study became homeless directly from a facility (prison or jail) with few preventive services available.
And a felony conviction creates barriers to housing and employment. California's fair employment and housing law provides limited protections for people with criminal records, and incarceration often leads to unemployment, homelessness, and broken relationships.
Certainly, Proposition 47 can and should be updated with a focus on humanitarian policy. Evidence points to a housing-first approach that focuses on an individual's housing, regardless of their mental health, justice, or other needs, and has been shown to promote economic stability. Prop. 47 could make long-term investments in restorative justice approaches, such as expanding access to reentry transition services for post-incarceration individuals and medically assisted treatment for substance use. States could also direct more funding toward poverty reduction measures such as permanent supportive housing, which are known to reduce the root causes of crime and theft.
However, the proposed Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act would not expand these resources. Instead, California's incarceration rate will rise again. Even the state's prosecutors oppose the measure, saying it would be a return to failed policies.
For a ballot initiative to move forward, county and state officials must vet supporting signatures to ensure they come from registered California voters. If that happens, California will reject the proposal, adopting a fear-based, evidence-free approach similar to how voters rejected a new attempt to undermine Prop. 47 in 2020. We should stand up. Otherwise, prisons will become even more crowded and taxpayers will have to pay more. a lot. We are at risk of losing another generation to the effects of incarceration, which we are finally beginning to address.
Megan Morris is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco and a public voice fellow at the OpEd Project. The views in this work are her own.
