Skip to content

California Counties’ Spending on Incarceration and Responding to Crime

November 2017 | By Scott Graves and Amy Rose

The data set for this analysis is available for download.

For decades, California took a “tough on crime” approach to criminal and juvenile justice. Harsh, one-size-fits-all sentencing policies such as the 1994 “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law emphasized punishment over rehabilitation and significantly lengthened prison sentences. These and other policies greatly increased the number of adults incarcerated by the state and contributed to the creation of a bloated and costly correctional system. This shift toward a “do the crime, do the time” philosophy also affected California youth involved with the juvenile justice system. In 2000, for example, the voters passed Proposition 21, which required more youth accused of crimes to be tried in adult court, among other changes.

In recent years, however, California has fundamentally reformed its approach to criminal and juvenile justice through legislation and at the ballot box. These reforms have aimed to reduce incarceration, promote more effective pathways to rehabilitation, prevent crime, and spend tax revenues more wisely. These policy changes largely stemmed from litigation against the state that prompted judicial intervention, with the most prominent example being the 2009 federal court order — subsequently upheld by the US Supreme Court — requiring California to reduce overcrowding in state prisons. Significant reforms include:

  • The California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act (Senate Bill 678 of 2009). This legislation created financial incentives for counties to reduce the number of adult felony probationers sent to state prison, including by reducing recidivism through the use of “evidence-based” (scientifically proven) supervision practices.
  • Public safety realignment (Assembly 109 of 2011). The state transferred, or realigned, to counties the responsibility for managing and supervising adults convicted of certain “lower-level” felonies, effective October 1, 2011. (Previously, these individuals would have served state prison sentences and been released to state parole.) Counties receive constitutionally protected funding from the state each year to carry out these responsibilities.
  • Prop. 36 of 2012. This ballot initiative amended the state’s “three strikes” law to shorten prison sentences for many people who receive a third strike for a nonviolent, nonserious felony.
  • Prop. 47 of 2014. This ballot initiative reclassified certain drug and property crimes as misdemeanors, thus helping to reduce the number of adults incarcerated in state prisons as well as in county jails.
  • Prop. 57 of 2016. This ballot initiative established new policies to address overcrowding in state prisons. Specifically, the measure 1) created a new parole consideration process for state prisoners serving a sentence for a nonviolent felony offense and 2) gave state officials broad new authority to award sentencing credits to reduce the amount of time that people spend in prison. Prop. 57 also changed state law to require juvenile court judges to decide whether youth should be tried in adult court.

On the whole, these reforms have provided an opening for counties to reassess how they respond to crime as well as how they address incarceration — two key areas of county budgets. In an effort to highlight counties’ individual approaches in these areas, this analysis examines county spending on both incarceration and responding to crime for selected fiscal years from 1990-91 to 2015-16. This analysis includes four components: 1) an interactive tool below that shows inflation-adjusted expenditures as well as spending as a share of each county’s budget; 2) individual county Fact Sheets below that display the same spending data; 3) a downloadable Excel file that includes the full data set produced by this analysis; and 4) a Technical Appendix that describes the methodology.

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your county.

Alameda Madera San Luis Obispo
Alpine Marin San Mateo
Amador Mariposa Santa Barbara
Butte Mendocino Santa Clara
Calaveras Merced Santa Cruz
Colusa Modoc Shasta
Contra Costa Mono Sierra
Del Norte Monterey Siskiyou
El Dorado Napa Solano
Fresno Nevada Sonoma
Glenn Orange Stanislaus
Humboldt Placer Sutter
Imperial Plumas Tehama
Inyo Riverside Trinity
Kern Sacramento Tulare
Kings San Benito Tuolumne
Lake San Bernardino Ventura
Lassen San Diego Yolo
Los Angeles San Joaquin Yuba

Note: The City and County of San Francisco is excluded from the analysis because the State Controller’s Office does not provide information for San Francisco that is comparable to the data reported for the state’s other 57 counties.

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law by President Obama in 2010, has helped to substantially reduce uninsured rates in California. US Census Bureau figures released last week show that:

  • 3 out of every 100 children (2.9%) lacked health care coverage in 2016 (see Figure 1). This is down by over two-thirds since 2010 and by more than half since 2013, the year before California fully implemented the ACA.
  • The uninsured rate for adults ages 18 to 64 also has fallen, but remained at a relatively high 10.3% in 2016.
  • Uninsured rates for Asian, black, and white Californians declined by over 60% from 2013 to 2016 (see Figure 2).
  • The share of Latinos without coverage also has dropped, though Latinos’ uninsured rate remained in double digits in 2016 (12.1%).

Further reducing uninsured rates would require improving the ACA. Yet, the President and some congressional leaders continue trying to roll back health care reform. A new US Senate plan to dismantle the ACA and deeply cut federal funding for Medicaid — the Graham-Cassidy proposal — would likely cause millions of Californians to lose coverage.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Whether renting an apartment or seeking to purchase a home, Californians face very high housing costs in many parts of the state.

High Rents Are Unaffordable to Households with Low and Moderate Incomes

Typical rents for a modest two-bedroom apartment in the areas where nearly two-thirds of Californians live are $1,500 or more per month — a level that is unaffordable for residents with low and moderate incomes.[1]  Affordable housing costs are defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as costing 30 percent or less of household income. By HUD’s standard, a family would need at least $60,000 in annual income to afford a monthly rent of $1,500 — an income that would require 110 hours of work per week at the current state minimum wage of $10.50 per hour.[2]

However, rents vary substantially across California. Rents are highest in coastal urban areas, while rents in the Central Valley and in northern inland areas are significantly less expensive, in many cases less than $1,000 per month for a modest two-bedroom apartment. Nonetheless, even these more affordable rents are beyond the reach of many Californians. Rent that is affordable for a full-time minimum-wage worker can be no more than $546 per month — which is lower than HUD’s two-bedroom Fair Market Rent in every part of California.[3]  This means that a single parent working full-time at minimum wage cannot expect to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment for her family anywhere in California.

High Home Prices Put Ownership Out of Reach for Californians With Moderate Incomes

For many middle-income Californians, buying a home is an important goal and part of achieving the “American dream” — but home purchase prices are out of reach for many households with moderate incomes.

Two-thirds of Californians live in areas where the median sales price for a single-family home is $500,000 or more. To purchase a half-million-dollar home while keeping housing expenses to no more than 30 percent of income requires an annual income of roughly $145,000, well over twice the state median household income. In addition to the high annual income required to afford monthly ownership expenses, making a 20 percent down-payment on a home that costs half a million dollars requires $100,000 in savings. Furthermore, nearly 1 in 10 Californians live in a county where the median sales price for a single-family home is $1 million or more — only affordable to households with annual incomes of roughly $244,000 or more, with $200,000 in savings required for a 20 percent down-payment.

Like rents, home sales prices vary greatly throughout the state. In many inland areas of the state, typical home prices are less than $250,000. However, these less expensive areas tend to have substantially lower household incomes than the more expensive parts of the state. In fact, even in the county with the least-expensive median home price (Lassen County), the income required to afford the median-priced home is more than 150 percent of the local median income.

Policies That Slow the Growth in Housing Costs Can Help Families and the State Economy

California’s high housing costs create serious burdens for families and individuals with low incomes, who are likely to struggle to afford typical rents even when working full-time. Those with moderate incomes are affected by the state’s high housing costs as well, as high home sale prices put the dream of homeownership out of reach for many. High housing costs can also restrict the ability of families to relocate to access jobs or move close to family, and can push families to live farther from their jobs, leading to longer commutes, which cause increased pollution and reduced time with family. High housing costs also negatively affect the state economy by making it more difficult for employers to recruit workers and deterring individuals from moving to or remaining in California, thus limiting the available labor force and dampening economic growth.

Policy solutions are urgently needed to prevent housing costs from further escalating and to make more housing available that is affordable to lower-income households. Strategies such as subsidizing the development of affordable housing and facilitating more private housing production can help increase the supply of housing, including units affordable to residents with low incomes, thus reducing pressure on costs. These and other policy approaches need to be seriously considered in order to address the negative impacts of California’s high housing costs.

Endnotes

[1] Rents reflect Fair Market Rents (FMR) for 2017, published annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. FMRs are based on the 40th percentile (in a few cases 50th percentile) of gross rents, or rent including utilities, paid by renters within a specific metropolitan area or rural county who moved into their housing units within the past 15 months. FMRs are broadly representative of typical rents paid within a metropolitan area, and are adjusted by HUD to account for expected inflation in housing costs, but they may be lower than the current asking rents for vacant apartments in particularly high-demand cities or neighborhoods within a larger metropolitan area, or in areas where asking rents have been increasing very rapidly.

[2] Minimum wage as of January 1, 2017 for employers with at least 26 employees. See https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm.

[3] Assumes 40 hours of work per week at the $10.50 minimum wage for employees of large firms as of January 1, 2017. See https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm.

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

California is well-known for its high housing costs. Yet, to understand the state’s housing affordability problem, it is important to consider California’s housing costs relative to incomes. If high housing costs are matched by high incomes, then expensive housing may be affordable to many households. At the same time, even relatively low housing costs may be unaffordable if local incomes are also low. Unfortunately, while housing costs vary across California, housing affordability is clearly a problem throughout the state when housing costs are compared to incomes.

Renters Are Especially Likely to Have Unaffordable Housing Costs, While Homeowners Without Mortgages Are Least Affected

For renters, housing costs include monthly rent payments, plus the cost of utilities if not included in the rent. Housing costs for homeowners include monthly mortgage principal and interest payments, plus property tax, property insurance, utilities, and condo or mobile home fees (if applicable). For housing costs to be considered affordable, these total costs should not exceed 30 percent of household income, according to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Households paying more than 30 percent of income toward housing are considered housing “cost-burdened,” and those with housing costs that exceed half of income are considered “severely” cost-burdened. Across California, more than 4 in 10 households had unaffordable housing costs, exceeding 30 percent of household income, in 2015. More than 1 in 5 households statewide faced severe housing cost burdens, spending more than half of their income toward housing expenses.

Unaffordable housing costs particularly affect renters, and also affect a substantial share of homeowners with mortgages. More than half of renter households and more than a third of mortgage holders paid over 30 percent of income toward housing in 2015. Owners without mortgages are less likely to face high housing burdens. Besides not having the monthly expense of a mortgage, many of these homeowners have been in their homes for decades and therefore benefit from relatively low property taxes due to Proposition 13’s limitation on property tax increases.

Low-Income Households and People of Color Are Particularly Affected by Unaffordable Housing

Households with lower incomes are especially likely to have housing costs that are unaffordable. More than 8 in 10 low-income households (those with incomes of less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line) were housing cost-burdened in 2015, and more than half of households spent more than half their income on housing. At the same time, only 15 percent of high-income households (with incomes of 400 percent or more of the federal poverty line) were housing cost-burdened in 2015, and less than 3 percent were severely cost-burdened.

Many of the individuals affected by unaffordable housing costs are people of color. Among all Californians paying more than 30 percent of income toward rent in 2015, more than two-thirds were people of color, and about 45 percent were Latino.

Housing Affordability Is a Problem in All Regions of California

Housing costs vary substantially throughout California, with the highest costs in coastal urban areas and the lowest costs in inland rural areas. But incomes also vary regionally, and areas with relatively lower housing costs also tend to have lower typical incomes. The result is that housing cost-burden is high throughout the state. Across every region of California, from the high-cost San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles to the lower-cost Central Valley and Far North, at least a third of households spent more than 30 percent of their incomes toward housing in 2015, and at least 1 in 6 spent more than half their incomes on housing costs.

High Housing Cost-Burdens Call for Policies Designed to Increase the Supply of Housing and Help Families Meet Basic Needs

What problems arise when households pay more than they can afford for housing? Unaffordable housing costs can force families to spend less on other basic necessities like health care or food, to cut costs by seeking lower-quality child care, and to under-invest in important assets like education or retirement savings.

Given the challenges of housing affordability across all regions of California — especially for renters, households with lower incomes, and people of color — there is a need for strategies to increase affordability in every part of the state. Policies that increase local incentives and local accountability for accommodating more housing development, including development of housing affordable to lower-income households, are one approach to increasing the supply of housing in all parts of California, and thus reducing upward pressure on housing costs in order to improve affordability. Funding to support affordable housing construction and preservation can also help. Moreover, policies outside of the housing arena that help families make ends meet — by reducing costs for child care, food, or other necessities, or by supplementing incomes — represent another important approach to reducing the negative impact of unaffordable housing costs.

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

A number of current proposals at the federal level, put forth by the Trump Administration and congressional leaders, call for deep spending cuts to many important public services and systems that improve the lives of individuals and families across California. These cuts are proposed at a time when both President Trump and leaders in the House of Representatives have signaled support for major tax cuts that would largely benefit the wealthy and large corporations.

Although federal spending deliberations occur far from California, their outcomes have deep potential impacts right here at home, in every part of our state. In order to shed light on the local importance of federal budget choices, as well as underscore what’s at stake in the votes cast by members of California’s congressional delegation, we are pleased to provide these House district Fact Sheets. They provide district-by-district figures on public services and supports across four areas — food and shelter, health care, income support, and education — along with local information on social and economic conditions.

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your district. (Find your representative)

District 1 – Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R)District 28 – Rep. Adam Schiff (D)
District 2 – Rep. Jared Huffman (D)District 29 – Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D)
District 3 – Rep. John Garamendi (D)District 30 – Rep. Brad Sherman (D)
District 4 – Rep. Tom McClintock (R)District 31 – Rep. Pete Aguilar (D)
District 5 – Rep. Mike Thompson (D)District 32 – Rep. Grace Napolitano (D)
District 6 – Rep. Doris O. Matsui (D)District 33 – Rep. Ted Lieu (D)
District 7 – Rep. Ami Bera (D)District 34 – Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D)
District 8 – Rep. Paul Cook (R)District 35 – Rep. Norma Torres (D)
District 9 – Rep. Jerry McNerney (D)District 36 – Rep. Raul Ruiz (D)
District 10 – Rep. Jeff Denham (R)District 37 – Rep. Karen Bass (D)
District 11 – Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D)District 38 – Rep. Linda Sánchez (D)
District 12 – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)District 39 – Rep. Ed Royce (R)
District 13 – Rep. Barbara Lee (D)District 40 – Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
District 14 – Rep. Jackie Speier (D)District 41 – Rep. Mark Takano (D)
District 15 – Rep. Eric Swalwell (D)District 42 – Rep. Ken Calvert (R)
District 16 – Rep. Jim Costa (D)District 43 – Rep. Maxine Waters (D)
District 17 – Rep. Ro Khanna (D)District 44 – Rep. Nanette Barragán (D)
District 18 – Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D)District 45 – Rep. Mimi Walters (R)
District 19 – Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D)District 46 – Rep. J. Louis Correa (D)
District 20 – Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D)District 47 – Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D)
District 21 – Rep. David Valadao (R)District 48 – Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R)
District 22 – Rep. Devin Nunes (R)District 49 – Rep. Darrell Issa (R)
District 23 – Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R)District 50 – Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R)
District 24 – Rep. Salud Carbajal (D)District 51 – Rep. Juan Vargas (D)
District 25 – Rep. Steve Knight (R)District 52 – Rep. Scott Peters (D)
District 26 – Rep. Julia Brownley (D)District 53 – Rep. Susan Davis (D)
District 27 – Rep. Judy Chu (D)
Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The underlying data for this Fact Sheet, including the regional county groupings for the map below, are available for download.

Federal policy changes being pursued by the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress threaten to inflict serious harm on older adults, and the rapid aging of California’s population means that a growing number of state residents are at risk. One of the most significant threats comes from recent proposals to slash food assistance provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), called CalFresh in California. Last month, the House Budget Committee approved a budget resolution that would cut SNAP by more than 20% ($150 billion) over 10 years.[1] This massive reduction in funds follows the lead of the President, who earlier this year proposed cutting SNAP by more than one-quarter (over $193 billion) over 10 years. These proposals would undoubtedly increase hunger and hardship throughout California, as CalFresh benefits currently are based on a minimal diet and provide only around $1.50 per person per meal.

These proposals also would likely undermine California’s efforts to reduce and prevent hunger among older adults. The President proposes shifting to the states roughly 25% of the cost of SNAP food assistance, effectively ending the federal government’s commitment to fully cover benefit costs for this vital anti-hunger program. The House budget resolution appears to take a similar approach, as it calls for transferring “significant authority” over SNAP to the states. Shifting benefit costs to the states would make it difficult, if not impossible, for California to continue implementing strategies to address low CalFresh participation among older adults.[2] The state would have to contribute at least $1.8 billion annually to maintain CalFresh food assistance at 2016 participation and benefit levels if the President’s proposal is approved. Enrolling additional eligible Californians would increase the state’s costs for CalFresh even more, likely scuttling efforts to boost participation.

Proposed cuts to SNAP come at a time when many Californians already struggle to put food on the table. More than one-quarter of adults age 65 or older report that they cannot afford enough food, and in some parts of the state even larger shares face hunger or the threat of hunger.[3] Given SNAP’s track record of reducing hunger and improving health, federal policymakers should focus instead on boosting SNAP funding to expand the program’s powerful effects.

Download map data, including the regional county groupings.

[1] The budget resolution requires the House Agriculture Committee to identify by October 6 at least $10 billion in cuts between 2018 and 2027 to nutrition and other programs under its jurisdiction. Most, if not all, of these cuts will likely come from SNAP, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, given that budget documents do not mention any cuts to other programs under the committee’s jurisdiction.

[2] Less than one-third of Californians age 60 or older who are estimated to be eligible for CalFresh participate in the program. Personal communication with the Department of Social Services (DSS), Research Services Branch on June 16, 2017. DSS estimated the number of older adults who are eligible for CalFresh after accounting for the fact that Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) recipients are not eligible to participate in the program. To learn more about this SSI/SSP-related exclusion see California Food Policy Advocates, California’s Cash Out Policy (Updated April 14, 2016). Low CalFresh participation among older adults may reflect several factors, including misinformation about who is eligible, fear of stigma, inability to visit county human services offices due to a lack of mobility or transportation, and a burdensome application process. California has pursued a number of strategies in recent years to boost older adults’ participation in CalFresh. For more information see California Department of Social Services, Senior Healthy Food Access and Nutrition Education Information and Innovative Practices Webinar (Food Access Nutrition Education Outreach (FANOut) Committee: December 7, 2016) and Jared Call, State Acts to Boost Senior CalFresh Participation and Benefits (California Food Policy Advocates: April 20, 2017).

[3] California Health Interview Survey. Only adults with incomes below 200% of the official federal poverty line were asked whether they could afford enough food. Five years of data (2011 through 2015) were combined in order to ensure statistically reliable results. Data for 50 counties could not be reliably reported on their own. In these cases, the data were combined into the following regions: 1) Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, and Yuba; 2) El Dorado and Placer; 3) Alameda and Contra Costa; 4) Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma; 5) Sacramento and Yolo; 6) Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, and Tuolumne; 7) Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura; 8) Humboldt and Mendocino; 9) Madera and Merced; 10) San Joaquin and Stanislaus; 11) San Francisco and San Mateo; 12) Kern, Kings, and Tulare.

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Endnotes are available in the PDF version of this Fact Sheet. Also available for download are the underlying data for the maps below.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — CalFresh in California — is the cornerstone of federal efforts to help struggling families put food on the table. CalFresh reaches each of California’s 53 congressional districts, though receipt is higher in certain areas (see maps below). In 2015, about 1 in 4 households received CalFresh in the 16th District (D-Costa) and the 21st District (R-Valadao), both of which are in the San Joaquin Valley (26.9% and 24.9%, respectively). In eight other districts, roughly 1 in 6 households received CalFresh. These are in the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles County, the southern border area, and the Inland Empire and Central Sierra.

SNAP lifts families out of poverty and improves health and well-being, especially for children. Yet President Trump’s proposed budget makes fundamental changes that would weaken SNAP:

  • Shifting one-quarter of costs to states. In the 2016 federal fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2016, California received $7.2 billion for SNAP. Under the President’s proposal, California would need to pay for 25% of these benefits by 2023. If these cuts had been in place in the 2016 fiscal year, California’s share would have been $1.8 billion.
  • Allowing states to cut costs. Because many states would be unable or unwilling to cover 25% of SNAP benefits, the President’s proposal would allow states to cut benefits to reduce costs. SNAP benefits are already based on a minimal diet. In California, SNAP benefits are roughly $1.50 per person per meal.
  • Tightening eligibility and cutting benefits. The President’s proposal would restrict SNAP eligibility and/or cut benefits for older adults, people with disabilities, large families, working families, and low-income adults not raising minor children. It does this by limiting state flexibility in implementing SNAP and by capping or even eliminating benefits for some groups.

In addition to increasing hunger and hardship, the President’s proposal would limit SNAP’s critical role in mitigating the effects of an economic downturn. When people lose jobs and are less able to afford the basics, SNAP eligibility and enrollment increase. In turn, households spend these benefits on groceries in their communities, generating economic activity. If states must share SNAP costs, they may not be able to boost funding to cover new enrollees during a recession. This would curtail SNAP’s role in stabilizing the economy.

If President Trump and the Republican-led Congress follow through on the proposed changes to SNAP, households in every California congressional district would face increased hardship. Given SNAP’s track record of reducing hunger and improving health, federal policymakers should instead be focused on boosting funding and expanding SNAP’s powerful effects.

Download household participation in CalFresh by congressional district.

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Medi-Cal, our state’s Medicaid program, is the cornerstone of California’s health care system. Funded with both state and federal dollars, Medi-Cal provides health care services to more than 13 million low-income Californians who live in all 58 counties. Of the 10 counties with the highest shares of residents enrolled in Medi-Cal, six are in the San Joaquin Valley: Tulare (54.8%), Merced (50.9%), Fresno (49.9%), Kern (45.9%), Stanislaus (45.1%), and Madera (45.1%). However, millions of Californians — including children, older adults, and people with disabilities — would be at risk of losing Medi-Cal coverage or benefits if the US Senate agrees to the deep cuts that were recently approved by House Republicans (H.R. 1628) with President Trump’s support. These cuts include 1) phasing out the Medicaid expansion, through which California has extended coverage to nearly 4 million nonelderly adults, and 2) shifting massive — and unaffordable — costs to states by capping federal Medicaid funding. In California, this cost-shift would amount to nearly $6 billion in 2020, rising to an annual shift of $24.3 billion by 2027, according to a Department of Health Care Services analysis.

Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!